Over the years, I have come to disdain “No Trespassing” signs. As a nature lover who enjoys both brisk jogs and slow evening strolls, I crave roaming through beautiful scenery. Here in Texas, due to a near absence of public land, I frequently find myself strolling along sidewalk-less roadways, amongst spent beer cans, Styrofoam cups, and a kaleidoscope of plastic bags. Unlike many nearby states, Texas lacks land for public uses like hiking, hunting, camping, etc. My frustration with this came to mind recently, when reading the theologian Ellen Charry’s article entitled, “On Happiness,” in which she posits that today’s culture has privatized happiness.
By this she means to highlight the seeming disconnect between one’s personal happiness and the broader society’s need to thrive. She goes on to contrast the ancient Christian construal of happiness with today’s fickle conception, concluding that our impoverished understanding of happiness has rendered life less enjoyable and fulfilling for all. Below we will look at a few key points Charry makes as they relate to land use to illustrate the benefit of adopting a refined vision for happiness.
If one looks for it, a common theme pitting personal happiness against the good of the whole can be found on nightly news shows and throughout public discourse. Rather than seeing the meeting of needs and proper care for one another as goals requiring communal cooperation, happiness and one’s ability to thrive is often framed in zero-sum terms. Here, there can only be winners and losers, haves and have-nots. “This attitude,” Charry claims, “is socially dangerous, because on [these] terms there is no reason for people to want to contribute to the common good…”
The destructiveness of this arrangement is easily seen when looking at the ways societies manage their public space. Mindsets, such as Charry describes, lead to the classic tragedy-of-the-commons dilemma, in which public space, such as town squares, pocket parks, and roadways, become dilapidated, litter-covered eyesores, rather than treasures of a local community. But this needn’t be the case, as other possibilities exist. One approach attempting to remedy this, which happened to be the prevailing philosophy at this nation’s founding, dictates that nearly every square foot of space be available for purchase. Here, private ownership is seen as a remedy to ensure the upkeep and care for land. But as has been demonstrated by countless environmental calamities, this assumption is flawed. So, where does all this intersect the theological notion of happiness?
Relevant to the above scenario is the fact that those in society who lack the resources to purchase property are left with no place to make use of or cherish. People can spend their entire lives walking on roadways between parcels of fenced off land. Injustices like these which leave many longing for things like land, which is needed by all to live and thrive (whether for enjoyment or subsistence farming), evidence social barriers revealing flaws in our present arrangement. Such factors are taken into account by Charry, who defines happiness as the byproduct of peace, justice, equality, and wisdom, in contrast to the mostly modern idea that happiness is a momentarily felt emotion.
These qualities bring fulfillment because they are, “properties we understand to characterize God.”
As such, we should chase after them, rather than fleeting fancies of “mild euphoria.”
As is demonstrated by the land example, the privatization of happiness occurs at the expense of everyone. Although some may suffer more than others, no one participating in an inequitable society leaves unscathed. The moral applications of this more broadly defined understanding of happiness and the social good are limitless. With each new ethical choice we face, we are given an opportunity to embody the qualities of peace, justice, equality, and wisdom. In doing so, we seek to become more like the God we follow and desire union with.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment