Reflections on "The Promise of Happiness" by Sara Ahmed

In Sara Ahmed’s The Promise of Happiness, Ahmed paints a picture of what could be called the social construction of happiness. By breaking down the etymology, history, implementations, and consequences of this concept of “happy,” Ahmed is able to critique what our society values and how it enforces these values through a promise of happiness. Deciding which parts of Ahmed’s theor

ies to engage in was incredibly difficult for me, as they all intertwined so well and are so cohesive. I have done my best to scale down to a few ways in which Ahmed demonstrates the promise of happiness: the emerging “happiness industry,” the idea of happy objects, the reinforcement of norms and expectations, and by describing unhappiness as a cause for more unhappiness.

In the beginning of The Promise of Happiness (pg. 3), Ahmed spends a few sentences discussing “the happiness industry” which refers to the slew of material available to boost happiness. From self-help books, films about the science of happiness, and even motivational speakers, our current society is fraught with the commercialization of happiness that promises we will become happy if we do x. As I considered all the messages I hear daily about the product will “enrich” my life and tips to a “happy” relationship, I was struck by this exploitation of happiness disguised as instructions to a “better” life. While these media insist that one can find happiness by following a certain path, they completely disregard what caused the unhappiness to begin with. Instead, books and other therapeutic methods prescribe a universal checklist that is guaranteed to bring happiness. However, this checklist is often a product of the social norms and expectations (get married, buy a house, take yourself on a trip to Europe, etc) and are prescribed under the preconception that the reader has the privilege to access these secrets to success. And, if you don’t have access and can’t achieve happiness through these means deemed “acceptable,” then it is you who is at fault, not the situation. As Ahmed points out with the excerpt from The Bluest Eye, “the failure to flourish is not the failure of care or orientation but the failure of the earth to yield. For some, the earth is unyielding, unable to provide the soil in which life can flourish.” (pg. 81) In other words, when a person is unable to achieve happiness when they do all the “right” things (marriage, kids, house, job, etc), then there is something inherently wrong with them, rather than the soil (system or situation) in which they are planted. The fact that society privileges some forms of happiness over others is completely ignored.

The forms of happiness that are privileged, then, are those that conform to social norms and expectations. This “good” happiness is established through the expectation that happiness is reproduced through “happy objects.” According to Ahmed, responsibility is placed on people to continue the cycle of happiness through these objects; one of the strongest objects is the family. Viewing the family as a happy object reinforces societal expectations of the nuclear family, where the “feminist killjoy” and the “unhappy queer” simply do not fit in. The “unhappy queer” for example, falls far outside the hetero-normative realm that has been established by the society as creating “good” happiness, and therefore it is believed that people who fall under the queer umbrella are inevitably headed towards unhappiness. To demonstrate this, Ahmed calls on the book No Turning Back, where a parent responds to their child coming out by saying that the queer life is an unhappy one. (pg 93) Like the “happiness industry,” this generalization fails to acknowledge the structures that make life more difficult for the LGBTQ community. It is also used as a way to steer queer youth towards “straightness” and reproduce the happy family object. Again, this idea of the “unhappy queer” blames the seed rather than the soil.

Another way social norms are reinforced through the promise of happiness is through affirmation of “good” happiness and the shaming of “bad” happiness. It is important to note the tremendous power dynamic at play when ideas of happiness are imprinted on a society. Ahmed’s critique of the system of happiness really helped me to conceptualize the way happiness is employed as a weapon against deviants. Her chapter on feminist killjoys, for example, really hit home for me. That if “an oppressed person does not smile or show signs of being happy, then he or she is read as being negative; as angry, hostile, unhappy, and so on” (pg. 66) struck a chord with me, as I have found myself in that situation when calling out sexist language among my friends and family. A similar tactic is used against black women who speak out against oppression through the Sapphire stereotype discussed by Melissa Harris-Perry in Sister Citizen; the expression of unhappiness towards an oppressive situation is dismissed by the people in power as being irrational. A woman who speaks out against the treatment she receives is simply an angry killjoy, and her recognition of her unhappiness becomes her own fault. In this world, ignorance really is seen (and promoted) as bliss.

In an effort to maintain this ignorance and subsequent bliss, a formula for happiness is laid out by the powers that be. “The People Who Walked Away from Omelas” outlines this idea well. This story was read to my peers and me on one of my last days in India after studying social justice for four months. In the context of our conversation about the story, the question posed was, “Would you leave Omelas?” In other words, would we leave the perfect city so as to not actively participate in the misery of the child, knowing well that it would continue anyway without us? What responsibility do we have to the child versus to our city? This idea of the suffering of one for the comfort of many is disturbing, but very real. I benefit daily from the oppression of others, and we are all participants in the system. The difference between our world and the “fictional” Omelas, however, is that not everyone in our world is conscious of their participation. This is due, in part, to the promise of happiness, and is why people in power work so intently to shame unhappiness. Unhappiness, as Ahmed and history prove, leads to more unhappiness. Consciousness about oppression leads to the realization of just how deeply rooted the oppression is; how pervasive it is in our institutions. Never in history has a justice movement started because people were happy - no, justice movement start because people are unhappy, and are unhappy about that unhappiness.

Unhappiness, then, becomes a catalyst for change. The promise of happiness is a way to As Ahmed says, “Happiness is how we end the conversation about why it is that we desire what we desire.” (pg. 203) Unhappiness begs to start a conversation, to open the doors to a “hap movement” (pg. 222) where “we would be opening up the possibilities that are negated by the very demand that we live our lives in the right way.” (pg. 222) I think Ahmed outlines the dangers of a one-size-fits-all happiness that perpetuates normative ways of life that ignores the more authentic hap, where people are genuinely free to feel - or not feel - happiness. The recognition of unhappiness paves the way for opportunities to address that unhappiness, rather than excusing it as a fault of the person for not following the prescribed checklist.

Compelling quotes:

“In wishing for happiness we wish to be associated with happiness, which means to be associated with its associations. The very promise that happiness is what you get for having the right associations might be how we are directed toward certain things.” (pg. 2)

“The science of happiness could be described as performative: by finding happiness in certain places, it generates those places as being good, as being what should be promoted as good.” (pg. 6)

“The association between imagination and trouble is powerful. It teaches us how the happiness duty for women is about the narrowing of horizons, about giving up an interest in what lies beyond the familiar.” (pg. 61)

“Feminists do kill joy in a certain sense: they disturb the very fantasy that happiness can be found in certain places. To kill a fantasy can kill a feeling. It is not just that feminists might not be happily affected by the objects that are supposed to cause happiness but that their failure to be happy is read as sabotaging the happiness of others.” (pg. 66)

“If the world does not allow you to embrace the possibilities that are opened up by education, then you become even more aware of the injustice of such limitations. Opening up the world, or expanding one’s horizons, can thus mean becoming more conscious of just how much there is to be unhappy about.” (pg. 70)

“By not experiencing pleasure in the right way, toward the right things, [Pecola] must destroy things, transferring her hatred and rage from white baby dolls to white baby girls. To hate what is loved is to recognize your alienation from the beloved.” (pg. 81)

“Feminist consciousness can thus be thought of as a consciousness of the violence and power that are concealed under the languages of civility and love, rather than simply consciousness of gender as a site of restriction of possibility.” (pg. 86)

“Your unhappiness would threaten my happiness. If my happiness is dependent upon your happiness, then you have the power to determine my happiness. You might thus feel obligated to conceal your unhappiness in order to protect my happiness. You have a duty to be happy for me.” (pg. 91)

“To recognize he causes of unhappiness is thus a part of our political cause. This is why any politics of justice will involve causing unhappiness even if it is not the point of our action. So much happiness is premised on, and promised by, the concealment of suffering, the freedom to look away from what compromises one’s happiness. To revolt can hurt not only because you are proximate to hurt but also because you cause unhappiness by revealing the causes of unhappiness. You become the cause of the unhappiness you reveal.” (pg. 196)