Eddy Elmer
Simon Fraser University
http://www.eddyelmer.com/

How best to pursue "happiness"? As contemporary philosopher Mark Kingwell aptly puts it in Better Living: In Pursuit of Happiness from Plato to Prozac, "We all think that we know what happiness is, or at least that we would like more of it. But the pursuit of happiness may be at once the simplest and most vexing of human endeavours."

Once the "magic code" for happiness has been cracked, how do we help the process along? What is the counsellor's role in this, especially when we consider that many people who come to counselling complain of profound unhappiness and want to come out of it 'happier' people. Perhaps a more important question: Is it even the counsellor's business to meddle in an issue of such cosmic proportion? I will draw on some of my own therapeutic experiences as a client to illustrate how some counsellors have tried to help their clients achieve happiness---and how I as a client responded to these very different attempts.

Two very different views

Even though it is not explicitly acknowledged, different 'theories' of happiness---or of what makes for 'the good life'---are firmly rooted in decades-old philosophical assumptions. These assumptions significantly colour how both counsellors and clients think about happiness. Two quite different lines of philosophical thought underlie many of the approaches that counsellors use to help their clients along the journey of finding happiness. They seem to form, in essence, two polar opposites on what it means to be 'happy' and to 'live a happy life'.

The rational perspective

The first line of thought comes from the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, who espoused a very rationalistic view of happiness. He felt that happiness means being a "just' person. Such a person is one in whom the three parts of the psyche---reason, the will, and the appetites---are in balance, such that each is able to perform its duty fully and without interference from the other. This is achieved when reason, in concert with will, controls the appetites. When this balance occurs, the individual is able to focus more readily on the intelligible world---wherein lies true knowledge---as opposed to the experiential world---which comprises mere representations of true reality. Plato called this true knowledge the "Form of the Good". When one knows the Form of the Good, one is guided by a morality based on the truest knowledge. This just behaviour can be the only source of deep happiness (or at least neutrality). Because they are governed by the appetites and an empty, meaningless world of images, conjecture, and ignorance, all other behaviours are unjust and the source of the deepest unhappiness.

It should be noted, of course, that Plato felt this type of happiness is achieved by only a select few people, namely the "philosopher kings" of his time. Other people could come close to experiencing something like happiness so long as they followed their station in life and did what was expected of them in the social order. For Plato, following one's duties in life creates a just society, and only by living in a just society can non-philosophers hope to attain what is the next best thing to true happiness.

One of my first forays into counselling brought me "head-on" with a therapist who was a true rationalist. My depression, my inability to complete schoolwork, and my vague sense of unhappiness was interpreted as my difficulty in balancing my deepest desires for personal connection with my rational faculties. A provocative attempt was made to "awaken" more of the reason within me. I was told to think more rationally and to consider that by staying in school while depressed and not achieving optimally, I was robbing another student of the opportunity to excel in my place. In essence, because I was so involved with my emotions, I was unable to appreciate different perspectives on my situation and, thus, behaved somewhat "unjustly". Instead of focussing on my depression, I was told, I should focus on ameliorating this "injustice".

While I know of several people who claim to have "found" happiness in such a therapeutic context, I did not. In fact, I ended up resenting my therapist and quitting therapy. Something felt profoundly 'unjust' about being 'told' that happiness consists of 'A, B, and C' and that my "As, Bs, and Cs" were somehow out of synch. Time, I thought, for another approach.

The introspective, humanistic/existential perspective

A second line of philosophical thought comes from the ancient Roman statesman, Marcus Aurelius. For him, true happiness (or at least some modicum of peace or neutrality) arises under three major conditions: when we fully accept Nature, society, and ourselves; when we engage in complete self-absorption; and when we exercise our daily duty to others and to society. My own understanding of Aurelius leads me to consider his a "happiness by default"---one becomes happy when one is not subject to the pain that occurs in the absence of these conditions. When, for example, we refuse to accept nature and its events as they are, we needlessly expend energy and become upset upon realising that we cannot predict and control everything. When we focus our energies on the outside as opposed to the inside world, we fall victim to the disappointments inherent in empty, meaningless material goods, never-lasting corporeal pleasures, and false opinions. When we refrain from accepting the duties Nature demands of us, we interfere with its intended plans and potentially create conditions of disappointment and personal and social discord---potent sources of true unhappiness.

My second foray into psychotherapy brought me in contact with a "die hard" Rogerian, person-centred therapist. This experience showed me that much of modern therapy is everything I thought it was not. Instead of getting clear-cut advice on how to achieve the ubiquitous happiness, I was told repeatedly that the answer lies only within myself---through deliberate solitude and "contemplation". Therapy sessions consisted primarily of encouragement and support in my journey inward. Although I never did "find" anything specific, I did achieve a contented (albeit not giddy) sense of what I term happiness in fully experiencing what I found inside---a wondrous, if not mysterious, part of the Natural order. Issues of acceptance and duty did not arise directly, but the implication in therapy was that by looking more within myself, I would attain a contentment that would make it easier to accept life and people as they are---and to shed the defences which interfered with my innate drive to be kind and dutiful to others.

Needless to say, the prediction was correct and this therapy lasted longer than the first. With each additional session, I felt that I was moving closer and closer to becoming a happier person. For me, these philosophical assumptions really hit home. It would appear that on the rationalism-humanism/existentialism continuum, I am clearly on the humanistic/existentialist side, and happiness is intrinsically tied with my position on this end of the continuum. Should the need arise again, I would have no compunction seeking client-centred counselling again.

But hundreds of other approaches to happiness abound in the psychotherapeutic community, and I think they fall somewhere in between these two polar extremes. With so many different perspectives, what is the counsellor to do? Indeed, the question seems critical when we consider that many people who come to counselling expect to leave with some greater sense of happiness. They want to leave with an "action plan" for happiness. Doubtless they don't get their money's worth without it.

So which perspective is right?

So where does this leave us? From my experiences, it seems the second "happiness philosophy" did me quite well. But is it the best for everyone? Perhaps the question is completely moot when we ask ourselves whether "happiness" even exists in the first place. Both Plato and Marcus Aurelius---as well as Western society in general---use the word "happiness", leading one to believe that there is such a thing as happiness that can be understood and apprehended. There is some universal feeling so common to all of us that it deserves its own label. But what if this feeling does not exist? What if we have created the word "happiness" to describe a plethora of different feelings? Are any of us talking about the same thing? Worse, are we trying to create definitions that reify a purely linguistic term? If so, what are our personal, cultural, and political motivations for doing so? Any consideration of the "best" perspective on happiness must include extensive---and intensive---reflection on these critical questions

Personally, I think there is a universal feeling so real---so common to all of us---that we can call it "happiness". However, noting that the above questions remain debatable after centuries of perpetual reflection, I do not think a counsellor does much respect to his client by claiming to know what happiness is and how to achieve it. What I think is more fruitful is helping the client attain the confidence and support needed to evaluate the nature of happiness by himself. If Marcus Aurelius is right, this self-absorptive activity will by itself lead to some sense of happiness. If he is wrong, then at least the psychologist has given the client the power to find his own truth and his own happiness.

Mark Kingwell wrote that happiness means to feel that one is living a life worth living. Many people find this definition profoundly empty or anxiety-provoking because it doesn't give them anything they can work with. In fact, some say that it makes them feel even unhappier. But the alternative---prescribing happiness formulas---is ultimately doomed to failure. The minute we try to dictate what happiness is, or should be, we place individuals in a passive, powerless position. We succeed in telling them that they do not know enough about themselves or the world to apprehend and/or appreciate the true meaning of happiness. If placed in such a position, will not some individuals feel that they are actually unworthy of happiness? If I thought myself too stupid to apprehend happiness on my own, would I feel I deserved to be happy in the first place?

As a former therapy client myself, I know where I stand. How about you?