Happiness Objectified: Do Our Things Make Us Happy?

There can be no doubt that, from the moment we roll out of bed to the screeching of our alarm (on a clock, on an iPhone, from a radio) until the moment we close our eyes again (having put down our book, our laptop, our TV remote) we are surrounded by more objects, each begging to be both purchased and manipulated, than the human mind can comfortably reconcile. We are positively inundated. ‘Things’ are supposed to be our tools as a species—ways to interact with and mediate our experiences with nature and each other as instruments to achieve some end. In the age of the ubiquitous object, when there is no escape and no easy choice, can ‘things’ still serve us in this sense, allowing for our gratification? Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his wonderful “Ode To William H. Channing,” lamented that “Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind.” The New York Times’ John Tierny put up a fascinating post on a recent study that takes on the same question and offers a nuanced response, on happiness, material purchases, and the extent to which they ever overlap.

The study was conducted by Dr. Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Miller asked New York Times readers to

List the ten most expensive things (products, services or experiences) that you have ever paid for (including houses, cars, university degrees, marriage ceremonies, divorce settlements and taxes). Then, list the ten items that you have ever bought that gave you the most happiness. Count how many items appear on both lists.

The findings of the study were a mix of both the expected and the surprising. On the ‘most expensive’ lists appeared sundry indulgences, from wine cellars to drugs. On the ‘happiest’ list of purchases were objects that spanned price ranges: a studio apartment in Paris, eyeglasses, an ant colony, and, for some unfortunate couple, “girlfriend.” Appearing frequently on both lists were expenditures on both more profound, ‘life changing’ things like houses and college degrees, as well as luxury items like BMWs and Blu-Ray players.

From here, the study’s results drift toward the cynical, and the somber. Items listed disproportionately on the ‘expensive’ lists included children (and their associated expenses), marriages (and their associated stresses), and boats—all items requiring massive time and responsibility commitments, as well as the obvious sunk money. Those items appearing far more often on the ‘happy’ list than on the ‘expensive’ list were objects such as bicycles, liquor, shared food, books, and quality bedding—items conducive to personal intimacy, shared thoughts, and personal pleasure.

Dr. Miller noted several trends among the comments left by participants in the study. First, many considered their purchased objects in line with their personal interests, so that happiness and expense were mostly congruent:

“The three things (not necessities) I have spent the most money on in the past ten years are: my cottage at Cape Cod, my Lexus, and my Rolex–and I LOVE all three, in the order of their cost. And I don’t care what that says about me,”

boasted one. Next, many participants noted that their happiest objects were those that tended to encourage or contribute to an experience, rather than the simple possession of manipulation of an object: “For the most part, the things that brought most happiness were the ones that kept me hanging out with my friends.”

The answer remains muddled, university study methodology notwithstanding, and the hope that we can ever fully come to terms with our daily material surfeit remains dim—to even consider the quandary is to confront the very objects in question. What sense does it even make to consider the actual happiness granted by our gadgets and tools while sitting in an ergonomic chair at a laptop? The confused nature of this question is further illustrated by one of today’s posts at Gizmodo, in which their readership is casually polled as to whether gadgets make them “happy” or “sad.” Many of the comments expressed immediate confusion: how could a site dedicated to gadget news and criticism even question the happiness associated with these things? “Isn’t that why we’re all here” seemed a common sentiment. The rest of the responses ran the gamut of “I love expensive toys” and more grim “gadgets fill a hole in my soul” answers, but perhaps the most insightful came on the first page, from Gizmodo reader dancekat1:

I admit that I’m addicted to gadgets but I also voted “sad” in the above poll. I like to think that “technological minimalism” will eventually come into vogue and advanced technology will be integrated into our lives without demanding so much of our attention.

In the end, it most likely does come down to attention. We’re finite creatures, and if it’s come to the point where we have to sort our things into lists to even consider whether or not they’re worth a place in our life, or in our pocket, our attention most likely ran out long ago.

[images via Mads Boedeker, Alan Stanton, laser2k, and joi]