Rachel’s Musings

In the United States, we almost seem obsessed with finding happiness, which is rather ironic because “it is not something to be sought or pursued, but a result of how we live” (Richard Eckersley. Well & Good. 104). From early on, we are taught that we will find happiness once we’ve found our soul mate. We’ll “live happily ever after.” What gets lost in this matrimania myth is teaching on how we can create a life that invites happiness without demanding that someone else be responsible for it.

Eckersley gives us some hints based on his review of what the “wise and famous” said (104):

• Focus on others, not ourselves.
• Balance wants and means.
• Be content with what we have.

     Continue reading this post » » »

I am reading an interesting book about happiness, Well & Good, written by an Australian researcher, Richard Eckersley. It is a great book that is reflecting some of the questions that I’ve been grappling with: there is something that is tying many of the issues we’re facing together. Eckersley also attributes a lot of our current malaise to misplaced answers to the questions of meaning and belonging. I am a little leery about his references to spirituality but I haven’t read the book far enough yet to know exactly where he’s going with that. I look forward to sharing a book summary in the not too distant future.

I cannot resist, though, to comment on Eckersley’s bold false statement in reply to his questions what makes a person happy      Continue reading this post » » »

Although I disagree with Robin Norwood’s diagnosis in Women Who Love Too Much, I think some of the behavioral patterns she is describing are real (even if she made up a lot of those case histories). We need to find a way of explaining the patterns that does not blame the victim but rather empowers them. Re-labeling co-dependency as “internalized oppression” might be counter-productive because it is such a broad idea and it might not be supported by evidence. I would like to propose a new hypothesis: internalized singlism and matrimania.

Bella DePaulo points out eloquently in her book Singled Out that we live in a society that stigmatizes singles (singlism) and elevates marriage to the must-have cure-all of all unhappiness (matrimania). Both of these ideas are also internalized. From a young age, especially women are bombarded with the idea that we can only prove our lovability through marriage. The ring on our finger shows the world: Look! I made it! Someone loves me! Girlfriends - we learn - are fine to have but they are expendable, yet, somehow will always be there. Once we found The One, we won’t need them anymore, he will meet our every need, share all our interests, and we’ll live happily ever after. Ideas like this make it difficult to leave a relationship because we would be marked as unlovable since we lost our proof. They make us desperate to find and stay in a relationship.

And, of course, biology plays into this, too. A lot. Reproduction is an important biological driver as a part of evolution. However, the nuclear family is not a biological need. The idea of separate spheres and its mutation to the relegation of the man to the breadwinner role and the woman to the safe haven of the home are not reflecting biological needs. They are social constructs (which are even reflected in the nomenclature for our species: every mammal is of the breast, the nurturing aspect; homo sapien reflects the (male) ability to reason, to be out in the world, distinguishing us from the other animals). The concept of the soul mate in marriage is a rather recent invention. So is the individual pursuit of happiness, which is an idea encouraged since the Enlightenment. The two have been very strongly linked: We now pursue happiness by finding a soul mate. This linkage is not surprising since the idea of a soul mate developed around the time of the Enlightenment. It might even have been a reaction to some people’s attempts to take the ideas of the Enlightenment to their logical consequences and do things like give women the right to vote. The idea of separate spheres sprang up and was quickly absorbed into culture, preventing any ideas of equality to take hold. Marriage changed from an almost purely economic institution to one based on love, which was best expressed if both partners were experts in their sphere. Only after the second world war did the breadwinner truly become the sole provider: it was now economically possible to support a family with one income. The cracks were, of course, starting to show and marriage changed again. Or did it? Marriage remains the institution that is most coveted and least questioned. It remains a rite of passage to adulthood. And we remain stuck with the idea that we are somehow incomplete as one. Even though we have broken down the walls between the separate spheres, two remains better than one. As social animals, we interact, of course. Social relationships are what made us human and they remain extremely important. They do not have to be confined to one person, though. We can move beyond matrimania and view all our relationships as important and worthy our attention.

About a month ago, I was wondering out loud if there is something underneath many of the symptoms that we are witnessing. Something that ties them all together. A very interesting article by Charles Shaw on Alternet suggests that our overconsumption shows the patterns of addiction. Thus one of the symptoms I identified might be a key to unraveling all the symptoms.      Continue reading this post » » »

In A Guide to Personal Happiness Albert Ellis and Irving Becker suggest ten rules for achieving personal happiness among them:

1. Decide to strive primarily for your own happiness.
2. Decide to put other people’s happiness a close second to your own.
3. Decide that you largely control your own emotional destiny.

Essentially, we are responsible for our own happiness. Yet, society seems to suggest that we can find happiness best through marriage. In her book Singled Out, Bella DePaulo debunks that myth thoroughly but, of course, it remains pervasive.      Continue reading this post » » »

While I think it’s probably too simplistic to think that most of the big issues we’re facing today can be traced back to one source, I do think that there is a lot more interconnectedness than we would like to admit. What are the big issues we’re facing, what are the symptoms of the malaise that has no name yet?

Here are some I could think of:

• Global warming
• Overconsumption
• Increasing debt both consumer and national
• Decrease in marriage rate/increase in divorce rate
• Increase in depression
• Depletion of natural resources
• Contamination of soil, water, and air
• Overpopulation
• Increase in work hours

Of course these are interrelated, you’ll say. Because we consume so much, we’re depleting our resources, contaminating everything, and create global warming! Yes, that’s true. I would like to step back a bit further, though, and ask why: why are we consuming so much? What need(s) are being met here? Certainly marketing and advertising have something to do with it but again, I don’t quite buy the story of need-creation. I don’t think marketers can create a need out of thin air. I do think that they can take a need and redefine it so that it will be met only if you buy a certain product. And I think there are some very fundamental needs that our modern society does not meet in the most direct way. The two fundamental needs that are not being met well are belonging and meaning.      Continue reading this post » » »