The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold Us Well-Being
– By William Davies –
‘Happiness is the ultimate goal because it is self-evidently good. If we are asked why happiness matters we can give no further external reason. It just obviously does matter.’ This pronouncement by Richard Layard, an economist and advocate of ‘positive psychology’, summarises the beliefs of many people today. For Layard and others like him, it is obvious that the purpose of government is to promote a state of collective well-being. The only question is how to achieve it, and here positive psychology – a supposed science that not only identifies what makes people happy but also allows their happiness to be measured – can show the way. Equipped with this science, they say, governments can secure happiness in society in a way they never could in the past.
It is an astonishingly crude and simple-minded way of thinking, and for that very reason increasingly popular. Those who think in this way are oblivious to the vast philosophical literature in which the meaning and value of happiness have been explored and questioned, and write as if nothing of any importance had been thought on the subject until it came to their attention. It was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who was more than anyone else responsible for the development of this way of thinking. For Bentham it was obvious that the human good consists of pleasure and the absence of pain. The Greek philosopher Aristotle may have identified happiness with self-realisation in the 4th century BC, and thinkers throughout the ages may have struggled to reconcile the pursuit of happiness with other human values, but for Bentham all this was mere metaphysics or fiction. Without knowing anything much of him or the school of moral theory he established – since they are by education and intellectual conviction illiterate in the history of ideas – our advocates of positive psychology follow in his tracks in rejecting as outmoded and irrelevant pretty much the entirety of ethical reflection on human happiness to date.
But as William Davies notes in his recent book The Happiness Industry, the view that happiness is the only self-evident good is actually a way of limiting moral inquiry. One of the virtues of this rich, lucid and arresting book is that it places the current cult of happiness in a well-defined historical framework. Rightly, Davies his story with Bentham, noting that he was far more than a philosopher. Davies writes, ‘Bentham’s activities were those which we might now associate with a public sector management consultant’. In the 1790s, he wrote to the Home Office suggesting that the departments of government be linked together through a set of ‘conversation tubes’, and to the Bank of England with a design for a printing device that could produce unforgeable banknotes. He drew up plans for a ‘frigidarium’ to keep provisions such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables fresh. His celebrated design for a prison to be known as a ‘Panopticon’, in which prisoners would be kept in solitary confinement while being visible at all times to the guards, was very nearly adopted. (Surprisingly, Davies does not discuss the fact that Bentham meant his Panopticon not just as a model prison but also as an instrument of control that could be applied to schools and factories.)
Bentham was also a pioneer of the ‘science of happiness’. If happiness is to be regarded as a science, it has to be measured, and Bentham suggested two ways in which this might be done. Viewing happiness as a complex of pleasurable sensations, he suggested that it might be quantified by measuring the human pulse rate. Alternatively, money could be used as the standard for quantification: if two different goods have the same price, it can be claimed that they produce the same quantity of pleasure in the consumer. Bentham was more attracted by the latter measure. By associating money so closely to inner experience, Davies writes, Bentham ‘set the stage for the entangling of psychological research and capitalism that would shape the business practices of the twentieth century’.
The Happiness Industry describes how the project of a science of happiness has become integral to capitalism. We learn much that is interesting about how economic problems are being redefined and treated as psychological maladies. In addition, Davies shows how the belief that inner of pleasure and displeasure can be objectively measured has informed management studies and advertising. The tendency of thinkers such as J B Watson, the founder of behaviourism*, was that human beings could be shaped, or manipulated, by policymakers and managers. Watson had no factual basis for his view of human action. When he became president of the American Psychological Association in 1915, he ‘had never even studied a single human being’: his research had been confined to experiments on white rats. Yet Watson’s reductive model is now widely applied, with ‘behaviour change’ becoming the goal of governments: in Britain, a ‘Behaviour Insights Team’ has been established by the government to study how people can be encouraged, at minimum cost to the public purse, to live in what are considered to be socially desirable ways.
Modern industrial societies appear to need the possibility of ever-increasing happiness to motivate them in their labours. But whatever its intellectual pedigree, the idea that governments should be responsible for promoting happiness is always a threat to human freedom.
———————–
* ‘behaviourism’: a branch of psychology which is concerned with observable behaviour
Nguồn: Cambridge IELTS 13
GIẢI THÍCH
| Đáp án | Trích dẫn | Giải thích |
|---|---|---|
| 1. D | Đoạn 1: “…the purpose of government is to promote a state of collective well-being. The only question is how to achieve it, and here positive psychology… can show the way.” | Đoạn văn nêu rõ vấn đề là “làm thế nào” (how) để đạt được hạnh phúc, và “positive psychology” được giới thiệu chính là “the way” (phương pháp, con đường) để giải quyết vấn đề đó. |
| 2. A | Đoạn 2: “For Bentham it was obvious that the human good consists of pleasure and the absence of pain.“ | Câu này trích dẫn trực tiếp và rõ ràng quan điểm của Bentham: “the human good” bao gồm “pleasure” và “the absence of pain”. Đáp án A là một nửa của định nghĩa này. |
| 3. B | Đoạn 3: “Davies writes, ‘Bentham’s activities were those which we might now associate with a public sector management consultant’.“ | Davies đưa ra một nhận xét hiện đại hóa, so sánh các hoạt động của Bentham (đề xuất cải cách, thiết kế) với công việc của một “public sector management consultant”. |
| 4. F | Đoạn 4: “By associating money so closely to inner experience… Bentham ‘set the stage for the entangling of psychological research and capitalism…” | Hành động “associating money… to inner experience” của Bentham được đánh giá là đã “set the stage” (đặt nền móng) cho “sự vướng víu giữa nghiên cứu tâm lý và chủ nghĩa tư bản”. Đáp án F là cách diễn giải lại chính xác hệ quả này. |
| 5. B | Đoạn 5: “The tendency of thinkers such as J B Watson… was that human beings could be shaped, or manipulated, by policymakers and managers.“ | Câu này nói rõ “khuynh hướng” trong suy nghĩ của Watson: con người có thể bị “shaped, or manipulated” (định hình hoặc thao túng). Điều này đồng nghĩa với việc hành vi có thể được nghiên cứu và kiểm soát. |
| 6. G | Đoạn 5: “…in Britain, a ‘Behaviour Insights Team’ has been established by the government to study how people can be encouraged… to live in what are considered to be socially desirable ways.” | Đoạn văn đưa ra một ví dụ cụ thể là “Behaviour Insights Team”, một tổ chức có mục tiêu rõ ràng là nghiên cứu cách khuyến khích (tức là thay đổi) hành vi. |
| 7. E | Đoạn 4: “Viewing happiness as a complex of pleasurable sensations, he suggested that it might be quantified by measuring the human pulse rate.“ | Bentham đề xuất phương pháp đầu tiên để định lượng hạnh phúc là đo “pulse rate” (nhịp mạch). Đây là thông tin được trích dẫn trực tiếp. |
| 8. A | Đoạn 4: “Alternatively, money could be used as the standard for quantification: if two different goods have the same price, it can be claimed that they produce the same quantity of pleasure…” | Từ “Alternatively” giới thiệu phương pháp thứ hai, sử dụng “money” làm “standard for quantification”. Đáp án A là một ứng dụng cụ thể của phương pháp này. |
| 9. YES | Đoạn 2: “It was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham… who was more than anyone else responsible for the development of this way of thinking.“ | Câu này khẳng định Bentham “chịu trách nhiệm nhiều hơn bất kỳ ai khác” cho sự phát triển của “lối tư duy này” (ám chỉ ý tưởng về hạnh phúc là mục tiêu tối thượng). Thông tin đồng ý hoàn toàn. |
| 10. NOT GIVEN | Đoạn 3: “(Surprisingly, Davies does not discuss the fact that Bentham meant his Panopticon… also as an instrument of control that could be applied to schools and factories.)” | Phần trong ngoặc đơn cho biết một sự thật (Bentham có ý định cho nhà máy) nhưng quan trọng nhất là nó nói rõ “Davies does not discuss the fact” (Davies KHÔNG thảo luận sự thật này). Do đó, không có thông tin về việc Davies có giải thích điều đó hay không. |
| 11. NO | Đoạn 5: “Watson had no factual basis for his view of human action. When he became president… he ‘had never even studied a single human being’…” | Bài đọc phủ định hoàn toàn cơ sở lý thuyết của Watson bằng hai luận điểm: “không có cơ sở thực tế” và “chưa từng nghiên cứu một con người nào”. Thông tin trái ngược hoàn toàn. |
| 12. NOT GIVEN | Đoạn 5: “Watson had no factual basis for his view… his research had been confined to experiments on white rats.” | Bài đọc chỉ cung cấp thông tin thực tế về nghiên cứu của Watson (trên chuột). Nó không đề cập đến bất kỳ cảm xúc, thái độ hay sự hối tiếc nào của ông về việc này. |
| 13. YES | Đoạn 5: “We learn much that is interesting about how economic problems are being redefined and treated as psychological maladies.“ | Câu trong bài nói rõ nội dung cuốn sách mô tả cách “các vấn đề kinh tế” đang được “định nghĩa lại và đối xử như các chứng bệnh tâm lý”. Thông tin đồng ý hoàn toàn. |
| 14. NO | Đoạn cuối: “But whatever its intellectual pedigree, the idea that governments should be responsible for promoting happiness is always a threat to human freedom.“ | Câu cuối thể hiện quan điểm của Davies về ý tưởng này: đó “luôn là một mối đe dọa đối với tự do của con người”. Từ “threat” (mối đe dọa) cho thấy thái độ phản đối, cảnh báo, trái ngược với sự ủng hộ. |
