In 1974,
Richard Easterlin, an economist, highlighted an interesting fact between per
capita income and level of welfare.
==> A
bigger per capita income doesn’t entail an increase of level of happiness.
==> It’s
the Easterlin’s paradox.
Analysis
done about his phenomenon shows that if all parts of Society receive an
increase of their incomes, they aren’t satisfied. Why?? Just because they keep
same connections with other social classes. To make people happier, an increase
of per capita income has to accentuate social inequalities. Then, some people
are richer than other, and can make the most of their superiority on other.
==> Here
comes my question: By considering this study, can we say that all humans are
“businessmen” according the typology of aesthetic relationship presented by Søren
#Kierkegaard? Indeed, humans seem to make their feeling of well-being according
to social and economic status of their peers…
What about
your opinion?
Hey Quentin,
ReplyDeleteI really liked the use you made of Easterlin’s paradox to illustrate Kierkegaard’s despair over living, yet I cannot totally agree with your definition of it.
Indeed, you say that this economic theory points out the fact that humans can only be satisfied when social inequalities increase. This interpretation of Easterlin’s analysis is, I think, quite pessimistic... Individuals do not fester over rising inequalities, on the contrary, they do resent injustice.
Easterlin merely discovers that individuals are not necessarily more satisfied if their wealth increases, especially if they realize their neighbor’s wealth is increasing faster than theirs. What he achieves to show in his study is that happiness is relative; and how could it be otherwise ?
If self is the act of relating to others; how can individuals be happy if they see that their position is inferior to the one of others ? If you can only define yourself by comparing yourself to the Other, and if existence is merely the realization that your self is limited to your own self and is, therefore, only met in confrontation with this Other, then Easterlin’s paradox makes perfect sense.
Individuals do not rejoice over other people suffering or rocketing inequalities, they despair over their relative inferiority. They rebel when they think they suffer from an injustice, even though their own objective condition might actually be bettering.
So I’m not sure I’d say all humans are « businessmen », even though the question was an interesting one to raise !