March 20 was proclaimed World Day of Happiness and Well-being by the General Assembly of the United Nations on July 12, 2012. We therefore speak of happiness in Social issue with the sociologist Jean Viard, director of research at the CNRS.
franceinfo: What is a happy Jean Viard society, is French society one?
John Viard: In fact, happiness is individual. You see, before the pandemic, 75% of French people said they were happy. After the pandemic, now there are 80%. Basically, we are a society of happy people because when you are sick, we treat you, you have a child in school, etc. and because individual happiness in our societies, we underestimate this element too much, because we are drowned in a society of polls, INSEE figures etc. There are modest, happy people. There are poor, happy people. There are desperate rich people. It’s true that wealthy people are a little happier than others, let’s be realistic. But this is not a substantive criterion.
Currently, 70% of French people have gardens. Their big problem is, is it going to rain, how do I prune my roses, it doesn’t fit into any statistics. And likewise, there are all the people who are in love, etc. That’s why I say, we are a society of happy people. On the other hand, indeed, society is not happy, that is to say that I often say: “private happiness, public misfortune”. Indeed, we do not know where France is going. We don’t really know what our future will be, where the world is going. We are not very sure of winning the climate battle. Let’s not even talk about wars and the pandemic.
So, we are in a society of happy people, we have to say it and repeat it, because otherwise, we understand nothing about what is happening. Society is not in fire and blood, etc. Why ? Because most people are happy, but they are happy in a society that is indeed a bit in disarray, but not particularly French society.
If happiness is individual, is it up to the State, to politicians, to take care of our happiness, to offer us the conditions so that we can find it?
That’s a bit like the idea of totalitarian countries. Me, I think that the role of the State, it is to favor “the executives”, that the school works well, that the hospitals work well, that security works. The State guarantees us a framework and a project which also guarantees us studies for our children, a peaceful or pleasant retirement, it is this framework that comes into play. But afterwards, it’s the path you take there, it’s your path inside this framework. I tend to think: I don’t really like the State taking care of my happiness.
The saying goes that money does not buy happiness, but still, obviously, it is a question that arises. There, we are told for example that inflation, the rise in prices at the moment will be lasting. This inevitably worries some of the French. How much of a threat is that to individual happiness?
Yes, it worries, but at the same time, it is momentary. Of course there are people who, at the moment, are having trouble filling up, etc. so it creates anxiety for them, I completely agree with that. But let’s not forget the bottom line, that is to say that we are a relatively peaceful, relatively united society, with tensions. It’s normal in the media, it’s the tension aspects that are highlighted. It’s logic. The story of trains arriving on time is of no interest to anyone. It’s true.
Moreover, in the evening, people watch films. If there aren’t murders, rapes and muggings, they won’t watch them, if it’s just the normal everyday life of a village schoolteacher… I say that because it doesn’t is not because we put forward the peaks of tension – and more and more, in our societies of continuous information – that people are more and more worried.
There, there are people who have income problems. I am very aware of this, with the rise in prices linked in particular to the Ukrainian crisis. But let’s not mix that with the fact that they can still be happy.
Is there perhaps a generational question with the climate anxiety that you mentioned, which is very strong among the younger generations? Can that be a source of inequality, in a way, in the face of happiness?
Especially if they cannot fight, for example fight against global warming, either through political convictions or through research. Being able to act is an extremely important part of happiness. It’s like being able to work, etc.
Being an actor basically increases your happiness, because you have an influence on reality. What is terrible about Ukraine is that we cannot act. We can give them weapons, we can welcome them, etc. but fundamentally, we cannot send soldiers and we see people being killed while we cannot do anything, because there is the nuclear threat. I strongly believe in action to give meaning to a life.