Comparative life satisfaction

We tend to think of the past century as being a time of great progress when it comes to the quality of life -- for ordinary people as well as the privileged. Advances in science, technology, and medicine have made life more secure, predictable, productive, educated, and healthy. But in what specific ways is ordinary life happier or more satisfying for ordinary people in 2000 compared to their counterparts in 1900 or 1800 -- or 200, for that matter?

There are a couple of things that are pretty obvious. Nutrition is one place to start: the mass population of France, Canada, or the United States is not subject to periodic hunger, malnutrition, or famine. This is painfully not true for many poor parts of the world -- Sudan, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh, for example. But for the countries of the affluent world, the OECD countries, hunger has been largely conquered for most citizens.

Second, major advances in health preservation and the treatment of illness have taken place. We know how to prevent cholera, and we know how to treat staph infections with antibiotics. Terrible diseases such as polio have been eradicated, and we have effective treatments for some kinds of previously incurable cancers. So the basic health status of people in the affluent 21st-century world is substantially better than that of previous centuries -- with obvious consequences for our ability to find satisfaction in life activities.

These advances in food security and public health provision have resulted in a major enhancement to quality of life -- life expectancy in France, Germany, or Costa Rica has increased sharply. And many of the factors underlying much of this improvement is not high-tech, but rather takes the form of things like improvement of urban sanitation and relatively low-cost treatment (antibiotics for children's ear infections, for example).

So living longer and more healthily is certainly an advantage in our quality of life relative to conditions one or two centuries ago.

Improvements in labor productivity in agriculture and manufacturing have resulted in another kind of enhancement of modern quality of life. It is no longer necessary for a large percentage of humanity to perform endless and exhausting labor in order to feed the rest of us. And because of new technologies and high labor productivity, almost everyone has access to goods that extend the enjoyment of life and our creative talents. Personal computing and communications, access to the world's knowledge and culture through the Internet, and ability to travel widely all represent opportunities that even the most privileged could not match one or two centuries ago.

But the question of life satisfaction doesn't reduce to an inventory of the gadgets we can use. Beyond the minimum required for sustaining a healthy human body, the question of satisfaction comes down to the issue of what we do with the tools and resources available to us and the quality of our human relationships. How do we organize our lives in such a way as to succeed in achieving goals that really matter?

Amartya Sen's economic theory of "capabilities and realizations" supports a pretty good answer to these questions about life satisfaction (Development as Freedom). Each person has a bundle of talents and capabilities. These talents can be marshalled into a meaningful life plan. And the satisfying life is one where the person has singled out some important values and goals and has used his/her talents to achieve these goals. (This general idea underlies J. S. Mill's theory of happiness as well in Utilitarianism.)

By this standard, it's not so clear that life in the twenty-first century is inherently more satisfying than that in the eighteenth or the second centuries. When basic needs were satisfied -- nutrition, shelter, health -- the opportunities for realizing one's talents in meaningful effort were no less extensive than they are today. This is true for the creative classes -- obviously. The creative product of Mill's or Hugo's generation was no less substantial or satisfying than our own. But perhaps it is true across the board. The farmer-gardener who shapes his/her land over the course of a lifetime has created something of great personal value and satisfaction. The mason or smith may have taken more pride and satisfaction in his life's work than does the programmer or airline flight attendant. The parent who succeeded in nurturing a family in 1800 County Cork may have found the satisfactions as great or greater than parents in Boston or Seattle today.

So we might say that the only unmistakeable improvement in quality of life in the past century is in the basics -- secure nutrition, decent education, and improved health during the course of a human life. And the challenge of the present is to make something meaningful and sustaining of the resources we are given.

Anxiety and crisis

It is interesting to consider the effect on consciousness of people living through a series of world and national crises. I'm thinking particularly of the ongoing crisis of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, with the perennial possibility of even more stunning tactics in the future, and of the ongoing financial and economic crisis in the United States and the world. What effect does the experience of living in the midst of such upheavals and threats over an extended period have on people's state of mind?

I imagine there are studies in clinical psychology and public health that address this question in terms of things like the incidence of depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, and suicide during protracted periods of mass stress -- the Blitz in London, post-9/11 in New York, the Great Depression .... But here I'm more interested in thinking about the subjective side of the question. How do people feel during these extended periods of stress and threat? And this comes down to two different things: mood (how one feels in the moment) and emotional frame (how one is disposed to emotionally interpret the future). Sadness is a mood on this definition and pessimism is an emotional frame.

There seem to be a couple of possibilities in how people respond to a period of extreme stress -- detachment (it's not so bad, this will pass), immersion (watching CNN all day for more bad news), pervading anxiety, cheerful resilience, pessimism, ... All of these are perhaps best understood as coping mechanisms -- the ways that people construct their inner lives so as to make violence and fear endurable. And I suppose there are some deeply engrained differences across personalities and cultures in terms of which emotional frame a person comes to.

It seems intuitively clear that there should be some effect on mood and emotional frame that is created by a persistent environment of anxiety, fear, and uncertainty. But how is it actually working in today's time of crisis? So far the twenty-first century seems to be mostly about frightening uncertainties. How are the people of the twenty-first century absorbing this historical reality? How are Michigan auto workers reacting psychologically to the constant threat of plant closure and job loss? How are students reacting to an economic crisis that raises doubts about their career futures? How are people nearing retirement reacting to the sudden decline on value of their retirement accounts? And how are Mumbaiers experiencing the trauma and continuing threat of violent attack and mass murder?

I suppose the psychological mechanisms may be different depending on the timeframe of the crisis. An acute but time-limited trauma probably has different effects on the psyche than an extended and apparently endless period of risk and uncertainty. The punctuated crisis may affect the emotion but not the frame. Here I'm mostly interested in the second situation -- because almost everyone on the planet is currently in it.

One emotion that seems to be a common response to ongoing instability in the world around us is nostalgia. "Wasn't the world of the fifties a simpler and happier world?" Thoughts about a simpler past may be a refuge for some people from the anxieties of the present. Another response may be a blend of pessimism and resignation.

Perhaps the most common response is a kind of deliberate forgetting -- more of less deliberately averting one's gaze from the source of anxiety. People can focus on the immediate necessities of everyday life and simply tune out the ominous news.

But it seems that there are other emotional responses that are humanly possible as well. A degree of optimism and resilience seems to characterize some people's inner responses to anxiety and hardship in even the worst of circumstances. A recent NPR interview with some Iraqi widows, living in the most extreme and uncertain conditions, illustrates this register of response. These women showed remarkable courage and resilience in face of the terrible circumstances they face daily.

For some reason I think of Kierkegaard’s brief words about Abraham after the trauma of being forced to sacrifice his young son in Fear and Trembling. God relented and Isaac was spared. But Kierkegaard describes Abraham’s mind in words something like this — “But the old man returned home and his vision was darkened forever.” ["From that day on, Abraham became old, he could not forget that God had demanded this of him. Isaac throve as before, but Abraham's eye was darkened, he saw joy no more."]

I suppose part of the appeal of Barack Obama is his message of measured hope. He communicates clearly and strongly -- we can address the problems that confront us. We can make a better world. And to that what better refrain than -- yes we can.

Mumbai

A progressive Indian friend from Kolkata shared a particular sorrow about the tragedy of Mumbai last week. It was the death of Hemant Karkare, chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, who was shot to death by the terrorists near the Cama Hospital in Mumbai as he and several other policemen attempted to confront them (CNN story). (Here is an Indian blog posting on Karkare's career and death.)

My friend has been an unflagging activist for greater social justice in India throughout his life, and has worked against Hindu extremist violence against Muslims throughout. He regarded Karkare as a rigorously fair police official, and one who took the task of fighting extremist violence in India very seriously -- so seriously, in fact, that his life was at risk at the hands of Hindu extremist organizations whom he had pursued while investigating the Malegaon, Thane, Vashi, and Panvel bombings in the past several years (all attributed to Hindu extremist groups). (Here is a news item on the Malegaon bombing.) So it is deeply and tragically ironic, that he was murdered by Islamic extremists.

There is now serious concern that there may be a resurgence of ethnic violence in India. Largescale incidents of violence against innocent Muslim men and women have occurred all too frequently in the past thirty years, usually instigated by extremist Hindu nationalist groups and leaders. (Here is an interesting lecture by Princeton scholar Atul Kohli on the causes of Hindu-Muslim violence in India.) Recent mass killings occurred in Gujarat in 2002, when Hindu mobs attacked and killed between 1000 and 2000 Muslims. These attacks were in revenge for a horrific act of violence by an extremist Muslim group that attacked and burned a train in Godhra station, resulting in burning to death 50 Hindu travelers. Retaliatory violence against defenseless Muslim residents of Gujarat led to a large number of deaths and a much larger number of displaced persons. And government authorities did virtually nothing to prevent the violence.

The Indian government, and the governments of Indian states with significant Muslim populations, need to be highly vigilant and proactive in ensuring that there is not a shameful recurrence of these pogroms during the coming weeks and months. News reports suggest that Indian public opinion is turning from anger against the government for its faulty response to the attack, to a high level of nationalist rhetoric. Emotions are high throughout India, and now is the time for skillful inter-group peacemaking and effective state maintenance of order.

It is a central obligation of any state to use its power to protect all groups against violence, through pro-active efforts to prevent mob violence and through intelligent police work to suppress extremist groups who plan violence. By all accounts, Hemant Karkare was an effective officer in both efforts, and India needs men and women like him in its continuing efforts to protect its democracy and its people.

Adults in college?

A couple of things seem to be true in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. These states have each lost hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs in the past ten years — the jobs that provided middle-class livings to men and women with high school educations — and there are thousands more job losses to come in the next few months. And these states have unusually low rates of college-educated adults in their populations. Only about 33% of southeast Michigan adults have a four-year degree, compared to higher rates among adults in Connecticut and Oregon. Almost everyone agrees that the new businesses and jobs of the future will require highly educated workers, managers, and designers/engineers, from Tom Friedman to the editorial page of the Detroit Free Press. So what should the rustbelt states be doing to try to remedy their “talent gap”?

One part of the solution is pretty obvious. We need to ratchet up the “culture of education” in the public so families will encourage and support their children in school and in their pursuit of college attendance. There is a cascade of policies that are needed here, from promoting the value of education to parents, to improving attainment in K-12 schools (so that students are prepared for college work) to managing university tuition levels and financial aid and student loan programs to make sure that college is attainable for everyone.

But what about the generation of young people who have already passed the traditional age of attendance and have entered the work world without a college degree? There are over 160,000 people in the Detroit metropolitan region alone between the ages of 25 and 34 who have attended college but have not completed a degree. This is a large population — and their economic futures are dim without further education. If programs could be created that would allow a large percentage of these young people to complete their degrees, their futures would be enhanced, and Detroit would be a more attractive region for new businesses because of the larger talent pool. Surveys indicate that a large percentage of this population wants to complete a college degree. So the challenge to the colleges and universities is straightforward: what can you do to make your programs more accessible and attainable to these young adults? Is it more convenient scheduling? Is it a better mix of traditional and online programs? Is it more generous and more easily understood financial aid programs?

Before any of these changes will occur, universities need to be convinced that young adults are a part of their missions and that they can be successful. Fortunately, there are some good examples of universities that have succeeded in providing access to large numbers of these older students and displaced workers. And their evidence is positive. Faculty attest to the value brought to the classroom by students with a broader range of life experience. And they confirm as well that older students often bring a discipline and determination to their studies that permit them to excel.

What is currently less well understood is the degree of impact that college completion has on the careers of older students. Most studies on the economic impact of college focus on the earning differential of a baccalaureate degree for traditional-age students, and it would be useful to have similar study that provides information about non-traditional students. Likewise, it would be interesting to see a study of typical career trajectories for these non-traditional students.

The multicultural university

It is now pretty universally recognized that universities need to be "multicultural", in several separate senses. They need to be open and welcoming to students coming from many different cultures. They need to create an academic and social environment where students from many cultures can learn together in a harmonious way. And they need to find ways of incorporating the knowledge and perspectives of many cultures into their courses of study and academic programs.

Why are each of these components necessary? One could imagine a university that invited attendance by all students but then worked to extinguish the cultural differences that exist among admitted students. Or we could imagine a university with diverse groups of admitted students that also attempted to create a multicultural social environment -- but that insisted nonetheless on a curriculum based on a narrow, "non-cultural", "neutral" set of topics and pedagogies. So why is it important to incorporate multicultural diversity into all three aspects of the university environment -- recruitment, climate, and curriculum?

There are multiple overlapping reasons for deep multiculturalism in universities that ultimately derive from the changing nature of our society and the fundamental mission of facilitating students' learning.

First, our society. American society may be a relatively extreme case by international comparison, but it is a fact that American culture and society encompasses a remarkable degree of diversity -- in race, age, gender, nationality, and religion, to name several important dimensions of difference. And our commitment to the principles of fundamental human equality and the necessity of equality of treatment establish the moral necessity of making the opportunities of university attendance available to everyone across all of these lines of difference. This is one of the basic justifications that have been offered in support of affirmative action.

The importance of creating a multicultural university environment follows from two things: the necessity of treating cultural differences with respect, and the recognition that all students can learn important things when they are induced to interact with people with very different values and beliefs. Moreover, there is the practical point that virtually everyone in our society will be called upon to work with people from different religious and cultural backgrounds -- and to do this successfully requires the acquiring of a large set of intercultural skills and competencies. (This is one of the reasons that corporations like GM intervened on behalf of the University of Michigan's defense of affirmative action.)

Finally, the need for creating a multicultural curriculum derives from the learning mission of the university. More diverse learning is better learning; it gives students a broader set of perspectives through which to frame the problems we confront, it nurtures the concrete skills needed in order to have productive collaborations with a diverse group of potential partners, and it provides a crucial antidote to the parochialism that goes along with a curriculum designed entirely out of a single cultural tradition. Monoculturalism is as stultifying in problem-solving as monocropping is harmful to agriculture.

In fact, it seems that universities may represent the best opportunity we have as a society to work through the challenge of creating a genuinely multiple-racial, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic society. We can experiment with different approaches to the fundamental values of pluralism and respect that the twenty-first century will demand. From this point of view, the truly successful multicultural university will point the way to a more fully democratic society in the future.

Social justice?

A major complaint that many people have had concerning the past eight years of the Bush administration is that it has had no interest in addressing issues of social justice in the United States. What are these issues? And what steps would a genuinely responsible government take to address them?

Here are a few core social justice issues that have become increasingly visible in the past eight years. Can we hope they will do better under the Obama administration?

• Income inequality that has risen steeply since 1980
• Disregard of the most basic human needs of poor people -- e.g. the indifferent Katrina relief response
• Serious race gaps in quality of life and economic opportunity that have held steady or worsened
• A worsening healthcare crisis affecting 47 million uninsured people
• A financial and economic meltdown that differentially hurts low and middle income people
• Poor quality schools in high poverty areas
• Deteriorating conditions in many American cities
• Homelessness and hunger rising
• Environmental harms that are disproportionately found in urban poor populations
• Tax reforms that greatly privilege the most affluent
• Mistreatment of immigrant communities

What these issues have in common is the fact of inequality across large social groups, and a profound lack of a fair level of priority offered by government to address the issue. The inequality part of the picture has to do with gross inequalities in resources, opportunities, dignity, and outcomes for different groups. And the priority issue has to do with "voice" -- the degree to which claims by disadvantaged groups are taken seriously by policy makers. The rich and powerful have not had difficulty in gaining the ear of the Bush administration. But poor and middle-class people have knocked in vain.

Most generally, what might an Obama administration do to improve the situation of social justice in the United States? A first step -- and it is an important one -- is to give the signal to all parts of government that social justice is an important priority for this administration. This priority needs to affirm the centrality of equality, fairness, and a concern for improving the condition of the least-well-off in society. It is understood that every problem cannot be addressed at the same time, and that there are other important priorities as well. But social justice is generally compatible with other priorities, and it will be an important step forward to simply know that the government is concerned with these issues.

A related step that will further the cause of social justice will be to give voice to the disadvantaged within the process of policy formation. If poverty alleviation is to be back on the agenda, then make sure that the voices of poor people are heard as policies are formulated and discussed. And make sure that leaders are selected who have a genuine and innovative commitment to change. (A conference on poverty being sponsored in Michigan by the Department of Human Services (link) is a good example of a process that involves the voices of affected people in a meaningful way. One can hope that committed experts such as Rebecca Blank or Douglas Massey will be involved in the policy leadership group of the next administration.)

Beyond these general steps -- laying the groundwork for meaningful social justice reform -- one would hope the administration will take on a few key issues to be addressed first. And perhaps these should be --

• Healthcare reform to assure that all Americans have access to adequate healthcare through insurance and government programs
• a focused urban strategy for addressing the issues of poverty and limited opportunities in our nation's cities
• implementation of a tax system that removes provisions favoring the most affluent individuals and corporations

This isn't the whole of a social justice agenda, but it would be a very good start. And progress on these issues would also result in progress on other issues as well, including the gaps in opportunity and quality of life experienced by disadvantaged groups today.

It seems almost self evident that a more just society is a stronger and more unified society. So a government that consistently works towards improving social justice will build a much stronger foundation for America's future in the coming half century.

Tom Joad

John Ford's powerful film Grapes of Wrath (1940) comes to mind in these days of financial crisis that many people want to compare to the Great Depression. Both the film and the Steinbeck novel have the virtue of "speaking truth to power" -- describing in a crystal-clear way how the decisions of the powerful have battered the suffering poor. The themes of foreclosure, loss of home and land, and protracted unemployment and dirth are very evocative of conditions in 1935 -- and they have a lot of resonance in many parts of the country today.

But in addition to the honesty of the portrayal of the human suffering associated with the Great Depression, the novel and film are also very clear in their reference to the potential power of poor people coming together in organizations to defend themselves against the forces that are crushing them. It's not a revolutionary film, but it is forthright in depicting the possibility of resistance. And resistance needs to take the form of collective action rather than individual action -- witness the powerful scene when the bulldozer shows up to level the Joad family's farmhouse and push them off the land. Resistance is threatened; it is recognized to be futile; and the bulldozer passes right through the wooden farmhouse, leaving only splintered boards and crushed pieces of furniture in its wake.

Some of the most powerful documents of the social reality of the Great Depression can be found in the black and white photography commissioned by the Farm Security Administration (FSA). The Library of Congress has a breathtaking archive of hundreds of thousands of photos taken by photographers such as Dorothea Lange, Ben Shahn, and Walker Evans. There are almost 4,000 images from Dorothea Lange herself -- including her iconic "Mother of Seven Children" that is probably the most recognizable image of the whole period. The collection is called "Documenting America," and it should be required reading for understanding America's twentieth-century history.

credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA-OWI Collection, fsa 8b31759

credit: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA-OWI Collection, fsa 8b29516

With millions of people on the road looking for work during the 1930s, hobos and hobo encampments were familiar sights. Here are two versions of the Hobo's Lullaby, by Arlo Guthrie and Emmylou Harris. (Try viewing the images in the first video along with the soundtrack of the second video -- Emmylou's version of the song is stronger, and the images included in the first video are spectacular.)