Diversity In Emotions Is Healthy: Why Happiness Is Not Everything 

Every individual experiences different emotions which are consequently fundamental to our living. Emotions deterministically influence our mood, social and professional behaviour. It is, thus, very crucial to be first aware about our emotions, and then be able to conscientiously traverse through them.

In modern times, not only individuals, but organisations and even the governments are not only obsessed with happiness but are fixated over it. It must be clarified that the article does not seek that people may not be happy. But, the purpose here is to put forth that though happiness is important, happiness alone is neither everything, nor best for an individual. It is the diversity in emotions, not just happiness, which is critical for the well-being of an individual. A research paper published in the journal Emotion supports this idea. It finds that it is the “emodiversity” which is crucial in controlling the inflammation (biological health) in individuals. The idea is derived from the concept of biodiversity in physical sciences.

Historical Indian texts have mentioned about naurasas (nine emotional states), and the importance of each emotion in our lives. These include love, joy, anger, compassion, disgust, horror, heroism, wonder and peace, to put it simply. The prevalence of naurasas, since ancient times to modern times, indicates the importance that has been offered to the diversity of emotions. It is also said that the ragas in the Hindustani classical music evoke not just happiness, but the entire spectrum of emotions. If only the feeling or the emotion of happiness would have been important, why did people for centuries played variety of ragas which produce the entire spectrum of emotions? They are still being played with same vigour and are of great interest to people.

The Indian Constitution emphasises on the dignity of an individual. Simultaneously, our social fabric fosters and celebrates diversity. Diversity is a cherished value and goal for us, be it cultural or emotional. Attaching importance to and promoting a single value (happiness!) brings crisis in the realms of both, dignity and diversity. If a nation starts to promote the emotion of happiness, would it not exclude people who may experience different emotions? Is it scientifically or culturally tenable? Different emotions are treated differently in different cultures. Also, the traditional way of binary classification of emotions, positive or negative, pleasant or unpleasant, is problematic. Further, it excludes people, make them feel a pariah and goes against the essence of diversity.

In recent years, we have seen that ‘happiness’ has been hogging uncritical limelight. The fixation over happiness has become global. The government of UAE has appointed a Minister of State for Happiness, a Governor in Nigeria has appointed a Commissioner for Happiness and the Happiness Alliance goes a step further calling for the appointment of officers or ministers of happiness at all the tiers of government in every country. In India too, the governments of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh have started a department of happiness and a happiness commission respectively.

The government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has launched a “happiness curriculum” for the government schools in Delhi. It makes one think if happiness is a primary emotion. Moreover, Maya Tamir, a professor of Psychology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem says, “people want to feel very good all the time in Western cultures, especially in the United States… Even if they feel good most of the time, they may still think that they should feel even better, which might make them less happy overall.”

Though the uncritical fixation over happiness persists, recent studies have shown that it is the diversity in emotions, which is critical for individual well-being. Not only that, studies have shown that pursuing happiness may not even be good for individuals, and thus, a poor policy approach adopted by governments. Understanding emotions on a single continuum of positive and negative defies ordinary and scientific logic. Sieun, et al (2017) suggests that it may not be wise to understand emotions in the rectilinear continuum.

Emotions have both affective and cognitive components. A so-called ‘negative emotion’ may have a positive, cognitive or biological outcome. Focussing on one and disregarding the other is not suited for a well-informed, evidence-based policy formulation and implementation. Different cultures understand, perceive and react to emotions differently. It has been found that that longing for happiness is more in Western cultures than in the Eastern cultures. The ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ component of each emotion is multi-causal, and is affected by many factors, including culture.

It has been observed that when an individual is deliberately looking for happiness and pleasure, they may be more uncomforted. Mauss, et al (2012) have shown that the pursuit of happiness can be lonely. Placing more emphasis on happiness may surprisingly generate negative consequences. It is true that we all seek happiness in our lives and want our experiences to be merry, joyful and happy. But, is happiness everything for a life? Is happiness a mean or an end in itself? Gruber, et al (2011) suggests that though happiness is crucial for a ‘great’ life, there may be “dark sides” to it. It concludes that though happiness is often highly beneficial, it may not be beneficial at every level, in every context, for every reason, and in every variety.

Ultimately, the purpose of a holistic education for an individual is to have well-developed cognitive abilities, a natural empathetic outlook, an inclusive approach and a socially-responsible behaviour. Does our focus on happiness alone suffice? It has been discussed earlier that the entire spectrum of emotions contributes towards an individual’s affective and cognitive abilities. Also, Tan and Forgas (2010) found that ‘positive emotions’ promote more internally-focussed processing, while ‘negative emotions’ promote more externally-oriented and accommodative processing.

Thus, happiness may not have greater social concern. Contrary to the pursuit, it may make people more self-centred, if not selfish. It may go against our vision of a socially responsible demographic dividend. Lastly, the emphasis on one emotion only, may exclude people experiencing other emotions. It may even take a mental toll on them in already alienated and exclusionary times.

In a multicultural society like India, which has its historic roots in the culture(s) promoting naurasa, a deterministic focus on happiness, may not be a good idea. Moreover, emotional, psychological, cognitive and well-being researches have shown that the pursuit of happiness may not be good, both for the individual and the society.

The objectives and approaches of various happiness departments are laudable and appreciable. They must be congratulated for focussing on the important aspect of recognising, understanding and guiding the emotions. However, in their quest to offer ingenuity, some of them propose a misleading name in the form of ‘happiness’ something, without understanding its negative and exclusionary consequences.

A national government or a state government initiating a happiness programme does not factor that all emotions are integral to human beings. Each serves its own purpose. Different individuals experience different emotions in different scales, which is perfectly alright. Such an approach may make one group of individuals feel out of place (discriminated?). This may not produce the beneficial outcomes. If the purpose of such programmes is to measure development, then a misleading nomenclature, which is exclusionary, may be avoided.

If a school curriculum is named “happiness curriculum”, it may create impressions among the young students that if they feel other emotions, they are doing something wrong. They may feel, either there is “something wrong” with them, or they “do not belong” to the class and may bein the society.

Moreover, as has shown by various researches, first we should focus on emotional diversity, and second pursuit of happiness may be sad and may promote anti-social individuals, defeating the entire purpose of producing a “good human being”. These approaches, though unique and started with a good intent, may not be compatible with the framework of 5D’s – dignity, diversity, democracy, development and decentralisation.

The individuals, society and governments must relinquish their uncritical view towards happiness. They must give heed to the various scientific researches and cultural values available at their disposal. Not only the programmes, even the nomenclature of the programmes, may be made more inclusive, accommodating the diversity. A well-being approach and aversion to ‘fancy’ nomenclatures may be an improved model for others to follow.

Dr Martin Seligman has developed the well-being framework through the concept of PERMA – Positive Emotions, Engagement, Positive Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishment. Though, disagreeing with the notion of positive emotions, it may be said that there is more to a life of well-being than just happiness. It is praiseworthy that governments have recognised the importance of emotions in well-being and have taken a step forward. Helping individuals in enhancing their “emotional intelligence” is crucial for their personal, social and professional journey.

Happiness is not a pursuit, it is an outcome. The keynote teachings of the Indian historical texts like Upanishads are “satchitananda” and “prano-virat”. It affirms that happiness is the outcome of goodness. The essence of goodness is “to be truly united in knowledge, love and service with all beings”.

The diversity in emotions (“emodiversity”) must be emphatically promoted for an all-round personal and social development. A good policy is one which avoids exclusion and promotes diversity, be it cultural or emotional. An individual with a well-developed faculty of entire spectrum of emotions, and not just one of the emotions, is expected to be inclusive and has the respect for 5D’s and other ethical and constitutional values.

Avinash Pandey is pursuing Young India Fellowship at Ashoka University, Sonepat.