There is empirical evidence that the fleeting moments of connection with another person enhance one's feelings of happiness considerably. It's worth catching another walker's eye and smiling, saying 'Good Morning!' Both people will feel happier. That kind of connection combats loneliness, which is a killer. It decreases mental and physical health.
This morning, I wished people 'Happy Easter!' and their returned smiles were like Prozac. Rather better, actually - and I speak from experience.
We are wired for connection. We are born into a world dependent on others for our survival; as we sicken or age, again we are dependent. And for that reason, evolution has made us care about connection. We aren't just social animals, we are the ultra-social animals. Our very self-concepts are meaningless outside a social structure. How can a person be in any meaningful sense kind or selfish in a state of complete isolation? Indeed, with no others to act as standard or comparison, even laziness, responsibility, conscientiousness and dedication are incomprehensible. We can only have any trait when that trait is relative to another being like us. Without a society, morality has no grounds.
There is further evidence that people who give to charity, volunteer and think more of others than of themselves are happier than those who don't.
I find this fact, for it is well studied and assessed, somewhat worrying. Because I don't do a great deal for anyone. Yes, I have direct debits set up to various charities (mainly animals and environmental organisations, as it happens), but I've never been a joiner-in or a volunteer. Actually, I did go through the training for the Samaritans and for an organisation that helps kids with reading, but when it came to it, well, I dropped out of actually doing it. I'm sure it would have been immensely meaningful and brought me greater life satisfaction. I might even have been helpful, that's the hope, at least. What stopped me? It wasn't what I wanted to do with my time, when push came to shove.
That was an uncomfortable realisation. And especially when, to my surprise, I discovered that my closest friends consider me to be 'kind' and 'compassionate' and 'caring'. But what is a caring attitude worth if not backed up with action? They argued that I expressed it in relationships and behaviour with people in my personal and professional life. Well, sure, but not always. There have been many times when I am very aware that I have been uncaring, unkind and uncompassionate And I still am on a fairly regular basis. There are places my kindness does not take me in attitude as well as in deed.
It seems to me that I 'triage' my compassion. But as I don't want this to be a confession, I will stop there as far as my limitations go.
What I wanted to think about was the implications of action. Consider the homeless. One could give money to a person living on the street, which I do often do. This may have restricted or zero positive outcome (the person may choose to spend it on drugs, fueling that trade and worsening their own health). One could provide a home for a homeless person, which would be a generous act indeed, yet restrict the amelioration of circumstances to one individual. One could set up or volunteer in a shelter, thus helping numerous people. Yet while such shelters are worthy and those involved are charitable, compassionate and caring, they can serve to lessen the overt issue of the social problem, thus essentially prolonging conditions which can lead people to resort to living on the streets. Or one could lobby actively for changes in economic and social structures which would be designed to create a world where people do not end up homeless.
Each step along this list of possibilities demands greater thought, investment in understanding both the homeless people and the societal structures and greater intellectual and moral commitment in the belief of a better future. Which may be why most of us stop at a fiver dropped into a cup.
The stock responses preventing us from taking the big steps are: 'Things have always been like this', 'Those ideas of a fairer society are unrealistic', 'You can't change the world' and 'Who do you think you are to try to change the world?' Those were precisely the responses that initially stopped doctors from washing their hands before assisting mothers in labour when Ignaz Semmelweis told them it would reduce mortality. Finally, they saw the light - but their resistance to a new idea led to many unnecessary deaths. Semmelweis's scientific discovery did far more than compassion - which isn't to undervalue compassion, it's just to stress that compassion is not the necessary end-point of social good.
It is worth thinking, exploring, trying to find new ways and different ideas, and disseminating them. Being kind to those who are suffering or in danger really matters - but exploring means to lessen suffering and danger is also a worthwhile pursuit.
Comments