by Bruce Hood
This social comparison is foolish because we overestimate the importance of other people’s opinions. We are also very inaccurate when it comes to judging others. Not only are other people less interested in us than we imagine, but their opinions are often superficial, guided by prejudices and full of errors. As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer warned in 1851, ‘Whoever attaches a lot of value to the opinions of others, pays them too much honour.’3 And yet, who is immune to the opinions of others?
The popularity and influence of modern social media such as Facebook and Instagram have amplified our dependency on approval. Social comparisons fuel our feelings of inadequacy when we compare our successes to others. As novelist Gore Vidal quipped, ‘Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little.’ We are constantly reminded that others seem to be doing better and leading much more fulfilling lives than ours. We endorse the value of other people’s posts by our ‘likes’. We re-tweet their opinions. We experience FOMO – ‘fear of missing out’ – and think that we are ignored while everyone else has been invited to the best parties. Like false prophets, we desperately seek followers to justify our self-worth. We are human meerkats, always on the look-out, but rather than surveying the area for potential threats in order to protect the group, we are socially peacocking in an effort to be recognized – desperately seeking approval. But the hedonic treadmill of social comparison is a never-ending perpetual motion machine.4 You can never have enough adulation.
In a world where everyone wants to be celebrated, social mobility provides a way to reach the top. But it also creates an unrealistic expectation that everyone can be a winner. This is typical of hierarchical societies that champion individualism and meritocracy. Those who have succeeded strive to hang on to their position of dominance, whereas those below are constantly struggling to displace them. Rather than levelling the playing field to allow everyone a chance to rise, meritocracy perpetuates the problem because we justify the inequalities that emerge in society. We admire the successful, aspire to be like them and generally think that if we make it, then we too should be able to enjoy the fruits of our labour.
But we must re-evaluate our time on this planet. The term ‘rat race’ originated with early psychological studies of rats running in mazes, but it came to mean the pointless and relentless pursuit of goals, as encouraged by modern working practices, with a corresponding failure to appreciate non-materialistic pursuits. As we noted earlier, once you get past the basic provisions to make life comfortable, accumulating more possessions does not make you happier, just more affirmed in your success; more assured that you are justified in your accumulation of wealth. Our systems of inheritance reassure us that we can leave our wealth to our children in the knowledge that they will be better equipped for their own race, but really, what kind of personal satisfaction can they achieve if you have already given them a head start?
Not only do possessions fail to generate the levels of happiness we expect, but the whole issue of happiness needs reconsideration. In the modern era, we have come to expect happiness as a basic human right. The ‘pursuit of happiness’ is enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence and the individualism that underpins the ownership culture tells us that we are responsible for our well-being. If you are unhappy, then it is your fault and you need to do something about it. As I said at the very beginning and have reiterated throughout this book, we think that possessions lead to happiness – hence the need for ‘retail therapy’ when you feel unhappy. While it is true that possessions may provide moments of hedonic pleasure, these eventually subside. For this reason, ownership cannot provide ever-lasting happiness – but then, such a state would be suspiciously peculiar and not natural. We all habituate to experiences and need the highs and lows of daily existence in order to recognize the good and bad times. If everything stayed at the same level, eventually you would not notice anything.
There is also something inherently wrong about the assumption that we need to be constantly happy. Today’s marketing and self-help industries make us feel guilty if we are not happy, and thus we become increasingly dissatisfied, looking for ways to make ourselves better through our purchases. In the past, however, when life was ‘nasty, brutish and short’ – as Thomas Hobbes famously observed – unhappiness was considered a normal state of life. Indeed, some religious types, such as Protestant Puritans, took the words of Jesus, ‘Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh’, as a literal command to lead a sombre life on Earth to ensure a happy afterlife. They actively discouraged earthly pleasures that could bring happiness. These extreme puritanical views are no longer common, but the modern ideal that we should always be happy is equally absurd. This expectation can only make us feel constantly inadequate, which leads us to strive for perfection.
Striving for success in the rat race seems to be the answer as it provides observable rewards. These rewards may attract the attention and aspiration of others, but equally they inspire negative emotions. Envy rears its ugly head when we compare ourselves to others, and what better focus than the material possessions we show off? Sometimes, however, people react against such displays. Vandalism is often motivated by envy of those with possessions. Negative emotions can range from benign emulation, where we want to be like another, to malicious immolation where we would prefer to see our competitors destroyed. But just like with benign or malignant tumours, you would be better without either.5
Added to these unrealistic expectations is a belief that we are never truly valued, which means we are never really going to be satisfied. Very few of us say ‘I think I am receiving the full credit that I am due’ or ‘I am very fortunate’, at least not unless we have had a wake-up call due to some life-threatening event such as a car crash or illness. Rather we justify our success as deserved and then set off to achieve the next goal we think will bring us the validation we seek. We may have moments of gratitude, but these are so easily overwhelmed by our constant comparisons. Clearly the question is not how to acquire more but, rather, how to be happy with what we have. This is why contemplation, meditation, mindfulness or simple reflection provide brief respites of happiness, because we get to savour the moment before the competitive urge takes hold again.
What we need is not more stuff but more time to appreciate what we have. This is where technology may ultimately liberate us from relentless material consumerism. But there may be future dangers to consider. As Professor of Innovation at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, Robert Wolcott points out that throughout history the vast majority of humans have worked because they have had to.6 But ever since the industrial revolution and, more recently, in the information age, jobs are fast disappearing as technology and artificial intelligence transform the working landscape. Today around 10 per cent of the US workforce are employed in the transport industry.7 Within one generation, automation is likely to make this occupation obsolete in the same way that the armies of farm labourers no longer exist in industrialized countries.
Scientific advances could create technological unemployment. If in the future there is less work for all of us to do, how will we occupy our time? I posed this question to Sherry Turkle, an MIT sociologist, who replied that technological unemployment was a myth because, even if we do build the machines that remove the need for us to work, we will still grow old and infirm and need human contact and support. Despite the best innovations in robotics and artificial intelligence, we are never really going to build artificial people who can replace real humans. Even if we can produce replicants that are indistinguishable from humans, we’ll always be checking to see if they are real. Only authentic individuals with their essential qualities will satisfy our basic emotional need to connect with other people.
What the technology will eventually provide, however, is more time for everyone; and given this is the most precious thing we all have, to a greater or lesser degree, then it is our duty to spend it wisely rather than in chasing possessions. Technology and increased life expectancy mean
we will be spending more time looking after each other and, hopefully, the planet that we share. We need to turn away from individual ownership because it separates us as humans and sets us against each other in a foolish quest to acquire as much as possible and more than we need. Ownership may be in our nature, but it is not in our best interests. We need to exorcise this possession.
Acknowledgements
I have been conducting experiments on the development of ownership and sharing in children for some years now, and so I thought Possessed would be an easy book to write. However, it turned out to be much harder than I anticipated because, once you drill down into the topic, you find it touches just about every facet of human existence. The reach of the book is deliberately wide and I know that I have overstretched into domains that are beyond my areas of expertise. That said, these topics are all interrelated, and I hope I have managed to provide a framework that brings them together in a way that readers find as fascinating as I do.
The book was conceived and written during the political turmoil that began in 2016, and so it unintentionally ended up addressing how ownership relates to the current situation in Europe and the US. President Donald Trump is the focus of much criticism and it remains to be seen whether he is still in power when this book is published. I am adamant that his worldviews are not the way for humanity to prosper in the long run.
I am glad to have had the benefit of two editors – Laura Stickney of Allen Lane and Joan Bossert from Oxford University Press – who both brought enormous expertise and wisdom to bear upon a book that was in real danger of becoming unfocused and losing its message. I would also like to thank my copy editor Charlotte Ridings, who did a wonderful job. I am indebted to my agent, Katinka Matson, who supported this idea from the very start.
Finally, I would also like to thank colleagues and students who have shaped my thinking, and to mention a few specifically. Paul Bloom is not only a good friend but a constant source of inspiration. When he first heard about my plans for this book at a meeting in New Orleans, he was tremendously enthusiastic, but there again, he always is. Many of his ideas are scattered across these pages. So too is the work of Robert Frank, Ori Friedman, Russell Belk and Daniel Kahneman. I would particularly like to thank Laurie Santos for her ideas and inspiration in understanding what makes us happy. There are a number of others I would like to thank, including Patricia Kanngiesser, Anna Kirsch, Susan Kucera, Gawain Bantle and Ashley Lee, who have provided support, great ideas and feedback. Patricia, in particular, provided original and valuable ideas that form much of the basis of the book. Finally, I would like to thank Sandra Weltzien, who not only undertook much of the research on children but has been a wonderful student and friend. She taught me about the Law of Jante and hygge. And, of course, I must thank my long-suffering family who have been so tolerant of me.
References
PROLOGUE
1 Gilbert, D. T. and Wilson, Timothy D. (2000), ‘Miswanting: some problems in the forecasting of future affective states’. In J. P. Forgas, ed., Thinking and Feeling: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2 ‘Terrified grandad feared he would die while clinging to van as thief drove off’, http://www.barrheadnews.com/news/trendingacrossscotland/14717683.Terrified_grandad_feared_he_would_die_while_clinging_to_van_as_thief_drove_off/.
3 ‘Mother clung to her car bonnet for 100 yards before being flung off into a lamppost as thief drove off with it’, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549471/Mother-clung-car-bonnet-100-yards-flung-lamppost-thief-drove-it.html.
4 Stephenson, J., et al. (2013), ‘Population, development and climate change: links and effects on human health’, Lancet, published online 11 July 2013.
5 http://www.worldwatch.org/sow11.
6 https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/01/08/fsafasf. Only 11% of respondents in this 2016 poll thought the world was getting better, compared to 58% who thought it was getting worse.
7 Pinker, S. (2018), Enlightenment Now. London: Allen Lane.
1. DO WE REALLY OWN ANYTHING?
1 Finders Keepers (2015), directed by Bryan Carberry and Clay Tweel. Firefly Theater and Films.
2 Van de Vondervoort, J. W. and Friedman, O. (2015), ‘Parallels in preschoolers’ and adults’ judgments about ownership rights and bodily rights’, Cognitive Science, 39, 184–98.
3 Bland, B. (2008), ‘Singapore legalises compensation payments to kidney donors’, British Medical Journal, 337: a2456, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2456.
4 Sax, J. L. (1999), Playing Darts with a Rembrandt: Public and Private Rights in Cultural Treasures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5 Howley, K. (2007), ‘Who owns your body parts? Everyone’s making money in the market for body tissue except the donors’, http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/07/who-owns-your-body-parts/print.
6 DeScioli, P. and Karpoff, R. (2015), ‘People’s judgments about classic property law cases’, Human Nature, 26, 184–209.
7 Hobbes, T. (1651/2008), Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8 Locke, J. (1698/2010), Two Treatises of Government. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange.
9 Taken from transcripts for the Poomaksin case study, supra note 6. Knut-sum-atak circle discussion no. 2 (3 December 2003), Oldman River Cultural Centre, Brocket, Alberta. Cited in Noble, B. (2008), ‘Owning as belonging/owning as property: the crisis of power and respect in First Nations heritage transactions with Canada’. In C. Bell and V. Napoleon, eds., First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law, vol. 1: Case Studies, Voices, Perspectives. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, pp. 465–88.
10 http://www.hedgehogcentral.com/illegal.shtml.
11 Buettinger, C. (2005), ‘Did slaves have free will? Luke, a Slave, v. Florida and crime at the command of the master’, Florida Historical Quarterly, 83, 241–57.
12 Morris, T. D. (1996), Southern Slavery and the Law 1619–1860. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.
13 http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm.
14 Global Slavery Index, https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/.
15 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract.
16 ‘Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage’, International Labour Office (ILO), Geneva, 2017.
17 Coontz, S. (2006), Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. London: Penguin.
18 http://wbl.worldbank.org/.
19 Zajonc, R. B. (1968), ‘Attitudinal effects of mere exposure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
20 Marriage and Divorce Statistics: Statistics explained, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/.
21 Foreman, A. (2014), ‘The heartbreaking history of divorce’, Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/heartbreaking-history-of-divorce-180949439/.
22 Jenkins, S. P. (2008), ‘Marital splits and income changes over the longer term’, Institute for Social and Economic Research, https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2008-07.pdf.
23 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-royal-liverpool-childrens-inquiry-report.
24 ‘Are our children now owned by the state?’ Nigel Farage discusses why Alfie’s life matters on The Ingraham Angle, http://video.foxnews.com/v/5777069250001/?#sp=show-clips.
25 Health Care Corporation of America v. Pittas, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1607095.html.
26 ‘24,771 dowry deaths reported in last 3 years’, Indian Express, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/24771-dowry-deaths-reported-in-last-3-years-govt/, retrieved 21 December 2016.
27 Stubborn Son Law Act of the General Court of Massachusetts in 1646: ‘If a man have a stubborn or rebellious son, of sufficient years and understanding, viz. sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father or the voic
e of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shall his Father and Mother being his natural parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court and testify unto them, that their son is stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement … such a son shall be put to death.’ States that followed were Connecticut (1650), Rhode Island (1668) and New Hampshire (1679).
28 Norenzayan, A., et al. (2016), ‘The cultural evolution of prosocial religions’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, E1, doi:10.1017/S0140525X14001356.
29 Pape, R. A. (2003), ‘The strategic logic of suicide terrorism’, American Political Science Review, 97, 343–61.
30 http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/interviews/trump-no-hitler-%E2%80%93he%E2%80%99s-mussolini-says-oxford-historian.
31 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006.
32 Stenner, K. and Haidt, J. (2018), ‘Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness’. In C. R. Sunstein, ed., Can It Happen Here? New York: HarperCollins.
33 Hetherington, M. and Suhay, E. (2011), ‘Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the war on terror’, American Journal of Political Science, 55, 546–60.
34 Adorno, T. W., et al. (1950), The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
35 Kakkara, H. and Sivanathana, N. (2017), ‘When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 6734–9.
36 Inglehart, R. F. (2018), Cultural Evolution: People’s Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.