(We Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Freud’s foreshadowing thought that technological and scientific advancements in a given society are by no means conducive to happiness is even more relevant in the modern ‘age of information’ than it was during the time in which he lived.
By Ivan Cash - April, 2008
During his 83-year life that lasted until 1939, revolutionary neurologist and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud studied and addressed an abundance of groundbreaking ideas and beliefs in the field of psychology. Not one readily to be deterred, Freud was undaunted in challenging the conventional ways of thinking. His willingness to publish studies that were brazen at the time made him standout as a top German scholar and later earned him the title, “father of psychoanalysis.” One of the most intriguing components in Freud’s essay, Civilization and Its Discontents (1961), is the prophetic idea that civilized men are unsatisfied in life, despite the remarkable progression in science and technology that is unparalleled with times of old.
As a means of providing initial perspective on what he will later assert, Freud (1961) presents an adage that claims “our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up” (p. 38). By offering what he calls an “astonishing contention” (p. 38) on the relevance of society, and later contrasting this seemingly hostile perspective with that of his own, slightly more refined critique on modern civilization, Freud (1961) is attempting to present his work as being credible so that the reader does not aimlessly dismiss it as unfounded radicalism.
Freud’s (1961) claim starts off by addressing the “extraordinary advance[ments] in the natural sciences and in their technical application … during the last few generations” (p. 39). To signify the overwhelming importance of this assertion, Freud provides context for the extensive amount of time humanity has spent trying to surmount nature. He explains that man’s longing to conquer “space and time, this subjugation of the forces of nature” (1961, p. 39), has been present for over thousands of years. Freud specifically references the telephone, improvements in transportation, and medical advancements. In lieu of these tremendous accomplishments, Freud (1961) reiterates that they “[have] not increased the amount of pleasurable satisfaction which [people] may expect from life and has not made them feel happier” (p. 39).
Recognizing that such a bold declaration is in need of further explanation, Freud (1961) denounces the many modern luxuries of his time as ‘cheap enjoyment’ which he describes as the pleasure “obtained by putting a bare leg from under the bedclothes on a cold winter night and drawing it in again” (p. 40). Freud’s belief strongly aligns with the proverb, ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.’ He is concerned that civilizations’ obsession with advancement—be it for reasons of convenience or gratification—has reached such an extreme that society is now having to create needless, superficial conundrums in order to occupy the time necessary to come up with perceived solutions.
“If there had been no railway to conquer distances,” Freud (1961) describes, “my child would never have left his native town and I should need no telephone to hear his voice” (p. 40). Freud is referencing the values of simplicity, and, similar to Henry David Thoreau (1995, p. 24) who believed that “men have become the tools of their tools,” is depicting the struggle of modern civilization to find satisfaction.
Were he alive today, Freud would encounter a globalized world where, thanks predominately to computers and the internet, access to information is instant, communication transpires anywhere, anytime across the globe, and the forces of commercialism and consumerism are at large. I believe that Freud’s foreshadowing thought that technological and scientific advancements in a given society are by no means conducive to happiness or feelings of content is perhaps even more relevant in the modern ‘age of information’ than it was during the time in which he lived. I can personally relate to Freud’s disillusionment with civilization’s taking to cheap enjoyments, as my acquaintance with particularly the technological progressions is far from infrequent. From the first world, American culture in which I live, I have observed the strong emphasis that is placed on recreation, immediacy and convenience, and materialism and excess, despite the reality that these facets of life do not lend themselves to true happiness and are more of a distraction than a pleasure.
The most prevalent American pastime is watching television, which, according to A.C. Nielsen and Co., the average American does over four hours a day. With hundreds of channels and thousands of shows to choose from, a hardcore viewer is subject to falling victim of planning their day based on the television schedule rather than real life events. Even with this sort of attention, it is possible that they will be unfulfilled from missing a show they had wanted to watch. Accordingly so, the Journal of Economic Psychology (Frey, B. S. et al., 2006) found that excessive TV consumption results in lower life satisfaction. Freud would definitely consider the television to be a cheap entertainment, as watching TV is justifiably comparable to living in a reality apart from one’s own, and how can a person find individual satisfaction if they’re not even living in their own reality? While watching television, viewers can expect to encounter a number of advertisements, which is likely just a fraction of the roughly 3,000 ads the average American is exposed to daily.
Seeming to always be on the rise, consumerism, which Freud claimed, “will not make you happier” (Twitchell, 2001), is a notorious staple of the American way of life although it is conducive to nothing more than cheap enjoyment. Whether it means “pimping out one’s ride,” purchasing the latest iPod, or choosing between hundreds of sneaker styles, the effects of advanced technological means combined with the increase in excessive ideals is a facet of American society that Freud would find unacceptable. While generally perceived to be associated with happiness, the never-ending quest to possess a countless number of luxuries, or superfluous objects, mainly causes more distress than satisfaction (Twitchell, 2002). Since there is a virtually infinite quantity of commercial products, a consumer that gets wrapped up in a materialistic lifestyle will likely never be satisfied as there will always be bigger, brighter, and better goods available to purchase. Similarly, a study found that the excess of commercial products overwhelms consumers, leaving them “chronically on edge” (Begley, 2007).
Given America’s current state, Freud, who considered money a metaphorical stand-in for feces (repellent, hoarded, tightly controlled) (Senior, 2008), would surely disprove of the modern capitalist state of America. An example of a problem that has sprung up partly due to the vicious cycle of the technological and scientific advancements, and that Freud would find curious, is the rising popularity of products and services that cater to the sustainability / environmental movements. The irony is that much of the waste, and many of the environmental problems, has in fact been propelled by the excess of commercial goods (caused civilization’s technological and scientific advancements) themselves.
Another driving force for advancements in civilization is the high regard, which Americans place on convenience. The popularity of recent innovations such as rewindable television, microwavable meals, cruise control, and physically interactive videogames are indicative in portraying this sentiment. Freud would argue that all of these recent advancements are cheap entertainment, meant to improve on an already superfluous societal element. Freud would also condemn the common use of cell phones and the internet, as being on call every second of every day causes anxiety and is a distraction from the essential, true, sources of happiness. “Why call, text message, or e-mail someone when you can have a real, tangible, experience with them in person,” Freud would wonder.
While the productivity boom after World War II indeed made goods better and cheaper, and helped luxuries to become everyday necessities, Americans still say that they are no happier than they were in 1946 (which is when formal surveys of happiness started) (Surowiecki, 2005). Further support that the materialistic, fast pace of this information age is, like Freud predicted, causing more anxiety than satisfaction is evident in the unprecedented popularity of self-help books and anti-depressants. This makes it apparent that Freud’s idea that satisfaction cannot be simply obtained from cheap enjoyments such as scientific or technological advancements is still relevant today.
In contrast to this aforementioned way of life, however, Freud would be quite interested to find that there exists a group of Americans “who are imperturbably sunny” (Surowiecki, 2005). Despite their dismissal of modern technology such as the automobile, and the internet, the depression rates of the Amish are negligibly low and their happiness levels are consistently high (Surowiecki, 2005). This evidence suggests a question similar to what Freud discussed: “Is it possible that technology, instead of liberating us, is holding us back? Is technological progress merely a treadmill, and if so, would we be happier if we stepped off of it” (Surowiecki, 2005)?
The following folk-tale is common to many cultures in Asia and Africa (Seabrook, 2004), and does a terrific job of representing the simplistic undertones Freud is expressing when he warns us of cheap enjoyments, challenges the contention that civilization advancements lead to personal satisfaction, and indirectly endorses substantial, meaningful, and real life interactions and activities. After all, “what good to us is a long life,” Freud (1961) wonders, “if it is difficult and barren of joys, and if it is so full of misery that we can only welcome death as a deliverer” (p. 41)?
"A traveler observes a fisherman sleeping in the shade of a tree. He rouses the sleeping man and asks him why he isn't catching fish. "I already caught two fish for my family's evening meal." "If you had a bigger net and worked longer, you could catch ten fish," says the stranger. "But I only need two. What would I do with ten?" "You could sell them. Do the same every day until you have enough money to buy a boat." "Why would I do that?" "To catch even more fish. You could employ people, and send them out to catch more. You would grow rich." "What would I do with the money?" "You could enjoy yourself. You could relax, sit and enjoy yourself and go to sleep in the shade." "What am I doing now?" asks the fisherman."
References
Begley, Sharon. (2007). Why money doesn’t buy happiness. Newsweek. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/43884/page/1
Freud, Sigmund. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Frey, B. S., Benesch, C., & Stutzer, A. (2006). Does watching TV make us happy? Journal of Economic Psychology. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.wwz.unibas.ch/forum/volltexte/731.pdf
Seabrook, Jeremy. (2004). The No-Nonsense Guide to World Poverty. Verso.
Senior, Jennifer. (2008). Rich kid syndome. New York Magazine. Retrieved April, 29, 2008, from http://nymag.com/news/features/42595/
Surowiecki, James. (2005). Technology and happiness. Technology Review. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/14091/page1/
Thoreau, Henry D. (1995). Walden; Or, life in the woods. New York: Dover Publications.
Twitchell, B., James. (2001). A (mild) defense of luxury. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/nerr/rr2001/q4/luxury.htm
Twitchell, B., James. (2002). Needing the Unnecessary. Reason Magazine. Retrieved April 29, 2008, from http://www.reason.com/news/show/28513.html