There are two things that dominate this essay: happiness and wealth. The primary argument that McKiven is making is that for the last six decades (since the post-WWII economic boom) our country (and most of the world is catching on) has been seeking happiness through increasing it’s wealth. The question he ends up posing is whether or not wealth can create happiness, and though I think we all understand the basic assumption will be that “no it does not” McKibben goes into great detail about exactly why it is that wealth past a certain mark will not create happiness. Besides proving his point, there are certain other goals I will address that McKibben is attempting to achieve by convincing the reader that wealth and happiness are not necessarily dependent, and sometimes they are mutually exclusive.
McKibben makes the rhetorical move of putting the reader into a grouping of “us” at the very beginning: “They’ve built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith’s ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.” These lines do two things. First, they create an “us” for the readership. If you are reading this article you are likely one of the people that Smith’s philosophies have worked for. American, middle class, educated, a person with stuff. It is imperative that the reader identifies herself in this class because McKibben is making moves for the reader to see themselves as selfish and greedy, and as one of the causes for many of the problems this world is facing. Secondly, it establishes Smith as a relevant source, because what he said worked for YOU. McKibben from this point cannot completely disagree with the cited Smith, but for his argument he must show the reader that Smith’s ideas couldn’t predict the outcomes of his philosophies followed for such an extended period of time.
McKibben’s main points are stated at the very beginning: growth makes our lives worse, it isn’t making people wealthier, it is pushing the Earth’s physical limits (climate change and peak oil are given as examples) and his most important point that “growth no longer makes us happier.” Because of his first move identifying the reader as “one of us” he can now write from an us-central voice. By succeeding in this shift, McKibben manages to get the reader on his side through an appeal to credentials, i.e. ethos. By sharing in the same fate, we want to believe the solutions he offers. McKibben attempts to create an ethos that will include the left and right by citing both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as supporters of the viewpoint that “more is better.”
The first natural counter-argument to the argument that one could come up with is that wealth enables agency. The more money you have, the more possibility you have at choosing what type of life you will live, and therefore the more potential happiness you have. McKibben does anticipate this argument when he discusses how people have become more alienated now than ever. My favorite example is his use of the popular TV show Survivor, “No wonder the show that changed television more than any other in the past decade was Survivor, where the goal is to end up alone on the island, to manipulate and scheme until everyone is banished and leaves you by yourself with your money.” He goes on, with an even stronger argument, quoting a psychologist Barry Schwartz:
“’people who participate in religious communities are happier than those who are not.’ Which is striking, Schwartz adds, because social ties ‘actually decrease freedom of choice’—being a good friend involves sacrifice.”
And as he stated earlier in the piece “we have a surplus of individualism and a deficit of companionship, and so the second becomes more valuable.” So even if wealth does enable agency, it seems that this agency is based on individualism, which has nothing to do with happiness. The adds for a new movie have George Clooney stating “think of your happiest memories, are they ever by yourself?” So is McKibben arguing that happiness and agency are mutually exclusive? It seems that he is, but only to a certain point.
This is where the idea of a $10,000 annual income benchmark becomes very important. The number seems to come out of nowhere, but the important part of the message is that happiness requires a certain amount of wealth, but beyond that there is a property of diminishing returns (we have talked about this in class a few times). So whether or not one agrees with the actual number ($10,000 a year for me will cover rent, food and my phone…. but nothing else—including my education), there certainly is a number where money stops becoming as important as friends, family, and other non-essentials. Maslow already argued this years ago with his hierarchy of needs—where we can see that money can buy physiological needs (food, water, shelter) and most safety needs (security of health, property, employment) but definitely nothing higher than these two most base levels. As the Beatles said “money can’t buy me love.”
After reading this piece I think the final purpose is both to inform a reader, and spur her into action. It achieves this goal by creating a very strong identification bond where the reader feels like McKibben understands exactly what is going on in their world. His use of pathos ( it has forced us to become more thoroughly individualistic than we really want to be) and ethos (by creating the “us” voice used everywhere in the text) seem to be more important than his logos, but he uses logos in every argument as well, mostly by using credible sources to back up his claims and by finding examples that draw attention (the floor plans of new homes, the Survivor example). By creating an audience that should identify with him as a speaker, and it may even spur some into action. For me, it made me want to read more of his stuff, and also put off buying an iPod even longer (as I have never owned one because I know as soon as I buy one, I will have to buy a new one in a year, and then the new nano… etc etc).
0 comments:
Post a Comment