Once upon a time (well a couple of weeks ago) I was babysitting for my
niece and nephews which, come bed time, meant reading book after book (after
book) with four year old Evie. Snuggled up on her bunk, we read about all the
Disney princesses and it began to dawn on me how every book is geared towards
the princess finding her prince and living happily ever after. Oh how
marvellous to begin programming a child of four to seek romantic perfection in
her future. Even the beast, who one might assume represents the importance and
value of character over physical beauty turns out to be as handsome as
Christian Grey in the end. Lucky Belle.
Reading these
stories with grown up eyes - I saw them very differently from how I saw them as
a child. When you are very young you take things as they come. You don't
see underlying agendas or innuendo. Partly because you aren't looking for it
but mainly because you are more open to anything you are told. I realised this
when I again listened to Squeeze's Cool for Cats, a song played a great deal in
our house when I was young and when I actually listened to some of the words I
was rather surprised by what they were actually saying. I now don't even think
that girl has a dog. Shocked...
Today I read
an article by Fred Kofman and I
was reminded of a presentation I'd given recently about change. Kofman, author
of 'Conscious Business, how to build value through values', was asking if
happiness or truth was more important. I have, of late, been rather swayed by
the happiness epidemic (as I like to call it) which has been sweeping the
globe. Countries planning to measure gross national happiness as well as gross
national product seemed far-fetched when I initially read Justin Fox's Harvard
Business Review article The Economics of Well-Being. Yet
only last week I came across a company with a Director of Happiness. Could
there be a better job title?
With an air of
Alice in Wonderland, Kofman asks if you were given the choice of two
pills, blue is happiness and red is truth, which would
you pick? I bet most think happiness. Only when he gives
the description of a blissful life of happiness, no worries and protected with
no chance of coming to any harm does the concept of swallowing that blue pill
begin to sound somewhat dull. The alternative, the red pill, offers truth alone
and nothing else. Yet immediately I see it as being the unknown, the risky option
and the adventure. I thought about it for a little while and concluded that for
me, perhaps my own happiness actually comes from the risk, the unknown and the
adventure. Can't you have truth AND happiness?
The presentation I
mentioned earlier, had been all about Santa Clause and how important belief is
in changing behaviour and Kofman's article also related to Santa Clause.
My theory was that parents lie to their children for many years. Not even
a white lie but one where they have woven a web of lies to back up the first.
Presents are carefully wrapped and labelled from Santa. A carrot is left
half-eaten by Rudolph. The cookie crumbs and the empty milk glass are left by
Santa. Though I swear my father told me Santa had grown partial to whisky in the
latter years. Parents may well tell children that Santa Clause exists to
increase the magic and wonder of childhood however they also use it as
a mechanism for change, a control lever.
Children's
unwavering belief in the existence of Santa Clause ensures threats of
"Santa won't bring you any toys unless..." ring across the land in
the run up to Christmas. If the truth were to be uncovered too soon then the
value of Santa would be lost forever so it is preserved and protected for as
long as possible. The value in telling the lie can help to install better
behaviours which would lead to happiness (you would hope) and it is this that
is surely the desired outcome of the lie in the first place.
So is an untruth
justified if it leads to happiness? Can truth in itself never lead to
happiness? Surely installing good behaviours would be better if not based on
untruths.
I am not sure I am
a fan of fairy tales anymore. Perhaps it was simply an overdose of them with
Evie a couple of weeks ago but I have become very cynical about them.
Take Jack for example - of beanstalk fame. I couldn't help but grow
steadily horrified as I read it to her. I know you're wondering where I'm
going with this - do persevere...
Once upon a time,
presumably because they are financially stricken, Jack takes his Mother's only
cow to market to sell but on the way there he is offered a quick sale and being
the lazy boy he is, he agrees to swap it for a handful of beans. I can only
imagine they toned down the outrage she really expressed but nevertheless the
beans are unceremoniously tossed from the house and Jack is thoroughly
disgraced.
As you may be
familiar, the beans grow overnight into a beanstalk stretching far up into the
sky. Jack goes to investigate, finds a house owned by a giant and asks the
giants wife to give him something to eat. She is kind and generous so she feeds
him. Then when the giant comes home with all his Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum-ing she hides
Jack and assures the giant there is no boy in the house - how very kind of her.
However that night Jack steals a bag of gold coins from the house and takes
them home to his mother where they live comfortably for some time off of the
proceeds of his burglary.
Once they had
drained all the funds Jack went back up the beanstalk and a similar scenario
unfolds, again the kind hearted old lady feeds him and again that night he
steals from the elderly couple. This time it's the giant's golden hen who
miraculously lays golden eggs. Jack and his mother live well off of this stolen
property for some time but as often happens to boys like Jack, greed grew.
For a third time
he ventured up the beanstalk and that night was on his way out of the house
(3rd burglary please note) with a magical harp when it came to life and began
calling for its master to save it from being stolen. This time the giant woke
and chased Jack. The giant tried to chase him down the beanstalk but Jack got
to the bottom before him and chopped it down. The giant came crashing to the
ground and died.
The final line of
the book was "Jack and his mother were now very rich and they lived
happily ever after."
Now that I'm
reading it as an adult I am rather surprised. A kind hearted, elderly woman
takes pity on a poor boy, they show him charity and yet he thanks them by
stealing from them. His mother lives such a comfortable life on the proceeds of
these heinous burglaries that she doesn’t even try to discourage him from this
sordid life of crime. Then after the third theft the poor old man chases the
culprit, ends up dead and his widowed wife is left all alone.
Happily ever
after? I think I've decided I'll take truth over happiness any day. I
agree with Kofman - go on, live a little - take the red pill.
*Kofman, F. (2013) Happiness Is Not The Most Important Thing at Work. View here
Fox, J. T (2012). The Economics of Wellbeing. Harvard Business Review.
January-February 2012. p81-83 also available online:
View here