On Living well: Convivalism, human happiness and Becoming-in-service
“[...] they think it a sign of a gentle and good soul for a man to dispense with his own advantage for the good of others, and that by this means a good man finds as much pleasure one way as he parts with another.”
(Thomas More, Utopia, loc. 90).
Around the planet, scholars, activists, artists and communities are exploring possibilities for more sustainable alternatives. One paradigm that have proved misleading are dominating ones on human happiness and what it means to live well, often tied to capital and materiality.
In the convivialist manifestos[i] the underlying idea of human happiness is not based on ownership, accumulation of wealth and status. The convivialist initiative, which emerged in the 2010s, attempted to identify common traits in such movements and hopefully, eventually, scaling up: “what they have in common is a quest for conviviality […] a mode of living together (con-viviere) that values human relationships and cooperation and enables us to challenge one another without resorting to mutual slaughter and in a way that ensures consideration for other and for nature”(2014, 25, emphasis original).[ii] The Second Convivialist Manifesto (2019) builds on the first by uniting thinkers from diverse backgrounds to propose a shared ethical framework. It pays closer attention to economic concerns, regulation on banks, fighting “the economy’s drift to rentierism and speculation” and “the prime categorical imperative to fight against hubris” ((2019, 34, emphasis original).
The convivialist manifestos reveal a way of thinking about happiness and living well that differs from dominating ones today: “there is no proven link between monetary and material wealth on the one hand and happiness and well-being on the other” (2014, 34). This is something it has in common with many other, non-dominant ideas of what makes for human happiness, including certain philosophical streams that have emerged from the African continent (thinking here specifically of those rooted in notions of Ubuntu and/or Ukama). Arguably, these streams, as well the convivialist conception of happiness, are buttressed by notions of happiness through obligation, grounded in contribution, of becoming-in-service.
Becoming-in-service
On these types of understandings, the sense of contributing to a group, and the wellbeing of that group, is the key factor. True happiness, and freedom, can only be accessed through its activator, or medium: responsibility and obligation. Such notions were echoed by Jean-Paul Satre, who essentially understood true freedom as relational, emerging from (social) obligation. Sartre understood human happiness as inseparable from freedom, which he famously described as an inescapable obligation rather than a privilege. Because humans are “condemned to be free,” happiness cannot come from fixed essences, external authorities, or predefined roles, but from taking full responsibility for one’s choices and their consequences. For Sartre, authentic happiness arises not from comfort or certainty, but from honestly assuming this burden of freedom and acting in good faith (Sartre, 1946/2007).
It makes sense when considering the human as a highly social animal, who has spent about 95-97% of its ca. 300 000 year long history in small hunter-gatherer groups and in caves, totally reliant on one another’s contributions and obligations to (perceivable) group. We can see it in toddlers, who, as soon as they have gathered their wits about them, strive to contribute to the group (usually the family) and its projects, through all means necessary, though sometimes misguided (sweeping the cat), deriving immense satisfaction from this.
A few extrapolations to the notion that the sense of contributing to a group as the key to living well: Sense of is an important preamble. Our human senses are limited. A UN-bureaucrat working all hours need not necessarily be feeling any sense of contentment, because the contribution she is making is not perceivable. On the other hand, she might feel a deep connection to the teleology of the organization and derive a great sense of purpose and becoming in service from her station and her work. However, in general for the happiness derived from becoming in service to be at its most charged, we need to be near other humans, in constant and continual contact with the group-entity in question, and its different levels. Even better than imagined community (Anderson 2016) is community. Thus, the simple phrase ‘sense of’ thus rules out the authoritarian streak and where Hollywood-sf usually takes us dystopic authoritarian regimes that rely in some version of a grand narrative (Lyotard 1984) of “we are all satisfied because we are serving the nation/people/grand vizier etc for the greater good of all” (and if you object we destroy you in disturbingly creative ways. Thinking here particularly of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Isaac Asimov’s Foundation-series (1942-1050), but these are just a few among many with this type of world set-up). Whatsmore, ‘group’ does not exclude nonhumans, ancestors past or future, or beings operating on other plains, in fact these are usually included. The sense of obligation, and the happiness that can be derived through contribution to the (often multidimensional, multispecies) remains the same, and is what matters most.
Alternatives to dominant paradigms
Second, “contributing to a group”, importantly, does not equate to wage labour. One might go so far as to claim that under the current global regime, the opposite is more likely to be the case.
Third, the becoming in service is perhaps misleading, Deleuzians might object. More accurately one might say that what I am trying to unpack here is a process of becoming in service, to others and a perceivable group. Being part of a process of making something that we believe will make things better for our group is what makes us happy. Anecdote: My uncle has been building/renovating a house on the village. He has been building on this house for the entirety of my existence, now 36 years. It seems likely that he will be continuing to renovate the house in the village until he passes on, perhaps afterwards as well. Whenever we meet, he brushes away questions about illness and politics: all he wants to talk about is his house in the village, the new drainage pipes, how me and the other cousins can all use it and enjoy when it’s done. The house in the village ad what it represents doesn’t just create a sense of meaning in the now, but is a continual source of happiness and identity through the promise of becoming-in-service.
One can discuss whether this expressed view of of living well and human happiness is useful or correct, the point is: it represents an alternative to the dominant paradigm on happiness underlying global and most local systems of living today, and it is only reachable through stretching the imagination further from what is now.
Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) society is not far from many of those in existence today in the real world. This is the real crux of tragedy in speculative fiction, it shows us how close we are, to making the better real. The building blocks are all here, in this world, now, nothing is missing, no new invention is coming, nor is it needed. We have all the technology needed, physical, spiritual and social, we have all the philosophy and tolerance and understanding to create life-supporting orders.
[i] The convivialist initiative, which emerged in the 2010s, attempted to identify common traits in such movements and hopefully, eventually, scaling up: “what they have in common is a quest for conviviality […] a mode of living together (con-viviere) that values human relationships and cooperation and enables us to challenge one another without resorting to mutual slaughter and in a way that ensures consideration for other and for nature”(2014, 25, emphasis original).In 2014 The Convivialist Manifesto was published (subtitled A Declaration of Interdependence), signed by sixty-four intellectuals from varied streams of the left. The aim was to “advance us as human beings in full awareness of the finiteness of natural resources and in a shared concern for the care of the world” (26). The manifesto lists a number of threats, of which the ecological are stated as most pressing, and a number of promises that the wealth, development and technology of our time carry. It outlines a “planetary philosophy on the art of living together”, resting on five core principles, including common” naturalness”, “sociality” and “humanity”. The Second Convivialist Manifesto (2019) builds on the first by uniting thinkers from diverse backgrounds to propose a shared ethical framework. It pays closer attention to economic concerns, regulation on banks, fighting “the economy’s drift to rentierism and speculation” and “the prime categorical imperative to fight against hubris” ((2019, 34, emphasis original).
[ii] In 2014 The Convivialist Manifesto was published (subtitled A Declaration of Interdependence), signed by sixty-four intellectuals from varied streams of the left. The aim was to “advance us as human beings in full awareness of the finiteness of natural resources and in a shared concern for the care of the world” (26). The manifesto lists a number of threats, of which the ecological are stated as most pressing, and a number of promises that the wealth, development and technology of our time carry. It outlines a “planetary philosophy on the art of living together”, resting on five core principles, including common” naturalness”, “sociality” and “humanity”.
