The culture of litigation is among us. But, also, happiness.
In separate conversations, Lina Martínez, who has been a consultant on educational policies for the World Bank and the IDB; as well as Roberto Castellanos, a researcher on subjective well-being and democracy, offer an assessment of our states of happiness in the midst of all the cortisol-filled circumstances that accompany us.
To begin with, one of the most consistent findings in academic literature on this subject maintains that, when people feel satisfied with life, they become more involved in democratic and collective processes, and that ranges from going to vote to being part of participations. community. Therefore, happy and satisfied people participate in all possible spheres. But, our reality is different because we are very poor in terms of collective construction.
With the collaboration of Lina Martínez and Roberto Castellanos, who also serve as Director of POLIS (which advises governments and companies with evaluation systems for the well-being of individuals) and as Professor at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of the UNAM , respectively, this thesis is outlined:
First, happiness is the commercially used term, but academic theories actually like the term subjective well-being more, which refers to everything that improves the quality of life of individuals and is not necessarily related to money but rather to their relationships. affective; that is, the environment where you live, democracy, the possibility of participating in democratic processes and feeling free, and many more attributes that are associated with a good society.
Something else: subjective well-being becomes an indicator that can allow us to focus on development issues, even economic growth, that we might not be able to obtain otherwise.
However, today in the world there are a series of circumstances that in some way alter people’s levels of happiness or subjective well-being. Wars, violence, insecurity, political polarization…
Latin America is a particular case. Experts and literature on the subject usually speak of the “Latin American phenomenon,” which refers to the fact that, although their economies are far from being on par with developed ones, in terms of subjective well-being and especially in the frequency with which their inhabitants experience positive emotions (when they express high levels of satisfaction with life and feel that their life has purpose), the averages throughout the region are high, very similar to the rates in developed countries. That is, the majority of Latinos say they are happy despite the corruption, violence, crime and all the storms that surround them.
To achieve a clearer landing around the “Latin American phenomenon,” experts resort to a very simple exercise: when people are asked how happy they are, very few people think about the political system, the impacts they have had on his life the president’s decisions or even corruption; A good part of Latin happiness is explained by private phenomena and emotional relationships, particularly family ones. In this way, it can be determined that happiness gravitates in three rings: family, friends and community.
But, in this story there is bad news: the high levels of happiness that we have at a private level do not lead to collective projects. In short, we can exude love, compassion, and empathy in our most intimate spheres, but all that disappears when we open the door of our homes.
The high levels of subjective well-being found in Latin America are explained with what experts call ‘relational wealth’, translated into the strength of their closest relationships, but there is a dichotomy when that private well-being does not translate into collective processes.
“The Mexican case has very similar patterns to those of the rest of Latin America,” says Lina Martínez. “According to Inegi figures, levels of satisfaction with life are high. When Mexicans are asked how satisfied they are with life, on a scale of 0 to 10, the majority are at levels of 8-8.5, but they are also sensitive to factors such as elections, corruption or natural phenomena. ”.
What happens to the Mexicans? How can they be happy when they live, for example, one of the most violent stages? “I tend to think that Mexican society has become individualistic but, it also depends a lot on its closest ties,” complements Roberto Castellanos.
Under these environments, and although there are narratives that continue to feed polarization, there are steps to follow so that the construction of individualities allows us to build the collective.