I’m not good
at book reviews. A good reviewer should
finish the book, cogitate upon the full extent of the thesis being argued, and
then write about the complete book.
But I can’t finish
a book before beginning my cogitation. I
come across a chapter, a paragraph, or even a single idea that captures my
attention and I want to write about it and to expand upon it. And if there are no chapters, paragraphs, or
ideas that capture my attention, then I may never finish the book.
Perhaps this
book review deficiency is a character flaw.
But I don’t care. I like being
excited by ideas. And I like sharing
that excitement. And if that means that
I share my thoughts about a thought-provoking land use book at a half-dozen
different times and places, I’ll live with that. I’d rather have enthusiasm than good form.
Earlier in
the history of this blog, I wrote book reviews about entire books. “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, “The Power Broker”, “Wrestling with Moses”, “Pocket Neighborhoods”, and “The Geography of Nowhere”. I think all were perfectly competent book
reviews, but none had the passion of taking a single element from a “Walkable
City”, such as pedestrian interest, and expounding upon it. So that’s how I’ll write about books from
here onward.
And that’s
how I’ll write about “Happy City” by Charles Montgomery. I first introduced “Happy City” a little more than
a month ago. Since then, I’ve read and
reread much of it. Today, I want to
focus on a single argument that Montgomery makes particularly well and that’s
key to the thesis that he puts forth.
Montgomery
argues that our ideas of happiness are understandable from an evolutionary
perspective, but nonetheless flawed in our contemporary world, undermining our
happiness, our financial wealth, and even the health of our planet.
As
Montgomery writes, there was an evolutionary benefit to acquisition. The hunter who wasn’t happy with killing a
saber-toothed tiger, but instead continued to hunt for a mastodon, was more
likely to survive and to procreate. Even
if the hunter was goaded into further hunting by watching a nearby hunter stalk
a mastodon, the evolutionary advantage was still secured. So we’re born with “keeping up with the Jones”
hard-wired into us.
That
hard-wiring presents itself as the sense that we’ll be “happy” with the next
big acquisition, whether it’s a new luxury car or a bigger suburban house. But the first problem is that our perception
of happiness, to the extent that happiness is based on material possessions, is
affected by what others around us possess.
So if we move into a new upscale neighborhood, thinking that we’ll be
happy, all we’ve done is to put ourselves among people who own more things than
we do, moving the threshold of “happiness” further away.
And so we
chase better cars and bigger homes all the way to the urban fringe and beyond, pursuing
a phantom dream.
Even worse,
not only do we not find happiness in suburbia, we often find the reverse. Personal happiness correlates adversely with length
of commute. And the children that we
think will benefit from bigger bedrooms and backyards often find suburbia
boring, turning to alcohol, drugs, and law-breaking for excitement.
A prevalent
school of political thought is based on the concept of the “invisible hand” as
first suggested by philosopher John Locke. The argument is that our world is best served
if we all seek our individual well-being, with the collective result
representing the best possible set of rules.
The problem is that we, in our rush to suburbia, have been making poor
decision regarding our happiness. And if
we can’t make good individual decisions, then the “invisible hand” is clumsy
and ineffective. Perhaps we can even say
that it’s slapping us upside the head.
To add two
final layers of misery to our false path, we struggle to maintain the
infrastructure needed to maintain our far-flung world, putting further stress
on our personal and government finances.
And the energy needed to sustain our sprawling places adds momentum to
the growing spectre of climate change.
Our obsolete
evolutionary path to happiness has led us to a perfect storm of discontent and
pending despair.
Is it possible
to turn around on the path?
Perhaps. Certainly some communities
and countries have shown paths to happiness that aren’t based on unbridled acquisition. It’s where Montgomery goes next in “Happy
City”. And it’s where I’ll be following him
in future posts.
Perhaps I’ll
never provide a single, comprehensive review of “Happy City”. But I can say unequivocally that it’s an
important book which is worthy of your attention.
Schedule Note
If the above
subject intrigues or excites you, you should participate in Petaluma Urban
Chat.
As
previously noted, Urban Chat will get together this week. We’ll meet at the Aqus Café at 2nd and H
Streets in Petaluma on Tuesday, April 8.
We’ll convene for conversation at 5:30, with the discussion beginning at
5:45. The first five chapters of “Happy
City” will be our topic of discussion.
Even if you
haven’t yet read the book, you should find the conversation engaging. Hopefully sufficiently engaging that you’ll
find
a copy of the book and
read along.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment