A Happy Society

A Happy Society
Francisco C. Castro

A “happy” society presupposes that we respect and revere each other. I can predict that the person in front of me respects and reveres me. He or she recognizes my “owness”. We are not “at war”, we are not using each other, we are not objects of each other’s desires, we are not rivals out to be simply practical and diplomatic. Respect and reverence are predictable. This marks societal “happiness”.

In a “happy” society we are not opaquely “alone” within each other’s desires and agenda. We do not have to first negotiate our moves with each other—worried that the other person will “pull a fast one” on me. We are not out to always guess what is the next move of someone else. We know that we will respect and revere each other. Social life is not lived on the basis of suspicion. This is a “happy” society.

To survive—and live in order to survive—is “way of life” wherein we have to suspect each other, wherein we first have to negotiate our dealings. It has become a moralizing way of life. If it marginalizes moral discourse, it has become moralizing. It has offered the dominance of a particular way of behaving. It has imposed norms of its own: Be “strong”, “fast”, “perfect”, “successful” and “sexy”. If you are not any of these, then stay in the margins.

Let us take an example. Let us talk about political life and governance. We can have all the beautiful laws passed. We can even assume that the laws are respected. Yet, politics and governance cannot move without the “morality” of its functionaries.

Now, political people and government officials have all the right to prefer their political interests over and above people’s interests. Persons in the government can prefer their partisan-institutional survival over and above their “love and concern for the poor”. There is no law prohibiting them from this mentality. No legal text will prohibit them from loving only their career and only themselves.

This is one reason why it is possible for a government administration to suspend from time to time its “moral ascendancy” for the sake of its institutional security.

Of course we can talk about morality today. But what morality are we referring to? Is it a traditional one marked by a certain religiosity? Can we still“agree” to respect and revere each other recognizing that none of us is omniscient? How do we situate moral discourse in our country today?