To Have or To Be?
Are you putting your happiness in the hands of nouns or verbs?
For whatever reason, several things in my life have decided to break recently: my iPhone and iPad, a small, but critical, part of my titanium bike frame, and a couple teeth. The broken things I have can be heaped on a pile of things I don’t have: sufficient money for my living expenses, legal and physical access to my children, and opportunities to do the work I’m trained to do. If I focus on all the broken crap I have and/or the things I don’t have —well, it can really bum me out. In order to avoid being really bummed, I’d do well to listen to psychoanalyst Erich Fromm and the wisdom espoused in his 1976 book, To Have or To Be.
It’s been a while since I read THOTB, but its premise is fairly straightforward. Fromm asks if happiness is defined by what we have —our bank balances, possessions, relationships, etc .—or who we are —our feelings, emotions, and states?
As the Buddha explained many years ago, placing trust in the things we have is a dubious proposition. As my examples attest, the stuff we have breaks, gets lost, erodes, and dies. This is another way of saying all “things” are impermanent. Therefore, tethering happiness to what we have is a setup for unhappiness, since the things we have invariably lose their charms or go away.
Another problem with “having” is that one never has enough. If having a small home provides a certain level of satisfaction, then it stands to reason that having a large home will provide a greater level of satisfaction. This process of accelerating acquisitiveness can be extended ad absurdum, and is often referred to as the “hedonic treadmill,” where acquisition begets greater levels of acquisition —bigger cars, more money, more relationships, etc.
Focusing on being as an agent for happiness is far more fruitful than having. Consider that people only focus on having because they think it’ll affect their being. One has a powerful car to be powerful. One has a big home to be respected. One has many friends to be loved. Using what we have to change how we are being is often referred to as Have, Do, Be: when I have X, I will do Y, and be Z. When I have a Rolex, I will impress others, and I will be a success. But the flaws in this formula are pretty obvious. What if the Rolex I buy doesn’t impress anyone or the people I want? What if I lose the Rolex? Will I still be successful with an unimpressive or lost Rolex? Probably not.
The opposite of Have, Do, Be —and a correlate to Fromm’s thesis —is Be, Do, Have: when I am being X, I will do Y, and have Z. For example, when I’m being loving, I will treat all people with kindness, and I will have friends. While this might seem like a backdoor way of having, it’s not. Because the formula starts with being, what follows is somewhat academic. The reward is the state of being —being loving, generous, honest, excellent, and so forth. If I am being grateful, I will appreciate the stuff I have, and I will have what I need.
Dear reader: if you enjoyed this post, please give it a like, share it to anyone you think might enjoy it, and subscribe to the newsletter if you are not already. Thanks!