Abstract
It is often claimed that throughout our history, many Americans have believed that the “pursuit of happiness” is synonymous with the accumulation of stuff. This idea is alive and well in the minds of young college students. When prompted to discuss with me their visions of a happy and successful life after college, almost all of the freshmen I taught in a recent summer program rattled off a list of expensive gadgets, luxurious cars, and large boats that they expected to easily acquire soon after graduation. During such conversations, my students usually scoff at course readings that claim living for others might make for a happier life; what other kind of message did they expect to hear from a self-proclaimed admirer of the Buddha?
The Paradox of Generosity centers upon this tension between our visions of self-interested material success and the religious teachings of generosity that occasionally tempt our better angels. Although we are taught that lives of meaning are the product of largely individualistic pursuits, an extensive amount of survey data from Christian Smith’s Science of Generosity Initiative at the University of Notre Dame suggests that the reverse is true: Individuals who practice acts of generosity through financial giving, volunteering, and investing themselves emotionally in others live lives of well-being, whereas the ungenerous do not. Not only are individuals who consistently practice generosity usually happier than ungenerous people, but also they are healthier, live more socially connected lives, are less prone to depression, live lives with more purpose, and are more committed to personal growth. Alternatively, the authors argue a lack of generosity is empirically associated with lives of discontent, poorer health, more social isolation, and personal stagnation.
Smith and Davidson carefully walk the reader through other empirical research which confirms that lives of well-being cause the practice of generosity and that generous practices cause an improved quality of life in those who consistently give of themselves. Despite the causal loop between one’s quality of life and the generous acts they perform, the authors find that most Americans choose not to consistently practice generosity, opting for the supposed comfort of cultural individualism. Indeed, most Americans do not routinely give money, volunteer for causes of which they are passionate about, or regularly practice acts of neighborly generosity.
To investigate this trend, the authors move from impressive survey data into detailed qualitative interviews of ungenerous individuals. Far from uncompassionate, ungenerous Americans, across economic backgrounds, displayed lives of existential anxiety and clung to notions of self-preservation in the face of the unexpected. Coupled with the pressures of individualism, ungenerous Americans routinely understood practices of generosity as a low priority. Alternatively, Smith and Davidson found that generous individuals experience less existential anxiety and preoccupation with self-preservation because they tend to view their lives as full of abundance without an overriding need to seek more from the world.
Although the text’s claims are sweeping, the authors maintain that living a life of generosity is not a magical panacea that will solve all of life’s conventional problems; the generous and ungenerous Americans included within the survey data represent a variety of income levels and exhibit a range of physical and mental health issues. Yet, a distinctive attribute of generous Americans seems to be the positive way in which they approach the difficulties of everyday life. Generous Americans tend to “take their hardships in stride, believing that life is good and still worth living, beautiful and meaningful” (p. 223).
The Paradox of Generosity is a valuable addition to the fields of sociology, psychology, and economics, all of which have experienced an increase in research and publications on the practical implications of positive psychology and prosocial behavior for wider public audiences. Smith and Davidson’s detailed profiles of generous and ungenerous Americans add considerable depth to our understandings of the relationship between our quality of life and our relatedness to others. Such accounts help the reader identify with the implications of the survey data by focusing on the real life stories of people who struggle or succeed in living generous lives. As a result, it becomes easier for readers to reflect on their own practices of generosity, or lack thereof.
Despite the strengths of the case study approach throughout the majority of the text, the weakness of book lies in its first chapter, where the foundation of the survey data is laid and its statistical analyses are explored. As the positive relationship between generosity and well-being was discussed, the authors attempted to introduce the concepts of correlation, variable control, statistical significance, and multivariate analysis with accessible prose for the general reader, but ultimately fall short. Unfortunately, if the reader is not generous with her patience when working through this important chapter, frustration may win out and the larger significance of the authors’ findings may be missed.
Such a result would be a shame. The point of the text is not to inundate readers with statistical jargon, but to push the reader toward questioning a “culture that consistently celebrates the pursuit of freedom for the individual” (p. 226) by considering the potential long-term benefits of living for others instead of the self. The wisdom of living generously continues to linger within the world’s religious and philosophical traditions, and the diligent research of Smith and Davidson infuses these teachings with empirical vigor. The authors successfully complete the task of presenting the reader with unquestionable evidence in favor of living a life of generosity. And much like the philosophical traditions that inspired their research, Smith and Davidson purposefully challenge their audience to rally against domineering narratives of individualism to foster a collective culture of generous hearts. In the spirit of living generously, we should take their challenge seriously by first sharing the wisdom of this text with others.