The question that haunts me regarding any theory of a satisfying life is: is happiness a path to be taken alone, or can we build a social compact that guarantees a more prosperous and promising future for all?
I understand and apply the topics we know: cultivating purpose, working less and experimenting more, strengthening positive relationships and maintaining healthy habits. My intent, however, goes beyond personal effort: I would like to imagine a collective path, capable of bringing benefit to as many people as possible.
This reflection was accentuated after the meeting “From solitude to connection: the relationships that give meaning to life”, with the specialist Renata Rivetti, at the very nice Janela, in Pinheiros. He suggested that in a fast-paced world there is an urgent need to slow down and connect. “It is impossible to be happy without presence, without deep connections, without purpose,” he said.
I completely agree with the essence of the message, but the question I ask touches the heart of the philosophical and sociological debate on well-being: what is more important, the individual path (personal effort) or the social structure (the conditions that society offers)?
The limit of the individual solution
Most discourses and theories on the “science of happiness” tend to focus on individual actions: Mindfulness, attention to the “little things” (the hug, the coffee) and the search for a personal purpose, regardless of external pressures.
This perspective dominates the discussion because it is the most practicable. It is easier and less threatening to offer tools for self-control and self-help than to propose structural reforms in society. For the anxious individual, the solution seems comfortably within reach.
The problem, highlighted by my experience as a parent of teenagers, is that this approach becomes a mere band-aid. If the social structure (capitalism, social media, performance culture) actively generates frustration, asking the individual to “slow down” while the system requires constant acceleration is essentially holding the victim responsible for the problem.
The contrast is clear: the wisdom of the elderly, who lived in a less illusory world, clashes with the ambition of 80% of young people for digital success/influence, resulting in a society divided between anxious and depressed people. If the majority is looking for a digital mirage, the cause is social, not purely individual.
The search for the social pact
My research, therefore, lies in a structural solution. A social pact that recognizes that full happiness is unattainable if the fundamental conditions of well-being (security, equity, mental health) are not available to the majority. This pact would have three pillars:
1. Wellbeing economics: Implement public policies that prioritize work-life balance, social security, and affordable mental health care over GDP growth, at any cost.
2. Digital regulation: Mitigate “digital traps”: the culture of comparison, the obsession with popularity and the imposition of unrealistic standards of success. This requires strong media literacy and the regulation of algorithms that promote addiction and social division.
3. Redefining success: Promote a cultural movement (led by media and educators) to restore the definition of happiness and success to the sphere of “being” (connection, authentic purpose, civic life) and not just “having” (influence, money).
A false dichotomy
I recognize that providing an absolute answer is simplistic. The healthiest and most sustainable solution is to combine the two approaches, canceling the false dichotomy:
● Individual action is the engine: if the person does not do the internal work of cultivating presence and connections, no social change will make him happy. Happiness remains, ultimately, an internal state.
● The social structure is the playing field: however, the individual cannot thrive if the playing field is toxic. The social contract must consist of the effort to remove systemic obstacles to happiness. The goal is not to “give” people happiness, but rather to provide the minimum conditions so that individual effort can, effectively, thrive.
In defense of reflection meetings, I reiterate: individual “formulas” are valid, but insufficient to combat the epidemic of anxiety and depression. The great wisdom that the “elder” can convey is not just about the value of good bonds, but about the need to fight for a world in which these bonds are not constantly sabotaged by digital and economic pressure. It is not enough to improve the individual, it is necessary to improve the system.
Source: Terra
Ben Stock is a lifestyle journalist and author at Gossipify. He writes about topics such as health, wellness, travel, food and home decor. He provides practical advice and inspiration to improve well-being, keeps readers up to date with latest lifestyle news and trends, known for his engaging writing style, in-depth analysis and unique perspectives.
