SEMANTICALLY, THE WORDS FOR “HAPPINESS” IN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES TEND TO VARY BASED ON CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THEY CANNOT BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY. THE FRENCH WORD, “BONHEUR”, ONLY APPEARS IN THE 13TH CENTURY AND IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED AN EQUIVALENT OF THE ITALIAN “FELICITÀ”; HOWEVER, FRENCH ALSO HAS THE LITERAL TRANSLATION “FÉLICITÉ”. WHEN, IN NAPLES, THINKERS OF THE ILLUMINISMO DEBATED ABOUT “FELICITÀ”, THEY CONSIDERED IT TO BE A PUBLIC STATE: IT DIDN’T MEAN THE INDIVIDUAL PURSUIT OF PROSPERITY BUT THE PRINCE’S VIRTUE OF “BUON GOVERNO”. IT WAS, IN A WAY, A COLLECTIVE, EARTHLY BLISS. ONE CANNOT YET ACHIEVE SALVATION ALL ALONE. AS WE GO FROM ANTONIO GENOVESE’S NEAPOLITAN SCHOOL TO ADAM SMITH’S SCOTTISH SCHOOL, WE GO FROM PUBLIC FELICITY TO THE FELICITY OF THE PUBLIC. THE RISE OF HAPPINESS AS A “NEW IDEA” ACCOMPANIED THE RISE OF CAPITALIST IDEOLOGY AS THE BASIS OF AN INDIVIDUALISTIC SOCIETY. AS A RESULT, THE COMMON GOOD VANISHED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MORE GOOD, BUT ALSO BECAUSE NOTHING WAS COMMON ANYMORE. “BUON GOVERNO” SIMPLY BECAME “GOOD GOVERNANCE”. IN THE MODERN ERA, HAPPINESS IS ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH MONEY. AS ECONOMISTS LIKE TO SAY, MONEY IS “MINTED FREEDOM”, IT IS A TOOL TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING POSSIBLE IN AN INTEGRALLY MERCANTILE WORLD. THEREFORE, HAPPINESS MEANS EARNING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IN A MEGACAPITALISTIC WORLD, IN GLOBAL CAPITALISM, THIS IDEA IS DOMINANT; EVERYTHING LOCAL HAVING BEEN DESTROYED, IT IS LITERALLY MADE TRUE. THE GOOD LIFE HAS BECOME NOTHING MORE THAN THE GDP INDEX. BUT THEN, AFTER TWO CENTURIES OF GROWTH AND A COLOSSAL INCREASE IN PRODUCTION, WE SHOULD ALL BE IMMENSELY HAPPY. OBVIOUSLY, IT IS NOT THE CASE.

(FROM “DEGROWTH AND THE PARADOXES OF HAPPINESS” BY SERGE LATOUCHE)