**Abstract**

It is at the root of every man's craving to be happy and all man's actions are implicitly or explicitly motivated by the desire to be happy. Happiness denotes a state of 'feeling good' about oneself and being 'satisfied' with one's affairs, which usually promotes well-being. Often, it is an individual's state of emotion in perceiving and judging the events around him and it is influenced by various factors ranging from genetic to environmental factors. Interestingly, the concept of happiness is increasingly gaining attention in various fields of studies. However, most literature focuses on economic and social status to explain the causes of happiness as the state of mind. To further the findings on the influential variables on happiness, this work conceptually and theoretically investigates into socio-cultural factors in relation to man's disposition to happiness. Being a cultural study, it therefore examines the socio-cultural basis of happiness from African existential perspective with spotlight on Nigerian experience. In doing so, it highlights African specific factors that interact to determine the happiness of the people and proffers suggestions for promotion of happiness for general well-being.

**Keywords:** happiness, pleasure, virtue, well-being, social values, culture, Africa, Nigerian experience, existential perspective

## **1. Introduction**

Confronted with so many ugly events of life in the world of today across cultures, one may swiftly ask whether actually there is true feeling of happiness that endures. The outcome of this study responds to this question affirmatively. Emanating from socio-cultural dimension, it establishes that feeling of happiness is very essential for qualitative living. At the very heart of human existence lies the quest for happiness. In other words, every man directly or indirectly seeks to be happy. The study of happiness is in increasingly gaining enormous attention in the field of research from various disciplines across the globe. This is referred to as the science of happiness. Life itself is a complex phenomenon. Happiness that is a significant part of life is as well a multi-dimensional construct with philosophical, social, physical, emotional and behavioural components that is being championed by philosophers, theologians, psychologists and mental health practitioners. Most of the studies examine factors that promote subjective well-being and satisfaction of life based on accumulation of wealth and social recognitions.

This chapter adds up to establishing why people feel good despite all odds considering social contexts and cultural values from African lived experiences. It tries to present conceptual analyses and theoretical review of happiness as well as cultural values in relation to happiness with particular reference on African socio-cultural experiences. The findings will help to formulate policies and to create more effective interventions for promotion of human life and existence.

### **2. Conceptual analyses of happiness**

With the understanding that philosophy is the Mother of all sciences, the study of happiness was mainly a philosophical theme, until recently. It is central to Greek ethics. Although perceived sometimes differently, almost all Greek ethical theorists emphasize that man desires happiness above all else. It was chiefly seen in the works of epicureans (hedonism) and Aristotle (*eudaimonia*). The hedonistic view identifies happiness as an outcome of pleasurable state (physical or mental as the case may be), which explains how well the individual lives in entertaining pleasure and avoiding evil as was majorly the position of the Epicureans. On the other hand, the eudaimonic perspective argues that individual's happiness is more than just the achievement of personal desires explaining that not all desires can cause fulfilment and joy [1]. Aristotle, who was credibly known for his concern for man's good life and what constitutes his ultimate happiness, established that happiness is the essence, that is, the ultimate end of all human activities. According to him, 'everything that we choose, we choose for the sake of something else- except happiness which is an end [2]'. He denotes happiness with the Greek term *eudaimonia* which he explains to mean a good life. Some writers refer to eudaimonia as science of happiness. Aristotle identifies happiness with virtuous acts for he conceives it as not just a state but a continuous activity of man towards attainment of his perfect nature, which involves his whole life. This was further analysed to mean that 'the pursuit of happiness presupposes an inner drive of continuous striving towards good moral character [3]'. So understood, Aristotle maintains that happiness is man's good life outside which nothing else is desired, the aim and ultimate goal in life of all human actions and endeavours. Along this line of thought and based on the long-term period that characterizes happiness, Kesebir and Diener conceive it as a subjective well-being and feeling of satisfaction with one's activities in life [4].

Down the ages, the concept of happiness has been advanced and further conceived variously based on different contexts and foci of studies. Despite all definitions, it is generally perceived as a subjective experience characterized with feelings of wellbeing. It is usually understood as a positive feeling of the individual based on his appraisal of his environment and the events of life around him. This positive feeling of oneself and of one's environment is often referred to as subjective well-being. The concept of well-being has been an interesting research theme for philosophers, theologians, psychologists, and social and health workers. In psychology, happiness belongs to the umbrella concept of Psychological Well-Being (PWB), which is chiefly conceived as positive functioning of the individual [5, 6]. It was rationalized that happiness presupposes a certain psychological state. Against this background, the Aristotelian eudaimonic concept of happiness gained more popularity over that of epicurean (hedonic view) especially within psychological domain because it was widely accepted to have more enduring effects on psychological health. World Health Organization defines psychological health, which encapsulates happiness as 'a state

### *Socio-Cultural Basis of Happiness: African Existential Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107874*

of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community [7]'. Ryan and Deci who also understood happiness as an aspect of well-being defined it as 'experiencing high levels of affect and a high degree of satisfaction with life [8]'. Like Aristotle, they consider psychological well-being not as a final state of man but as a continuous journey of realizing individual's potentials and a balance between positive and negative effects in the search for meaning in life. Their understanding of it as a positive functioning and effective development of individual's abilities can well be equated with Aristotelian happiness as perfection of man's life through virtuous acts. Eventually, the emergency of positive psychology led to increased research on happiness for positive living.

### **3. Theoretical review of happiness**

### **3.1 Happiness (***eudaimonia***) as the basis of Greek ethics**

Happiness is a fundamental concept in Greek philosophy especially within the context of ethics where enquiries into man's good life are mainly carried out. With the investigations and analyses on man's constant quest for good life, most Greek philosophers endorse that happiness is the ultimate goal of human existence. On this, Pohlenz observes that 'Greek ethics is eudaimonic…and it is certainly true…eudaimonic is regularly regarded by the Greek as moral good [9]'. However, informed by different schools of thought, the understanding of the source and sustenance of the ultimate good (happiness) varies as can be seen subsequently. Based on the nature of this work which demands that many details be set aside, the review of happiness on Greek ethics will assume two major perspectives of eudaimonism and hedonism.

Eudaimonism is a Greek word that generally refers to well-being (happiness). However, Greek philosophers argue that achievement of well-being occurs in different ways. Hence, the eudaimonic and hedonistic concepts. Within this context, eudaimonic well-being relates happiness to striving towards meaning and sense of purpose in life. The eudaimonists hold that happiness is attained through human efforts by practice of virtues. Understandably, it is virtue-based (*arête*) happiness. On the other hand, hedonism associates happiness often with experiences of pleasure, comfort and self-gratification, which minimizes or even avoids pains. Hence, it is pleasure-based happiness.

### **3.2 Socrates, Plato and Aristotle on happiness (***eudaimonia***)**

The triad—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle may be collectively classified as eudaimonic philosophers based on the virtue-related happiness which they generally champion. That is, man's happiness is dependent on virtuous life motivated by sense of purpose and striving towards meaningful existence. This position is also shared by the stoics whose eudaimonic doctrine is traceable to Socrates. The stoics claim that man's major aim in life is to live a rational life according to human nature in conformity with his unique nature. Pohlenz noted that reason (logos) is a cardinal concept in the philosophy of happiness of the stoics [10]. Like Aristotle and Socrates, man's happiness is guided by reasonable actions.

They all submit that everyone desires happiness as the highest goal of all human activities. Therefore, happiness is central to human life. They consider the human soul as responsible for all the vital human activities and as such the bearer of virtues that lead to happiness. This position was further expanded and systematized in Aristotle's theory of soul-*De Anima* [11].

However, both Socrates and Plato underscore internal goods such as justice, wisdom, courage and self-control as qualities of the soul and sources of cognition and practical thoughts that avail moral goodness and happy life. They argue that happiness does not depend on external goods but on the right practice of virtues. Socrates in particular contends that happy life is not simply pleasure that flows from external good such as honour, fame, power, for they do not bring about excellence but virtue does and makes wealth and everything else good for man [12]. He then counsels that the soul should be cared for as the hub for moral goods. Aristotle acknowledges that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue as maintained by the duo but he contends that external goods too such as wealth, fame, honour, friendship, power, are necessary for attainment of happiness. Explaining how external goods have valuable contribution to happiness, he states:

*Nevertheless it seems clear that happiness needs the addition of external goods…for it is difficult if not impossible to do fine deeds without any resources. Many can only be done \*by the help of friends, or wealth, or political influence. There are also certain advantages such as good ancestry or good children, or personal beauty, the lack of which mars our felicity; for a man is scarcely happy if he is very ugly to look at, or of low birth, or solitary and childless; and presumably even less so if he had children or friends who are quite worthless, or if he had good ones who are now dead. So, as we said, happiness seems to require this sort of prosperity too; which is why some identify it with good fortune, although others identify it with virtue [13].*

Concerning the care of the soul for optimal functioning and happiness of the individual, Socrates counsels, 'You my friend- a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens- are you not ashamed of heaping up the greatest amount of money and honour and reputation and caring so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul which you never regard or heed at all [14]'. With the above, Plato insists that virtues which guarantee happiness are automatically acquired through the care of the soul. Against this background, he places the care of the soul above external goods. Inversely, Aristotle teaches that human soul is the form and actuality of the body of any living being in which case it gives it the capacity to function and sustain itself. Based on this vital principle, the soul does not have an independent existent so does the body. According to him, 'the soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some sort. For it is not a body, but it belongs to a body and for this reason, is present in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a sort [15]'. In this sense, the soul needs some external goods for its care and sustenance. Actually, the care of the soul has to do with the ethical dimension of man which involves practical reasoning. Both Socrates and Aristotle give the understanding that man is a rational being whose happiness lies in actions ruled by reason with clear understanding of his nature and place in the universe. Hence, Socrates claims that knowledge is virtue and practice of virtue brings about happiness. So also, Aristotle illustrates that right reason and right desire lead to virtuous acts and consequently to happiness. No wonder, the soul is closely linked to moral life of man. Human reason, which is part of the soul brings knowledge and rational wisdom that guide and regulate human life. Among all, Aristotle is credibly known to have propounded a more systematic theory of happiness as can be seen below.
