**3. Findings and discussion of identified themes**

The data revealed eight inter-related themes that define happiness across the Fijian participants and which combine both individual and shared/collectivist factors. Together, they suggest the conception of happiness among this sample of (educated) Fijians appears to be a product of collectivist cultural and religious structures, individual goals and needs, and the practical environment, including housing and land systems, of the Pacific Island populations.

### **3.1 Theme 1: happiness is** *simple pleasures* **and having** *just enough*

At the center of this conceptualization is the value placed on reaching a stable state where basic needs have been met but not more (IFF3, CIF1, IFM2, PIF2, IFF4, PIM1, PIF1, PIM7). This stability of essential needs is evident in respondent statements such as: "*(in Hindi) there is this phrase where we talk about food, clothing, and housing so if we have all of that in the safest possible way then I think I'm quite happy*" (IFF3)*.* Happiness as fulfillment of basic needs was also reflected in a number of responses which identified finding happiness in simple, everyday events (IFM2, PIF1, PIM7, PIM1, IFF1), and acknowledging the experience of happiness simply in everyday existence. This is evident in respondent statements, such as, *"if everything is okay in my house, my garden is weeded, clean, I come to work every day without coming across any accidents, … when I go back home, we pray before dinner, have a good night's sleep, that's what to me happiness is all about"* (PIM7). In a separate response, "*if I think what made me happy throughout this day today…was it because I travelled back to Suva and was enjoying the view…the weather can make me happy… things like this*" (IFM2)*.* The celebration of being with family members in everyday settings was also indicated by respondents as a driver for happiness, "*I sat together with my elder brothers…you know we said stories of old, we had around a bowl of kava, we were sharing… experiences, it really made us all feel happy*" (PIM7).

Importantly, the respondents indicated an inherent belief that maintaining lifestyle basics and securing *just enough* to live by, would bring greater benefit than striving for more or making upward social comparisons. That is, several respondents made specific mention of happiness *not* being found in material wealth, ambition, or individual achievement (IFM4, IFM2, IFF2, PIM2, PIF3). Supporting this belief were respondent statements that included "*the reason why I'm happy (is) because I'm not over-ambitious.... If you are over-ambitious you are never happy with what you have. You just keep wanting more and more, and more…I'm happy (with) what I have*" (IFM4). From another respondent, "*I'm not against ambition and motivation but after a certain point you should be content with where you are. I've seen it with some of my friends and some colleagues because they start comparing themselves with others…they just want more and more to the stage where people have actually got a very good job with salary and benefits, and they still want control political(ly) or within a workforce..."* (PIM2). This is in specific contrast to that of Western cultural values (PIF6, PIF3). For example, in the view of a respondent who had experience within both Fijian and Western cultural settings, "*in America I was becoming very individualistic. I didn't understand (how) as a girl I could survive with one pair of shoes here and in America I had a closet full of shoes and I thought how did I get from there to here?"* (PIF6). From the responses, there is a sense that while some level of wealth and possessions could bring benefits, this would need to be balanced against the additional stress and a reduction in personal freedom that necessarily occurs from that lifestyle (IFM1, IFM2, IFF5). This seems to contrast the Western assumption that financial wealth should enable personal freedom. For the Fijian respondents, the wealth-freedom contradiction is a reflection of the distinction between urban and rural living. For example, the accumulated wealth from professional work (in urban centers) is used to pay for housing and food not in one's own control. This contrasts with the subsistence lifestyle of rural villages, living off the land and in self-built housing. This is described by one respondent: "*So in the sense that here you are free to generate your own resources without the rules and regulations that come with it. As opposed to being in the city you have every rule that you have to cope with in order to generate your wealth or resources*" (IFF5).

The emphasis on security and stability in meeting basic needs mirrors findings of Pflug [40] when comparing happiness beliefs across South African and German respondents. While the respondents generally followed collectivist (South African) or individualist (German) dimensions in their perspectives, the South Africans also "vigorously embraced" (p.560) material need satisfaction as the *pathway* from unhappiness to happiness and the "unequivocal means" (p.559) to well-being. Pflug [40] suggests this was due to the history of material scarcity particularly among black South Africans. Similarly, in a study by Maulana et al. [41] on Indonesian adults, the researchers found that the concept of happiness was equated to a state of "satisfaction" across 3 domains: basic needs (e.g. food, shelter and financial independence); social needs (e.g. maintaining good relationships with family and others); and positive world view. (e.g. acceptance and gratitude for where you are in life, spirituality). Interestingly, the multi-country study by Fave et al. [42] found the basis of happiness as satisfying physiological, survival needs was specifically emphasized in samples from Croatia and Mexico but not from other individualist or collectivist populations [42]. These findings suggest that the practical need to focus on basic survival in less economically-developed countries underpins both cognitive and emotional experiences such as central facets of worldview and appraisal of one's life, goals and motivations for maintaining well-being and the circumstances under which happiness is experienced.

From the research findings, there is a subtle but interesting distinction between the Fijian responses and findings from other collectivist, lower-income countries in the existing literature. The Fijian sample placed less emphasis on *survival* domains than comparative populations, despite somewhat similar economic context. The Fijian sample, while they were working individuals, were living within the context of a developing lower middle-income country with a history of political unrest. The respondents did endorse that living a stress-free life was tied to security in basic needs for their family and community. However, the emphasis for Fijians seemed to be as

### *Understanding Happiness in the Pacific Islands: A Qualitative Study with University Staff in Fiji DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106771*

a celebration in the *virtue* of living simply, an enjoyment of the basics rather than a sense of needing to survive. In comparison, basic needs in the Indonesian sample [41] referred to material necessities such as owning a vehicle and home. In Fiji, the same references to owning a home or land seemed to be important, not for their material necessity, but *because of* their link to the state of peace and a sense of belonging. That is, satisfying basic needs, such as food and a home, is a secondary cause of happiness through their symbolic value and connection to family and identity, and *that* is the primary cause of well-being for Fijians. Potentially, there is, therefore, a complex relationship between socio-economic context, practical needs and endorsement of peace and harmony, as central elements to happiness. That subjective well-being is not directly related to economic well-being was also asserted by Sotgiu et al. [43] in a study that compared happiness determinants in older Italian and Cuban adults. It may be that mediating factors at macro-societal level or cultural aspects of religious doctrine will mediate the impact of socio-economic status (SES) on the conceptualization of happiness.

### **3.2 Theme 2: happiness is** *calmness, contentment* **and** *contagious joy*

By placing the value of *just enough* at the center of the happiness concept, Fijian respondents experienced positive emotions with low intensity, as is also found in other collectivist populations. The emotion was described as one of stable state contentment and experiencing *calm* rather than excitement or pleasure. In essence, the respondents sought out and preferred the emotional experience of being stress-free over a state of excitement (PIF1, IFF2, CIF1, PIM5). According to one respondent, "*when I have a day off and I don't have anything on my schedule I find that inner peace, that inner happiness*" (CIF1) and in the words of another respondent, "*Cool it. Your joy has to be….cool, respectful*" (PIM5). The emphasis on low intensity emotions also applied to negative emotions such as anger: "*if I raise my voice, then I'm not speaking the Fijian language, you are speaking a foreign language!...(if) you start raising your voice and getting angry then my grandfather will say 'you are speaking as a foreigner!'*" (PIM5).

Happiness was also conceptualized as a cognitive state of contentment and peace, as opposed to just an emotional state (IFM5, PIF3, PIF5, PIM2). As indicated by one response, *"It's like basically being content with where you are, even though we have goals to achieve, but just being content with your current situation*" (IFM5). According to another, "*I think it's just a state of contentment…not necessarily an emotion because they come and go"* (PIF3). One respondent specifically differentiated the fleeting emotion of happiness with the longer-term state of joy, which they defined as contentment: "*… happiness is something that can go up and can go down depending on the situation…..we look at joy as something that should always be there…. It's like basically being content with where you are, even though we have goals to achieve, but just being content with your current situation*" (IFM4). Thus, happiness seems to be conceptualized as both, state-like and momentary as well as trait-like and stable.

The differentiation between a surface-level, happy emotion and a deeper, positive emotion defined by peace and contentment has certainly been reported in many, if not most, non-Western, collectivist cultures. For example, researchers have presented happiness as being "fragile" [44–46] as well as something to be discouraged in non-Western and Islamic-based cultures. In a review of this research, Joshanloo and Weijers [47] distinguish that in Arab and East Asian populations, extreme affective experiences are to be avoided and may even be overtly feared or handled with care [45, 46]. In alignment with these assertions were several respondent references

to experiencing both positive and negative emotions as "cool" and "calm". Perhaps reflecting the idea that high-arousal happiness is fragile, the Fijian respondents indicated that hedonic pleasure is acceptable to experience but does not represent true happiness. That is, they differentiated the emotion of "*happy"* which is viewed as superficial or even frivolous from "*joy*" which is the emotional experience of contentment (IFM4). Joshanloo [13] reports this is also evident within traditional Hindu texts, which is understandable given the Hindu background for Indo-Fijians in the sample. Yet, unlike in Arab or East Asian cultures [45], Fijians did not claim that intense happiness should be avoided because they feared it leads to something negative, but rather, intense excitement and happiness are not the path to well-being and satisfaction with life.

Although the Fijian respondents indicated a *preference* for low-arousal emotions they did also suggest that higher-arousal, contagious positive emotions are an important part of communal values (IFM2, IFF4, PIM3, PIM5). For example, the "*Bula Smile*" mentioned by some respondents is the genuine smile of warmth and hospitality shown by Fijians to each other, and to strangers. According to a respondent, "*generally you walk down the street, people will smile at you, people will talk to you, this doesn't happen overseas*" (IFF4). It seems that in Fiji, positive emotions produce visible facial expressions which carry positive emotional contagion and are therefore important for the sense of community (utilized within the tourism industry). This differs from happiness as a sense of contentment, which is essentially, an individual experience. Similarly, one respondent discussed the pleasure he felt when dancing ("*lose myself in dancing, just feel joy…",* PIM2), which is akin to the hedonic dimension of happiness that is less described in non-Western cultures. However, traditional dancing in Pacific-Fijian culture, known as the *Meke*, is another important collective activity that ties people together through shared hedonic pleasure. This interpretation is also reflected in Ruby et al. [19] where the role of high-arousal, positive emotions for building social harmony within non-Western Latin American cultures is discussed.
