Pupils to be taught how to be happy but
Can happiness really be taught?

Should the bible’s account of how the world was created be taught in science lessons? Will teaching children how to cook tackle the obesity epidemic? The content of the school curriculum has always been the subject of much debate, especially when it comes to how involved teaching should be in the moral, social, ethical, and the emotional upbringing of children. Last week it was reported that talks were underway between government ministers and Dr Martin Seligman, a pioneer of positive psychology, to decide whether happiness lessons should be part of the school curriculum. Around 1,500 11 year olds have already embarked on happiness courses as part of a pilot scheme run in 22 schools and this now looks set to be introduced nationally.

The idea we can teach people to be happy was pioneered by Dr Seligman in the 1990’s. He questioned why the study of psychology focused more on misery, illness, and suffering than looking at how to live a happy and contented life. Advocates of teaching happiness in the UK include; Lord Richard Layard from the London school of Economics who believes the central purpose of schools should be to teach the secrets of happiness, and Anthony Sheldon, headmaster of Wellington College, who in 2006 decided to timetable in lessons on how to be happy, challenge pessimistic thoughts and cope with the challenges of life.

Anthony Sheldon suggested that in order for students to be successful in life after school they need to be taught essential life skills. Leaving school with good qualifications, but without emotional intelligence means they still may not get on in life that well. He felt it was important to teach happiness at an age when the characters of pupils were still developing. He also suggested part of preparing students for life at University, is not only to prepare them for the academic work, but also enable them to cope with other possible aspects of university life such as loneliness, and rejection in love.

One of the main arguments against teaching happiness in schools is that it is the role of parents to give their children a positive outlook on life, and not teachers. The core purpose of education is to teach academic subjects. At a time when teachers are finding it a challenge to get children to engage in the core subjects, it is argued that happiness lessons will only serve as a distraction from the job of gaining a real education. Teachers are also not qualified to teach happiness. With teaching being one of the most stressful occupations, undertaking training would not only add to a teacher’s workload, it may also increase their sense of responsibility for the upbringing of children not their own.

Anthony Sheldon argues that if schools don’t teach happiness then they may not learn it anywhere else, and that education is actually about preparing young people for life in the fullest sense. He suggests we are turning children out into the world who don’t have a strong sense of identity. With mental health problems on the increase in the young, happiness lessons may be able to help children explore how to avoid and minimize negative emotions, and teach them how to deal with them when they do occur. He puts forward these lessons will help them learn more about themselves.

However Frank Furedi, who is a professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, suggests instead of helping to reduce mental health problems amongst the young, happiness lessons could actually increase the incidents of mental ill health. He argues that children are highly suggestible, and participating in emotional education encourages insular and inward thinking which may make them less likely to engage with the outside world. He argues that the rise of ‘psychobabble’ in the classroom has seen a corresponding rise in mental health problems, and more young people seeking professional support.

Seligman disagrees and points out that there is evidence suggesting that happiness classes can make people happier. This is backed up by research carried out by the University of California where one group of participants were encouraged to write down five things for which they were grateful for regularly. The people in the group who did this were happier and more optimistic than those in another group who didn’t. Psychologists at the University also found that these gratitude exercises did more than just lift the participant’s mood; they also improved the participant’s energy levels and physical health.

Happiness is however inherently subjective, which makes it practically impossible to define or measure. Attempts at defining happiness could suggest happiness was to do with optimism, pleasure, satisfaction with life, or purely the absence of sadness, but the list could go on. Whatever happiness is, it is not always constant, even the cheeriest of people can and do have low days. Due to its subjective nature it does seem like it would also be difficult to teach. What makes one person happy will not necessarily make another person happy and a single set of tools is unlikely to work for everyone. While one person may feel fulfilled and happy by tackling something they feel is a challenge, another person’s happiness could be improved by having a relaxing day, and doing nothing much at all.

Seligman recognizes that happiness is subjective and different things make different people happy, however after many years of researching his studies suggest there are three components of happiness universal to everyone. These are the amount of pleasure people pursue and feel from their activities, engagement; the depth of involvement with ones family friends, work etc, and the meaning people place on their lives. He believes you can raise your level of happiness by becoming more engaged in what you do, finding ways of making your life more meaningful, and savouring your experiences so you get more pleasure out of them.

Whether someone can learn from Seligman’s theories could also be determined by other factors that affect a person’s mood such as genetic make up, and/or social conditions. Some people are born with a sunnier disposition than others, and are able to cope with knock backs in life more effectively. This can be illustrated by people who have lost the use of limbs due to an accident still having an optimistic view of life, or people winning the lottery and finding they are still unhappy. Whatever a person’s genetic disposition, social conditions can also have a big impact on their happiness. Children having to deal with real problems at home, such as caring for an ill parent or witnessing domestic violence, may not be able to take on board lessons about how to be happy.

Seligman suggests happiness lessons will be able to help children regardless of their genes and social circumstances. He recognises the childhood experience of some is fraught and stressful while for others their upbringing is happy and secure. Pupils arrive at school with varying psychological, emotional and social experiences, and not dealing with these issues may indeed cause problems for pupils in later life. Seligman suggests happiness classes will teach students the skills they need to start overcoming these problems, address the issues and be better equipped to get on with life. Also having children with a range of experiences in the classes, means they can learn from each other.

This brief article has not even begun to scratch the surface of the study of positive psychology, but it does throw up a lot of questions such as: Can happiness actually be taught at all? Does focusing on our moods and feelings encourage insular thinking? And should it be the role of schools to teach happiness, or should the responsibility of imparting a positive outlook on life be left with families? With some schools struggling to provide a core education and with many teachers already overworked, I am not sure whether school is the place to teach happiness. However on a personal level, I don’t think it can do any harm when trying to improve ones mental health, to focus on what makes us happy, as opposed to what makes us sad, and this is something we can all explore further if we want to.

Extreme Bodies

Throughout history people have painted, pierced, tattooed, adorned and even reshaped their bodies. ‘Extreme Bodies’ is a series of articles (posted once a month) exploring the history of body modification. As the first two articles in the series discussed the traditional practice of female genital surgery and then foot binding in China, this month I thought it was probably time for a bit of light relief, with an exploration of the history of tattooing.

The history of Tattooing

The word tattoo comes from Tahitian word ‘tatu’ meaning to mark something. People have been marking their bodies with permanent designs for thousands of years, and it is quite remarkable how there doesn’t seem to be a corner of the earth that tattooing hasn’t reached. From marks of pride, to marks of shame, signs of religious belief, or membership of a group, declarations of love, or simply for adornment, the purposes and styles of tattoos have varied through history and from culture to culture. This article takes a brief look at some of the reasons put forward as to why people have taken to marking their bodies, followed by exploration of the distinctive tattoos of the Maori people.

Tattooing to illustrate social status
In the past, one of the reported similarities of tattoos from different cultures was that tattoos illustrated a person’s status, such as their position within a tribe. In Borneo, for example, it was traditional for women to be the tattooists, and they tattooed symbols of their skills and profession on their arms, which in turn would illustrate their status and marriageability. Similarly, they tattooed men with designs indicating their station in life and the tribe they belonged to. In some cultures tattooing was just reserved for the dominant figures in the community, and was supposed to signify their importance and power.

In other areas of the world tattoos seemed to have completely the opposite meaning, and demonstrated a lower social standing in society. Ancient Greeks and Romans commonly used tattooing as a punishment. Branding marks were tattooed on slaves, and convicts and gladiators would be tattooed on the face. It is also reported that in sixth century Japan, tattooing was used to identify criminals, and the symbols used would identify where they carried out their crimes. Tattooing was portrayed as one of the most severe forms of punishment.

Tattoos signifying membership of groups
Throughout history and across the diverse cultures that practised tattooing, designs identifying the bearer to a certain tribe are commonplace. Celtic tribes, Native Americans, Maori tribes, and tribes from Borneo, and the Polynesian Islands all had their own designs for tattoos. Tribal tattoos were of great importance to their members, who could read each others tattoos to reveal their origin, and the hierarchy of the person within the group.

Tattoos identifying people to a group has remained popular in modern culture. One example is gang tattoos, where members are tattooed with their gang’s symbol. The purpose of these tattoos would be to show their commitment to their gang, as well as the tattoos revealing the beliefs of the gang, such as if they are a racist group. They may also have tattoos done which could identify whether the bearer has been in jail or killed anyone.

Other examples of tattoos signifying membership of a group include biker tattoos, and religious tattoos which could be considered to identify people to a certain religious group.

Tattooing for health
In many cultures it was believed tattooing could help ward off illness. One common practice would be to tattoo a symbol of a god onto someone who was ill, to help them fight the illness. In ancient Egypt it is reported that women were tattooed on the leg to protect them from the dangers of childbirth. In 1991 a frozen body of Bronze Age man was discovered, which made the headlines all over the world. ‘Otzi the ice man’ (as he was named) had 57 tattooed marks on him including; a cross of his inside left knee, and straight lines positioned above his kidneys. Theorists have suggested these marks may have been tattooed for health reasons to possibly help treat arthritis.

Tattoos for protection and spiritual well-being
A recurring belief in many cultures was that certain tattoos could help with a safe passage to the after life. From the tribes in Borneo to the Sioux in North Dakota, tattoos have been seen as a passport to the world beyond, and in many cultures this was believed to have involved crossing a river to the land of the dead. Having the right tattoo was considered very important, as without it a person would not be recognised, and therefore be able to pass to the land of the spirits.

In other cultures, animals images and totems were tattooed to help people identify with the animal spirit, and to evoke their power to help with hunting and to ensure protection. In Polynesian culture it was believed having tattoos illustrated and increased the ‘mana’ (spiritual power) of the adorned, and enabled them to communicate more closely with the gods.

Even within Christianity, despite the marking of the body being prohibited in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19.28), crusaders going into battle would tattoo small crosses on their hands to ensure they got a Christian burial. Tattoos have long since been used as a symbol by people to express their identity and faith, and religious tattoos such as crosses, angels and doves are popular tattoos today.


Maori Tattoos
According to Maori legend, the art of tattooing started with a young man ‘Mataora’ who fell in love with a princess from the underworld called ‘Niwareka’. One day Mataora beat Niwareka and she fled to her father’s realm ‘Uetonga’. Wracked with guilt Mataora went to the underworld to find his love, and eventually managed to get to Uetonga with his face all muddy and dirty from his journey. Niwareka forgave him and before they returned to the human world, her father taught him the art of ‘Ta Moko’ (the process of tattooing).

Probably the most distinctive tattoos in the world are Maori tattoos. The tattoos are known as ‘moko’ and are an important part of Maori culture. Apart from slaves and commoners most Maori men were tattooed on the face, often with big spiral designs and curved shapes. Maori moko were unique as the process also involved making incisions into the skin, so that scars are formed. The tattoos were done using a bone chisel with a serrated or extremely sharp edge, which was then struck with a mallet. After grooves had been made in the skin, the chisel would be dipped in a sooty pigment such as a mixture of vegetables and dead caterpillars or burnt wood, and colouring would commence. Tattooing for men commenced at puberty and marked a young mans rite of passage. As a man went through life, any important milestones would be interpreted into a design and tattooed onto their bodies.

Ta Moko (the process of tattooing) was long and painful, and as battles occurred frequently there often wasn’t much time for healing. There were also strict rules to follow while the moko was healing, including absolutely no sexual intimacy, as well as not being able to eat any solid food. This meant that food needed to be liquidised and fed to them through a wooden funnel. Sometimes leaves from the native ‘Karuka’ tree were placed on the wounds to aid healing, and it was also believed that flute music and chanting poems would help alleviate the pain.

Facial moko were a great source of pride for men which they believed made them more attractive to women and fierce in battles. For women tattoos were not as elaborate, and having their lips outlined and coloured in with solid blue was considered very beautiful. For men their moko served as a sign of identity. Different areas of the face related to different aspects of their identity. For example; moko on the central forehead referred to their rank, moko on their cheek referred to what they did for work, and moko on each side of the face indicated their ancestry, one side from their mother’s side and the other from their father’s side.

It is suggested that the art of tattooing along with other Maori traditions, started to die out after the coming of European settlers

Since the 1990’s Maori traditions seem to be having a revival, and also spreading to the West, which has caused a lot of controversy. The bold patterns and symbols used in moko are very appealing to people wanting tattoos. However the messages contained within the moko are of great importance to the Maori, as they tell of the wearer’s value, genealogy and social standing. Copying these designs would be considered to be stealing a part of someone’s identity and therefore insulting to the Maori people. For anyone interested in having a Maori inspired tattoo it would be a good idea to search out a tattooist who is knowledgeable about these issues, and can design a tattoo without the symbolic ties.

More recent history
Whereas in the past tattoos were often associated with the higher classes within society, by the 1900’s they was losing their popularity and it could be said the popularity of tattooing crossed the classes, when tattooing became popular among sailors. It almost became a ritual for sailors to mark their visits to ports by getting drunk, laid and tattooed. This most probably contributed to the negative stigmatisation of people with tattoos that occurred from the 1940’s onwards. In the 1960’s rock stars such as Janis Joplin started getting tattoos, and these were seen as a political statement of their non conformity and rebellious streak. The perception of tattooing has certainly changed a lot over the years and is not now confined to people from certain classes or cultures, or to illustrate a person’s non conformity. Tattoos also generally don’t have the deep meanings, importance and symbolism they may have had in the past. Today an increasing number of people from all walks of life, from white collar professionals to middle aged mums, are choosing to get tattoos to express their individuality and ultimately decorate their bodies.