Emily Esfahani Smith, was born in Switzerland, grew up in Montreal, and currently lives in Washington D.C. She is a Sufi Muslim and her religious tradition, which puts a high premium on meaningful human interactions, seems to have had the greatest influence in her study of meaning.

The big questions of philosophy are precisely what the author believes are no longer being studied. Questions such as “what is the meaning of existence?” or “How can I lead a meaningful life?” These are what her book is about, or simply put: what constitutes the good life. Contemporary philosophy as taught in universities is more concerned with instrumentality: the nature of consciousness or what might be called “critical thinking” skills for the job market.

The author references Dr. Martin Seligman as the founder of positive psychology who in 1998 “called upon his colleagues to investigate what makes life fulfilling and worth living….Though positive psychology was founded to study the good life more generally, it was the empirical research on happiness that blossomed and became the public face of the field.” However it was a dismal failure because “chasing happiness actually makes people unhappy.” As evidence she asks us to consider: would we want a happy life inside the Matrix; inside a tank were our neurons are constantly exposed to simulated (but indistinguishable from real) events that make us happy? Note that a life in front of a TV, cell phone, or computer or a drug induced comfortable numbness is a pretty close approximation. “The reason we recoil from the idea of life in the tank…is that the happiness we find there is empty and unearned. You may feel happy in the tank, but you have no real reason to be happy. You may feel good, but your life isn’t actually good….’There is more to life than feeling happy.’”

Modern research has in recent years developed a nuance (that was obvious to ancient philosophers): there is a big difference, even if there is a little overlap, between a happy life and a meaningful life. According to the researchers: “the pursuit of happiness was linked to selfish behavior—being a ‘taker’ rather than a ‘giver.’ Happiness without meaning…characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desires are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided. Leading a meaningful life…corresponded with being a ‘giver,’ and its defining feature was connecting and contributing to something beyond the self. Having more meaning in life was correlated with activities like buying presents for others, taking care of children, and even arguing….Because these activities require investing in something bigger, the meaningful life was linked to higher levels of worrying, stress, and anxiety than the happy life.”

So what constitutes meaning? The author begins by surveying countries and then a list of famous and not so famous people who wrote about what constitutes meaning for them. It seems that wealthier countries report being happier countries in surveys and poor countries have more meaning. Interestingly there was a strong correlation between happiness and suicide: the happier a country claimed to be then the higher the suicide rate. More precisely, it was lack of meaning that predicted suicide rates. It seems that modernity, despite its many benefits, somehow hinders meaning in our lives. So the most important philosophical and practical question for the author is: “how can people living in modern societies find fulfillment? If we do not bridge the chasm between living a meaningful life and living a modern life, our drift will continue to come at a major cost.”

For Tolstoy, meaning came from his faith in God. For Albert Camus, “adopting an attitude of defiance towards the absurd, which is precisely what Sisyphus does.” For Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, meaning comes from the time spent with one’s significant other. For Gandhi it was in the “‘Service of all that lives.’” For Madeleine L’Engle story telling was the source of meaning. Other answers from not so famous people include: “looking beyond personal interest,” one’s children, being part of the world, work and family, “sparks of love, compassion, and understanding in the checkout line.” There were others. “[S]ome themes that emerged again and again [were 1)] connecting to and bonding with other people in positive ways. [2)] They discussed finding something worthwhile to do with their time. [3)] They mention creating narratives that help them understand themselves and the world. [4)] They talk about mystical experiences of self-loss.” The author condenses this into “the four pillars of meaning: belonging, purpose, storytelling, and transcendence.”

The First Pillar of Meaning: Belonging

Belonging is the most important element in meaning. Giving and being understood, recognized, and affirmed are what generate feelings of belonging. Practically this means belonging requires 1) “relationships with others based on mutual care” and 2) “frequent pleasant interactions with other people.” Both relationships and interactions should best be open within a spectrum from intimate to stranger. This means that one has or is open to an intimate partner(s), friends, colleagues, acquaintances, and strangers with pleasant regular interactions and mutual care.

Close relationships are critical for living a meaningful life but a nuance in addition is the concept of a high quality connection: a “positive, short-term interaction[s] between two people….during a high quality connection, each person is tuned in to the other and both reciprocate positive regard and care. As a result, both people feel valued.” As such, we have an opportunity for a high quality connection with anyone. Presumably, the closer the relationship the more likely and the more frequently we can partake in a high quality connection.

The Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) is an example of a group that creates a strong sense of belonging in its members. Two things it does well are 1) encourage people to spend lots of time and effort in the community and 2) provide a set of principles of behaviour and value. Cults, of course, are the negative example of these techniques in creating a sense of belonging.

The evidence is growing that more and more people are starving for belonging. Even though we may be more connected on social media it is not nearly the same as belonging. Chronic loneliness is a health hazard that promotes suicide and some mental illness; and belonging really is the cure. Suicide is an interesting case: “people are more likely to kill themselves when they are alienated from their communities and free from the social constraints those communities impose on them.” Many of the factors or qualities that make a country wealthy such as higher education, individualism, fewer children per family and less religiosity are what take away or reduce meaning as belonging. This explains why poor countries which exhibit the opposite trend also tend to rank higher in terms of meaning. It is therefore very important in our digital and isolated society to re-learn many traditional forms of community.

“The search for meaning is not a solitary philosophical quest….and meaning is not something that we create within ourselves and for ourselves. Rather, meaning largely lies in others. Only through focusing on others do we build the pillar of belonging for both ourselves and for them. If we want to find meaning in our own lives, we have to begin by reaching out.”