If Goodreads allowed half stars, I might have given this 3 1/2, but my annoyance at the primary author's positions on certain issues makes me perfectly content to give this a middling grade. But first, a note...
So many reviewers (whom I doubt even read the book, given their comments) panned the book because of Oprah's involvement. (They also foolishly said that because Oprah is wealthy, she couldn't possibly know what it's like to have life troubles or need help building a life. The woman famously grew up in poverty and suffered childhood abuse; that aside, money doesn't prevent unhappiness, it just eliminates the problems on the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs!) Harrumph.
If you're trying to decide whether to read this book, Oprah's involvement should neither dissuade you nor compel you. Her name on the cover is mere marketing; she writes about four 3-4 page introductions to sections of the book; her content is nothing more than wraparounds. This is all Arthur C. Brooks, like it or not.
Technically, Brooks' writing skills are superb; there are no grammar or syntax errors, and his writing flows smoothly, through it, and he, is a bit dry. I neither laughed nor cried while reading this book; it never reached me on an emotional level, and never made me feel compelled, when putting the book down, to pick it back up.
The subtitle of the book is "The Art and Science of Getting Happier" and the book certainly leans on the science, so if the prefrontal cortex isn't your idea of a good time, you may be bored. Brooks' column in the Atlantic has the same tone — calm, research-based, and methodical — but largely unmemorable. While Brooks does use some anecdotes, they aren't particularly memorable. The book would have benefitted from some stories that made the concepts come alive.
The material, which is split fairly evenly between the science of "happiness" research (really, mental well-being research) and the teachings of philosophers (particularly the Roman Stoics), is almost uniformly apt. If you want a by-the-books instruction manual for the things that science says will help you build a more fulfilling life, this book is more than adequate, though you'd be far more entertained, captivated, and likely to put the ideas into action if you took Professor Laurie Santos' free, online Yale course, The Science of Happiness.
The book begins with a brief biography of the author's mother-in-law, who led a difficult life, particularly early on, and found meaning taking control of her perception of it. OK, valid. Next, Brooks sets the stage to explain that happiness is not the goal; rather, it's the byproduct of designing a fulfilling life, and requires three factors: enjoyment (not merely pleasure, but communion and consciousness), satisfaction (such as when overcoming an obstacle), and purpose. Having read Victor Frankl last year, I found the latter particularly resonant. However, Brooks offers no guidance on how to build a life of purpose, or how to identify one's purpose.
If you are an actual grownup, not merely an adult, but someone who understands that life is about the rich context and not just the high notes, this early introduction feels a bit facile. It's all true, and if you're a novice to self-reflection, useful. But I was waiting for the real show to begin.
The second section of the book talks about managing one's emotions, and I thought it was the best part of the book. Brooks talks about:
*using metacognition (thinking about your thoughts, and feelings, and not just accepting instinctual thoughts and feelings as facts)
*choosing a better emotion (overcoming negativity bias, leaning into gratitude, finding humor, choosing hope, and the difficult road of turning empathy into a more mutually nurturing compassion)
*turning your attention outward, toward others, rather than focusing solely on one's own experiences (and thoughts about what others might be thinking of you) — this is one place where he takes a small and interesting turn in the science by helping apply research about the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and how it applies to social anxiety and fear of exclusion
*avoiding envy
There's nothing flawed in his explanations of these areas, and I think for anyone inexperienced in the concepts, this would be an excellent review. If Brooks had expanded on these issues, I likely would have enjoyed the book much more. Yes, it was heavy on science and philosophy, but certainly written in a way that anyone could understand, and the application to one's life, though perhaps not very step-by-step, was obvious.
The second half of the book, frankly, annoyed me. This third, larger section, focused on the ways to design and adjust four areas of your life: family, friendships, work, and spirituality. And in all four cases, Brooks' comes across as the wealthy CIS white male that he is. He's not arrogant or self-aggrandizing; he just comes across as largely unaware of life experiences beyond his sort of ivory tower, white glove experience of it.
In the family section, in addition to not choosing spouses based on heat and desire (duh) but complementarity, he talks about the challenges of conflict, negativity, and forgiveness, Brooks pushes again and again for the idea that we shouldn't separate ourselves from family "merely" because of things like politics, values, and "attachment to opinions." He focuses on this again on the section with interaction with friends.
Only someone with so much privilege could think that it could be anything but unhealthy to have to interact with people whose politics support racism and misogyny and turn a blind eye to violence against women, people of color, and other marginalized folks. When you lead a cushy life, "politics" may be just like having a favorite ball team, I guess, but for the rest of us, "politics" is an expression of one's values as a human being, and can be used against us socially, economically, and even physically. His pooh-poohing of the letting political or ethical conflicts separating you from so-called friends and family so bothered me that each time it came up, I had to put the book down and walk away.
His take on work was a saving grace in this section, though I don't think most people have the opportunity, let alone the ability, to invest themselves in their work such that "work is love made visible." I understand the concept, and yes, finding work that gives you an opportunity for "earned success" and service to others to fulfill yourself, and finding the kind of career path (linear, steady-state, transitory, or spiral) to get and keep you passionate, are wise, if abstract without any guidance for how to have the childhood, education, geographic positioning, and financial wherewithal to achieve it.
The overarching concept of putting yourself into your work with love is philosophically sound. (Yesterday, I saw a TikTok with a child at DisneyWorld asking one of the maintenance men for his autograph as if he were one of the costumed characters. The kindness this man showed the child, and the reverence he had for the work he did in service to such families, is heartwarming.) But Brooks lack of realism focuses on the obligation of the worker to the work and the recipients of the work. At no point does Brooks caution the reader not to suffer the toxic abuse of a company or boss; at no time does Brooks encourage the (for building the life you want), treating yourself with respect and not allowing others to trample your boundaries or your mental health.
Rounding out the section is Brooks' warning not to use work as an addiction to avoid painful emotions and not to build your identity based on your professional existence. While still annoyed at him from the prior section, Brooks' approach to work brought me back to the table, if not back to his side.
But then he lost me in his "Find Your Amazing Grace" chapter. While he acknowledges that you don't have to convert to Catholicism as he did, he insists that adopting a metaphysical perspective on life is the path to happiness because it takes us out of our self-focus. Well, yes, but so does having a dog or volunteering for a cause. When he says that faith makes us kinder and more generous toward others, all I could think was that this is only true in the abstract and individual approach, but just a look at the unkindness and violence done, in this country and around the world, in the name of religion, made his lack of acknowledgement of this make everything that followed hollow.
Brooks does note that "writing about faith is tricky," but then he uses specious social science research to claim that being religions makes you happier, less prone to depression, and healthier, ignoring how much pain and illness has been caused by so-called practitioners of faith and by people being expected to deny their own humanity to fit within the rubrics of a particular faith tradition. (I'm not going to argue that faith or religion, in and of itself, is good or bad, just that Brooks brings his narrow experience to bear in a way that I found really rankling because he claims to base his advice in research and philosophy, and then turns his back on hard science to pick and choose soft research that supports his personal experience).
The funny thing is, after pushing for faith and spirituality, what he actually ends up espousing isn't anything that requires faith or spirituality at all. He promotes meditation, mindfulness, spending time in nature, and limiting over-reliance on technology — all things that can be viewed from the perspective of good mental healthcare rather than "faith," which is, at best, a divisive topics, and at worst, destructive.
All said, this isn't a bad book, per se, but it could have been so much better because Brooks has the intellect to stretch beyond his personal limits. If you've never seen a therapist or taken Psych 101 or read a woman's magazine or self-care blog in the last few decades, there may be concepts for you to glean and incorporate in your life. (And he does use one of my favorite scientific tidbits that I often share, that Tylenol's action on the dACC helps relieve some of the pain of a broken heart.)
But there's nothing special here, and if you're a member of any marginalized group and have ever been caused real pain because a relative or friend supports the idea that you or people you love are less than (or don't deserve to live) because of race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, or physical or cognitive disability, you may find it offensive to be told that such are trivial matters not worth separating you from the people who think that way.
The writing is good but dry, and overall the research (both the actually scientific and the philosophical) is carefully sourced and explained (if occasionally misapplied). Brooks is educated and well-intentioned, but lacks an awareness or enlightenment beyond his experience. Read this if you must, with the caveats I've expressed, but augment your personal journey with books written by those with more varied life experiences and interpretations of the research.