Ahmed And The Film Happy

Allison and I seem to have different interpretations of Ahmed’s criticism of the pursuit of happy object and the promise of happiness. Ahmed does not argue that all happy objects “inherently fails to fulfill the promise of happiness” (Wong, 1). The criticism of happy objects does not reside in the objects themselves but our relationships with them. The relationship that we tend to have with happy objects is a possessive one. We believe that the ownership and the preservation of the objects are what sustain our happiness, and we make our happiness contingent upon temporary, impermanent possessions. The idea of “possibility” is interpreted by me as a suggestion of the practice of detachment. Detachment does not mean being indifferent about or against happy
However, Ahmed and the film Happy are fundamentally addressing two contrasting aspects of happiness. The example of Manoj Singh is not intended to justify has low social status and the oppressive social hierarchy. While Ahmed focuses on the social ideals of happiness and how society influences individuals, Happy emphasizes how “intentional behaviors” can help individuals achieve happiness in spite of the unfavorable social inequalities. Ahmed’s vision that we ought to deconstruct existent social ideals will take a while to implement and may turn out to be fruitless. We can choose to live “unhappily” and push for political movements, but this is a privileged scenario too. The idea that we can fight for our own right to the pursuit of happiness is predicated on a politically stable, democratic country. For Manoj, a rickshaw driver living in a slum, he has limited education background and limited social mobility that can empower him to counter the social ideals. The film Happy helps us acknowledge our ability to make ourselves happy in spite of all the social expectations and even