Conjubilant and Confelicitous

In lastweek’s blog I proposed that the English language needed an antonym for the word schadenfreude. The Pali language from 2,500 years ago had a word meaning to delight in the happiness of another person. That word is muditā. However, I stated, the English language did not and suggested that English needs to find one.

Since that post I have had a couple of conversations with friends about this lack in the English language. Those conversations came up with a couple of candidates to fill the gap.

The first is the word conjubilant, which was suggested by one friend. As we know, to be jubilant is to be happy, joyful, or pleased. Jubilation is often expressed openly. Adding the prefix con attaches the meaning of with to the adjective jubilant. Thus, we get a word that means to be happy with, or joyful together.

Then, we did a search and discovered that the word conjubilant already exists in the English language. It entered the English language in the 17^th century and reached its peak usage (albeit limited) in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Today, it is considered a rare and archaic word.

Conjubilant though, does not quite encompass the meaning of delighting in the happiness of another (or others.) It means to be joyful with others, perhaps in celebration of a common success or triumph, rather than being joyful for others.

The other word came through a more intensive search. We discovered (or, more accurately, re-discovered) the word confelicity. This word more accurately describes the feeling of pleasure in someone else’s joy or happiness.

As with the previous word, confelicity is also rarely used and has faded into disuse. Confelicity was coined during the (European) Enlightenment by scholars keen to derive an antonym to the word schadenfreude. If the history and experience of living in Enlightenment times is recalled, it is understandable why scholars and others would seek such a word.

However, confelicity remained embedded within the vocabulary of high-status and academic circles. It did not enter common parlance and has rarely to this day done so.

We could help it do so.

The words we use both describe the world about us as well as shaping our understanding of the world. The best-known formulation of this idea is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, named after two early 20^th century linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.

The hypothesis recognises that some concepts in one culture do not exist in another. One of the reasons for this may be that the concept does not have a word that names it. The hypothesis suggests that if a language does not have a word for a particular concept then the concept will, at best, be poorly defined, and, at worst, remain unrecognised. The most famous example of this is that of the Inuit language with more than 100 words for “snow” as the linguist Whorf (of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis fame) announced.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has two forms, a strong form and a weak form. The strong form submits that language determines thought and therefore our perception of the world. The weak form says that language influences thought. Modern linguistic scholarship accepts the weak form, with the strong form having fallen out of favour since World War 2.

Because words influence the way in which we perceive the world and ourselves, we could use words in a more thoughtful, considered, and encouraging manner.

Let us consider the two words, schadenfreude and confelicity.

Schadenfreude has increased tenfold in usage in the last forty years. In contrast, confelicity has hardly registered in usage.

When we look around the world we can see instances of schadenfreude most everywhere we look. We see it politically, we see it economically, we see it in our education systems, we can sometimes even see it in our health and welfare systems.

Confelicity, on the other hand, is not so often witnessed.

Might that be because we do not use the word?

As the famous aphorism goes: if you don’t use it, you lose it.

If we don’t use the word, we lose not just the word, we lose the concept it describes.

Let’s start using the word confelicity.

Let’s start being confelicitous.

English Needs An Antonym For Schadenfreude

In the mid-1800s the English language adopted the German word schadenfreude. In German schadenfreude means damage-joy. Dictionaries define it as malicious joy in witnessing the misfortune of others.

During the first century after adoption the word hardly entered common parlance. It began to be used more often from the mid-20^th century onward and by the mid-1980s was being used once in every 100 million words used.

However, since then its use has skyrocketed to being used once in every ten million words by 2020. A massive tenfold upsurge in less than forty years!

Prior to schadenfreude English had the word gloat from the 16^th century. Originally it meant to look at furtively and has a common root with the familiar glower. Parallel with the use of schadenfreude, gloat has also become more frequently used since the 1980s, having quadrupled in use in the same forty years.

What does this say about our culture? Are we becoming further and further disconnected from one another to the extent that we talk more often about finding joy in someone else’s lack of joy?

The words we use have an influence upon our worldview and our cultural psyche, and vice versa. Hence, a word such as schadenfreude both describes our worldview and shapes it at the same time.

Certainly, when we look around, and listen to some of the conversations around us, we hear examples of this often. The game of “us” versus “them” is frequently played out. Racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice play this game. One of the prizes in this game is when the “us” team defeats the “them” team and “we” are able to gloat over the misfortune of “them.” That is schadenfreude.

An Antonym

Does English have an antonym to schadenfreude?

It appears not. English has words that come close to the meaning of being unhappy at someone else’s misfortune: e.g. sympathy, pity, compassion. But English does not have a specific word meaning to be happy at someone else’s happiness, joy, or good fortune.

Other languages do. The Pali language, for example, has the word muditā, meaning the joyfulness that comes from delighting in the joy of others. The word is used in Hindu texts that are at least two thousand years old, and was used by the Buddha even earlier.

Muditā has been in use in the Pali language, and others in India and surrounding areas, for well over two millennia. It has made a significant contribution to the worldview of cultures in that part of the world.

English, and German, it would seem have not been influenced by any similar words.

It’s time we found one.

An attempt was made by a commune in the Haight-Ashbury neighbourhood of San Francisco in the early 1980s. The Kerista Commune was an intentional grouping of people who believed in and practiced polyamory. In an effort to reject sentiments such as jealousy and envy the commune members fashioned the word compersion, from the French word compère (partner) and the English suffix sion. The meaning attributed to the word however was limited. It signified the happiness one felt for the happiness of a partner. Compersion was not extended to others outside the polyamorous community.

So, the English language is still looking for a word that means to take delight in the joy, happiness, or good fortune of others, whether of one’s immediate grouping or outside that grouping.

At a time when we English speakers are using words associated with finding joy in others discomfort more frequently, the search for an antonym for schadenfreude and gloat is vital.

The other approach we could use is to regularly appreciate, applaud, and find joy in the happiness of others. Out of such a milieu an antonym for schadenfreude might emerge.

Being Weird Is No Excuse

At a personal level there are signs that many of us are showing signs of disconnection from our own selves. There are many historical and psychological origins of this disconnection. Amongst these are: lack of community, individualism (especially toxic individualism), a flawed understanding of our basic nature, and identification with an isolated, autonomous, self.

When these are combined in a toxic cauldron it is easy to understand how we have come to be tragically disconnected from our own selves. The psychohistorian, Jay Gonen, notes that many suffering from this disconnection respond with the ‘hyper-vigilance of the haunted, the alert scanning of the insecure, and the continuous suspiciousness of the vulnerable.’¹ Could a better description of disconnection be spoken? The sadness of this condition is that the disconnection is primarily culturally induced, not the natural condition of humanity.

Moreover, extrapolating the worldviews, belief systems, and behaviours of those of us of a European heritage onto the rest of humanity is untenable, inappropriate, and leads to erroneous conclusions. Much of our so-called knowledge of human psychology and behaviour patterns come to us via studies in the behavioural science fields.

Yet, the majority of these studies are inherently flawed and biased. It is only recently that researchers in the behavioural sciences have thought to question the potential bias in these studies. Researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia did just that only as recently as 2010.² What they found is staggering, although probably not surprising. They found that in an analysis of the top journals in six sub-disciplines of psychology between 2003-2007 ‘…a full 96% of subjects were from Western industrialised countries, specifically North America, Europe, Australia, and Israel.’ Staggeringly, this analysis revealed that, ‘…a randomly selected American undergraduate is more than 4,000 times more likely to be a research participant than is a randomly selected person from outside the West.’

When these researchers compared the results of these westernised and Eurocentric studies with those from other parts of the world they were led to conclude that westernised, Eurocentric culture is weird. In fact, they were so stunned by this conclusion that they coined the acronym WEIRD as a label – Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic. It is an apt tag, as weird also identifies those of us from these cultures as outliers, statistically speaking, in the expanse of humanity as a whole. In the Abstract to this research the authors warn that, ‘Overall, these empirical patterns suggest that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity.’

The writer, political theorist, and researcher, Sarah Stein Lubrano was interviewed by Rachel Donald (creator of the podcast Planet: Critical) early in 2024.³ Lubrano cited the research mentioned above and took the next step. It’s ‘a weird fascination of our weird culture that we think the self is there and it’s the best and most likely explanation for human behaviour.’ Whereas, she went on, ‘…people in other cultures do not think this and that suggests that our sense of self is largely culturally constructed.’

Where does this leave our understanding of human psychology and behaviour? Certainly, we have to conclude that our (weird) ideas of humanity as a whole are flawed and may even be of little use. Where too, does this leave those of us who do trace our heritage in this (weird) way?

Somewhere along our ancestral path we began to disconnect from our selves, and we are continuing to suffer the consequences. Ominously, if Sarah Stein Lubrano is correct, then our Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic sense of self is suspect and at variance with most of the rest of the world. Certainly, our weird construction of the self differs significantly from that of indigenous and nature-based cultures. Some self-appraisal and self-assessment would seem to be in order for those of us living in Western, Eurocentric cultures.

Any self-reflection of this sort must surely begin with a rejection of our notions of inherent evil, ill-will, nastiness, brutality, and selfishness at the heart of all humanity. Such notions are blatant errors.

Holding onto this falsity has saturated our culture with an enormous array of mental health issues, social behavioural problems, and sociological harms. The Hungarian-Canadian physician, researcher, and writer, Gabor Maté, has devoted an entire 500-page book to this topic. The Myth of Normal,⁴ according to Maté, is that ‘…what passes for normal in our society is neither healthy nor natural, and that to meet modern society’s criteria for normality is, in many ways, to conform to requirements that are profoundly abnormal in regard to our Nature-given needs – which is to say, unhealthy and harmful on the physiological, mental, and even spiritual levels.’ (emphasis in the original)

Writing almost 100 years before Maté, Sigmund Freud noted this same abnormality. Although Freud also subscribed to a base nastiness in humans, he did recognise that 1) it is civilisation itself, not the individual psyche, that disrupts the true nature of people, and 2) the social ills of the world are symptoms of this. Distressingly, Freud noted that, given the first two observations, ‘the psychoanalytic approach, or any individualised approach to psychological healing, may in the larger scheme of things offer no more than superficial relief.’⁵

No doubt this, and our weirdness, is why the Jungian psychologist James Hillman and the novelist Michael Ventura were able to provocatively title their co-authored book We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse.

Notes:

1. Cited in Shepard, Paul. Nature and Madness

2. Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, The Weirdest People in the World? Working Paper 139, University of British Columbia, 2010

3. Planet:Critical, interview with Sarah Stein Lubrano, The Cognitive Dissonance Crisis, Feb 1, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPBzHLjgw4

4. Gabor Maté with Daniel Maté, The Myth of Normal, 2022

5. Cited in Chellis Glendinning, My Name is Chellis & I’m in Recovery from Western Civilisation. p 66

Mind Your Ps and Cs

Amongst all the conversations and papers relating to environmental and social collapse we will come across some P terms: problem, predicament, and (wicked) problem being the most prominent. As well as collapse itself, we will also come across some other C terms: complicated, complex, and chaos to name the most common.

Let us try to sort these out. What does each term mean, and how are they similar or different from each other.

Beginning with the Ps:

A Problem can be thought of as a difficulty or puzzle that has a solution. This does not imply that the solution is always obvious.

Problems normally have clearly defined (although some may be ill-defined) components, parameters, and boundaries. The links between these are also usually able to be defined and enumerated. Logic and reason can be applied to solving a problem.

(Wicked) Problems can be thought of similarly. The main difference however is that any solution is likely to create further problems. Solutions to wicked problems have a ripple effect. Sometimes the ripples can be unforeseen in advance. Thus, although the original problem may have been solved, the solution has left us with further (wicked) problems to contend with.

Predicaments are worse. A predicament has no solution. The word predicament is related to being able to make a prediction which seems to suggest that a solution is possible. However, somewhere in the 16^th century it took on the now familiar sense of predicating an unpleasant outcome. In that century it may have derived from the Middle English word lurken (or lorken) meaning to lie in wait, to remain hidden, and to ambush.

This Middle English etymology makes its present day meaning apparent. Predicaments lie in wait and hidden ready to ambush us. Just when we think we may have a solution, a predicament jumps out from its place of hiding and surprises us. Predicaments rob us of any thought of being able to solve anything. We are left stranded and bereft.

A predicament, however, may have an outcome. But that outcome is one that we cannot predict, cannot plan, and certainly cannot control. This is why the environmental and social collapse is referred to as a predicament.

Now for the Cs

If something is Complicated then it consists of many parts, often linked in linear, predictable ways. Each component can be recognised. An analogy could be an engine. An engine is a complicated piece of machinery, and all the parts interact in an intelligible and purposive manner. If the engine stops working, a mechanic can determine which part is at fault and thus make the engine run again.

A Complex system also has many parts, but unlike a complicated system, not all the parts are identifiable, and the links between them are immeasurable. A complex system is non-linear and is also self-organising. Being self-organising means that if one part of the system is interfered with then the rest of the system will attempt to redress the harm by altering other parts of the system. The changes made by this self-organisation are often unforeseen, unpredictable, and have consequences that may be unintended.

Chaos Theory is a branch of mathematics that attempts to analyse systems that are dynamic in nature. The most widely known aspect of Chaos Theory is the Butterfly Effect which is stated in various analogous ways. The most common is that Chaos Theory tells us that a butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo can cause a thunderstorm in the Amazon. This is known in the Chaos Theory jargon as ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’; a small change in initial conditions can have an enormous impact on the final outcome.

Implications

It is important to note that when we attempt to explain, and then intervene, in the environmental and social context of today we need to understand what sort of system we are dealing with.

The systems we face today are not simple complicated problems; they are not even complicated (wicked) problems.

The systems we face today are complex predicaments and are chaotic in nature.

Hence, we cannot solve our way out of this predicament. Furthermore, none of the individual problems that we might identify can be solved without, at the same time, causing other problems to arise.

Our thinking then must be systemic, rather than piecemeal. Homelessness, for example, cannot be solved by housing alone. Warfare cannot ceased simply by reducing the armaments. The environmental crisis cannot be solved by focussing exclusively on carbon emissions.

Even with a systems analysis, our interference in the complex system that is the Earth, may not result in the outcome we would choose.

That being the case, the best way we can approach the future is to learn (Radical) Acceptance. But that topic is for another blog.

Meantime, we can try to mind our Ps and Cs.

It’s Urgent: We’d Better Slow Down

Slow down enough to see the
simple beauty in a small leaf.

Things are getting urgent, aren’t they? The average global temperature is getting dangerously close to the 1.5 deg C limit signed in the Paris Agreement. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has shown just how unstable the world’s oil supply is. The divide in political polarisation is growing precariously wide. The Arms Race has not abated. Geopolitical tensions are on the up.

In our own personal spheres, levels of anxiety, depression, and isolation are rising. The mental health of people is deteriorating, sometimes at an alarming rate.

We’ve got to do something.

The train known as humanity is rushing headlong, and with great urgency, toward a precipice. For some members of the human race, the train they were on has already tipped into the chasm.

The urge to do something may be the very factor that impels us closer towards disaster.

The words urgent and urge contain within them the dubious assumptions leading towards the abyss. The Latin word from which the words originate – urgere – means to press hard, push forward, force, drive, compel…

Yet, it is this pushing forward, characterised imprudently as progress, which has been one of the major features driving us to this point.

Thus, urgent as it is, we must slow down.

That’s a contradiction, isn’t it? Surely, if it’s urgent, we have to hurry up and do something about it.

Contradiction – no. Paradox – yes.

Paradox is ubiquitous. Our own lives attest to it. We see paradox almost everywhere we look. At the macro level of the multi-level crises alluded to above it is no less prevalent.

Yet, we do not seem to be capable of recognising the paradox that we should be awake to.

Simply put: Everything is Urgent: We Must Slow Down.

When we examine the various crises, we can see that one of the drivers of most, if not all, these crises is speed. Getting somewhere quicker. Obtaining material objects at a faster and faster rate. Speeding here, speeding there. Rush to work, speed through the in-box, get things achieved quickly (there’s a deadline to be met – urgently!) Rush home, maybe pick up the kids from school on the way. Buy fast-food for dinner, or a pre-cooked meal that can be prepared quickly. Take the dog for a quick walk around the block. Switch through channels on the TV or surf the internet. Head to bed and turn on the alarm; no time to sleep-in. Do it all again. Faster, faster, faster.

At an industrial level the same patterns get repeated. Make more and more stuff, at a quicker, more efficient, speed so that more money can be accrued. Exploit the earth and extract so-called “resources” to get ahead of the opposition and position the company at the head of the pack. Pay no attention to “externalities” (such as the birdlife, water quality, air quality, or soil erosion), so long as the “fuel” for continuous growth of the economy is ever present.

What if we slowed down enough to recognise and acknowledge the beauty in the world? Slowing down we would notice more beauty, like the beauty in a small dying leaf as shown in the illustration accompanying this blogpiece. What if we slowed down enough to feel love and empathy for our human and non-human co-inhabitants of this planet? What if we slowed down enough to listen to our children? What if we slowed down enough to sit quietly with an elderly relative? What if we slowed down enough to feel the beat of our own heart?

If we did these things, would we continue to exploit, destroy, and degrade the natural world?

I somehow don’t think so.

We would probably also enjoy our lives a lot more.

We would probably also allow many others around the world to enjoy their lives a lot more also.

Slowing down would also slow down, and in same cases halt, the crises that surround us.

If this all sounds too much, perhaps start with just one day a week. Make one day a Slow Day.

Kaitiakitanga – A Beautiful Word

Kaitiakitanga has recently been named the most beautiful word in the world according to Babbel, the subscription-based language learning app. Babbel, a German company founded in 2007, has sold more than 25 million subscriptions since its inception.

The company analysed online discussions and came up with 223 words from 75 languages. Babbel then asked an international panel of linguists, authors, and cultural experts to rank these words. The panel used four criteria for ranking the words: sound, meaning, rarity, and cultural significance.

The word kaitiakitanga topped the list.

Kaitiakitanga is a Māori word in the language of the indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Its meaning can be summarised as guardianship and protection. It is particularly associated with guardianship and protection of the environment and natural places, although it also has a wider compass. The word is closely associated with the Māori worldview of people and nature being one and the same. People are not simply part of nature, people are nature. Māori recognise various natural features (e.g. rivers, lakes, mountains) as being the embodiment of ancestors. Such features are living entities, they are not resources, assets, or possessions. Kaitiakitanga then, indicates a responsibility to protect, nourish, and heal natural places.

The Babbel language expert, Estaban Touma Portilla, noted that the word resonated with those experiencing the effects of climate change and that the repeated sounds within the word brought to mind ‘our planet, its natural cycles, and our place within them.’

Although the idea of a competition between words is a bizarre one, the word kaitiakitanga, and many of the other top-ranking words offer a space for reflection on what is important in the world.

The top 15 words all evoke feelings and meanings that resonate with deep human yearnings. None of them speak in mechanistic, economic, or managerial terms indicating control, manipulation, exploitation, or extraction.

As examples, here are four of the other words that made the top 15.

• Iriy (Ukrainian) meaning a mythical, warm place where souls and birds migrate for winter.
• Ubuntu (Zulu) meaning ‘I am because you are.’ It indicates the relationship we all have with each other, and that I am only who I am because of everyone and everything else.
• Hiraeth (Welsh) meaning a deep, bittersweet, longing for a lost, or never-truly-known home or time.
• Yakamoz (Turkish) referring to the silvery shimmer of moonlight on water.

All of these are words arouse, and remind us of, our true nature and yearnings. They all echo the underlying concept of kaitiakitanga – viz., that humans are part and parcel of nature, we are not separate from nature.

We all have a responsibility and the honour to be guardians of this planet. These words, and many others, remind us of this.

Sacred Revolt (a Review)

I began writing this weekly blog over fourteen years ago. In that time more than 60 book reviews have been posted. Never before have I reviewed a single academic paper, although many have been referred to. This review, however, is of an academic paper. I am reviewing it because I think it is one of the most important contributions to the discourse about the poly-crisis (aka, multi-crisis, ecological-social collapse) and/or sustainability issues.

The author, Sam Alexander, Ph.D., is the Director of the Simplicity Institute and lecturer in Environmental Programs at the University of Melbourne in Australia.

The full title of the paper is Sacred Revolt: Why Reverence Before Restraint Transforms the Limits-To-Growth Predicament. The paper was published just one week ago, on 8 July 2026. At the end of this review is a link to the paper where it can be downloaded. I strongly suggest reading the entire paper.

The Review

As the full title alludes, the current ecological crisis is often framed in terms of limits, how we keep within them (if at all) and thus become sustainable. Framed in this way, the questions that are asked are of the nature what do we do? These types of questions often comprise technological and mechanical answers on the one hand. Or, the answers suggest restraint, limitation, and self-control.

Neither answer satisfies Sam Alexander. We are failing with both approaches he claims. We need to ask an entirely different sort of question. We need to ask, he states, ‘How might humanity learn once again to love the world enough to not destroy it?’

A simple sounding question, isn’t it? Deepening the question poses more questions and a variety of answers.

Much of the literature in this field offer technological/mechanistic answers to the question, what do we do? A smaller section of the literature present critiques of these answers.

An even smaller segment of the library suggests kerbing consumption and the growth imperative.

Both these approaches are failing Alexander tells us.

The restraint approach fails because it does not adequately address the psychological and spiritual underpinnings of modernity. Modernity constructs and reinforces a strong worldview in its subjects (us humans) that coerces us into believing that our purpose can be found in continued progress, a success orientation, and an eternal future hope of betterment. Our self-identity, modernity tells us, is wrapped up in more; more possessions, more money, more power, and ultimately, more growth.

Against this, the restraint message comes across as limitation and having to give up something. Rather than restraint, our psyche receives the message as deprivation and scarcity.

Psychologically then, the message of restraint gets interpreted as a denial of our human destiny, whether we understand this consciously or not.

So, what does Sam Alexander prescribe?

Prior to submitting a prescription, Alexander notes that modernity has desacralized the world. Alexander is not advocating a religious revival here. He makes his position clear. ‘A desacralized world is not merely a world without gods. It is a world emptied of wonder, awe, and intrinsic significance.’

Sam Alexander reminds us of psychotherapist Erich Fromm’s classic 1976 book To Have or to Be? in which Fromm declares that modernity promises happiness and freedom via material possessions and a domination over nature. This is the have mode. The Be mode, on the other hand, he posits as more fulfilling.

To Be is to partake in the world in a reverential manner. Furthermore, as Alexander notes, ‘reverence deepens rather than expands.’

He elaborates on this by explaining that ‘The ecological question cannot ultimately be separated from the question of what human beings consider sacred.’

This leads Alexander to offer the phrase Sacred Revolt, which he describes as ‘a cultural and existential rebellion against the reduction of existence to commodity, utility, and exchange-value.’

A sacred revolution then results in sufficiency becoming not just necessary, but beautiful.

How many of us are willing to hear this calling and become Sacred Revolutionaries?

This paper is only 12 A4 pages long, so can be read easily in a short amount of time. Implementing its invitation may take a little longer. The paper can be found at this link:

https://samuelalexander.info/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Sacred-Revolt-Samuel-Alexander-1.pdf