That's a huge and unjustified assumption. They likely were exactly as unhappy as a comparable 'average' family today: they would envy their neighbours who owned a better horse, they would fight among themselves (a lot, and with real physical violence among family members), their children would run away and never return, their weakest elements would be bullied mercilessly, and so on and so forth.
Life could be absolutely hellish, even more so for people who did not fit their (fewer and stronger) expected roles.
> It was because they were grateful for what they had
Or rather they were thankful they survived to see another day. That's not happiness, that's just relief.
> and because of a supportive community who were just like them and were always there for them.
They were also ready to judge, gossip, discriminate, bully and cast away anyone who wouldn't fit the strict rules of very hypocritical and moralistic communities.
I can agree that modern consumerism is hardly a paradise, but the past was much worse and there is no reason to look back with rose-tinted glasses. The past was worse in every respect.
Yes, if you didn't fit the cultural mold, I have no doubt life would be very hard for you back then. Also I am by no means arguing that the past was in any way better to the present, just that it is quite possible to be happy without a lot of material wealth.
However, in regard to the probable happiness of the average 18th century family, I still think most research on happiness would disagree with you. People seem to have a default level of contentment that varies only temporarily when major positive or negative changes occur in their lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill This suggests that being thankful they survived to see another day, while grim by our standards, actually was real happiness.
Exceptions to this, that is, things that make lasting changes to one's happiness include:
* A supportive community of peers with whom you meet regularly
* Regular physical exertion
* Regular time for quiet reflection
* Marriage
* True and devout belief in a religion.
Our average 18th century family had all of these.
On the other hand, modern society has a greater capacity for a person to self-actualize and get into a path where they are able to regularly enter a state of flow, which is also shown to increase happiness. But this is only an increase capability, not the norm.
None of those elements are necessarily missing from "average" modern society, nor are they necessarily positive things (especially "true and devout belief" in a religion one would not get to choose -- in fact, most "devout" people were anything but, they just went along with it because society forced them to; "marriage" is also a weird one, to be honest, considering how unhappy it can be).
What they certainly had more than us, though, was the certainty that they would not get to choose when or how to interact with such elements. They were fundamentally resigned to a life of reaction, rather than conscious action, as it had been the case for millennia. Again, they were content or relieved at the best of times, rather than actually happy. It's an incredible achievement of the XIX and XX century that increasingly large numbers of people can decide what "pursuing happiness" actually means for themselves.
> None of those elements are necessarily missing from "average" modern society
It's not missing only as long as it is available as a choice, but what the parent meant was probably that the majority of people don't live like that anymore.
Last I checked, people in pretty much any country still get married and declare themselves religious in overwhelming majority. We don't have stats for physical activity (which is declining, yes, but for a majority? Probably not) and "quiet time".
That's a huge and unjustified assumption. They likely were exactly as unhappy as a comparable 'average' family today: they would envy their neighbours who owned a better horse, they would fight among themselves (a lot, and with real physical violence among family members), their children would run away and never return, their weakest elements would be bullied mercilessly, and so on and so forth.
Life could be absolutely hellish, even more so for people who did not fit their (fewer and stronger) expected roles.
> It was because they were grateful for what they had
Or rather they were thankful they survived to see another day. That's not happiness, that's just relief.
> and because of a supportive community who were just like them and were always there for them.
They were also ready to judge, gossip, discriminate, bully and cast away anyone who wouldn't fit the strict rules of very hypocritical and moralistic communities.
I can agree that modern consumerism is hardly a paradise, but the past was much worse and there is no reason to look back with rose-tinted glasses. The past was worse in every respect.