Exploration of wellbeing in positive psychology has generally taken two main directions – hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing – the first relating to the pursuit of pleasure, the second relating to attaining meaning in life (Graham & Nikolova, 2015; Kashdan et al., 2008; Lucas & Diener, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Schimmack, 2008; Steger, Frazier, & Kaler, 2008; Vitterso., 2013).

Eudaimonia is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness. Aristotle used the term in Nicomachean Ethics to refer to the positive feeling achieved from living a life of virtue. What constitutes a life of virtue, a purposeful or meaningful life is a broad subject area. The various themes explored in eudaimonic theories of wellbeing include autonomy, achievement of mastery and competence, selective choice of life goals based on growth, self-awareness and accepting responsibility for one’s actions, and positive relationships (Lambert, Passmore & Holder, 2015).

Psychology has emerged out of certain traditions of thought and philosophy, but as it spreads across the globe, awareness of cultural variations has improved in the discipline’s theory and application.

From a cross-cultural perspective, wellbeing is often discussed in terms of differences between individualist and collectivist cultures or East and West, although this distinction is considered by some to be outmoded, particularly in the context of globalisation (Hermans & Kempen, 1998).

The main differences considered between individualist and collectivist notions of wellbeing are the degree to which autonomy and self-actualisation are related to wellbeing, when in collectivist cultures, greater emphasis is placed on the individual in relationship with others (Suh, 2000; Joshanloo, 2014; Kitayama & Markus, 2000; Lomas, 2015; Oishi, 2000).

Notions of mastery and purpose in life are also argued to be culturally specific. These are contrasted with more deterministic philosophies such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the notions of fortune and luck, and humility, guiding people to attribute success more to external factors (Lomas, 2015). 

Joshanloo (2014) compared the dominantly Western conceptualisation of wellbeing with six Eastern schools of thought including Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Sufism. Different aspects of wellbeing identified from this analysis included self discipline, morality, transcendence from material concerns, and the inevitability and positive aspects of suffering. 

A meeting between the Dalai Lama and Western psychologists in March 2000, resulted in a discussion about the Buddhist notion of sukha, “a state of flourishing that arises from mental balance and insight into the nature of reality” (Ekman, Davidson, Ricard & Wallace, 2005, p. 60). Sukha is understood to be realised by sustained attention and mindfulness. In a report co-authored by Buddhists and psychologists, Ekman and colleagues (2005) discussed the implications of Buddhist philosophy for psychological research and theory.

The absorptive state of consciousness characteristic of sustained attention and mindfulness has even been observed at a neurological level. Hove and colleagues (2016) analysed the brain activity of shamanic practitioners in a trance state using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). fMRI showed activity in areas of the brain associated with internally oriented cognitive states, together with areas associated with inhibitory control, as well as a dampening of activity in the auditory pathway. In other words these shamanic practitioners appeared to be in a state of hyper focus that excluded outside distraction. This will be expanded on in an upcoming post about achieving fulfilment and enhancing performance through a state of flow.

In my research on the wellbeing of artists and performers of culturally and linguistically diverse background in Australia, participants indicated that creating art gave a sense of purpose, a process to focus on, feelings of pleasure, and a sense of belonging, crossing a range of conceptions of wellbeing. In the pursuit of artistic work, despite sometimes feeling at odds with cultural expectations and lacking institutionalised support in Australia, participants demonstrated autonomy by creating their own spaces and communities, on their own terms.

Community psychology is a branch of psychology that considers the wellbeing of individuals from an ecological perspective – that is the life of the individual in their environment, their community. Nelson and Prilleltensky (2010) argued that wellbeing occurs at the intersection of three community psychology values including: (a) personal, which comprises caring, compassion, health and self determination; (b) relational, which comprises participation, collaboration and diversity; and (c) collective – those that support community structures, social justice, and accountability.

The World Health Organisation defines mental health as “as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community.”

How do you experience wellbeing? What do you value? How would you define wellbeing and a life well-lived?

 

References:

Ekman, P., Davidson, R. J., Ricard, M., & Alan Wallace, B. (2005). Buddhist and psychological perspectives on emotions and well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 59-63.

Graham, C., & Nikolova, M. (2015). Bentham or Aristotle in the development process? An empirical investigation of capabilities and subjective well-being. World Development, 68(C), 163-179.

Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111–1120. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.10.1111

Hove, M. J. et al. (2016). Brain network reconfiguration and perceptual decoupling during an absorptive state of consciousness. Cerebral Cortex, 26(7), 3116-3124. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhv137

Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with Western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475-493. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9431-1

Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008) Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(4), 219-233, doi: 10.1080/17439760802303044

Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds), Culture and Subjective Well-Being (pp. 63-86). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Lambert, L., Passmore, H., & Holder, M. D. (2015). Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: Mapping well-being orientations. Canadian Psychology, 56(3), 311-321.

Lomas, T. (2015). Positive cross-cultural psychology: Exploring similarity and difference in constructions and experiences of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 60-77. doi:10.5502/ijw.v5i4.437

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2015). Personality and subjective well-being: Current issues and controversies. In R. E. Lucas (Ed.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4. personality processes and individual differences (pp. 577-599). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Nelson, G. B., & Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as cornerstones of subjective well-being: Linking individuals andcultures. In E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 63-86). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.

Schimmack, U. (2008). The structure of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (97-123). New York: Guilford Publications.

Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93.

Suh, E. M. (2000). Self, the hyphen between culture and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, & E. M. Suh (Eds), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 63-86). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Vitterso., J. (2013). Feelings, meanings, and optimal functioning: Some distinctions between hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In A. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 39-55). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.