The state of well-being
When social historians they look back on the debates that emerged in the first years of the 21st century they are likely to notice a pronounced trend. This is the emergence of a field that might be labelled psycho-social policy. There are four distinct but overlapping sets of ideas:
First, that greater social justice lies not only in the legal, social or economic rights afforded to citizens but in ideas of capability and resilience, which are to some degree subjective.
Second, that progress as defined by economic growth and rising absolute levels of affluence across the income range has become uncoupled from aggregate levels of happiness or well-being across society
Third, that the success of policy interventions both in satisfying the public and achieving social outcomes involves not simply delivering service outputs but in affecting the values and behaviours of clients and citizens.
Fourth, that the crucial determinant of an individual’s life chances lie not only in their socio-economic circumstances but in psychological traits which emerge from some combination of genetic, parenting and cultural influences.
Overall, I welcome these new ways of thinking about progress and fairness. They open up debates about the good life and the good society which are more interesting and engaging than the predominant recent form of electoral politics (a combination of tactical communication and technocratic policy making). Having said which, the objections to this turn in public discourse are not to be lightly dismissed.
They include questions about not just the objective measurability, but the conceptual clarity, of ideas like resilience, well-being and happiness. Wouldn’t constant happiness simply be a state of bovine complacency? What are we to make of a country such as the USA which seems to combine dynamism with poor levels of aggregate well-being? Isn’t the focus on individual characteristics simply a form of victim-blaming when we know that certain objective circumstances such as being unemployed or chronically unwell are much more simply and directly associated with other poor outcomes? And, anyway, while issues such as economic redistribution or the provision of public services may be an appropriate domain for state action do we really want politicians imposing their account of happiness or well-bring on us?
These are difficult and complex issues. As Catherine Bennett’s piece in last week’s Observer shows, the arguments of those who emphasise psychological well-being are easy to caricature. I have recently been involved in an ESRC project largely based on critiquing what the research director call ‘the therapeutic state’.
The goal must be to bring an awareness of the psychological and subjective components of reality more consistently into political and policy debate while avoiding the obvious traps. It means that the advocates of this approach have to be rigorous in their own thinking and alert to the dangers of throwing ideas like well-being and character into debate half formed and poorly defined. Those who seek a more humanistic account of social progress need to be as willing to challenge their allies as their opponents.
Related posts:
- Getting well-being right Will the growing interest in measuring well-being rather than simply...
- How should we live? The Young Foundation’s report ‘Sinking not swimming: Understanding Britain’s...
- The state I’m in Sometimes, well, quite often actually, I find myself using...
Comments
3 Comments on The state of well-being
-
Tessy Britton on
Wed, 16th Dec 2009 5:13 pm
-
Livy on
Thu, 17th Dec 2009 3:02 am
-
Livy on
Thu, 17th Dec 2009 3:23 am
Unfortunately ‘well-being’ is a word quite widely used to describe most things these days, including soap. A good working definition, in the context of happiness research is:
‘[Well-being] is a dynamic state, in which the individual is able to develop their potential, work productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and contribute to their community.’ The Foresight Report: The Government Office for Science: 2008
Catherine’s Bennett’s piece has some very strong points, particularly about literacy, poverty and unemployment. New research on the terrible impact of unemployment, was discussed last week by Robert Putnam and Thomas Sander: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/12/column-how-joblessness-hurts-us-all.html . There is also research to support the idea that people do better in more tolerant, democratic societies.
Your comment about obvious traps is exactly right. In the context of policy and government it is easier to consider improving ‘environmental protective factors’ through policy. The media discussion about ‘in-person protective factors’ (e.g. resilience, confidence, flexible thinking, attitudes), often drifts too easily into more difficult philosophical or therapeutic matters, rather than highlighting important practical knowledge and understanding (e.g. social connection can help to reduce the chances of depression, as does exercise).
This sort of practical knowledge makes us more resilient to environmental change and difficulty. I suggest that some of the complex difficulties may be improved by establishing intelligent/researched contextual boundaries and a better informed media debate.
If the old adage is true and either money or politics really are the only two things stopping any government doing anything, then politics will prevent you from achieving what you want.
No, people won’t accept politicians imposing their account of happiness or well being on them. Even if they’re right, elected officials will now shy away more than ever from telling people what they don’t want to hear. Still enjoying a more comfortable standard of living whilst telling the people paying for it that they have to be ‘better people’… no.
But Obama will, at least in terms of policy. Every battleground poll for decades consistently reveals roughly 60% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative. In 13 straight polls for 6 years the proportion of either “somewhat liberal” or “very liberal” admissions has never been more than 38% combined.
We have a (some would say ‘left of’) left of centre ideologue, so driven to implement a radical social agenda in a predominantly right of centre country that people can understand why the bill is in trouble. Check out tomorrow’s coverage, everybody from the Post to the Journal hates it. He started the year with good or mid range numbers and is now ending it with the worst job approval ratings of any elected president in modern history.
Despite the inverted political climate (party as well as country) David Cameron is not the British equivalent of Obama he wishes he was. A problem he has is that his boy Philip Blonde is socially conservative and economically liberal; Cameron’s entire game plan depends on pretending he’s the opposite.
Unfortunately it’s not poetry that will turn into prose.
Livy
P.s. “Isn’t the focus on individual characteristics simply a form of victim-blaming?”
Oh please…
Sometimes it isn’t so pious to say achievement can be the result of hard work and that the inverse is also true. It’s pious to believe it and not say it.
Not quite sure what I was trying to say there about Blonde and DC or if it made any sense. It’s way too early in the morning for this.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.