A Critical Look at Flourishing

Fourishing has been the topic of philosophical and theological reflection for millennia; its empirical study is relatively young. Much has been learned, but there is still much to uncover. Any developing discipline will be shaped by the particular emphases and interests of its investigators, by the availability of data, and by sheer happenstance. Any newly emerging field will have blind spots. Some important questions and salient information are sure to be overlooked or neglected, at least for a time, but these omissions can and should be corrected as they are brought to light.

Recently, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut carried out a service to the field of empirical flourishing research by providing a broad critique of the existing flourishing literature. Several of her criticisms are very reasonable and need to be addressed, but others do not, in our view, quite adequately characterize the state of research. Regardless, there is still a lot to learn, and many gaps that still need to be filled.

Earlier this year, we at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard also published a response to this critique, since some of the criticisms specifically concerned the work of the program. We in fact further invited the critique’s author to present at the program, and we very much benefitted from the exchange. In what follows, we’ll provide a brief overview of some of the content of the exchange, but we also encourage interested readers to look through the whole of the critique itself, along with our response.

https://www.humanflourishing.org/

Source: Global Flourishing Conference

Reasonable Criticisms

Several of the paper’s criticisms of the field of flourishing seem very reasonable and point towards issues that need to be addressed. First, the field needs more qualitative work, and more work on understanding the views and experiences of everyday people as to “what flourishing looks or feels like, what makes flourishing possible, or what might stand in the way and thwart their ability to flourish.” Much of our own work, and that of many others, has been quantitative, but more qualitative research is clearly also critical. The field would benefit if more of this were carried out.

Second, more research needs to be done on how understandings of, and experiences of, flourishing vary across cultures. We hope that our own Global Flourishing Study will contribute in that regard. However, even with this study, although we solicited and received input from scholars from numerous continents, the study questions themselves were undoubtedly still shaped by Western perspectives, as is the field of well-being research more generally. We’ve been collaborating with the Japanese Wellbeing for Planet Earth Foundation and the Global Wellbeing Initiative to better understand non-Western perspectives on well-being. Balance and harmony have, for example, emerged as important aspects of well-being that are perhaps given more attention in the East than the West. But much more needs to be done on this important topic.

Third, we agree with the critique that questions concerning inequities in power and resources, matters of justice and structural conditions, and documenting and responding to minority experiences have not to date received adequate attention in the flourishing literature. Part of this may be due to not having as much data on holistic flourishing as we do on health or financial resources, thus rendering it more difficult to carry out such work (which again we hope the Global Flourishing Study will help partially remedy), but some of it is simply a matter of a need for greater effort to address these concerns. We have carried out some work on flourishing inequalities, but much remains to be done.

Of course, once we broaden the scope of the outcomes, and consider all aspects of flourishing, sometimes the results can be more surprising, or can be in the reverse direction of material inequalities. For example, some work reports higher levels of purpose in poorer developing countries than in richer developed countries, which is the reverse of what one finds with happiness; or reports higher levels of purpose and character strengths or social connectedness among black or Hispanic individuals than among white individuals. We should thus also seek to understand and appreciate the assets and strengths of communities that are more materially disadvantaged, while also attending to the material inequities themselves. In any case, the field as a whole needs to give greater attention to these issues.

Character and Commonalities in Flourishing

While we think each of the points above does indeed need to be better addressed in the flourishing literature, some of the other critiques or proposals we believe would push the field in the wrong direction. We believe that one of the strengths of the flourishing literature has been resisting the temptation to reduce well-being to happiness, and thus to include within flourishing, notions of character and virtue, following centuries of philosophical and religious wisdom throughout the world. Our own flourishing assessment includes this dimension as well. Aristotle in fact thought that flourishing effectively consisted principally in the development and exercise of virtue.

In contrast, much of contemporary Western scholarship has been wary of addressing these topics. Some do not even want to even mention the terms “virtue” or “character.” Concerns are raised that such notions are paternalistic; that the very idea of character is culturally relative; and that any discussion of these matters is likely to result in blaming the victim. These are important concerns, but the appropriate response is arguably to more sensitively address these topics, rather than to abandon them altogether.

Career Essential Reads

Why Should You Provide a Good Experience to Job Candidates?

A Surgeon Puts Down the Scalpel

While there will inevitably be differences in the character strengths that are valued across societies, cross-cultural research suggests that there is a lot that is held in common including valuing courage, justice, humanity, temperance, wisdom, and transcendence. As we’ve argued elsewhere, for the virtues of courage, wisdom, and justice, for instance, if one were to ask who wanted to be cowardly, foolish, and unjust, one would get very few takers. There is variation in precisely how these virtues are understood, but that virtue is important, and that these specific virtues are important, is shared across cultures. It really is only in pockets of the contemporary West that one finds any hesitation.

Likewise, while blaming the victim for poor character is often inappropriate, that does not mean that character is irrelevant or that we cannot seek to develop character within ourselves and promote character strengths within society more generally. Again, as discussed elsewhere, there are now character interventions, which have been evaluated in randomized trials, demonstrating that it is possible to increase compassion, gratitude, patience, forgiveness, and perseverance/grit; and moreover the interventions can go on to also improve psychological well-being, sleep, anxiety, depression, self-rated health, and test scores. To not utilize such character interventions—in schools or workplaces, say—is to neglect an important and powerful tool to enhance flourishing throughout society. Character is important for our own lives, and it is especially critical for those who are in positions of power and influence, if we are to work towards a better society. Neglect of matters of character will impoverish us and our communities.

Flourishing for All

Related to these concerns about character is also the broader question of the extent to which we can come to any consensus around flourishing within society. Navigating the complexities of differing understandings of flourishing is in no way straightforward. Ideally, we would identify what is held in common (and, as we’ve previously commented, we believe this is a lot) and work together.

Ideally also, we would be aware of where there is disagreement and why and work towards systems and policies that empower various particular communities to pursue the aspects of flourishing that are most important to them. Inevitably, there will be tensions and policy decisions that do satisfy everyone. Each society must navigate these complexities, and this is no trivial task.

However, we have perhaps placed too much emphasis on the disagreements and points of tensions and not enough on what is held in common. While realizing that there certainly are limits, we believe we would be best off focusing on what is held in common so as to work together, amidst the tensions and disagreements, to attempt to promote flourishing for all.