As we leave another year behind, it might be a good idea to review our assumptions about happiness and broaden our views on the threshold of a new year. Many scholars prefer to discuss happiness under the heading of well-being. Two basic understandings of well-being stand out. No matter how complex the models are, two interrelated concepts are hedonism and eudaimonism. According to the hedonic view, well-being associates feeling good with pleasure and individual happiness. On the other hand, the eudaimonic approach, first articulated by Aristotle, who was born in 384 BC, considers well-being as realizing one’s strengths, serving a purpose greater than oneself, living a life in harmony with one’s values, and living a meaningful life by reflecting one’s potential in life. In this respect, the eudaimonic approach also includes the contribution of the person to his/her environment. In this article, based on research data, the characteristics and qualities that constitute a meaningful life journey from an early age are examined.
According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is a state of complete well-being and is not an event that occurs as a result of a particular experience, but a name given to a way of life.1 This concept means following a life path that one believes to be valuable in itself. What leads researchers to this idea is their belief in the existence of universal values inherent in human nature. Accordingly, the eudaimonic life path is based on four basic motivations:
- A person pursues values of development, relationships, community service, and healthy living not because of external rewards, but because he or she believes with inner strength that they are so
- Demonstrates behavior that is authentic and natural, rather than behavior that the outside world likes (imposed from the outside)
- Has a high level of awareness and is aware of what is happening around him/her
- Behaves in a way that meets their own psychological needs in terms of competence, commitment and autonomy.
Kasser and Ryan investigated the seven basic life goals found in people.2 They examined the difference between those who develop internal evaluative goals such as development, commitment, service to society, and health, as opposed to those who develop external evaluative goals such as wealth, fame, and image. Those with goals based on internal evaluation were found to have much higher levels of psychological well-being, such as self-actualization, positive mood, and being energetic. They were also found to be free from symptoms of illness such as depression, negative mood, anxiety and physical symptoms. Those who experience a sense of eudaimonia experience fewer inadequacies, heart disease and chronic physical illness than those who simply feel good.
In another study, scientists examined 18-year-old urban youth.3 They found that those who grew up in an environment based on maternal affection and fulfillment of psychological needs were more autonomous, formed warmer relationships, pursued fewer material goals, participated in socially responsible activities, and had better mental and emotional health. This support for autonomy and relationship-building is thought to lead to the development of goals that are internally evaluative rather than externally evaluative. Children whose basic psychological needs are supported tend to develop an eudaimonic lifestyle. In contrast, children who grow up under strict supervision and are rejected by their parents or caregivers are more insecure, have low self-esteem and set goals that are open to external evaluation. These children choose goals for external evaluation in order to feel valued and loved.
The optimal function of humanity worldwide: Ultimate happiness index in 166 countries
Apart from the findings of scientific research, most people who reflect on life realize that material wealth is not the goal to find the happiness we seek at our core. Mohsen Joshanloon of Keimyung University in South Korea measured ultimate happiness in a 12-year study of nearly 1,800,000 people in 166 countries,4 using data from the Gallup World Poll. In happiness research, people’s well-being is usually assessed in terms of GDP (gross national product) and economic prosperity. However, this research has introduced a different and more comprehensive approach to measuring ultimate happiness.
Hedonic happiness represents individual happiness (contentment), whereas eudaimonic happiness represents the ultimate social happiness. Social sciences have summarized eudaimonic happiness as people with optimal competencies, well-qualified, wise and able to cope with life’s challenges. The dimensions measured in the social context (Keyes, 1998-5 Social Happiness Model) are social coherence, social inclusion, social inclusion, social inclusion, social contribution and social fulfillment. In his research, Joshanloo went one step beyond this five-criteria model of social happiness and considered 7 key dimensions in measuring ultimate happiness: Learning, social support, respect, self-efficacy, freedom, helpfulness and volunteerism.
MIDUS (Midlife Statistics Office of America) assesses eudaimonic happiness in six dimensions;
Personal maturity: Testing one’s views about oneself and being open to new experiences.
Autonomy: Having the confidence to develop a different opinion, even if it goes against conventional wisdom.
Self-esteem: Being satisfied with most parts of the personality.
Having a supportive social circle of relationships.
Having a sense of control over one’s life.
Feeling that one is living a meaningful life.
When measuring individual happiness, life satisfaction, satisfaction with the city of residence, life purpose and religious belief were grouped under a single dimension and the sum of these characteristics was measured with the criteria of smiling, laughing and enjoying life in the other dimension. Similarly, negative experiences were defined as anxiety, unhappiness, stress, and anger (e.g., when I go out on the street in Istanbul, it gives me pleasure to meet my female (male) friends easily (city-criteria-gender-death).
In the measurement of ultimate happiness, Canada, Norway and Australia received the highest scores on the basis of seven criteria. Thanks to the measurement technique applied in the research, it has been observed that, contrary to popular belief, the level of prosperity of a country does not play an absolute role in ultimate happiness. It has been observed that socio-economic classes have a 14% impact on the ultimate happiness measurement. In other words, socio-economic class is not as effective in ultimate happiness as it is thought to be (the effect of the correlation between classes on life satisfaction was found to be .21).
On the eudaimonic dimension, health was found to be higher for people who find meaning in their lives and have a purpose. An assessment of 254,914 people from 132 countries showed that the ultimate happiness of individuals who add value to their lives is higher than individuals who do not add value (purpose) to their lives. At the same time, feelings of freedom and trust were found to have a high influence on ultimate happiness. The most important individual determinants of ultimate happiness measurement are making a positive impact in any field, satisfaction with living standards and education.
In terms of gender, men have higher rates of ultimate happiness in life than women. In addition, research results show that ultimate happiness decreases with age. On the other hand, a U-shaped pattern was observed in some countries (higher levels of ultimate happiness in childhood and old age and lower levels in adulthood). In countries with lower ultimate happiness at older ages, this was attributed to a lack of activities (volunteering, socializing, etc.) and economic constraints.
Conclusion
“The most important thing in life is to win” (Winner takes it all) and environments dominated by the market economy eliminates the idea of thinking of others (altruism) and serving society. Compared to an understanding of life based on psychological and social well-being, an understanding of well-being based on pleasure and enjoyment in a culture where individualism is dominant and everyone thinks of their own interests seems to be compatible with capitalist ethics. However, those who live with this understanding are under the delusion that they will be happy by pursuing the material values that money can buy and try to quench their thirst by drinking sea water. Again, children who grow up with this understanding turn into adults who are far from being self-sufficient, who live an unhappy life dependent on external evaluations, and who put their personal interests ahead of society in their endeavors. This creates a society in which the vast majority are dissatisfied, feel unwell and complain. Scientific knowledge has clearly shown that the impact of external sources on happiness and well-being is limited, but that it can be achieved through individual competencies.
(*) This article is adapted from the book “Hayatın Hakkını Vermek”.
Sources:
- Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL. Living well: a self-determinatıon theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 2008; 9: 139–170.
- Kasser T, Ryan RM. Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996; 22, 280-287.
- Kasser T, Ryan RM, Zax M, Sameroff AJ. The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 1995; 31: 907-914.
- Joshanloo M. Optimal human functioning around the world: a new index of eudaimonic well-being in 166 nations. British Journal of Psychology 2018; 109(4): 637-655.
