Relational wellbeing: re-centring the politics of happiness, policy and the self

Abstract

The ubiquity of references to happiness and wellbeing indicates widespread anxiety that all may not be well, reflecting the erosion of the social in late capitalist modernity. The paper finds that, rather than helping to solve this problem, individualist formulations of wellbeing in policy mimic or deepen the underlying pathology. Drawing on empirical research in Zambia and India, it advocates an alternative approach, relational wellbeing, which is grounded in a relational ontology that can challenge dominant ideologies of the self, places central the generative quality of relationality which is critical to societal change and engenders a socially inclusive political vision.

Tackling alcoholism and domestic violence in fisheries—A new opportunity to improve well‐being for the most vulnerable people in global fisheries

“…Good marital relations were joined fourth—alongside having a house to live in—as the most frequently mentioned well‐being domain. The important role played by social relationships in enabling, or disabling, well‐being concurs with other studies, for example Camfield, Choudhury and Devine, () study in Bangladesh, which demonstrates the centrality of relationships with spouses and in‐laws to younger women's happiness in particular, and the growing literature on “Relational well‐being” (Gough & Allister McGregor, ; White & Blackmore, )—a concept which emphasizes the social and cultural construction of well‐being and explicitly conceives the production of well‐being through interaction with others (White, , ).…”

“…Well-being domains marked (I) indicate India-specific domains and include specific mention of "dowry payments for a daughter's marriage" (in southern Sri Lanka, dowry is less prominent and marriage was discussed more generally in the context of children's happiness) and "Access to Islands," which captures a specific conflict over seaweed collection which is currently restricted by the Gulf of Mannar Marine Reserve status (detailed later in the paper). construction of well-being and explicitly conceives the production of well-being through interaction with others (White, 2015(White, , 2017.…”

Democratisation of wellbeing: stakeholder perspectives on policy priorities for improving national wellbeing through paid employment and adult learning

“…In prioritising improvement in social and structural conditions for wellbeing and Government as an actor, stakeholders appear to have no preference for individually-focused interventions or action and therefore offer some support for critics of neoliberal approaches on the over-individualisation of wellbeing (e.g. Scott, 2015;White, 2017).…”

“…Because of wellbeing's contested nature, there are debates around the extent to which to which the promotion of wellbeing as a policy goal reflects a neoliberal approach to policy (Davies, 2015), in which psychological wellbeing can be used as an alternative metric of policy success to social justice and alleviation of income and other inequalities (Tomlinson & Kelley, 2013;White, 2017). Critiques of neoliberal approaches also point to the individualisation of wellbeing (White, 2017) and responsibility for wellbeing (Hancock & Tyler, 2004) which can justify a rolling back of state provision of services under conditions of austerity (White, 2017) -as has been seen in the provision and quality of services for career guidance generally, and for under 18s in particular (Hooley, Matheson, & Watts, 2014;Watts, 2013).…”

“…Second, at least in relation to discourses around paid employment, adult learning, and wellbeing, it seems for some institutional stakeholders, productive economic activity is an important corollary of wellbeing. Third, wellbeing as community membership is not something foregrounded in either psychological or elite political conceptions of wellbeing, but has been advocated in more socially focused approaches to wellbeing (White, 2017).…”