Conclusiones

Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of autotelic personality is also claiming its place under the eudaimonic happiness umbrella. Autotelic people (see

Chapter 4) are those who often engage in activities for their own sake, and experience fl ow states frequently. One problem with allocating fl ow into the eudaimonic camp is that some of Csikszentmihalyi’s character-istics of fl ow, including losing track of time and forgetting personal problems, seem to have much more to do with hedonic enjoyment than with eudaimonic endeavours.

In the early 2000s, Waterman proposed a description of eudaimonia that he called personal expressiveness (Waterman et al., 2003; Waterman, 2008). For him, eudaimonia is experienced through engagement in activities that make one feel alive, that express who one really is, that one is intensely involved in, that one feels one was meant to do, that make one particularly complete or fulfi lled, and that one has a special fi t or meshing with. Interestingly, for this researcher eudaimonia does not exclude hedonic happiness – Waterman shows that personal expressiveness tends to be accompanied by feelings of hedonic enjoy-ment. On the other hand, hedonic enjoyment is not necessarily accom-panied by personal expressiveness. Given that Waterman’s description

Eudaimonic Well-being 55

of personal expressiveness is not that far removed from that of fl ow, the fi nding of a merger between eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment helps to account for the criticisms of fl ow as a form of eudaimonia raised above.

The person behind the positive psychology movement, Martin Seligman (2002), introduced an authentic happiness model, in which he distinguishes between the pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life in an attempt to work out what well-being really is. The pleasant life is devoted to pursuit of positive emotions, and can be paralleled with hedonic well-being. In the good life, one would use one’s dominant character strengths to obtain engagement, a complete immersion in an activity, akin to fl ow. Finally, meaningful life is about using your strengths in the service of something greater than yourself. In 2011, the authentic happiness model got upgraded to a well-being model, consisting of the same three elements plus an extra two – accomplishment (the pursuit of achievement, success and winning for their own sake) and relationships (connecting with other people). The fi rst letters of all the fi ve compo-nents result in PERMA, which is how Seligman’s new theory of well-being is usually referred to (Seligman, 2011). Seligman believes that both pursuits of engagement/fl ow and meaning can be considered eudai-monic.² The research of Seligman and his colleagues shows that when people engage in hedonic activities (e.g. leisure, rest or fun), they expe-rience many pleasant feelings, are more energetic and have low negative affect. In fact, during these activities, they are happier than those who engage in eudaimonic pursuits. In the long run, however, those who lead a more eudaimonic existence (work on developing their potentials and skills, learning something) are more satisfi ed with their lives (Huta et al., 2003).

Vittersø and colleagues have proposed a functional well-being model in which eudaimonia signals and promotes change and growth, and moti-vates behaviour in challenging environments, while hedonia signals and regulates stability, equilibrium and return to homeostasis. In fact, this is the difference between being in the process of achieving (eudaimonia) and having arrived or achieved, whether this relates to needs, goals or

conceptual understanding (hedonia). These authors also talk about stable hedonic and eudaimonic orientations, implying that some of us have more hedonic or more eudaimonic personalities. Vittersø discusses possible neurological mechanisms underlying these orientations: the dopamine system that underlies interest and novelty-seeking may support eudaimonia, while the endogenous opioid system that underlies pleasure and regulation of homeostatic processes may, in fact, support hedonia (Vittersø et al., 2010).

The further one delves into the area, the more variety one discovers when it comes to defi ning what eudaimonic well-being is. Some researchers claim that eudaimonic well-being is best achieved through personal development and growth (Compton et al., 1996), others

Oops … we have a problem

Eudaimonic Well-being 57

through fi nding meaning in one’s life (King & Napa, 1998; McGregor &

Little, 1998). One way or another, they all agree that there must be something else out there in addition to pure pleasure and happiness, although the umbrella of eudaimonic well-being grows larger and larger year after year . . .

I wonder if you noticed a little problem with eudaimonic well-being?

It’s a MESS! Eudaimonic well-being is not just an umbrella concept for many vaguely related theories; it’s a pot in which anything that is not related to pleasure is mixed up.

So let’s take a look inside this pot once again. Some authors defi ne eudaimonia as actualization of human potential (Waterman, 1993), while others associate it with frequent experiences of fl ow states (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). Other commonly used defi nitions include:

realizing one’s true nature/true self (Vittersø, 2003), personal growth, meaning, and the totality of the six components of Ryff’s psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Seligman defi nes eudaimonia as both fl ow and meaning. Can somebody please tell me what eudaimonic well-being actually is?

Despite their attempts to shed light on the construct of well-being, eudaimonic defi nitions often make the picture even more complicated.

Is realizing your true nature the same as personal development? And what if your true nature is calling you to violence? Is growth the same as meaning? Carol Ryff is probably right to distinguish between the two.

Meaning may well be found in personal growth, yet it can also be found in serving others or in believing in God, which means that these two should not be identifi ed. Are positive relationships important for eudai-monic well-being? Perhaps, but they also seem to be pretty important for happiness or hedonic well-being (see Chapter 5). Do people really experience eudaimonic well-being differently from hedonic well-being?

Critics of the movement say that if the feeling is the same, the differ-ences between ‘two kinds of happiness’ are overblown (Kashdan et al., 2008). Supporters of the distinction, on the other hand, try to identify distinct emotions and feelings associated with eudaimonia, such as

interest, engagement and peak experiences. Finally, if eudaimonia and hedonia are indeed distinct forms of happiness, we would expect to fi nd different patterns of predictor and outcome variables – that is, what leads to eudaimonia and what comes out of it? Early research shows that, unlike hedonic well-being, one’s level of education is associated with eudaimonia (i.e. the more, the better) (Boniwell & Osin, in prep.).

Furthermore, it may be the case, for example, that people with high eudaimonic well-being can fi nd greater fulfi lment in working or recover more quickly from a traumatic event (Huta, in press).

On the basis of these somewhat contradictory theories and my own research, I would like to suggest that eudaimonic well-being can be achieved by pursuing either of the following two routes – personal devel-opment or transcendence (Boniwell & Osin, in prep.). So don’t give up yet, it all might make sense in the end!