![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamI am proofreading a chapter of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
widgetfox‘s PhD thesis. The chapter is on the grounded theory of her research into how people experience and build well-being in their lives. It’s well worth a read if you can get hold of copy.
One of the things I’m struck by is the different way different people experience well-being. There appear to be generic categories of action and generic processes but the actual things that people find build their well-being or detract from it and the narratives by which they define a good life seem to vary significantly between individuals. They vary to the point that an action that one invidual might take to improve their well-being is considered actively harmful by another.
I was struck by how different people are to me. How I would see a certain political decision as solving a problem that someone else might see as making the problem worse whilst a third person might not see a problem there at all. As an example, I find gardening an activity that improves my well-being and I find the process of gardening in a group really valuable. Other people, don't. They do something else that helps them say to themselves - I am improving the environment and working with others creatively. Or they might not value improving the physical environment much. Put me in charge of spatial planning and communities with no interaction with other people and you are likely to end up with more allotments than you can shake a garden cane at but probably too few evening classes in pottery or schemes for retired people to work as mentors for vulnerable young people.
And I found myself wondering if there is a similarity between politicians in how they view their well-beings. Is there a mono-culture in our elected representatives?
More importantly I think the fact that there are differences in the things and activities that different people find build well-being supports using participative and deliberative democracy over representative democracy. Engaging lots of different people and engaging them in a reflective way ought to tease out more of the things that individuals find improve their well-being. Which I think is the point of politics; to find out what people want and then find a deal that gets the best outcome from the available inputs.
Representative democracy picks one individual and sends them away from their community and the individuals in it. I think they are swamped by the inputs about what other people value and have strong filters in place that prevent some voices being heard. Participative democracy aims to tap the experience of the whole population. At least as representative a sample of it as can be engaged in the process. Participative democracy feels to me to be a process that it is more likely to lead to a high quality outcome as defined by the users of the system.
Which was an unexpected insight for a lunch time’s reading.
widgetfox‘s PhD thesis. The chapter is on the grounded theory of her research into how people experience and build well-being in their lives. It’s well worth a read if you can get hold of copy.One of the things I’m struck by is the different way different people experience well-being. There appear to be generic categories of action and generic processes but the actual things that people find build their well-being or detract from it and the narratives by which they define a good life seem to vary significantly between individuals. They vary to the point that an action that one invidual might take to improve their well-being is considered actively harmful by another.
I was struck by how different people are to me. How I would see a certain political decision as solving a problem that someone else might see as making the problem worse whilst a third person might not see a problem there at all. As an example, I find gardening an activity that improves my well-being and I find the process of gardening in a group really valuable. Other people, don't. They do something else that helps them say to themselves - I am improving the environment and working with others creatively. Or they might not value improving the physical environment much. Put me in charge of spatial planning and communities with no interaction with other people and you are likely to end up with more allotments than you can shake a garden cane at but probably too few evening classes in pottery or schemes for retired people to work as mentors for vulnerable young people.
And I found myself wondering if there is a similarity between politicians in how they view their well-beings. Is there a mono-culture in our elected representatives?
More importantly I think the fact that there are differences in the things and activities that different people find build well-being supports using participative and deliberative democracy over representative democracy. Engaging lots of different people and engaging them in a reflective way ought to tease out more of the things that individuals find improve their well-being. Which I think is the point of politics; to find out what people want and then find a deal that gets the best outcome from the available inputs.
Representative democracy picks one individual and sends them away from their community and the individuals in it. I think they are swamped by the inputs about what other people value and have strong filters in place that prevent some voices being heard. Participative democracy aims to tap the experience of the whole population. At least as representative a sample of it as can be engaged in the process. Participative democracy feels to me to be a process that it is more likely to lead to a high quality outcome as defined by the users of the system.
Which was an unexpected insight for a lunch time’s reading.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 02:02 pm (UTC)Career politicians - those who see politics as a job - are so far removed from the public and everyday issues, and so encumbered by the culture of the party machine, that they are almost guaranteed to fail.
I railed against the undemocratic use of technocrats in various European countries following the economic crisis; but I am not sure that our politicians are any better than technocrats themselves.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-11 02:55 pm (UTC)The thought occurs that our own politicians are in fact not that different from technocrats – it’s just that the technology they are good at is the technology of getting elected and maintaining power and influence.
I miss the days (perhaps non-existent) when politicians stood up and made an offer to the public – these are my values, these are my policies, if you like them vote for me, if you don’t I’ll go back to private life, sadder. These seemed to be in the days when only those who were independently wealthy were taking part in politics. They was no need for them to maintain their electability to a constituency seat in order to keep themselves in a living.
Perhaps the answer is to give every MP who is elected and everyone who runs for a seat and come second a one time donation of a million pounds but only once they had signed a promise never to stand for any form of elected office again. Then no serious politicians would be personally dependent on being in office for their financial security.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-17 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 08:18 am (UTC)I shall look forward to Chapter 2 when it comes out on general release.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 09:39 am (UTC)I begin to suspect that a good alignment between models and sources of well-being might be important in close, interconnect relationships. I don’t think MLW and I would work well as a couple if our sources of well-being and the way we worked towards well-being were not well aligned. I feel that she and I have a mutually understandable language to talk about well-being.
Do you suspect that the liberallity of the psychological community might have made them a little biased in their assessment of sources and process and models of well-being?
Despite having used the terms left and right wing I’m having a moment of clarity and remembering that I’m not actually sure that I find them a useful label.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 08:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 09:19 am (UTC)Whether this works in practise depends a little on the mutual compatibility of our schedules.
Today I’m up to my eyes in our management report which is a document of such incisive prognosticatory power that even I am fearful of it. Tomorrow I’m on off to go on a photography day.
I’m on holiday towards the back end of next week. So I think this weekend will be busy at home with various holiday preparation tasks. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday busy at work preparing to be away for more than two weeks.
I’m off on Thursday packing and what not. Friday I travel down to pick up BB and on Saturday we’re all travelling from Inverness to Stromness.
I could give Chapter 2 a read over whilst travelling to collect BB but my ability to feedback the results of this would be limited by only having access to email on my iPhone. I think this precludes giving comments in track changes. So it limits my feedback to a non-preferred form and probably limits it to more general comments. I couldn’t really get to any detailed feedback until we were safely up in Orkney.
I’m not sure if the timings work for you. I’d love to help but only if it’s actually helpful.
If me reading Chapter 2 over a couple of cups of coffee whilst waiting to have lunch with BB in Bristol and then feeding back by email from iPhone is going to be useful then I’m delighted to help out.
no subject
Date: 2013-07-18 08:29 am (UTC)I had posted it as a private post whilst I finished it off - that might have something to do with it.