danieldwilliam (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
danieldwilliam) wrote2013-07-10 02:57 pm
danieldwilliam) wrote2013-07-10 02:57 pm
On Differences In Well-Being and the Political Process
I 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.