From the Individual to the Social and Contextual Perspective of Well-being

In one of his recent films, entitled To Rome with Love, Woody Allen portrays the story of a would-be tenor endowed with an exceptional singing talent who, unluckily, can only produce it when soaping up in the shower. After a disappointing audition, owing to the absence of the only place where the man is able to perform well, his impresario pulls a rabbit out of a hat and lets him act his first opera show from within a shower cubicle. It goes without saying that the premiere, bizarre as it might appear, turns out to be an outstanding success, ensuring the singer a promising career. This funny story is quite a good example of how contextual features are able to influence human endeavours by fostering or, conversely, hindering personal competences. Under certain circumstances, the only way of enabling people to thrive by bringing out their full potential, as in the case of the ‘tenor in the shower’, is to change the surrounding

context, not the individual psychological and/or biological make-up. However, even when context does not play such an overwhelming role, its importance should never be underestimated. Instead, we often fail to understand this fundamental principle and as a consequence, as Kloos and colleagues (2012) have remarkably put it, very often

“Like a fish swimming in water, we take the contexts of our lives for granted… we tend to minimize ecological levels of analysis. Community psychologists try to understand the importance of contexts for people’s lives and work to change the environments to be more supportive” (p. 5).

In line with this vision, CCP considers happiness as neither the result of personal achievements, nor the outcome of national policies aimed increasing GDP or improving the welfare system; rather, it is a constant relationship between the resources and the opportunities provided by context – together with the community to which people belong –, and the best use they decide to make of them. In that regard, as Orford (2008) reminds us:

“At the very heart of the subject is the need to see people – their feelings, thoughts, and actions – within a social context. It exhorts us, when thinking of people’s health, happiness and well-being, or when thinking about people’s distress and disorder, to

‘think context’” (p. XI).

From a Community Psychology perspective, to highlight the role of context entails taking into account at least three aspect: 1) happiness and well-being are situated in context. This means that first and foremost they run on a multi-systemic continuum that goes from the individual to society at large, passing through organizations and

communities, and second that the promotion of the good life must draw on Sites, Signs, Sources, Strategies, and Synergy of well-being (for a review see Prilleltensky, 2005), 2) different contexts can contribute differently to well-being, in terms of the quality and quantity as well as objective and subjective resources they provide (Kagan & Kilroy, 2007), and c) to adopt a contextual perspective also means to acknowledge the role played by socio-cultural features (Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2013).

Therefore, in referring to context, and the role it plays in shaping people’s life, we consider it in a very broad sense. In our view, context is comprised of set of

opportunities and resources, networks of relationships, and both material and intangible features that make it the bedrock upon which people try to build a well-lived existence.

It follows that context, as we intend it, is not the backdrop, but part and parcel of the very theatrical play in which social actors are to perform their lives.

In fact, CCP studies the interactions between individual and contexts, specifically taking into account relational, organizational, cultural, economic and political

domains, both taken independently and in their reciprocal interactions (Prilleltensky &

Arcidiacono, 2010).

Following on from the last points, Kagan & Kilroy (2007) provided a tool to understand how different community well-being indicators map onto qualitative and quantitative data, while tapping into material, social, economic, political, cultural and personal aspects of living. (Figure 4).

Fig. 3.5. Dimensions of well-being and of the community indicators. Source: (Kagan & Kilroy, 2007, p.

100).

Along the same line of thought, Isaac Prilleltensky’s ecological model strives to understand well-being through a multilevel and multidimensional lenses through both objective and subjective measures of well-being (Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2007). In that regard, the very definition that Prilleltensky gives us of well-being deserves to be quoted in full:

“Well-being is a positive state of affairs, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced satisfaction of diverse objective and subjective needs of individuals, relationships, organizations, and communities” (Prilleltensky, 2012, p. 4).

As already mentioned, Prilleltensky’s ecological model offers a number of contexts of analysis (which the authors names ‘sites’ - of well-being), which are as follows:

personal, interpersonal, organizational and communal. Furthermore, for each of them, the model provides physical, psychological, occupational, economic, community and interpersonal indicators, both subjective and objective. In addition to the ‘sites’, Prilleltensky’s 5Ss model of well-being encompasses Signs, Sources, Strategies, and Synergy (Prilleltensky, 2005).

The author has expressed the advantages of his model in these terms:

“We can integrate sites, signs, sources and strategies in the following formulation: The well-being of a site is reflected in a particular sign, which derives from a particular source and is promoted by a certain strategy… By using this simple formulation, we can integrate a vast amount of research in operational and actionable terms” (Prilleltensky

& Prilleltensky, 2007, p. 75).

Recently Prilleltensky and colleagues (2016) have also developed a

multidimensional model of well-being, namely the ICOPPE model. This novel tool considers well-being as a multifaceted construct composed of seven domains, that is:

Overall Well-being, Interpersonal Well-being, Community Well-being, Organizational Well-being, Physical Well-being, Psychological Well-being, and Economic Well-being (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3.6. The I COPPE model of well-being. Source: (Prilleltensky, 2016).

The ICOPPE model is also embedded in the contextual vision proper to CCP, according to which each well-being domain is placed on multi-level units of analysis, that is again: personal, interpersonal, organizational and communal (Prilleltensky, 2012).

To conclude, Kagan’s and Kilroy’s model as well as the ICOPPE model proposed by Prilleltensky and colleagues offer a new opportunity for CCP practitioners and other scholars to delve deeper into the complex nature of well-being from a contextual perspective.