The Network Theory of Well-Being: An Introduction

In this paper, I propose a novel approach to investigating the nature of well-being and a new theory about wellbeing. The approach is integrative and naturalistic. It holds that a theory of well-being should account for two different classes of evidence—our commonsense judgments about well-being and the science of well-being (i.e., positive psychology). The network theory holds that a person is in the state of well-being if she instantiates a homeostatically clustered network of feelings, emotions, attitudes, behaviors, traits, and interactions with the world that tends to have a relatively high number of states that feel good, that lead to states that feel good, or that are valued by the agent or her culture. Change your life and you might make it better or you might make it worse. A change that makes your life go better for you promotes your well-being; a change that makes your life go worse for you diminishes your well-being. This is intuitive enough. But what is well-being? A good way to begin to think about it is with an exercise. How would you explain that a person has a high degree of well-being without actually using the word ‘well-being’ or its synonyms? If you aren’t already corrupted by a philosophical theory, you might offer a thumbnail sketch something like this: “Felicity is in a happy and fulfilling committed relationship, she has close and caring friends, she keeps fit by playing The Network Theory of Well-Being 2 racquetball, a sport she enjoys, and her professional life is both successful and satisfying.” Most people’s theoretically innocent description of someone with a high degree of well-being will include both “objective” facts about the person (e.g., facts about her relationships, her activities, her professional life) as well as “subjective” facts about the person (e.g., facts about her commitments to and her feelings about kith and kin, facts about her finding certain activities enjoyable and satisfying). The objective and subjective facts we appeal to when explaining Felicity’s—or anyone’s—degree of well-being include: 1. positive feelings, moods, emotions (e.g., joy, contentment), 2. positive attitudes (e.g., optimism, hope, openness to new experiences), 3. positive traits (e.g., friendliness, curiosity, perseverance), and 4. successful interactions with the world (e.g., strong relationships, professional accomplishment, fulfilling hobbies or projects). So far, so good. But how does this ramshackle set of facts fit into a coherent whole? How are we supposed to unite these various objective and subjective facts into a coherent theory of well-being? The answer I propose is simple: We don’t have to. The world has already joined them together with causal bonds. Think of the above elements of someone’s well-being as nodes in a complex causal network or web. Every node in that network is causally connected to some of the other nodes— it fosters some, and is fostered by others. I call these positive causal networks. The idea behind positive causal networks is that the features of someone’s life we appeal to in explaining her well-being her committed relationship, friendships, exercise regimens, professional successes, her confidence and sense of mastery, her joie de vivre, friendliness, moxie and adventurousness, her curiosity, hope and optimism—are not an accidental conglomeration of happy facts. A person’s well-being has a causal structure—its components are causally bound together. For example, pick out any “happy fact” that is a component of Felicity’s well-being, say, her professional success. This success is fostered by many other factors we appeal to in describing Felicity’s well-being— her curiosity, moxie, optimism, and confidence, her exercise regimen, Vol. 7: Morality and the Cognitive Sciences