Paradigm change for wellbeing

In The Economy We Could Have published by The Next Economy, Trebeck and Wakefield set out a systems view of change toward a wellbeing economy with three intersecting dimensions: mindset, policy regimes, and practices.  On the question of mindset, or paradigm change they draw on Donella Meadows’ definition of paradigm as ‘the shared idea in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions, constitute that society’s paradigm, or deepest set of beliefs about how the world works’.

The argument is that, at any point in a society’s history, certain fundamental, dominant (sometimes unstated) beliefs and assumptions held about how the world works will condition and constrain what that society does or does not do, through its government, institutions, culture, media, and so on. For a society to shift trajectory, yes, change is required in social structures and practices, but is also needed in these defining and often limiting ideas. When it comes to the ways a society uses its collective resources, the core ideas conditioning politics and policy, corporate behaviour, and economic activity are especially important.

I agree with Trebeck and Wakefield, paradigm change in contemporary societies is essential and wellbeing is the proper objective. Here I want to explore some likely main elements of paradigm change for wellbeing in the Australian context.

Five elements of our current paradigm

Economic growth: To conceptualise paradigm change we must, of course, have a sense of the core ideas conditioning our society now, and let’s start with government. For some time, economists and others have criticised governments’ use of economic growth and GDP as the de facto ‘gold standard’ measure of how well a society is performing, because it fails to take account of many other things which matter for wellbeing. In response, the Australian government has followed the lead of others by establishing a wider set of measures of societal wellbeing.

However, in everyday politics and policy, economic growth obviously remains the primary standard of success and the prime objective of government activity. It’s there in political discourse, every day, but the determinative influence of this concept on our politics – and society at large – lies not only in its hold on individual political actors but also in the way it is embedded in institutional practices. It’s a core part of trade policy and the Labor government’s desire to cling on to the ‘rules-based order’ of international relations led by US power (despite recent arguments about the sovereign risks of such allegiance). It is central to the neoliberal economics embraced by our hitherto main parties of government, including Labor. It is the main objective of concerns with productivity. It’s implicit in the way standard of living is conceptualised as net national disposal income per capita. It underpins the political power and influence of large corporations.

Social progress: A second, more subtle part of our present paradigm is a view of history as a broadly linear process of social ‘progress’ – understood largely in economic and technological terms – moving from European colonialism to the industrial revolution to the mega-cities and global capitalism of today. With preening hubris, we regard ourselves as the apex of civilisation. This conception of progress lends a superficial sense of purpose and advancement to economic growth. It papers over the extensive harms visited on people along the way and obscures a deeper truth that, in terms of human welfare, our societies have stagnated and started to decline.

Individualism: In the corporate classes and the Australian public mind more broadly, a third aspect of the current paradigm is a culturally embedded commitment to individualism, being the assumption that individual lives are primarily determined by (perceived) personal attributes such as talent, character and persistence. This is largely how we explain other people’s behaviour to ourselves, and define their, or our own ‘success’ or ‘failure’, ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’. This individualism feeds into tacit cooperation with the market economy and the inequalities it entails. It fuels consumerism and the ‘bucket list’ view of personal fulfilment. It marginalises recognition of the many ways life trajectories are shaped by circumstances outside the self, and often outside individuals’ control.

A biomedical and behavioural view of health: In the public imagination and within governments ‘health’ tends to be seen in one of two main ways: health as a by-product of medical care to prevent or treat some form of disease or injury; or health as a by-product of healthy personal choices and behaviours – diet, exercise, and so on. Both views have validity but are limited by regarding health as primarily an attribute of individual bodies and brains. Thus, they fit well with the cultural idea of individualism. Again, the many ways life circumstances affect health outcomes are pushed to the margins.

Concepts of wellbeing: Finally, it is important to note that these four big ideas already incorporate several disparate ideas about human wellbeing, serving to maintain a veneer of moral purpose. Along with the ideas of health above, in the neoliberal economic domain wellbeing is conceptualised in terms of individual choice, agency, and material ‘gain’, fitting neatly with cultural individualism.

Why, then, speak of paradigm change for wellbeing? Well, this is precisely the point. Despite these pretensions, the plain facts make it compellingly obvious that the current paradigm is failing real human wellbeing on multiple fronts. The performative gesture of wellbeing measures is having no discernible effect. The harms arising from the growth economy include:

1. Socially induced stress, economic insecurity, and a toxic media environment leading to epidemics of distress, burnout, mental ill-health, and damaging social behaviour.

2. Stark inequalities in income and wealth, access to social services, housing and others basic conditions of a decent life, concentrating harms among those subject to disadvantage.

3. The on-going damage to the Earth’s ecosystems, biodiversity, water resources and climate stability, and escalating risks to human health and food security.

4. The human and environmental costs of corporate products and practices externalised to governments and societies at large.

The current paradigm is dangerous because those to whom it offers political or economic power use their resources to contain these problems within the existing belief structures; through denial, deflection, public relations, false explanations and inadequate ‘solutions’. Just so long as the present paradigm retains its hold.

Meanwhile, the real harms continue to accumulate. Applying the individualist idea, the political and media system then blames individuals for their failings. Applying the biomedical idea, it expends billions to ‘treat’ and ‘manage’ the resultant health and social problems. Our leaders prattle on about ‘productivity’ but a more inefficient way of doing things could hardly be imagined.

Of course, these five elements are not the only ideas shaping our society, but let’s move on.

Seven elements of paradigm change:

Wellbeing and sustainability as the goals: Our continued commitment to growth as the de facto guiding aim of our society, and the pretence that this somehow serves the common good must go, to be replaced with genuine legal and institutional commitments (as seen, for example, in Wales) to wellbeing and ecological sustainability.

Wellbeing itself: The flawed and failed ideas of wellbeing embedded in the current paradigm all define ‘wellbeing’ as an internal attribute of individuals – in their biology, beliefs, feelings or behaviour. This serves to hide the multiple effects of environments on health and wellbeing. Paradigm change will be assisted by an evidence-based, public health approach to wellbeing. This is not about denying the individual, it is positioning the individual in a broader, relational context.

Government in the public interest: Under the current paradigm, the Australian government has embraced a neoliberal view that the primary role of government is to facilitate market activity. In many areas of policy, government looks to the private sector to deliver investment or services. In many areas of social policy this has resulted in rent seeking and expensive, ineffective services. Public services are gradually reduced to residual status, only for those ‘most in need’. The remedy starts in governments recommitting to their core democratic purpose, to serve the public interest and regulate the market economy accordingly, and human wellbeing sits right at the centre of how the public interest is defined.

Human development for all: Fundamentally, health and wellbeing are realised through processes of development and learning, vesting people with a healthy body and abilities to function in capable, constructive, and caring ways. Throughout the lifespan, such development is also contingent on having access to supportive conditions. Under our current paradigm, we simply fail to provide these basic conditions to all and indeed expose many to actively harmful conditions. Working to ensure that all people have access to supportive conditions and can build capabilities for wellbeing will be of huge benefit to our society and much fairer than the present system.

A revised idea of progress and history: Under our current paradigm – and its idea of progress – there is a sense in which societies like Australia are always ‘rushing forward’, reaching for the next thing, something more, something new, somewhere else. The much-needed shift in perspective – which we yearn for but cannot see – is to decide to be where we are, to live simply and well in the world as it is. Instead of progress in quantity, we can aspire to improvements in the quality of lives. A revised view of history will support these changes, recognising that knowledge and skills relevant to wellbeing have been present in many cultures over many years.

Care for and connection to country: The current paradigm treats the world as merely a set of assets for the growth economy. The consequent degradation of lands and waters, ecosystems, biodiversity, animals, soils, air, water, and climate stability is unsustainable, of course, but also undermines health and wellbeing. Conversely, concerted actions to care for and reconnect with the natural world are both crucial for environmental sustainability and powerful ways to promote wellbeing. Indigenous peoples have long tried to pass on their wisdom, that we are deeply connected physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually to the natural world. 

Community as the foundation: Under the current paradigm, an industrial model of society still affects us. Business owners, entrepreneurs and CEOs are seen to drive the economy while the rest of us are seen collectively as workforce, to be housed in dormitory suburbs, educated with employable skills, and ranked for employment hierarchy. The fabric of social relations that sustains actual people and raises their children has been taken for granted and, through neglect, allowed to fray. Conversely, strengthening community life in all its local places and spaces present a tremendous opportunity for wellbeing to be cultivated.

Paradigm change already underway

There are many people and organisations working locally for wellbeing in their communities, farms, towns, families and workplaces in ways consistent with these ideas. The ideas I’ve proposed have much in common with the work of people advocating for wellbeing economies. Some governments internationally and in Australia are moving beyond wellbeing measures to define and act on real policy change. These are the nascent elements of paradigm change already underway. Building some consensus around the defining ideas of that change will help push the door further open.  Paradigm change can be slow, but tipping points are also possible.