Keywords

1 Introduction

In the past, psychology and positive psychology (PP) in particular, had neglected the role of worldviews, culture and context largely in efforts to understand human behavior, and tended to assume that perspectives and findings from the West apply globally. However, science develops continuously and in more recent times the skewedness of these assumptions became clear. More voices iterate that culture fair models and indigenous studies are needed. These insights mainly came from observed differences between the West and East Asian perspectives, and functioning in an African context was for a long time neglected. Lately this picture started to change, enriching both psychology and positive psychology, but insights are still scattered. In this chapter, developments in PP will be indicated, and it will be argued that the understanding of well-being needs to be informed by insights gained from diverse contexts. We will highlight how new developments in PP resonate with imprints from long existing African values. Positive psychology is only starting to make footprints in Africa, but the richness of African values already revealed imprints that make this context a fertile soil for well-being studies and flourishing of PP as a science—despite the prevailing existence of political strife, poverty and corruption. Africa has an abundance of cultures rich in art, spirituality, caring and sharing. Countries in Africa also have a shared collectivist orientation in which the individual is less important than the (in)group (Nwoye, 2017). However, nowadays collectivist and individualist orientations across many world regions tend to exist side by side in urban areas with a collectivist orientation more prevalent in rural and poorer areas (Philips & Wong, 2017).

Our methodological approach in this chapter is that of a purposive narrative and interpretative literature review with abstraction of broad trends (Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2016). Slife et al. (2017) recently criticized psychology for the lack of attention to worldviews and recognition that these may differ in diverse contexts. The question is whether the same pertains to positive psychology, and if, or to what extent, changes can be noted in the development of thoughts in PP as shown in content focused on, methods used, and metatheoretical assumptions influencing focus and preferred methods, and in turn being influenced by context—also looking out for the African footprint. We noted signs of changes over time and propose that three phases can be distinguished. Our line of argumentation will be reflected in the structure of this chapter (cf. Jaakkola, 2020). Assumptions about the world, people, and proper methods to generate new knowledge, are typically implicit and need to be highlighted or detected and made explicit. Therefore, our aim was to detect, abstract and describe noted changes in focus, methods and worldview assumptions of PP over time, making the implicit explicit (cf. Kosterec, 2016) with the use of exemplars as found in PP literature, as well as juxtaposing it with developments and assumptions from African perspectives. Our approach to document tracking was purposive, and articles were selected to illustrate our argument about changes in PP thoughts and assumptions over time, and manifesting in what we named the third wave of PP. Of course the ideas presented here may also be influenced by our own worldviews and process of development in conceptualizations and foci. We thus do not claim that it is an “objective” reflection of the state of the art. However, we will illustrate, with use of the selected relevant literature (exemplars), changes in content, methods and assumptions, and especially highlight “markers” of what we note as an emerging “third wave” of positive psychology moving towards inter- and transdisciplinary well-being studies. These ideas will be linked to old African notions of interconnectedness among people, people and nature, the natural and the supranatural.

In the following text, we argue in Sect. 1.2 the problem of a neglect of attention to diverse contexts and worldview assumptions in psychology and positive psychology in particular, and note some early steps in the development of positive psychology in the African context. In Sect. 1.3, we briefly describe the typical trajectory for the development of disciplines in general as proposed by philosophers of science, and then turn to developments in positive psychology in particular. The main part of this chapter then consists of the abstraction and description of main trends that we identify in the development of positive psychology as a scientific discipline. We identify and describe the characteristics of the three phases or waves of thought developments in positive psychology, with a specific focus on the newly emerging third wave. In Sect. 1.4 we note African value imprints that dovetail with assumptions of the third wave of PP. Lastly, we share some insights and thoughts about the way forward in Sect. 1.5.

2 Neglect of Culture, Context and Worldviews in Psychology and Positive Psychology

Research in psychology and in particular positive psychology, had thus far mainly been conducted from a Western perspective (Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008; Henrich et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2018; Slife et al., 2017). In the last decade East Asian perspectives came more to the forefront and some differences in findings from those in the West were indicated (Kim et al., 2018; Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). Well-being studies had been neglected in the African context (Kim et al., 2018; Wilson-Fadiji & Wissing, 2021), but they are gaining momentum (e.g., Appiah et al., 2020; Chika Chukwuorji et al., 2019; Mahali et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018). Although increasingly more well-being studies are being conducted in Africa, it is often approached from a Western perspective and using measures developed in the West. The neglect is however not only at the level of culture fair measurement, but also mostly at the level of cultural applicability of constructs and assumptions about the world. Such assumptions speak to what is valued, and it is now increasingly explicitly recognized that values play a role in PP (Prinzing, 2020).

Christopher et al. (2008) welcomed the corrective brought by positive psychology to mainstream psychology, which had in the past primarily been focused on what is wrong with people, but also indicated the failures to explore well-being in diverse contexts and in plural societies. Christopher and Hickinbottom (2008) critically evaluated some of the key conceptual and moral underpinnings of PP and pointed out its shortcomings as neglecting cultural embeddedness of ideas, and using a one-sided individualist lens and an instrumentalist approach. In the same volume of papers on rethinking PP in the journal Theory & Psychology, Sundararajan (2008) also explored Asian conceptions of well-being relying on assumptions about the self that differ from assumptions in individualistic Western contexts. This volume, however, did not include any perspective from the African continent. Yet, it is not only PP that neglected the role of culture and context, but psychology as a discipline: Henrich et al. (2010) argued that psychology as discipline had been mainly driven as a science conducted from a Western, individualist perspective with educated and rich people from democratic societies as participants, while people with this profile comprise a small percentage of the world population. Although this picture is now changing, there is still a neglect of the role of worldviews in mainstream psychology as indicated by Slife and colleagues (2017) in their book titled The hidden worldviews of psychology’s theory, research and practice. The same holds to a large extent for positive psychology. Alexandrova (2017) accentuated that philosophical assumptions (worldviews) influence our conceptualizations, the methods used in science, as well as the adopted confirmation processes and interpretations.

Worldviews are overarching philosophical beliefs about life and values, and are imbedded in cultural and social contexts (Slife et al., 2017; Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2016). Worldviews can be seen as consisting of ontological, epistemological and axiological beliefs. Ontology refers to beliefs about the world and humans in particular. Epistemology refers to beliefs about how we develop and validate knowledge. Axiology/ethics/values refer to what we assume to be good and bad, or desirable and undesirable. Even if not recognized, worldviews will influence discipline- and topic-specific beliefs as well as preferred research methods. Unrecognized worldview assumptions are dangerous in research and practice as such “blind” scientists or practitioners will assume that all others share their assumptions, and that their own assumptions are the only correct ones. This had been the case with Western perspectives in psychology and positive psychology as mentioned in the critiques referred to above.

Embracing worldviews from diverse contexts, including African contexts, can enrich understandings of well-being and enhancement thereof in culture-sensitive and ethically appropriate ways. Therefore, the humble understanding of multiple perspectives, as also described by Nyamnjoh (2015/2017) and Nwoye (2018) from African perspectives, as well as by Guse et al. (2019) and Wissing et al. (2018), may contribute in future to a deeper understanding of well-being. Fortunately, development in science itself takes place and in recent years showed a trajectory towards embracing diverse perspectives.

Scholarly work in positive psychology started relatively late in the African context, but in South Africa some early voices could be noted such as those of Strümpfer (Wilson-Fadiji & Wissing, 2021). Strümpfer, Wissing, and Van Eeden conducted empirical work on well-being in the early nineties before the formal establishment of PP with a focus on salutogenesis and fortigenesis and signalled the emergence of a new subdiscipline they called “psychofortology” (Strümpfer, 1990, 1995, 2005; Strümpfer & Wissing, 1998; Wissing & Van Eeden, 1997, 2002) which became simultaneously known as positive psychology in America (cf. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Contributions such as those by Eloff (2007) and the book Well-being research in South Africa (Wissing, 2013) marked the coming of a period of many well-being studies in South-Africa. Nowadays several large research teams in PP are active in South Africa, and well-being studies are emerging in many other African countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Nigeria (for example, Appiah et al., 2020; Chika Chukwuorji et al., 2019; Dzokoto et al., 2019; Selvam & Collicutt, 2013) and across countries such as by Eloff et al. (2008). To a large extent these studies still lack reflection on the role of philosophical assumptions about the world and science and how these play out in the understanding and promotion of well-being. But voices from Africa are now starting to be recognized (Eloff, 2019; Nwoye, 2018; Nyamnjoh, 2015/2017) and pointing to the always shifting complexities of human being and becoming, taking worldviews into consideration.

3 Developments in Science: The Case of Positive Psychology

During the past two decades, positive psychology (PP) developed as a science similarly to other disciplines. Changes can be seen in assumptions, methods and focus. Old ideas are challenged and new perspectives put forward. It can, however, now also be seen that more is going on in PP than only accumulation of new knowledge: There are also gradual shifts in perspectives on metatheoretical, theoretical and empirical levels in line with tendencies previously identified in philosophy of science as paradigmatic shifts, as described below.

3.1 Developments in Science in General

Positive psychology (PP) developed similarly to most other scientific disciplines, with regard to accumulation of knowledge, but over time old assumptions, theories and methods were also challenged. Staats (1999) conceptualized the development of science in terms of accumulation of knowledge through a process of continuous differentiation and integration of information. There is, however, a difference between accumulation of knowledge and shifts in knowledge. Kuhn (1970, 1977), a philosopher of science, coined the idea of a “disciplinary matrix” which is a shared normative belief that includes ontological assumptions, values, and the assumed criteria for good scientific practice, and usually also a typical vocabulary and focus of research. Kuhn argued that periods of growth and accumulation of knowledge takes place in the phase of what he called “normal science”. But sometimes researchers come across problems they cannot solve, and after various efforts without success, the so-called “revolutionary phase” emerges in which everything change. At this point researchers adopt new perspectives and assumptions, and they may resort to a completely new focus and theories, as well as new methods that are deemed appropriate. This is what Kuhn indicated as a “paradigm shift”. The change thus includes the whole “scientific text” (Madsen, 1988), manifesting on a philosophical (worldview) level, a theoretical level, and an empirical level. In such a shift not only all components of the disciplinary matrix change, but also the direction of research.

Such paradigm shifts as described by Kuhn (1970, 1977) could be noticed to some extent in the natural sciences, but are not clearly demarcated in human and social sciences. Shifts do take place in the humanities and social sciences, but they develop more gradually, and old ideas may co-exist with new ideas (Madsen, 1988). Of course, there is also an integration of new knowledge and differentiation of aspects taking place over time in the growth of the discipline, but shifts and changes in assumptions, theories and methods do also occur. For example, old and new ways of understanding the nature of well-being, may continue to exist alongside each other. Of course, nowadays many other large scale changes and developments are taking place in science, including the science of PP, for example with regard to the use of new technologies, trends towards globalization, the emerging 4th Industrial Revolution, larger scope of projects (cf. Nicolescu, 2010, 2015), eResearch, large data bases from social media, and so forth. These aside for now, we will next move to a description of the noticed shifts in positive psychology as such, and how these developments manifest on metatheoretical, theoretical and empirical levels. We will also consider how some of the assumptions in the third wave of PP in particular resonate with African imprints from long ago—but which are also to some extent still at play in contemporary times.

3.2 Phases in the Development of Positive Psychology as a Science

In this chapter we argue that three waves or phases can be distinguished in the development of positive psychology across the previous two decades of its formal existence (1998/2000–2020). In summary, the first phase of PP (1998/2000–2010) focused strongly on advocating for the positive in human functioning in contrast to past perspectives that mostly focused on the negatives. Various facets of well-being were distinguished and received attention in empirical studies and theories. The second phase of PP (more or less 2010–2015) is marked by the recognition that negative facets of human life should also be taken into account in the dynamics of well-being. Cultural aspects were noted and some relatively more holistic and integrative theories were formulated. A third wave of PP (more or less 2015–2020 and continuing), with a strong focus on context and connections between people and among person and environment, can now be noticed to emerge (cf. Wissing et al., 2020). In this third phase, different disciplines focus on well-being which is explored in various domains of life. Multi- and transdisciplinary research and practice come to the forefront. This can be seen as an embracing of well-being in diverse contexts from multiple and transdisciplinary perspectives. New horizons for understanding and promoting well-being and health are opening up.

3.2.1 The First Phase/Wave of PP from 1998/2000–2010

It was initially debated whether PP was a new paradigm, a novel movement in psychology, or a new discipline, but these questions were soon put aside, and empirical research took off at an astounding pace—primarily from an individualist perspective. In 1998 Seligman announced in his presidential APA address that a new focus on what is well with people will be his main mission (Seligman, 1998). The first volume of publications on PP topics was published in 2000 in the American Psychologist (with Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi as guest editors). Soon many studies were conducted on positive traits, character strengths and processes. A flourishing area of well-being studies developed. In the early publications (e.g., the January issue of the American Psychologist, 2000) there was a strong call, in particular from Seligman (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) that “real scientific methods” should be used so that objective truths can be revealed similarly to how it is done in the natural sciences. It is noteworthy that, in this process, no attention was paid to the role of worldview assumptions.

Research in positive psychology aimed to understand and promote well-being and the quality of life by focusing on strengths and resources (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Hart and Sasso (2011) indicated the exponential growth of PP in the first phase of its formal existence. In this phase of positive psychology’s development, many constructs related to well-being came into focus, for example, positive emotions, satisfaction with life, creativity, gratitude, hope and many more—several of these already explored before the formal announcement of PP. Mainly the nature of well-being was explored in this phase, but later on also its dynamics as in Fredrickson’s broaden and build model (Frederickson, 2001), and then also how well-being can be promoted and how the effects of interventions can be evaluated (e.g., Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010; Fredrickson et al., 2008; Lubbe & Eloff, 2004; Lyubomirsky, 2008; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Wissing et al., 2008). Initially the focus was mostly on life satisfaction and subjective well-being known as hedonic (also named feeling good) happiness (e.g., Diener, 1984; Kahneman et al., 1999). Later the focus also shifted to perspectives on eudaimonic well-being (functioning well), including facets such as purpose, meaning, meaning-making and other well-being components (e.g., Emmons, 2005; Hicks & King, 2009; Lambert et al., 2009; Steger et al., 2011; Wong, 2011).

Apart from the focus on empirical and theoretical aspects of well-being, a quantitative methodological approach was advocated, with no attention to metatheoretical ontological assumptions and an implicit epistemological view that real knowledge can only be gained from quantitative, and preferably experimental designs. Some main characteristics typical of the first wave of PP can be abstracted.

Major characteristics of the first phase of PP as a science are as follows:

  • Researchers explored what is best in people, their capacities and strengths, and how these can be enhanced, instead of focusing on how pathology can be remedied. There was thus an active advocating for a focus on the positives in human functioning (Ebersöhn, 2007; Ebersöhn & Eloff, 2006; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Theron & Theron, 2010; Wissing & Van Eeden, 2002; Wissing & Temane, 2008).

  • Researchers attempted to identify the more granular components of well-being. Increasingly more specific facets of well-being were explored, for example, apart from the initial focus on satisfaction with life and subjective well-being, more attention was paid to positive affect, optimism, flow, autonomy, meaning, mindfulness, grit and character strengths.

  • As knowledge accumulated in PP, the similarities and differences among conceptualizations were analyzed, and higher order integrations emerged, for example, the clustering of constructs and assumptions in the so-called hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

  • The maturation of the field was shown in theory building by the development of the now well-known broaden and build model of positive emotions by Barbara Fredrickson (2001, 2006, 2009).

  • Some existing theories in psychology were drawn into PP research, for example, flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), or Ryff’s work which was actually conducted outside the formal PP movement, but focused on well-being and health (e.g., Ryff, 1989, 1995).

  • Similar types of studies took place in mainstream PP, positive youth development, humanistic perspectives, quality of life perspectives, and asset-based approaches, conducted in a silo fashion without any interaction or recognition of each other’s work.

  • In the first phase of PP there was a neglect of attention to cultural contexts, ethics, and the multimodal nature of well-being.

  • Quantitative methodologies prevailed, hypotheses were tested, efforts were made to establish causality, and generalizations of findings were made ignoring the role of contexts.

  • Worldviews were not explicated but can be deducted to be individualist in orientation and based on the assumption that the reality can be known as it is, by applying objective methods. It was assumed that researchers were value-free.

  • Main stream research in PP during the first phase can be described as WEIRD (cf. Henrich et al., 2010); that is, it was primarily conducted by and on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic countries (while the majority of people on earth are not WEIRD), although exceptions also existed as indicated by studies in the African continent.

See Table 1.1 for a summary of trends in the first wave of PP with regard to its focus, methods and metatheoretical assumptions.

Table 1.1 Summary: first wave
Full size table

3.2.2 The Second Phase/Wave of PP from More or Less 2010–2015

The major new contribution of the second wave of positive psychology was the explicit recognition that both the positives and negatives of life are important to understand well-being. Early in this phase the role of both the positives and negatives was highlighted in the rapid surge of research on resilience, showing that positive growth is sometimes possible even after severe stressors (e.g., Ebersöhn, 2012; Theron & Theron, 2010, 2014; Ryff, 2014; Uchida, 2011; Ungar, 2012; Wong, 2011). But formal recognition of the importance to also take note of the negatives of life for a deeper understanding of well-being, was only recognized later on in the second wave of PP. The second wave emerged while tendencies from the first wave of PP continued.

During the first phase of PP strong external critique was already launched at the underlying assumptions of PP from philosophical and other perspectives (e.g., Held, 2002, 2004, 2018; Lazarus, 2003; Norem & Chang, 2002; Ryff & Singer, 1998), but these were initially just ignored by most researchers in mainstream positive psychology. However, these critiques were gradually accepted and complemented with critique from internal voices in PP (cf. Guse, 2010; Lomas et al., 2015; McNulty & Fincham, 2012; Ryff, 2014; Wong, 2011). The core of these external and internal critiques was aimed at the idea that some phenomena (traits or events) were inherently positive (and thus also inherently desirable), and others inherently negative (and thus inherently undesirable), while ignoring context and culture. Researchers promoting the second wave of PP argued that the categorization of events or traits as positive or negative depends on context. For example, McNulty and Fincham (2012) pointed out that the meaning of supposedly positive constructs/behavior such as “forgiveness” depends on the context, illustrating this notion with the example of the consequences of forgiveness in a good versus an abusive relationship—forgiveness may build the relationship in the first instance, but may even lead to the possibility of death for the forgiver in the second case.

The inclusion of the positives as well as negatives of life in positive psychology research came into focus, amongst others, with the work of Wong (2011, 2012) and Lomas and Ivtzan (2015) who respectively referred to it as PP 2.0 and the “second wave” of PP. Apart from situational contexts as indicated by McNulty and Fincham (2012), cultural context was also indicated as highly important for the understanding of well-being constructs (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015; Ogihara & Uchida, 2014; Schutte et al., 2013; Uchida & Ogihara, 2012). Lomas (2016) referred to many so-called untranslatable words in various languages, referring to aspects of well-being that may improve the understanding of the nuances well-being in cultural contexts. Lomas and Ivtzan (2015) highlighted the complex interplay and dynamics of the positives and negatives in human experiences, and that some constructs or phenomena can even contain both positive and negative connotations or feelings, for example the Portuguese word “saudade” which refers to a melancholic longing; or the German word “waldeinsamkeit” referring to a feeling of solitude and enchantment while being solitary in the woods; or the well-known “sehnsuht” which is a nice and painful romantic longing. The same word may have different connotations in different cultural contexts as argued by Shiah (2016). For example, from a Western perspective, a positive “self-esteem” is important for well-being, but from a Buddhist perspective, the self does not even exist. Self-esteem is also viewed as secondary to the importance of the group in interdependent or relatively collectivist cultural contexts (Shiah, 2016). Grant and Schwartz (2011) argued that too much of a good thing can be bad, for example extreme optimism may lead to dangerous risk taking, whereas something supposedly negative such as pessimism can have an upside in that it may lead to prudence. It is thus clear that the positives and negatives in human experiences are complexly intertwined and context-dependent. This phenomenon is not specifically related to constructs referring to the positives and negatives in life, but part of a universal linguistic manifestation of the important role of culture, history and geography in similar or more different meanings attached to words as recently indicated by Thompson et al. (2020).

Wong's (2011, 2012) dual-systems model of well-being integrates the positives and negatives as well as cultural contextual components in his meaning-centred eudaimonic perspective. He highlights the ethical and moral underpinnings of conceptualizations of well-being, implying the role of worldviews. Some multidimensional integrated theories of well-being were formulated in this phase of PP, such as the LIFE-model by Lomas et al. (2015). The multiplicity of metatheoretical perspectives assumed in perspectives on well-being became evident as was highlighted by Waterman (2013a, 2013b), and constructivist and qualitative interpretive perspectives emerged (e.g., Gergen, 2011; White & Jha, 2014). Various disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, human movement sciences, leisure studies, and more, started to explore facets and correlates of well-being (e.g., Haybron, 2011; Hefferon, 2013; Thin, 2014).

Major characteristics of the second phase of PP as a science are as follows:

  • The main new trends in this wave of PP were the recognition that the positive and negative facets of life are interwoven, that the understanding of something as positive or negative depends on context (culture and situation), and that facets of human functioning may simultaneously reflect positive and negative connotations.

  • The relevance and importance of cultural contexts for the understanding of well-being became increasingly strongly foregrounded.

  • The multidimensional nature of well-being became captured in the development of relatively more holistic theories of well-being.

  • Disciplines apart from psychology increasingly began to explore well-being topics.

  • Mixed methods studies were more frequently used in this phase of PP, including in-depth qualitative studies; data were collected in interviews, focus groups, in small and large samples with surveys and other quantitative methods.

  • On a metatheoretical level, multiple worldviews were recognized in PP during the second phase. Constructivist perspectives and interpretive approaches came into vogue; it was recognized that researchers are subjective and that research is not value-free—which of course influenced interpretations.

See Table 1.2 for a summary of trends in the second wave of PP with regard to its focus, methods and metatheoretical assumptions.

Table 1.2 Summary: second wave
Full size table

3.2.3 The Third Phase/Wave of PP from Around 2015–2020

In this phase, rigorous research and practice in PP were/are ongoing in line with the assumptions of the first and second waves, but a third wave is now also emerging. In this third wave (PP 3.0) more unequivocal emphasis is placed on contextualization, and interconnectedness (that includes spirituality/transcendence), and on multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary research and practice with a view to the complexity of well-being issues (Wissing, 2018; Wissing et al., 2018, 2019). In this third wave of PP, “context” refers to countries, cultures, social and physical environments, life phases, gender categories, life domains, and other. The focus on interconnectedness facilitates post-disciplinary work in research and practice, with collaboration in multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary teams (e.g., Delle Fave et al., 2017).

Ideas from the second wave are being taken forward during the third wave: Held (2018) accentuated that, in order to improve the understanding of well-being, PP should also explore the adaptive functioning of “negativity” just as it studies the adaptive functioning of “positivity”. Lomas (2018) argued the normality of sadness in life which may also have inherent value, and foster growth and flourishing. In the third wave of PP, the positive and negative emotions are also further explored from a cultural perspective (e.g., Miyamoto et al., 2017). The intertwinedness of the positives and negatives accentuated in the second wave is explored in the third wave in evaluating of PP interventions aiming at targeting both enhancement of well-being and ameliorating negative symptoms showing their interwovenness (e.g., Geerling et al., 2020; Hendriks et al., 2019).

In the third wave of PP the unjustified assumptions of a value-free PP, as initially projected, are pointed out by O’Doherty (2016) as well as Di Martino et al. (2017). They highlight the neglect of context, social justice and values, and even contend that foci sometimes only conceal an egoist pursuit and personal satisfaction which ignore the possible negative effect of behaviors on others, the psychosocial environment and physical context. The accentuation of social justice indicates the importance of the wider society and political contexts. The third wave of PP in particular highlights the role of processes such as liberation, justice, and power, and the value of participation, mutuality, and the ethics of care in the understanding and promoting of well-being (cf. Di Martino et al., 2017).

Several authors thus indicated the importance of understanding well-being not only as an intra- and interpersonal phenomenon, but also as a quality of connectedness to the physical environment (e.g., Helne & Hirvilammi, 2015) and spiritual/religuous contexts (Sharma & Singh, 2019) which is in line with a strong relationality or cosmodernity assumptions (cf. Helne & Hirvilammi, 2015; Nicolescu, 2014a, 2015) on a methatheoretical level. The notion of taking various levels of well-being (e.g., individual, group, community, society, eco-system, and spiritual) into account, as well as links among levels, is argued by several researchers, for example Galderisi et al. (2015, 2017), Harrell (2018), Urata (2015), Warren and Donaldson (2018), and many more. A renewed interest in research on spirituality and religion on the one hand, and well-being on the other hand, can be noted amongst others, in the research of Chirico (2016), Lifshitz et al. (2019), Nicolescu (2014b), Van Cappellen et al. (2017), Sharma and Singh (2019), and Villani et al. (2019). This focus on spirituality and well-being resonates with longstanding contributions from Africa (cf. also Nwoye, 2017).

Studies by Delle Fave et al. (2017), Fowers et al. (2017), and Helne and Hirvilammi (2015) show the multimodal nature of well-being and the inextricable intertwinedness of the positives and negatives in human life in the context of frailty, suffering and illness, and also indicate the dependence of wellbeing on the health of the ecosystem. Delle Fave (2018) emphasizes the complex interplay between psychological and biological facets, and highlights the importance of understanding well-being within an interconnectedness approach. Such developments point to the importance of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research in the unraveling of the complexities inherent in well-being manifestations. The same is argued from a philosophical perspective by Finkenthal (2016).

On a metatheoretical level, the third wave of PP reflects multiple worldviews. An acceptance of the interconnectedness of everything can be seen in explicit strong relational ontological assumptions as by Helne and Hirvilammi (2015) and Nicolesco’s (2014a, 2014b, 2015) metatheoretical ideas of cosmodernity and the hidden third. The implications of metatheoretical Aristotelian virtue ethics assumptions for theory and practice in well-being research is explored by various researchers (e.g., Berg, 2020; Fowers, 2016; Fowers & Anderson, 2018; Intelisano et al., 2020; Proctor, 2019). Epistemological assumptions on what proper methods are to produce trustworthy knowledge, make space for a variety of approaches.

The notion of the complex multimodalness of well-being, and the necessity of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research and practice for the understanding and promotion of well-being in increasingly complex contexts seems to be trickling through to the ground level of conversations and organization of PP conferences. Conferences are increasingly being advertised as multidisciplinary, for example, the third China International Conference on Positive Psychology 2015 was advertised as: “The conference is a multidisciplinary event where scholars who work on various aspects of positive psychology and human happiness can come together to present, discuss and exchange ideas and to foster interdisciplinary collaborative projects”. The 2019 International Positive Psychology Association’s Conference had “Nexus” as an overarching theme, referring to connectedness among people, ideas and disciplines. Signs of the third wave of PP can be noticed in research and practice, and with reference to the empirical and theoretical focus of studies, methods used and metatheoretical assumptions made.

The major characteristics of the third phase of PP as a science are as follows:

  • There is a focus on contextualization, interconnectedness and complexity. Diverse meanings of “context” are taken into account, and efforts are made to understand the dynamics among individuals and the broader social, cultural and ecological contexts in well-being.

  • There is an upsurge in attention to spirituality/transcendence as shown in references to worldviews as well as explorations on the empirical level.

  • Recognition of complexity of well-being issues takes foreground, and includes attention to interconnectedness, context, and spirituality (complex: Latin roots com = “together”, and plex = “woven”; = woven together) inviting post-disciplinary approaches for the understanding of well-being.

  • Multi- and mixed-methods as well as more action research approaches are used. Quantitative and qualitative aspects are taken into account, with also specific focus on lay people’s perspectives for a deeper understanding of well-being.

  • A strong relational ontological perspective is emerging in worldviews. Values and ethical aspects are considered highly important in the understanding of well-being. Various worldviews now co-exist.

  • A cosmodern metatheoretical view that assumes the relatedness of all things is promoting transdisciplinarity. Increasingly integration and cooperation among disciplines are developing. The most prominent characteristic of the third wave is the shift towards a post-disciplinary phase that can be seen in the strong advocacy for multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research and practice for promotion of well-being. See Table 1.3 for a summary of trends in the third wave of PP with regard to its focus, methods and metatheoretical assumptions.

Table 1.3 Summary: third wave—PP 3.0
Full size table

4 African Value Imprints and Positive Psychology

The linchpin of the third wave of PP as indicated above, is a transdisciplinary approach with a focus on the complexity of well-being, assuming the interwovenness of humans, nature, belief systems and contextual situatedness. The acceptance of the interconnectedness of things implies relational metatheoretical assumptions in ontology and epistemology such as found in the ideas of cosmodernity by Nicolescu (2014a, 2014b, 2015) and proposed by Nyamnjoh (2015/2017) in his perspectives about reality. The idea of multiplicity of systems, complexity and interconnectedness in life and reality is part of an old African imprint as expressed by Baloyi and Mokobe-Rabothata (2014, p. 265): “Africans understand their being-in-the-world as a qualitative tapestry of connected systems which deal with life issues collectively and collaboratively”. The philosophical perspectives in which both the natural and supernatural worlds are seen as being intertwined, relevant and in need of being harmonized in order to ensure health and well-being was known long ago and assumed in African worldviews (cf. Eloff, 2008). Such complexities of being and relating are now also recognized in assumptions of the third wave of PP, although expressed differently.

Senghor (1970, p. 181) indicated that in an African context there is “a kind of knowledge that emerges from the harmonizing and fusing of things” (is this intuition, or what Michael [Polanyi, 1967]) long ago called “tacit knowledge” meaning we know more than we can tell?). Important here is the idea of harmonization. The importance of harmony in lay people’s experiences of happiness and well-being has been shown in a multicultural mixed methods study by Delle Fave et al. (2016), but empirical evidence is lacking on the role of harmonizing as proposed by Senghor (1970) as an antecedent for well-being as an outcome. Igbokwe and Ndom (2008) indicated that good health in an African context means that the individual is in harmony with his/her cosmos (that includes the self, other people as well as the natural environment and spiritual forces). Disharmony manifests in physical, psychological and social illness. Igbokwe et al. (2015) developed a harmony-disharmony scale to evaluate in which areas of the individual’s situatedness in the cosmos disharmony disrupts life, in order to ameliorate this, based on the principles of the harmony restoration theory. The perspective on the role of harmony and harmonization in health and well-being invites further empirical research, especially in instances where the environment and experienced spiritual forces are included.

The African notion that “people and things adopt different forms and manifest themselves differently according to context and necessity” as described by Nyamnjoh (2017, p. 258) also needs a deeper understanding and empirical exploration through a well-being lens. In Nyamnjoh’s worldview, reality does not only consist of what can be observed or rationally accounted for—reality also includes the emotional, the intuitive, the invisible and the inexplicable. Nyamnjoh (2015/2017) proposes the idea of “conviviality” that refers to the processes of recognition and respect for the notion that reality is always in flux and people are always incomplete. This position is a metatheoretical stance (resonating with the acceptance of plurality of assumptions about the world), but also a theoretical perspective on human functioning. He argues that incompleteness is the normal way of being, and of life. Conviviality invites all people to reach out to others in their incompleteness—not in order to try to become complete in themselves, but to complement the other and make all of them more effective in their relationships and lives. Individual and collective interests are served if these are sought in acknowledgement and appreciation of the incompleteness of the self and others with whom they are connected. Conviviality means collaboration, dialogue, compassion and interdependence. It links people, build bridges, and consolidate the good life for all. Conviviality does not negate the existence of animosities, conflicts and tensions, but carefully seek a balance between intimacy and distance, knowing that there is a necessity for harmony which is an imperative for individual and collective success and well-being. As Nyamnjoh (2017, p. 263) indicates: “In a context where reality is more than meets the eye and matters are far from fixed, life becomes a process of negotiating and navigating possibilities of being and becoming”. We need to further explore what such dynamics mean on empirical levels for experienced well-being in an African context, and for processes to enhance health and well-being.

Linking to the Nyamnjoh’s ideas of incompleteness, Nwoye (2018) forwards the idea of the Madiban tradition referring to the incompleteness of either Western or African perspectives on science. He proposes that the inadequacies and incompleteness of Western psychology need to be complemented by the acknowledgement of supernatural forces and other invisible influences in people’s lives. The term Madiban, comes from the word Madiba which refers to an African moral vision that emphasizes seeing the natural and supernatural as relevant realities (Nwoye, 2018). Such supernatural forces may not be measurable, but form part of metatheoretical assumptions about the world, and are reflected in lay people’s experiences on which they can comment. The role of spirituality and environmental aspects in well-being, that are now coming into vogue in PP, had thus long ago already been known as important in an African belief system. What this means for the understanding and promotion of well-being and health in an African context, can now be further explored. Such studies had started as can be seen in the work of Ohajunwa and Mji (2018) who reviewed the literature on African indigenous conceptualizations of spirituality, and indicated the role thereof in notions of well-being.

A typical African strength (similar to the value in action character strengths described by Peterson & Seligman, 2004), is “hospitality” (cf. Kiige et al., 2019). Although the term “hospitality” is well known in general and is also specifically used in the context of the hospitality and tourism sector, it is a particularly valued practice in the African context—it is a basic moral, social and cultural value grounded in the worldview that no one exists alone. In a daily life context hospitality is a giving (of time, assistance, food, a place to stay, etc.) without expecting something back (Kiige et al., 2019; Olikenyi, 2001; Selvam & Collicutt, 2013). It is expressed in a generous, both hands-openness welcoming. Such a character strength resonates with qualities of positive relationships in PP, but exhibits more depth and unconditionality as typically practiced in a Western context. Hospitality, as an exceptional way of being welcoming, is in the African perspective rooted in views on morality and harmony (Matondo, 2012; Metz, 2016).

5 The Way Forward

The way forward for PP in general and in an African context in particular, requires: Firstly, in general, that researchers in PP self-reflect and make an effort—thus knowing own emotions, sensitivities, knowledge base, motivations, assumptions, values and worldviews, and respectfully making an effort to understand those of others. Secondly, in moving from me to us, multiple or cosmodern worldviews can be understood and embraced, leading to transcendence of binarity in worldviews and collaboration across cultures, as well as a search to work together in inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary research and practice in methodological endevours. Thirdly, with such a multi- and transdisciplinary approach and focus on interconnectedness, the nature and dynamics of the complexity of well-being can be explored and the lived experiences better understood. Such processes will engender multidisciplinary promotion of well-being as an outcome—on individual, group, societal, and ecological levels. Multi- and transdisciplinary efforts will enable researchers and practitioners to engage with complex well-being issues, such as well-being in times of pandemics, in contexts of inequality, violence, displacement of peoples, and climate change (cf. Dielman, 2015; Lueddeke, 2019), and may enhance the richness of resources, strengths and health for diverse people in diverse contexts. In a multi- and transdisciplinary approach there can be an integration of knowledge from a variety of groups, such as scientists, practitioners, policymakers, regulators, and the public. Fourthly, in moving forward, a renewed awareness of ethics need to be part of well-being research, because ethics is all about the quality of relations and responsibilities.

Considering the third wave of PP, and taking cognisance of the African psychological perspective that assumes the existence of natural and supernatural phenomena on both ontological and empirical levels, the question is: What can PP look like in an African context? It will amongst others imply the generation of dependable knowledge via a variety of methodological approaches as described by Nwoye (2018), and conducted in the third wave of PP research. The role of spirituality and interconnectedness that are now rising in importance in the focus of Western PP, had long been an imprint of African thought (e.g., Balcomb et al., 2017; Baloyi & Mokobe-Rabothata, 2014; Gyekye, 1995). The new challenge is to explore the harmonization of Western and African perspectives in PP on metatheoretical levels, with then also a specific focus on harmony and harmonization as manifestation of health and well-being on an empirical level. In both Western and African perspectives harmony, together with its concomitants of balance, peace, and equanimity, are taking foreground in the understanding of well-being and the dynamics involved. However, the manifestations thereof may differ in African contexts in comparison to the manifestation in Western contexts. More specifically, there is an important element of liveliness and vitality in direct perceptions and experiences in African contexts as described by Senghor that also manifests in a different quality of connectedness and “sunny” collectivism in Africa than for example in the Eastern more subdued collectivist contexts (Wissing & Temane, 2008; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/l%c3%a9opold_s%c3%a9dar_senghor).

Going forward, we suggest that “well-being studies” are used as the overarching umbrella term for studies on flourishing, positive traits, processes, behaviors, and interactions, to create space for the multi-modal nature and situational imbeddedness of well-being and multi- and transdisciplinary approaches to it, instead of the disciplinary restricted “positive psychology”. The use of “well-being” as overarching umbrella term for phenomena reflecting optimal psychological function, or described as positive and life- and growth affirming, had already been used by Ryan and Deci (2001), Delle Fave et al. (2011), Wissing (2013) and others. The suggested use of “well-being studies” for multi- and transdisciplinary research and practice related to optimal health and well-being is also in line with the convergence of broad streams of research across disciplines that are noticed by others. For example, PP and quality of life studies (mainly from sociological and economical perspectives) are converging (Diener et al., 2018; Noll, 2018; Rojas, 2018; Veenhoven, 2018), and philosophical and psychological accounts of well-being are taking hands (Alexandrova, 2017; Intelisano et al., 2020). In this sense transdisciplinary studies on the multimodal and situatedness nature of well-being, is like a butterfly leaving a cocoon.

We further envisage that this butterfly may signal the emergence of a new multi- or transdisciplinary field of well-being research and practice in which different disciplines partake simultaneously and in close collaboration in the exploration and promotion of multimodal health and well-being in diverse contexts. Although these multi- and transdisciplinary well-being studies, with increasing sophistication and incorporation of modern technology and the fourth Industrial Revolution modes of operating, were born from PP, it may unfold as a new disciplinary endeavor, while the traditional PP studies within the confinement of psychology may also continue.

This envisaged transdisciplinary field of well-being studies may also transform the prevailing western individualistic/atomistic approach to open spaces for a more collaborative, contextually relevant and ecological perspective as reflected in typical African and more interdependent collectivist approaches—seeking harmonization not only in manifestations of well-being as subject matter, but also among disciplines and diverse metatheoretical assumptions, thus humbly recognizing the incompleteness of one perspective and approach. This new field of scientific endeavor can capitalize on developments of the fourth Industrial Revolution—with the humane heart still beating warmly. We need a lot of imagination, brave creativity and wise perspectives to deal with the many complexities, contradictions, and chaos that may arise when disciplines and professions come together to work on complex issues of life and well-being. But this is what we need to do to help shape the reality that we want. As imaginations and perspectives are imbedded in culture, we need many minds coming together from diverse contexts, transcending disciplines as well as academic, political and lay perspectives. Such an inclusive participatory model matters for authentic engagement—we all can contribute, and all have a stake in the outcome of the deliberations on how to understand and promote well-being in diverse contexts. The assumptions we make about reality, values, and the relative legitimacy of different forms of knowledge, will shape how we work together resulting in the eventual flourishing of a transdisciplinary field of well-being studies. See Diagram 1.1.

Diagram 1.1
figure 1

Moving forward: transcending the status quo

Full size image

6 Summary and Conclusion

In this chapter we argued the problem and consequences of the previous neglect of attention to contextual and metatheoretical assumptions in positive psychology as discipline. After indicating development trajectories for disciplines as viewed from the philosophy of science, we traced noted developments in PP as science. We described the development of PP over time, highlighting changes in focus, methods and metatheoretical assumptions. We highlighted the emergence of the third wave of PP (third wave; PP 3.0) characterized by a focus on interconnectedness and complexities, multiple research methods and multi-and transdisciplinary approaches, and assumptions of plurality in worldview assumptions, and in particular strong relational or cosmodern perspectives. These developments reflect the shifts in thought processes that are linked to new integral and evolving knowledge patterns which are typical in the postdisciplinary discourses.

Many of the metatheoretical perspectives and assumptions about well-being and health, that are now part of the third wave, were already found in African perspectives long ago. It is suggested that harmonizing of Western and African perspectives is one way to ensure a deeper understanding of well-being, and that the latter can in particular be conceptualized in terms of harmony and related characteristics. From an African perspective good health and well-being means that a person is in harmony with his/her cosmos (that includes the self, other people as well as the natural environment and transcendental spiritual forces). The third wave of PP with acceptance of diverse worldviews, methods, and focus on interconnectedness and complexities of well-being as viewed from diverse disciplinary perspectives and its transdisciplinary outgrowth, is compared to a butterfly leaving its cocoon. However, we also think that this butterfly signals the development of an emerging new transdisciplinary domain of scientific endeavor. We think this domain will in future also develop apart from positive psychology which is discipline bound in name up until now. We suggest the new field of study pollinated by the third wave butterfly, can be named “Well-being studies” or “Transdisciplinary health and well-being studies”.