Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 217–256 | Cite as

Pace of Life and Enjoyment of Life

Article

Abstract

The paper addresses the paradox that people in modern societies believe themselves to be very happy and satisfied with their lives while simultaneously are subjected to increasing time pressure and pace of life. It starts with presenting evidence for time pressure covering objective and subjective indicators. Evidence for Germany is given by comparing time-budgets in 1991/92 and in 1999. Time use among full time employed in Germany and other EU-societies in the 1990s is compared to the US and Japan by means of diary-data. As regards work life, overwork and the gap between actual and preferred working hours are examined. Survey-results on the relationship between work load, time pressure, stress and health are reported.

Most of these data support the conclusion that time pressure has emerged as a major social problem. Hence citizens are beginning to consider time prosperity as a dimension of their well-being beyond their consumer wealth.

However, this growing pace of life does not reduce life satisfaction and happiness. Here a paradox evolves as increasing time pressure goes hand in hand with increased subjective well-being (SWB) at country level in cross-cultural comparison as well as at individual level.

In the third section some answers to this paradox are explored: A first answer is offered through the modernization theory: life satisfaction and QOL are proliferating along with economic growth and living standards. This process at the same time accelerates social life. Hence, the negative effects of time pressure are counterbalanced by various yields of the modernization process resulting in a pattern of "heavy-going" satisfaction.

A second explanation is the psychological approach: time pressure fulfils positive functions for mobilizing individual resources. A variation of this argument is that the multiple-choice-society offers a wide variety of attractive options resulting in people engaging in too many activities. Here, the enjoyment of life is equated with taking advantage of every opportunity.

However, this paper prefers a third approach based on Simmel's explanation of the ambivalent consequences of modernity. Even where the majority of citizens report high levels of happiness and life satisfaction – which can be explained through "arousal" or "eu-stress" – the need to ease the time-burden of disadvantaged groups and to down-speed work and social life in general is essential.

pace of life time pressure time prosperity QOL stress health cross-cultural comparison Europe USA Japan event-society Simmel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Andreß, H.-J. and G. Lipsmeier: 1999, Lebensstandard nicht allein vom Einkommen abhängig: Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Umfrage, ISI no. 21, pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
  2. Bielinski, H., G. Bosch and A. Wagner: 2001, Employment Options for the Future: Actual and Preferred Working Hours. A Comparison of 16 European Countries: report on behalf of the European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.Google Scholar
  3. Blumer, H.: 1975, ‘Soziale Probleme als kollektives Verhalten’, in K.O. Hondrich (ed.), Menschliche BedÜrfnisse und soziale Steuerung (Rowohlt, Reinbek), pp. 102–112.Google Scholar
  4. Breedveld, K., van den Broek, Andries et al. (eds.): 2001, Trends in de tijd (Socialen Culturell Planbureau, Den Haag).Google Scholar
  5. Bulmahn, T.: 1996, ‘Determinanten des subjektiven Wohlbefindens’, in W. Zapf and R. Habich (eds.), Wohlfahrtsentwicklung im vereinten Deutschland. Sozialstruktur, sozialer Wandel und Lebensqualität (Edition Sigma, Berlin), pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, P. and P. Warner-Smith: 2002, Associations between time pressure, satisfaction with leisure and health.Areviewof selected findings from theWomen's Health Australia project, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University ofWaterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: 1975, Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. The Experience of Play in Work and Games (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: 1991, Das Flow-Erlebnis. Jenseits von Angst u. Langeweile: im Tun aufgehen, 3rd edn. (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart).Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: 1992(1990), Flow. Das Geheimnis des GlÜcks (Klett-Cotta,Stuttgart).Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: 1999(1997), Lebe gut! Wie Sie das Beste aus Ihrem Leben machen (Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart).Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and S.A. Jackson: 2000(1999), Flow im Sport. Der SchlÜssel zur optimalen Erfahrung und Leistung (BLV, MÜunchen).Google Scholar
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: 2002: Time's Winged Chariot: reflections on the Psychology of Time, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University of Waterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  13. Diener, E. and R.E. Lucas: 2000, ‘Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness: relative standards, need fulfillment, culture, and evaluation theory’, Journal of Happiness Studies 1, pp. 41–78.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E. and E.M. Suh (eds.): 2000, Culture and SubjectiveWell-being (MIT Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  15. Durkheim, E.: 1988(1893), Über die Teilung der sozialen Arbeit (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).Google Scholar
  16. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (ed.): 2000, Employment Options of the Future, Survey in EU15 and Norway, Dublin.Google Scholar
  17. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (ed.): 2000, Third European Survey on Working Conditions, Dublin.Google Scholar
  18. Garhammer, M.: 1994, Balanceakt Zeit. Auswirkungen von flexiblen Arbeitszeiten auf Alltag, Freizeit und Familie (Edition Sigma, Berlin).Google Scholar
  19. Garhammer, M.: 1999a, Wie Europäer ihre Zeit nutzen. Zeitstrukturen und Zeitkulturen im Zeichen der Globalisierung. Eine Studie über Deutschland, Großbritannien, Spanien und Schweden (Edition Sigma, Berlin).Google Scholar
  20. Garhammer, M.: 1999b, ‘Time pressure in modern Germany’, in J. Zuzanek and A.J. Veal (eds.), ‘Time-Pressure, Stress, Leisure Participation and Well-being: Leisure and Life-style Connections,’ Special Issue of Society & Leisure, 21(2) (Presses de l'Universit´e du Qu´ebec, Qu´ebec), pp. 324–354.Google Scholar
  21. Garhammer, M.: 2001, Arbeitszeit und Zeitwohlstand im internationalen Vergleich, WSI-Mitteilungen 4, pp. 231–241 www.boeckler.de/ebib/volltexte/WSI_Mitteilungen-2001-04-garhammer.pdf Google Scholar
  22. Garhammer, M.: 2002, ‘Zeitwohlstand und Lebensqualität – ein interkultureller Vergleich’, in J.P. Rinderspacher (ed.), Zeitwohlstand. Ein Konzept für einen anderen Wohlstand der Nation (Edition Sigma, Berlin).Google Scholar
  23. Garhammer, M.: 2002b, Changing job careers and work environments in the EU5 and their effects on time pressure and the work–family interface, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University of Waterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Gershuny, J.: 2000, Changing Times. Work and Leisure in Postindustrial Society (University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  25. Gershuny, J. and O. Sullivan: 2001, ‘Cross-national changes in time-use: some sociological (hi)stories re-examined’, British Journal of Sociology, 52 (June), pp. 331–347.Google Scholar
  26. Gershuny, J.: 2002, Human Capital, the Leisure Class, and the Time Bind, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University of Waterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Giddens, A.: 1990, The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  28. Glatzer, W.: 2000, Wohlfahrt in der Wohlfahrtsgesellschaft, paper not published.Google Scholar
  29. Gleick, J.: 1999: Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything (Pantheon Books, New York).Google Scholar
  30. Gross, P.: 1994, Die Multioptionsgesellschaft (Edition Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).Google Scholar
  31. Gross, P.: 1999, ‘Kontingenzmanagement’, in T. Sattelberger and R. Weiss (eds.), Humankapital schafft Shareholder Value – Personalpolitik in wissensbasierten Unternehmen (Deutscher Institutsverlag, Köln), pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
  32. Gunthorpe, Wendy: 2002, A model for predicting chronic time pressure: towards a research agenda, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University ofWaterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Hegel, G.W.F.: 1970(1830), Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften III, Werke in zwanzig Bänden 10, Theorie Werkausgabe (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).Google Scholar
  34. Heylighen, F. and J. Bernheim: 2000, Global Progress: an empirical analysis and an evolutionary framework, http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Progress.html Google Scholar
  35. Heylighen, F. and J. Bernheim: 2000, ‘Global progress I: Empirical evidence for ongoing increase in quality-of-life’, Journal of Happiness Studies 1(3), pp. 323–349.Google Scholar
  36. Heylighen, F. and J. Bernheim: 2000, ‘Global progress II: Empirical evidence for ongoing increase in quality-of-life’, Journal of Happiness Studies 1(3), pp. 351–374.Google Scholar
  37. Hochschild, A.R.: 1996, The Time Bind (Henry Holt, New York).Google Scholar
  38. Holz, E.: 2002, Time stress and time crunch in the daily life of women, men and families or: You need time to watch TV – Results of the German Time Use Survey, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure,Work–Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University of Waterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar
  39. Inglehart, R.: 1997, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
  40. Inglehart, R.: 2000, ‘Globalization and postmodern values,’ Washington Quarterly, Winter, pp. 215–2280.Google Scholar
  41. Inkeles, A.: 1999, World Emerging. Convergence and Divergence in Industrial Societies (Westview Press, Boulder Colorado).Google Scholar
  42. Lehto, A.M. Sutela, H.: Efficient, more efficient, exhausted. Findings of the Finnish Quality of Work Life Surveys 1977–1997 (Statistics Finland, Vantaa).Google Scholar
  43. Levi, L.: 2000, Guidance on Work Related Stress. Spice of Life or Kiss of Death? (CEC, Luxembourg).Google Scholar
  44. Levine, R.: 1997, Eine Landkarte der Zeit (Piper, MÜnchen and ZÜrich).Google Scholar
  45. Linder, S.B.: 1970, The Harried Leisure Class (Columbia University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  46. Marx, K.: 1970(1867), Das Kapital. Band I, Marx-Engels-Werke Band 23 (Dietz, Berlin-Ost).Google Scholar
  47. Mitsuya, K. and S. Nakano (NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation): 2001, Jobholders Working Longer Hours in the Economic Downturn: From the Survey on Japanese Time Use, 2000, Public Opinion Research Division, 2001: The New Trend in Japanese Time-Use. Results of NHK's Time-Use Survey in 2000, Public Opinion Research Division No. 18/Autumn, Internet.Google Scholar
  48. MÜller-Schneider, T.: 1998, ‘Subjektivität und innengerichtete Modernisierung. Erlebniskultur in der Metamorphose’, in F. Hillebrandt, G. Kneer and K. Kraemer (eds.), Verlust der Sicherheit? Lebensstile zwischen MultioptionalitÜt und Knappheit (Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen and Wiesbaden), pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
  49. Opaschowski, H.W.: 1997, Deutschland 2010.Wie wir morgen leben – Voraussagen der Wissenschaft zur Zukunft unserer Gesellschaft. Eine Edition der British-American-Tobacco (BAT, Hamburg).Google Scholar
  50. Parsons, T.: 1972(1971), Das System moderner Gesellschaften (Juventa, MÜnchen).Google Scholar
  51. Peters, P.: 2000, The vulnerable hours of leisure. Men andwomen's paidwork, unpaid work and free time 1975–1999 (Thela Thesis, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  52. Rinderspacher, J.P.: 2000, ‘Zeitwohlstand in der Moderne’, WZB-Papers P00-502, Berlin.Google Scholar
  53. Rinderspacher, J.P. (ed.): 2002, Zeitwohlstand und G00DC;terwohlstand (Edition Sigma, Berlin).Google Scholar
  54. Ritzer, G.: 1995(1993), Die McDonaldisierung der Gesellschaft (Fischer, Frankfurtam Main).Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, J.P. and G. Godbey: 1996, The great American Slowdown. American Demographics, June, pp. 42–48.Google Scholar
  56. Robinson, J.P. and G. Godbey: 1997, Time for life. The surprising ways Americans use their time (Pennsylvania State Univ. Press: University Park).Google Scholar
  57. Rosa, H.: 2002a, Acceleration of Western Societies, paper to be published in Time and Society.Google Scholar
  58. Rosa, H.: 2002b, Die Zeit ist wie eine schrumpfende Bettdecke – oder:Wie realisieren wir eigentlich Zeitgewinne? www.koerber.de Studienpreis 2002 on “acceleration”.Google Scholar
  59. Schor, J.B.: 1998, Beyond Work and Spend, Vriejetijd Studies no. 1, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
  60. Schulze, G.: 1992, Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Eine Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart (Campus, Frankfurt am Main and New York).Google Scholar
  61. Schulze, G.: 1999, Kulissen des Gl¨ucks. StreifzÜge durch die Eventkultur (Campus, Frankfurt am Main and New York).Google Scholar
  62. Sennett, R.: 1998, Der flexible Mensch. Die Kultur des neuen Kapitalismus, Berlin.Google Scholar
  63. Simmel, G.: 1989a(1900), in G. Simmel, Gesamtausgabe and O. Rammstedt (eds.), Vol. 6, David P. Frisby and Klaus Christian Köhnke (eds.), Philosophie des Geldes (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).Google Scholar
  64. Simmel, G.: 1989b(1895), Zur Psychologie der Mode. Soziologische Studie, in Simmel: Schriften zur Soziologie: eine Auswahl (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main), pp. 131–139.Google Scholar
  65. Simmel, G.: 1992(1897), ‘Die Bedeutung des Geldes f¨ur das Tempo des Lebens’, in G. Simmel, Soziologie. UntersuchungenÜber die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, O. Rammstedt (ed.), Band 5 (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main), pp. 215–234.Google Scholar
  66. Simmel, G.: 1995 (1903), Die GroßstÜdte und das Geistesleben, in G. Simmel, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 7, O. Rammstedt (ed.), (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main), pp. 116–131.Google Scholar
  67. Sirgy, M.J.: 2001, Handbook of Quality-of-Life-Research. An Ethical Marketing Perspective (Kluwer, Dordrecht etc.).Google Scholar
  68. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): 2001, Human Development Report 2001, Internet.Google Scholar
  69. van den Broek, A.: 2001, Leisure across Europe: A comparative analysis and an attempt to convey a pattern, paper not published.Google Scholar
  70. Veenhoven, R.: 2000a, 'The four qualities of life. Ordering concepts and measures of the good life’, Journal of Happiness Studies (Netherlands) 1, pp. 41–78.Google Scholar
  71. Veenhoven, R.: 2000b, in E. Diener and E.M. Suh (eds.), Freedom and Happiness: A Comparative Study in Fourty-four Nations in the Early 1990s (MIT Press, Cambridge), pp. 257–288.Google Scholar
  72. Weber, M.: 1984/1905, ‘Asketischer Protestantismus und kapitalistischer Geist’, in F. Heckmann and F. KrÖll (eds.), EinfÜhrung in die Geschichte der Soziologie (Enke, Stuttgart), pp. 134–152.Google Scholar
  73. Weber, M.: 1985/1920, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (TÜbingen).Google Scholar
  74. Zuzanek, J. and A.J. Veal (eds.): 1999, Time-pressure, Stress, Leisure Participation and Well-being: Leisure and life-style connections, Special Issue of Society & Leisure, Vol. 21, No. 2, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
  75. Zuzanek, J.: 2002: Relationship between time use, time pressure, stress, emotional well-being, and health: A population health perspective, paper presented to the Conference on Time pressure, Work-Family Interface, and Parent–Child Relationships, University of Waterloo/Canada March 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology IUniversity of Bamberg/GermanyBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations