Advertisement

Persons and Their Wellbeing

  • Kevin MooreEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter Moore presents two accounts of personhood, one developed by Rom Harré over several decades and the other by Jack Martin and his colleagues. Persons, it is claimed, are embodied sociocultural artefacts that express singularity (a unique perspective), unity, and continuity over time. It is argued that they also are the proper sites of human agency which arises out of an under-determination of their actions—that is, neither external nor internal factors fully explain, on their own, the action of a person. Moore then considers how this understanding of persons leads to an understanding of the wellbeing of persons. The importance of continuity of action—and the disruption of that action—for experiences of wellbeing as persons is then highlighted.

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149(1), 91–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00054-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barresi, J. (2012). On seeing our selves and others as persons. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F. (2011). The unity of self at the interface of the animal body and the cultural system. Psychological Studies, 56(1), 5–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-011-0062-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). Do conscious thoughts cause behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cromby, J., & Willis, M. E. H. (2016). Affect—Or feeling (after Leys). Theory & Psychology, 26(4), 476–495.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354316651344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, G., Farh, J.-L., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). Agency beliefs over time and across cultures: Free will beliefs predict higher job satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 304–317.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217739261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Harré, R. (1983). Personal being: A theory for individual psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Harré, R. (1998). The singular self: An introduction to the psychology of personhood. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Harré, R. (2016). Hybrid psychology as a human science. Theory and Psychology, 26(5), 632–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harré, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Harré, R., & Madden, E. H. (1975). Causal powers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Heyes, C. (2018). Cultural gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolution and subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 80–96). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Huppert, F. A., Baylis, N., & Keverne, E. B. (2004). Introduction: Why do we need a science of well-being? [Introduction to a special issue]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 359, 1331–1332.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1519.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Keverne, E. B. (2004, September 29). Understanding well-being in the evolutionary context of brain development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1349–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamblin, M., Murawski, C., Whittle, S., & Fornito, A. (2017). Social connectedness, mental health and the adolescent brain. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 80, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin, J. (2003). Emergent persons. New Ideas in Psychology, 21(2), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, J. (2005). Real perspectival selves. Theory & Psychology, 15(2), 207–224.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354305051364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, J. (2006a). Positions, perspectives, and persons. Human Development, 49(2), 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin, J. (2006b). Reinterpreting internalization and agency through G.H. Mead’s perspectival realism. Human Development, 49(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, J. (2010). The psychology of personhood: Conditions for a viable, neo-meadian pluralism. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, J. (2012). Coordinating with others: Outlining a pragmatic, perspectival psychology of personhood. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 131–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, J., & Bickhard, M. H. (2012). An introduction to the special issue on “The new psychology of personhood”. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, J., & Gillespie, A. (2010). A neo-meadian approach to human agency: Relating the social and the psychological in the ontogenesis of perspective-coordinating persons. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(3), 252–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9126-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin, J., Sugarman, J., & Hickinbottom, S. (2010). Persons: Understanding psychological selfhood and agency. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 21, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Westcott, M. A. (1992). The psychology of personal freedom. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environment, Society and DesignLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations