Keywords

2.1 Introduction

During the past decades, hope research has evolved in many different and sometimes opposite directions. In a very fundamental way, current hope theories can be traced back to basic philosophical and theological works rooted in specific cultural, religious, and scientific paradigms or worldviews (Eliott, 2005; Kleist & Jansen, 2016). Different theories emerged, conceptualizing hope either as a cognitive process (Snyder, 2002; Stotland, 1969), as an emotion (Lazarus, 1999; Nussbaum, 2019; Stockdale, 2019), or as a virtue (Barilan, 2012a; Billias, 2010; Kadlac, 2015; Moellendorf, 2006; Snow, 2013, 2018, 2019b). Two major paradigms are called “agency” and “receptivity” theories of hope. Receptivity theories maintain that hope is instilled from sources external to the individual, e.g., from a transcendent Higher Power, and then empowers the hoping person (Lear, 2006; Marcel, 1951). On the other hand, agency theories can be divided into two strands: the individualistic (Snyder, 2002) and the interpersonal approaches (McGeer, 2004). Other theories of hope are centered on social relationships and highlight the collective character of hope (Braithwaite, 2004; Cobb & Green, 2017). In healthcare studies, supportive relationships with family and peers have been recognized as the most important factors in sustaining hope in patients (Olsman, 2020; Stockdale, 2019). Several authors have highlighted the multidimensional character of hope, integrating cognitive, emotional, relational, behavioral, existential, and transcendent elements in its definition (Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Farran et al., 1995; Scioli & Biller, 2009).

Contemporary philosophers have found a first common ground for the conceptualization of hope. The so-called standard account or orthodox definition of hope ascertains that hope involves at least two basic elements: (1) A wish or desire for a valued good or outcome (we only hope for what is important to us); and (2) The belief that the realization of what we desire is possible but not certain (Day, 1969; Meirav, 2009). Furthermore, there is a (more or less) common understanding among contemporary hope philosophers that these two fundamental elements of the standard definition (desire and possibility) can be considered as necessary but not sufficient conditions to explain the phenomenon of hope (Downie, 1963). Two persons in the same situation (for example, two patients diagnosed with cancer) could hold a certain desire (to be cured) and could believe that there is little possibility of occurrence (e.g., if the cure prognoses are about 20%), but whereas one of them can remain hopeful, the second capitulates and gives up hope (Martin, 2013). This example shows that, at least in critical cases, some additional factor is necessary to help distinguish the hopeful attitude of the first person from the defeated stance of the other.

Several authors have proposed different explanations giving account for this missing factor: The “license” to act or incorporation argument (Martin, 2013), the cognitive resolve process (Pettit, 2004), the energy of mental imaging (Bovens, 1999), the external factor account (Meirav, 2009), and in numerous cases an attitude of fundamental or substantial trust (Braithwaite, 2004; Erikson, 1959; McGeer, 2008; Tennen et al., 2002). Each of these concepts has provided a valuable contribution for a better understanding of the multifaceted phenomenon of hope and will be presented in the coming sections of this chapter.

It is further relevant to distinguish between the general disposition or attitude of hopefulness, on the one hand, and singular hopes directed towards particular ends in concrete situations, on the other (Calhoun, 2018; Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Shade, 2001). The general attitude of hope has been conceptualized as a character trait or virtuous disposition whose target is not a specific goal but the good life in general (Shade, 2001). Otherwise, particular hopes embrace certain wishes or desires focused on more or less concrete hoped-for ends. Calhoun (2018) has referred to the former as basal hopefulness and the latter as practical or intentional hope and conceptualized basal hope in terms of mood and intentional hope in terms of emotions. Whereas emotions are directed towards something, moods are a general orientation to the world. Therefore, basal hopefulness is a kind of hope in the present and for the present, which extends into the future (Snow, 2019a). From a theological point of view, Christian denominations, as well as Buddhist and Hinduist traditions, draw the fundamental distinction between ordinary, secular, or mundane hopes, which are characterized as passions, and transcendent, authentic, or radical hope, which is based on the will for the good and related to the Divine (Dunlap, 2019; Jeffrey, 2019; Krafft & Choubisa, 2018; Lear, 2006; Pinsent, 2020).

The present chapter has two primary objectives. The first aim is to give a succinct overview of the most dominant theories and concepts of hope in psychology, philosophy, and theology. The second aim is to present a conceptualization or model of hope that has guided the empirical research program of the Hope Barometer between 2017 and 2021. The essential elements of this conceptualization of hope integrate the psychological, philosophical, and theological theories in such a way that they can be applied to different kinds of situations and hopes, in different circumstances and in a culturally sensitive way. The singular elements of the hope model are briefly presented in this chapter and will be further elaborated on in the specific chapters of the book.

2.2 Basic Dimensions of Hope

To present the theoretical foundations not only in a multi- but also in an inter- and transdisciplinary manner, we decided to introduce the relevant psychological, philosophical, and theological theories relating them to six basic dimensions of hope, which are the cognitive, the affective, the behavioral, the social, the spiritual (religious or transcendental), and the existential (hope as a virtue).

2.2.1 The Cognitive Dimension of Hope

Theories related to the cognitive and rational dimension of hope can be traced back to philosophers in Ancient Greece, who were very ambivalent about hope. Remember Pandora’s myth, where hope was brought to the earth in a jar together with all evils but remained at the bottom of the jar. Was hope the worse of all evils as Nietzsche interpreted it? Or is it there to relieve humanity from pain? For Plato and Aristotle, hope was seen as a passion of desire. In their eyes, hope generally lacked rational grounds and was, therefore, at least in part, considered to be blind, unreliable, and dangerous. Only such future expectations based on firm evidence, knowledge, and reason, in which case the hoped-for ends could be regarded as probable or likely and as an expression of confidence, were considered to be good hopes (Cairns, 2019; Gravlee, 2020). Because of its ambiguous nature, neither Plato nor Aristoteles considered hope explicitly as a human virtue. On the one hand, hope seems to contradict other virtues, such as courage and wisdom, because it leads people to be overconfident and pretentious, ignore the risks of an endeavor, and overlook concrete facts. However, on the other hand, hope is part of the act of deliberating about the future and a facet of high-mindedness. In this case, hope motivates and supports people to become more virtuous and to develop their own agency in order to live a flourishing human life (Gravlee, 2000).

Traditional psychological theories of hope (Snyder, 1994; Stotland, 1969) have been focused on individual goals, willpower, and personal capabilities to overcome obstacles. Similar to ancient Greeks, these theories view hope as a cognitive process based on concrete evidence, high probability estimations, and positive expectations of goal attainment. From this point of view, high-hope people are more optimistic, have the perception of control, display higher levels of self-esteem, rely on their own capabilities, and are more competitive. Low-hope people, instead, perceive a low likelihood of achieving their goals and have a higher sense of uncertainty (Snyder et al., 1998).

An alternative view on the cognitive character of hope has been developed by Pettit (2004), who differentiates between superficial and substantial hope. According to Pettit, substantial hope can be distinguished from superficial hope because it involves a cognitive resolve, which means that a hoping person will act as if the hoped-for end is likely to occur, even if the probability of its occurrence and the control a person can exert are perceived to be low. This argument is different from the cognitive approach in psychology, since it highlights how people can remain motivated to believe and act in situations of great uncertainty. Substantial hope, in Pettit’s view, occurs when the hoping person considers that the likelihood of attaining a desired end is low. Especially in situations where the hoped-for ends are beyond the control of the individual, cognitive resolve is a self-motivating attitude that encourages those who otherwise would be low-hopers (Callina et al., 2018). This is by no means an act of self-deception, as the ancient Greeks or philosophers like Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche would have interpreted it. It is an attitude, as Marcel (1951) described it, of believing beyond negative evidence. This holds not only for the individual but also for social and collective hopes. In the context of collective hope, cognitive resolve is the conviction that people who share common hopes will collaborate and be successful in their undertakings, despite discouraging evidence, but based on energizing desires and feelings and the belief and trust in others (Pettit, 2004).

2.2.2 The Affective Dimension of Hope

Philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries like Descartes, Hobbes, and Hume considered hope to be a passion of the soul embracing desires and emotions that motivate people to act (Blöser, 2020). In its quality as a passion, hope leads to volition, and volition to motion, i.e., to a motivation to act in order to fulfill one’s desires. Similarly, many modern philosophers conceptualized hope as an emotional stance or affective attitude related to specific desires, perceptions, and feelings that motivate the person who hopes to act (Bloch, 1959/1986; Calhoun, 2018; Ratcliffe, 2013; Walker, 2006).

According to Bloch (1959/1986), hope is the most human of all affects, since it is not entirely involuntary but emerges in combination with the capacity of anticipation of a potential future state. Bloch developed his Principle of Hope to counter Heidegger’s phenomenological philosophy of worries and anxiety. For Heidegger, the essence of human existence as being-in-the-world was characterized by worries and the fundamental feeling or mood of anxiety. Bloch’s Principle of Hope suggests that the same can be said for hope as the existential feeling of finding oneself in the world (Ratcliffe, 2013). In a similar way, Calhoun (2018) suggests that hope is a kind of meta-emotion in terms of a mood or general affective state she calls basal hope, which is critical for engaging oneself in the world. This kind of basal hope exists even in the absence of concrete hopes.

Hope seems especially indicated to be described with Nussbaum’s (2003, 2004) concept of “eudaimonic judgment”, because it addresses beliefs and evaluations involved in emotions related to things, people, and situations that we consider central to our (mutual) flourishing. Nussbaum has convincingly exposed that emotions are shaped by the evaluation of their objects in terms of beliefs and judgments related to their importance for our (and others’) well-being. This means that beliefs are constituent parts of our emotions, integrating cognitive and affective elements. From this point of view, it can be deduced that hope is characterized as an emotional experience embracing beliefs about what we consider central to our well-being and the well-being of others (Nussbaum, 2019).

Fredrickson (1998, 2004) considers hope as one of the ten most frequently experienced positive emotions in daily life, which is especially relevant in challenging situations. The effect of hope, as a positive emotion, is that it broadens the mindset, nurturing psychological, social, and even physical resources to cope with adversity. A further effect of hope as a positive emotion is that it transforms the individual for the better. While certain emotions such as a good mood and pleasure nourish hedonic happiness, hope can be considered a part of the eudaimonic domain of flourishing and, therefore, as a virtue that is connected to inner personal growth, meaning in life, and the relationship with others (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009). Because of this broadening and growth effect, hopeful people tend to display a more altruistic and generative behavior by helping others, taking a long-term view of things, instead of satisfying short-term needs, thinking beyond the struggles of the present moment, and adopting moral values such as friendship, gratitude, generativity, selflessness, kindness, and inclusiveness towards strangers (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2006).

When focusing on the affective quality of hope, we must recognize that feelings like anxiety and sadness that arise during dire experiences such as an illness or war are not at all incompatible with hope. Since uncertainty is a constitutive element of hope that causes anxiety, worry, and fear, these feelings are, to a greater or lesser degree, part of and at the same time the opposite of hope (Nussbaum, 2019; Stockdale, 2019). One can feel miserable about what is occurring in the world and still, or because of that, embrace a deep hope for betterment (Milona, 2019).

2.2.3 Agency and the Behavioral Dimension of Hope

Most psychologists and philosophers agree that hope is closely related to a fundamental sense of agency. However, many of them also recognize that our hopes exceed our capabilities as agents in several situations (McGeer, 2004; Pettit, 2004). According to Snyder’s hope theory (1994, 2002), agency refers to the willpower and motivation needed to implement certain pathways in order to achieve personal goals. Willpower is related to the confidence in one’s own abilities to achieve the things in life that seem important to oneself. Snyder speaks of agency as purposeful mental energy and determination, which are necessary to follow specific and sometimes novel pathways. Agential hope consists of the conviction “I can do this!” (Snyder, 2002, p. 251). Mental energy comes from the thought “I am not going to be stopped”. This willpower is also of great importance when things do not go the way we want them to and when new ways have to be tried again and again with commitment, perseverance, and persistence. Closely related to agency is therefore the belief that when facing obstacles and setbacks, one will be able to find several ways to achieve one’s goals, an attitude which is called pathways thinking. This can be understood as a kind of coping competence based on mental flexibility and creativity.

From a broader philosophical standpoint, several authors have proposed that Snyder’s hope theory in reality describes concepts such as tenacity, perseverance, or self-confidence and that his theory could be called for example “theory of successful goal pursuit” instead of hope (Snow, 2019a, p. 8, see for similar arguments Aspinwall & Leaf, 2002; Callina et al., 2018; Scioli, 2020). An alternative perspective on agency, willpower, and the connection to hope has been proposed by McGeer (2004). According to her, good (responsive) hope must be distinguished from two detrimental forms of hoping she describes as wishful and willful hope. Wishful hope is derived from the commonly known concept of wishful thinking, which expresses a relatively passive, disengaged, and unrealistic form of hoping. Willful hope, on the other hand, expresses an over-reliance on the individual’s own powers and capabilities. Willful hopers, as defined by McGeer, suffer from ego-anxiety solipsism, making them unreflective, self-deceived, and sometimes unscrupulous, showing little care for others who they mistreat as means to their ends. Basically, good hope must always be located, as Thomas Aquinas also stated, between the extremes of helplessness or despair and presumption (Pinsent, 2020). Good hope, as will be presented more in detail in the following sections, is a socially responsive hope that acknowledges the limitations of our individual agency and, at the same time, helps to scaffold the development of an interpersonal and collective sense of agency taking into account not only current capabilities but also future potentialities of oneself and others.

Similarly, several philosophers have developed a substantial conception of agency, personal identity, and selfhood in relation to hope (Blöser & Stahl, 2017b; Martin, 2013; McGeer, 2004; Shade, 2001). These authors distinguish between the “agentic” quality of hope and the idea of successful agency, which is not necessarily a characteristic feature of hope (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). On the one hand, all our actions, everything we do, are consciously or unconsciously connected with the hope for success (Dalferth, 2016). Thus, hope is closely linked to our ability to act. It provides the practical reason for and is the impulse behind all purposive actions. For Martin (2013), to hope well is to embrace a desire and the belief in its possibility and to use this desire and this belief as justification for engaging in meaningful activities. Because we wish and believe, we act.

Moreover, the hope towards personal ideals and values plays a fundamental role in the construction of our sense of selfhood and practical identity, a conception that can be traced back to Kierkegaard’s and also Marcel’s philosophical works (Fremstedal, 2019; Blöser & Stahl, 2017b). When feeling hopeless and despaired, the person not only renounces his or her hopes but in a deeper sense, also gives up his/her own agency and selfhood. In order to keep one’s own self and identity, a person needs to believe and hope for a better future. For Kierkegaard, this is ultimately possible when the person can believe and trust in a benevolent and omnipotent God and therefore believes that a better future is possible (Fremstedal, 2019). In a more secular form, Blöser and Stahl (2017b) argued that hoping in a fundamental way is constitutive to a person’s practical identity, i.e., defining who the person is. For example, it is constitutive to our self-understanding as parents to hope for our children since we desire their well-being and are ready to help them in whatever way is possible. In order to be able to sustain this identity as (good) parents, it is necessary not to cease hoping for them (see also Nussbaum, 2019).

2.2.4 The Social Dimension of Hope and Agency

Several authors in psychology and philosophy went beyond the individualistic conception of agency and developed an interpersonal theory of agency and hope. From a developmental perspective, Erikson (1959) explained the very first emergence of hope in the infant’s vulnerability and struggling between the feelings of basic anxiety and basic trust in the encounter with a caring person. According to Erikson, hope is the earliest and the most indispensable virtue of every human being, deeply anchored in trust, love, and care. At this first stage, hope is eminently emotional and relational and the fundament for the future development of willpower, purpose, competence, identity, social attachment, generativity, and wisdom. For McGeer (2004), the art of good hope consists of a “responsive hope” that, at its core, requires the social emotion of care. This kind of sound hope involves an emotional sensitivity that nurtures hopeful energy in the wake of difficulties and disappointments. Substantial hope displays an affective state or attitude towards others, enabling substantial trust in uncertain situations (McGeer, 2008).

In her conceptualization of hope and agency, McGeer (2004) proposes a social account of hope as a fundamental force in fostering and developing human agency. Besides being the driving force to act, hope arises when confronted with the limitations of our own agency (see also Shade, 2001). In this sense, “hope signifies our recognition that what we desire is beyond our current (or sole) capacity to bring about—and in the limiting case, it is beyond our capacity: “We hope for something that could not be in any way affected by our efforts to bring it about” (McGeer, 2004, p. 103). However, these limitations or the incapacity to act, must not mean at all, that we are giving up our agency. Precisely in such situations is where the power and energy of hope come to bear. From this perspective, “… hoping is a matter, not only of recognizing but also of actively engaging with our own current limitations in affecting the future we want to inhabit. It is, in other words, a way of actively confronting, exploring, and sometimes patiently biding our limitations as agents, rather than crumbling in the face of their reality.” (2004, p. 104). Therefore, she suggests, “that hope is the energy and direction we are able to give, not just toward making the world as we want it to be but also toward the regulation and development of our own agency. […] To hope well is thus to do more than focus on hoped-for ends; it is crucial to take a reflective and developmental stance toward our own capacities as agents—hence, it is to experience ourselves as agents of potential as well as agents in fact.” (2004, p. 105). Therefore, in order to expand our agency, we must learn to hope, since the energy of hope infuses human agency. To be a hoping agent means orienting our attention and thoughts on our hopes, even when we feel unable to bring about our hoped-for ends.

But what is it that nourishes our hope when facing our limitations and, by doing so, helps us to expand and develop our agency? It is the care, trust, and hope other persons show towards us. Good hope, according to McGeer (2004), is therefore an emotional responsive and scaffolding hope. From this point of view, hope is both, an integral part of our agency and, in its essence, a social phenomenon. Our agency is by and large supported by others, who care for us, believe in us, and motivate us by supporting our hopes. At the same time, we have to be responsive to their care and support in order to be able to nurture our capacity to hope. This fundamental capacity to hope, even when influencing the hoped-for outcome is not possible, makes the agent feel stronger (McCormick, 2017). If we do this reciprocally, we can build a community of good and flourishing hopers, who jointly support their hopes, infuse the energy of substantial hope into each other and support one another in the development of one’s own agency. At this point, the essential role of trust becomes evident. By trusting in the care and support of others and, at the same time, placing our hope and trust in them, we automatically extend our mutually intertwined agencies (Martin, 2019).

2.2.5 The Religious and Spiritual Dimension of Hope

Because of its existential and transcendental character, hope is, in one way or another, a central element in the many theological traditions. Already in the Jewish Torah and Psalms hope is directed toward something positive. For the Jewish people, the concept of hope is based on the understanding of Yahweh as savior and redeemer in times of need. The Jewish understanding of hope is characterized above all by faith and trust in God in challenging times. God, Yahweh, is the savior and helper and at the same time the goal of hope. In the Psalms, the believer is repeatedly affirmed that God, in spite of all suffering and hardships, means well with man, that He wants only the best for him, and he will always protect and support him (Bietenhard et al., 1989; Nebe & Goetzmann, 1997). On the one hand, hope refers to earthly existence and is based on the graces that people have received from God and have been recorded in the form of stories. This includes the hope for health, family, well-being, and peace, proven by the covenant with Noah after the Flood, the assurance of the Promised Land to Abraham and the liberation from Egyptian oppression. God defends his people against their enemies and lets manna rain down from heaven so that they do not starve.

On the other hand, Jewish hope refers to future salvation, to liberation from all the tribulations of life, to life after death, and to a new and just world of God through the coming of the promised Messiah (Bietenhard et al., 1989). Jewish hope is an imperative for the believer and is largely linked to patience. The believer is exhorted to hope. Especially in difficult times the believer is urged to wait patiently and persevere in the certainty that sooner or later the fulfillment of the promise and the eagerly awaited liberation will come. Although this enduring patience suggests a certain passivity, it is rather an active hoping in prayer.

In the Christian faith, hope is one of the three theological virtues, besides faith and charity. Whereas in Aristotelian philosophy virtues are acquired by practice and habituation, in Christian theology, virtues are infused by and received from God as a gift. This is because the theological virtues can only be rooted in God’s love, benevolence, omnipotence, and grace (Pinsent, 2020). This means that in a supreme sense, we are not able to hope for ourselves but need the assistance of God. In the Christian tradition, hope is not directed to what is likely to occur but to what sometimes seems to be impossible but becomes possible in the eyes of the believer thanks to the grace and omnipotence of God (Jeffrey, 2019). Since for God everything is possible, to hope in this way is an absolute or fundamental hope, transcending any kind of facts, evidence, or reality. Especially in apparently hopeless situations the Judeo-Christian hope is a hope against all human hopelessness, i.e., where there is nothing more to be expected from a human point of view, the believer puts his faith and trust in God.

Moreover, to hope in the Christian sense is not only to be hopeful with regard to a certain wish or desire but also to hope for the right ends, which basically means to hope for more kindness, goodness, and ultimately for a reunion with God Himself (Jeffrey, 2019). Therefore, the three theological virtues of charity, faith, and hope are closely intertwined and must emerge as a unity. Someone can only hope properly when he/she has faith in God, believes in His unconditional and eternal love, and wants to do good. In so far as it is a hope in a benevolent God, hope is an eminently relational, interpersonal, and social phenomenon guided by the charity as an orientation and love for others (Elliot, 2020; Marcel, 1951). It is rationality and the capabilities of the individual that are at the forefront, but faith in God and trust, care, and harmonious social relationships with other persons.

The only requirement behind this fundamental hope lies in the human will to yearn for God and consequently to long for moral goodness (Elliot, 2020). In Christian terms, only this theological hope in and for God can finally be defined as virtuous (Blöser & Stahl, 2017a). At the same time, as Marcel (1951) manifested, it is this hope that guides the individual toward the fullness of his/her existence here on earth. According to Pieper, Christian hope combines the two virtues of magnanimity and humility: “Magnanimity directs this hope to its true possibilities; humility, with its gaze fixed on the infinite distance between man and God, reveals the limitations of these possibilities and preserves them from sham realization and for true realization.” (Pieper, 1997, p. 102).

In a similar sense, Muslim hope is anchored in the belief in Allah and is the opposite of despair, which is the consequence of disbelief and atheism (Osmani, 2008). Hope in the Islamic tradition must also be grounded in the wish for good deeds. According to Laila (2008), Muslim hope has several dimensions, such as social justice, economic equality and financial security, political brotherhood, scientific reason/truth, and spiritual salvation.

In the Buddhist tradition, ordinary hopes rooted in earthly desires and material goods are the origin of all suffering and, therefore, the greatest obstacle to enlightenment. Buddhist hope, instead, aims to liberate oneself and others from suffering (McDonald, 2008). Dunlap (2019) proposes a Buddhist conception of hope focused on three fundamental values: Love for the present moment and Buddhist practice herein, feeling gratitude for everything that exists and expressing compassion for all beings.

Krafft and Choubisa (2018) elaborated on the concept of hope in the Indian psychology context. The Indian psychology roots go back to thousands of years of Indian traditions, thoughts, Vedic texts such as the Upanishads and later Bhagavad Gita, and the practices of yoga and meditation (Rao & Paranjpe, 2016). Interpreters of the ancient scriptures presented two opposite kinds of hope, differentiated by the targets they are directed to: Materialistic and egoistic hopes are of ephemeral, illusive, and detrimental nature. Sublime hope, instead, aims to achieve liberation and self-realization. Therefore, in order to live a healthy, harmonious, happy, and fulfilling life, hope should be directed to existential aspects in life and have a transformative effect on the individual. The law of Karma (of cause and effect) compels us to hope for the good and never for something evil. Finally, the scope of hope is located at the individual and collective levels to lift the human race to a higher level of evolution.

Religiosity and spirituality have often been recognized as significant roots of hope, particularly in the face of illness, suffering, and death, (Del Vecchio Good et al., 1990; Dyson et al., 1997; Saleh & Brockopp, 2001; Knapp et al., 2011). Several studies have demonstrated the positive associations between religiosity, health, and hope (Galek et al., 2005; Lima et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 1999; Meireles et al., 2015; Schneider & Mannell, 2006; Taylor, 2003). A hope based on religious faith is relevant when the possibility of achieving a goal is low or seems impossible. Faith in God is the foundation for being able to hope for the best even in supposedly hopeless situations and against all (medical) expectations. In times when normal life is challenged, many people seek meaning and comfort in God or superior power. The connection to God and the belief in the unity of body, soul, and spirit gives the believer support and helps him to find new hope (Espinha & Lima, 2012; Hendricks-Ferguson, 2008). In secular terms, this kind of spiritual or religious hope can be related to the idea of “living in hope”, instead of “hoping for something”, focusing away from future-oriented hopes and centering on the meaning of life in the present (Benzein et al., 2001; Parker-Oliver, 2002). This kind of hope in the present for the present is oriented to the inner self and aims at living a fulfilling life in connection to other people and, for some people, to a transcendent higher power.

2.2.6 Hope as a Virtue

Because of its existential character and importance, several authors have conceptualized hope not as a theological and externally infused but as a secular virtue in the Aristotelian sense. Kadlac (2015) suggests that hope is a virtue because it (1) promotes a more realistic view of the future (other than optimism and pessimism), (2) encourages oneself to engage in the fulfillment of hoped-for ends, and (3) develops more solidarity towards others. Similarly, Snow (2013, 2018, 2019b) describes hope as a moral, intellectual, and civic virtue directed to a good life. Hope can be a moral virtue if a person hopes for moral ends and engage him/herself practically to attain them (Billias, 2010; Snow, 2019b). Therefore, to recognize if hope is a moral virtue, we have to evaluate the values, contents, and targets people hope for.

Furthermore, hope can also be an intellectual virtue (Snow, 2013). According to Zagzebski (1996, 2003), to be intellectually virtuous requires not only the capacity to acquire existing knowledge and discover the truth but to develop new forms of knowledge in an original and inventive way that will help the person to flourish. In Bloch’s (1959/1986) terms, we can hope for things that do not exist yet but are a real future possibility we can (virtuously) believe in. In this respect, to hope virtuously is to be open to future possibilities beyond existing facts and knowledge. According to Kretz (2019), for example, humanity needs to develop moral imagination if it wants to transform ecological despair into hope for a sustainable future. In this sense, hope can also be a social, political, and civic virtue if it manifests itself as collective hope for a better and flourishing society (Cobb & Green, 2017; Moellendorf, 2006; Snow, 2018).

Common to all theological and philosophical conceptualizations is that hope is a virtue insofar as it promotes human (individual and social) flourishing, especially in challenging times when facing suffering, anxiety, and despair. For this reason, Peterson and Seligman (2004) included hope in their handbook and classification of character strengths common across cultures as belonging to the virtue of transcendence. For the initiators of positive psychology, hope belongs to the virtue of transcendence because it goes beyond one’s own knowledge and coping capabilities and allows us to build connections to something bigger than ourselves that provides us with meaning, purpose, and basic beliefs. In their categorization, hope is linked to other character strengths such as gratitude, appreciation of beauty and excellence, humor, and spirituality. As a transcendent character strength, hope is related to values that provide a moral framework that keeps the person committed to the expectation and pursuit of goodness (Krafft & Walker, 2018).

2.3 Towards a Transdisciplinary and Culture Sensitive Concept of Hope

Backed by the existing psychological, philosophical, and theological theories of hope, we would now like to propose a transdisciplinary conceptualization of hope that contains its basic elements and, at the same time, avoids, as recommended by Scioli (2020), under- or over-conceptualizing the phenomena. These fundamental elements should address the essence of hope and, at the same time, be broad enough to be applied in as many situations as possible, at many different levels (individual, interpersonal and social/collective), and in different cultural contexts. We understand hope as composed of a wish or desire for a valued outcome or state of affairs together with the belief that its realization is possible (although uncertain and not necessarily likely) and the trust in the (existing or future) availability of some internal or external resources that could facilitate its realization, especially when confronting obstacles and setbacks. The willpower to act and persist is a consequence of the nature and importance of the desired good and the intensity of the belief and trust held by the person who hopes.

The three essential components of hope are, therefore:

  1. 1.

    A wish or desire, which could be the longing for a good life in general, or a certain state of affairs (peace), an event (that something happens), a circumstance (a happy family), or a goal (something that I want to achieve). Hope can but must not necessarily involve a concrete goal or personal achievement, for example, when people hope for peace or the well-being of other persons. However, wishes and desires express values for which people commit themselves (Blöser & Stahl, 2017b). Furthermore, values (as well as virtues) are infused with emotions (Erikson, 1959; Lazarus, 1999; Schwartz, 1994). To hope for something always includes a (conscious or unconscious) motive (the reason to hope), and every motive is related to some underlying emotion (Nussbaum, 2004; Zagzebski, 2008).

  2. 2.

    The belief in the possibility of its realization. Although the realization of the wish is uncertain, it must not be considered impossible. The second element in this basic definition of hope is the belief that the realization of the desired good is regarded as possible and, at the same time, uncertain and difficult. Neither an expected high probability of its fulfillment nor personal control over the hoped-for outcome are conditions for hope (Bruininks & Malle, 2005). The belief in the possibility of a particular outcome or state of affairs is largely of subjective nature and only in part (and sometimes not at all) determined by evidence.

  3. 3.

    The third element is trust in the existence or future availability of resources that can make hope happen. A fundamental prerequisite of trust is the uncertainty regarding the outcome and our own capabilities (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). Trust can be focused on internal resources related to personal strengths, talents and capabilities or it can be related to external resources such as the trust in another person (family members, teachers, doctors, etc.), the trust in institutions (science, technology, the government) or the trust in a transcendental Higher Power.

This concept of hope has the advantage that it can be applied at two distinct levels of abstraction, which in the literature are known as the level of specific hopes and the level of general or fundamental hopefulness (Calhoun, 2018; Dufault & Martocchio, 1985; Godfrey, 1987; Shade, 2001): (1) Specific hopes are directed to concrete outcomes (goals, events, circumstances) connected with the belief in the possibility of their fulfillment and linked to particular resources for their realization; (2) Fundamental hope is usually oriented to a good life in general, it might be based on the overall belief in the goodness of the world and relies on a basic trust in one’s own capabilities or some external power, fortune or fate. Figure 2.1 presents the elements of the hope concept in a graphical way.

Fig. 2.1
An illustration has wish, desire on the left end, and goal, ideal on the right end. Navigating uncertainty, obstacles, and difficulties with will power will lead to goal, ideal. Trust in internal and external resources, and belief in possibility and future opportunities also lead to goal, ideal from wish desire.

Elements of the hope concept

Full size image

In the following sections, we will further elaborate on these three basic elements of hope by connecting them to the different dimensions presented in the first part of this chapter and by additionally integrating the first reflections regarding cultural aspects, which will be explained more in detail in the following chapters of the book.

2.3.1 Individual and Collective Wishes and Hoped-for Ends

If the first element of hope is about one’s wishes and desires, it must be related to what people value and what they want to happen because it is important to them. Different people in different circumstances may hope for different things: health, a good job, a happy family, fame, and so on (Burke, 2012; Shin et al., 2013). Shade (2001) described the process of hoping as the development and coordination of attitudes, activities, and habits in light of certain hoped-for ends. Since hope is a strong motivator for action, the first task must be to pay attention to the quality and value of the targets of hope. However, as we have already seen, some hopes can be achieved by our own efforts and other hopes are beyond our capabilities. One central question is how far the objects, targets, and state of affairs people hope for may influence the way people hope, the sources of hope people draw on, the actions people undertake, as well as the thoughts and feelings related to hope (Olsman, 2020).

In general terms, Chae (2019) speaks about “meaningful hope” when the aim of one’s hope is of intrinsic value. We hope for something only when what we hope for has meaning and value for us. Individuals tend to grade their hopes according to their relative value, creating a rank order or hierarchy of hopes (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Shade, 2001). Therefore, the formulation of hoped-for ends and the conscious assessment of the desirability of certain hopes are of utmost importance (Shade, 2001). Sometimes, our more fervent hopes define the person we are or would like to be, becoming part of our identity and sense of self (Blöser & Stahl, 2017b). For Bovens (1999), hope has an intrinsic value through the epistemic capacity and energy of mental imaging, which is much more than just imagining a future state of affairs. In the mental anticipation of a future event, hope is associated with positive feelings and increases the knowledge of oneself and the world connected to our love for others and ourselves. Mental imaging also serves to develop guiding ideals in collective and utopian hopes. All this will engender new hopes, since “as I come to have such insights, I will set new constitutive hopes that I am more likely to realize because they are more in line with what I truly stand for, with my skills or with the limitations of my surroundings.” (Bovens, 1999, p. 673).

These insights can lead to the general idea that hoping for certain things will probably affect how people in different circumstances and environments might hope (Averill et al., 1990). People can hold various types of hopes, such as material goods, personal achievements, hedonic pursuits, interpersonal relationships, and altruistic motives (Averill & Sundararajan, 2005), which might also have an effect on the quality of the general perception of hope. It might not be the same to hope for the achievement of a specific career goal, to hope for a happy partnership, or to hope for more religious and spiritual experiences.

Different dimensions and targets of hope can be related to culturally transmitted worldviews, values, and norms. Wong et al. (2006, p. 1) highlight that “in many important ways, cultures are the expressions of human nature in all its complexity and duality—fears and hopes, cravings and aspirations, selfishness and generosity, cruelty and compassion.” Culture embraces implicit or explicit assumptions about what is good and right, including certain common ideas, wishes, and behaviors. If culture can be thought of as a specific way to view the world based on a socially constructed set of beliefs, values, and norms (Rasmussen & Lavish, 2014), then it will also affect how we think and feel about the future. The particular values dominant in one or more countries, such as tolerance, care, creativity, power, or performance, can influence the types of hopes people assume.

Therefore, people in different societies and cultures can coincide or differ with regard to what is most relevant to them in terms of personal desires, wishes, and targets of hope. Singelis et al. (1995), for example, distinguished between individualist and collectivist cultures based on the type of goals that people have. People in individualistic societies tend to hold and pursue more self-centered goals that reflect personal wishes, whereas people in more collectivist cultures are more inclined to cherish goals related to the desires and wishes of the family and a closer social environment, including good social relationships, to be in harmony with their environment and to support others (Triandis, 1997). In one case, the focus is on the accomplishment of one’s own wishes and desires, personal success, and on novel experiences. Goals have to be achieved by one’s own efforts. In the other case, people appreciate tolerance, respect, and care for others. Common projects and endeavors are more valued than the own wishes and goals and individual performance (Eid & Diener, 2009).

One recurrent topic in philosophy and theology is whether people hope for the right ends. In his book Principle of Hope, Bloch (1959/1986) urges us not only to hope well but above all, to be attentive to hope for the right things. To hope well, people should pay special attention to the quality of their wishes and desires. One common concern in ancient Greek as well as in Christian, Buddhist, and Hinduist concepts, is that virtuous hope must be guided towards a morally good end, which must be the direction in which our desires and actions should be oriented (Gravlee, 2020). Hope can be a moral virtue if one hopes for morally worthy ends which help people and communities to flourish (Snow, 2019b).

One central question is what should be considered a good and flourishing human life? Most religious traditions distinguish between two kinds of hopes, the theological or spiritual hope and the mundane or earthly hope (Jeffrey, 2019). Whereas mundane hopes are motivated by pleasures and worldly desires, authentic hope is the aspiration of expecting and doing good and hoping not only for oneself but also for others (Elliot, 2020; Fremstedal, 2019; Marcel, 1951; Michener, 2020). As far as earthly hopes like wealth, status, power, and pleasures are detached from theological hope, they represent human passions or appetites that can lead men in the wrong direction [probably the willful mode of hoping in McGeer’s, 2004 terms], away from the supreme good of eternal happiness. The nature of theological hope is interpersonal, social, and transcendental rather than directed to concrete objects. Aristotle holds a similar standpoint when he recommends not to invest oneself in hedonic pleasures but to live a eudaimonic life, which means a virtuous life according to one’s good spirit. However, earthly hopes, although of secondary nature, can be aligned with the supreme hope (Pinsent, 2020).

For example, the ultimate purpose of Christian and Muslim hope is guided by the desire of personal union with God. The theologically virtuous hope should be focused on goods and ends that, through charity and love, brings the individual, the community, and humanity closer to redemption and salvation. Human flourishing can best take place within a community of hopers that believe in a benevolent and almighty God and support each other with generosity and kindness (Pinsent, 2020). Ultimately, theological hope is about wishing, believing, and trusting that good will triumph over evil and that individual and social happiness will overrule suffering (Lerner, 2019). Earthly endeavors and goods should always be oriented towards this supreme aim.

A similar, although more secular, standpoint concerning hope is represented by pragmatist philosophy and meliorism (Stitzlein, 2019). According to pragmatist philosophers, hope should be motivated by the desire to improve the world together. Collective hope is based on shared visions for a desired social change and the commitment to shared values and goals a community of people endorses and engages for because they believe in the possibility of their realization (Braithwaite, 2004). The rationality of idealistic hopes lies in the motivation, attention, and feelings they release toward socio-political ends (Milona, 2019). Our ideals for a better world should guide our actions (Rorty, 1999).

2.3.2 Basic, Cultural, and Collective Beliefs

The second domain of the hope concept presented here refers to the belief in the possibility of fulfilling a meaningful wish or desire. In the classical cognitive psychological theories, we hope when we believe, based on experience or evidence, that what we desire is likely to occur (Snyder, 1994; Stotland, 1969). Furthermore, hope is rooted in the belief in one’s own capabilities to overcome obstacles and setbacks. However, according to widely accepted philosophical concepts supported by empirical evidence from psychological studies, hope is distinct from future expectations in the sense that hope is related to the belief in an even small possibility of the attainment of a certain wish, whereas optimism retains it as highly probable (Bruininks & Malle, 2005; Krafft et al., 2021; Milona, 2020a, 2020b; Scioli et al., 1997). For Pettit (2004), substantial hope is characterized by the belief in the possibility of the attainment of the desired outcome with a low level of confidence.

One proposed difference between hope and future expectations refers to the idea that whereas future expectancies (on which the concepts of dispositional optimism and dispositional hope are based) are grounded on rational considerations, the perception of hope is basically related to personal beliefs and worldviews (Leung et al., 2009). However, a recurrent question is whether hope can be distinguished from wishful thinking based on how justified or unjustified these underlying beliefs are. Wishful thinking, has been argued, occurs when a person desires something that he or she regards as possible but in reality it must be deemed impossible (Milona, 2019). Since the attribution made in terms of possible/impossible is primarily a subjective judgement, the question is whether a clear distinction between true and false beliefs and, therefore, between hope and wishful thinking is possible (Martin, 2011). Consider, for example, Barack Obama as a little boy having the dream of one day becoming president of the United States: Would this dream at that time be classified as hope or wishful thinking? Hundred years ago, most people would have considered the possibility of traveling to the moon impossible. In past epochs, the abolishment of slavery, the equality of rights for men and women or the marriage of homosexual couples must have been contemplated as impossible. Today they are, or at least are becoming, a reality in many countries. Most of us would deem recovery from a so-called incurable disease impossible, although affected people who believed in that possibility were already healed (Hamilton, 2008; Spiro, 1998).

In order to hope, it is relevant to believe in the possibility of its realization, independently of this belief is justified or not. The belief in the possibility of a certain event is not based on evidence and objective facts, but it is mainly of subjective nature. This means that, as philosophers and psychologists already know, beliefs can be justified by the quality of their underlying emotions and values (Nussbaum, 2003, 2004; Stockdale, 2019; Walker, 2006). This entails that to hope and, therefore, to believe for a certain outcome, can be meaningful based on the emotions and values that bring this hope about (McDonald, 2008). Hope can have a practical and sometimes even a life-sustaining value for an individual or group of individuals, beyond the question of whether a particular belief is correct or appropriate or not (McCormick, 2017). As we have already seen, hope exists when the belief in the possibility of a certain good is taken as a license or right to engage oneself in whatever mental (e.g., patient waiting) or practical (e.g., performance of tasks) deeds are possible (Martin, 2013). In order to sustain our practical identity and selfhood, we sometimes are compelled to believe in our dreams and wishes (Blöser & Stahl, 2017a, 2017b). The same urge appears when hoping for a loved person’s well-being, healing, success, or flourishing (Marcel, 1951).

Since the future does not exist and we cannot have knowledge about the future, it is basically a domain of beliefs (Slaughter, 1993). Hope is always linked to uncertainty, which gives the reason to believe that the future is always open to new possibilities (Bloch, 1959/1986). To hope is to be open to the future and to believe how things could be instead of how they currently are. As Fromm (1968) once said, hope requires the belief in the yet-unproven. This belief enables the emergence of transformative hope, which, according to Webb (2013, 2019), is not about collecting evidence but about developing a utopian vision of the future supported by the belief in the socially instilled human capacity to improve the world by changing the status quo. To hold a belief that permits the individual to hope despite negative evidence is neither a sign of self-deception nor an illusion or delusion of how things seem to be. Radical hope, according to Lear (2006), is rooted in the belief that, especially in times of trials, the future will hold new possibilities which we are not able to imagine or think about yet.

According to Meirav (2008, 2009), in order to understand the true nature of hope, we must recognize that hope is always related to some external factor beyond our own resources or agency. The external factor account comprises the belief that the hoped-for good is possible but uncertain and arduous and not entirely within one’s control (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). This external factor can be another person or group of individuals, like our own family, it could be related to social institutions such as the government or employers, but it can also be the belief in fate, luck, or a transcendent higher power. What is central is that, to be hope-sustaining, the external factor must be conceived as being in favor of one’s values, interests and wishes. “If one views the external factor as good, then one hopes for the prospect: “If one views it as not good, then one despairs for it” (Meirav, 2009, p. 230). Hope is rational and appropriate as far as one believes in the goodness of the external factor. It is important to point out that to believe and rely on external forces is not necessarily a sign of passivity, disengagement, or wishful thinking, but can be experienced as expanding and empowering one’s own agency, commitment, and willingness to act (Shade, 2001).

According to Janoff-Bulman (1989, 1992), people maintain basic unquestioned beliefs about themselves and the world. In a broader sense, beliefs are constitutive elements of worldviews, i.e., assumptions about the nature, quality, and meaningfulness of what and how the world is, why it is as it is and how it should be. These basic beliefs are theories or narratives that guide our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, especially in anticipating or expecting what will happen in the future (Janoff-Bulman, 1989, 1992). Basic beliefs also serve as theories to anticipate the future and guide the way people interpret new situations (Kelly, 1955). These worldviews are especially important when a person is confronted with a stressful situation or the experience of despair. For example, basic beliefs concern the quality and basic character of human nature as good or evil and of the world as just or unjust (Lerner, 1980). Hope is therefore very much influenced by basic beliefs, assumptions and attitudes that guide our perceptions about the world and ourselves as well as our behavior (Clifton et al., 2019; Ibrahim, 1984; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Koltko-Rivera, 2004).

From a cultural perspective, individual and social hopes emerge through shared beliefs, which at a specific time and place in history are constitutive of collective worldviews (Naderi & Abolghasemi, 2008). Cultural beliefs about how things are and how they could and should be, are constituent of the individual’s perception and volition (Miller, 1999). For example, people in Western cultures tend to believe in the importance of personal responsibility, control, and merit. In other, more collectivistic cultures, a meaningful world is one governed by social relationships or religious beliefs (Robitschek et al., 2014; Triandis, 1997). The quality and role of these basic cultural beliefs can greatly impact the quality and the sources of individual and collective hope.

For example, returning to the ancient Greeks, people in those times believed in a cyclical repetition of painful events and in the prevalence of suffering without the possibility of progress. The (bad) fortune of men and women depended on factors beyond the control of the individual, mainly because they believed in capricious, unpredictable, and sometimes even cruel gods and goddesses (Blöser & Stahl, 2019; Gravlee, 2020).Within such a belief system, future expectations were mainly bleak. The future was considered a matter of irreversible fate instead of human will, and individual hopes were conceived as foolish and harmful illusions (Cairns, 2019; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010).

To the contrary, in the Christian and Muslim traditions, hope is considered a Divine gift. Hope is grounded in the belief of God’s / Allah’s absolute goodness and power (Lerner, 2019; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). This means that hope is always hope in God. For Marcel (1951) our existence is entrenched in a spiritual order in which the most important thing is to build a bond of love with other people. In Islam, accordingly, true hope can only be rooted in the belief in Allah and in His mercy and forgiveness. In this sense, religious hope is a hope rooted in what we cannot know or see and therefore we must believe in (Jeffrey, 2019). Remarkably, when to believe takes the quality of religious faith, the uncertainty attached to hope converts into certainty. Therefore, faith is the assurance of things hoped for because everything good comes from God’s power and mercy (Pinsent, 2020).

Nevertheless, this does not mean that religious hope is a passive hope. The faith in God conveys the belief that the individual is entitled, empowered, and assisted by God to do whatever is necessary in order to achieve the hoped-for good. To do so is a matter of our power of will (Elliot, 2020). For Moltmann (2021) (like for Kant), humanity has the mission to work for the promised world by changing our own lives as well as the existing circumstances on earth for the better. From a Muslim perspective, hope becomes a trait when the believer expresses his or her faith in Allah not only in thoughts and words but especially in deeds of kindness, helpfulness, and compassion (Osmani, 2008). However, this is only possible with God’s support. In the Buddhist and Hinduist tradition, people believe that liberation and enlightenment must be acquired by one’s own efforts, discipline, and practice (e.g., meditation), but that this path is open and achievable if based on gratitude, compassion, and detachment from superfluous earthly desires (Dunlap, 2019; McDonald, 2008).

From a secular point of view, pragmatist hope is anchored in the conviction that it is justified to believe in life’s benevolence and that through joint efforts we may constantly make the world a better place (Blöser & Stahl, 2017a). Rorty (1982) claims that hope for a better world does not require any foundation at all, that certain hopes may even be unjustifiable, and that to be able to hope we do not need a rational argument. The only thing we need is the belief in the possibility that “unnecessary human suffering can be decreased, and human happiness thereby increased” (Rorty, 2002, p. 154). As Rorty says, hope is “the ability to believe that the future will be unspecifiably different from, and unspecifiably freer than, the past” (Rorty, 1999, p. 120) which is the condition for social progress. Collective hope is not only characterized by shared ideals and visions but also by common beliefs in a brighter future and in the power of collective action and mutual care. From the point of view of ecological hope, Northcott (2020) urges us to believe in the restoration capacity of nature so that we also can assume that our endeavors to protect the natural environment are not in vain.

These examples also show that beliefs and desires can influence each other. The meaning, value, and importance of a certain desire will influence the belief or even conviction that this desire is at least possible. There seems to exist a reciprocal influence between belief and desire: If one believes that the fulfillment of an important wish is possible, one desires it even more fervently, and vice-versa, the importance of a desire can affect the belief in its possibility (Milona, 2019). On the contrary, the belief in the impossibility or difficulty of a wish or desire might steer the individual to a passive attitude towards it or even fully renounce it. The belief in the impossibility of the desired outcome produces apathy, frustration, and even depression (Beck et al., 1990; Farran et al., 1995). What seems important to emphasize is that the emotional state of hopelessness can be transformed, on the one hand, by underscoring the importance of the wished-for end and, on the other hand, by changing the beliefs, evaluations, and judgements of the individual. Sometimes it is only a matter of reframing the problem and looking at it from another perspective.

In sum, hope is significantly associated with the belief in one’s dignity and self-worth but beyond that with the belief in the benevolence of the world and of people in general. Some people might believe mainly in what they can see, in evidence and hard facts. Other people believe in external forces they cannot explain, such as luck and fortune. Hope is connected with the propensity the person has to believe in the goodness of the world, in a positive future, in favorable development of life in general, in the social support one receives and in the appreciation of one’s own capabilities. People with different worldviews and beliefs may hope differently. People in individualistic cultures may hope differently than people in collectivistic cultures. Higher levels of hopefulness might sometimes be rooted in the belief in one’s capabilities and in some cases in the belief in a benevolent higher power. Religious and spiritual individuals may hope differently than people indifferent or distant to religious beliefs and practices.

2.3.3 Trust and Sources of Hope

We have seen that hope comprises a wish or desire and the belief in the possibility of its realization but that these two elements are not sufficient to explain the phenomenon of hope and that a third factor is still needed to understand why people in uncertain situations adopt either a hopeful or a hopeless attitude. Most authors agree that hope does not coincide with positive expectations about a probable outcome and that a constitutive element of hope is uncertainty, both about the realization of the hoped-for end as well as the own self-efficacy (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). Therefore, hope and negative expectations can coexist and do not contradict each other (David et al., 2004, 2006; Leung et al., 2009; Montgomery et al., 2003). But then, what gives people the power to believe in healing, despite an unfavorable prognosis? What strengthens the belief in a positive outcome despite all negative evidence? Some authors focus on people’s own capabilities (Snyder, 1994), others refer to the importance of social support from family members or close friends (Scioli & Biller, 2009), still others highlight the faith in a benevolent higher power (Scioli, 2007) to whom one can revert when facing critical life situations.

Based on Erikson’s (1959) and Marcel’s (1951) original works, many authors recommended including trust as a unique and distinctive element of hope. They proposed a relational approach to hope, which recognizes that hope is rooted in relationships of trust between individuals (Barilan, 2012b; Braithwaite, 2004; Callina et al., 2018; Cobb & Green, 2017; Godfrey, 1987; Kadlac, 2015; Martin, 2019; McCormick, 2017; McGeer, 2004; Olsman, 2020; Rorty, 1999; Shade, 2001; Tennen et al., 2002). According to these authors, human flourishing takes place within a community of people who hope and act collectively for a common future. Through trusting relationships to other people, we can extend our agencies and produce a better future together. This is what collective hope is all about.

Therefore, the third element in our conceptualization of hope focuses on forms and expressions of trust related to resources that encourage people to believe in the realization of the hoped-for outcomes in circumstances of uncertainty. Trust is the ability to transcend current conditions and courageously be open to new and unknown social and technological solutions. In hoping, we experience the world as open to its possibilities and its development and trust the power of our others’ actions (Webb, 2007, 2008). To trust is to see the future as a realm of new possibilities. We trust our children, for example, not because of their current abilities and behaviors but due to their potential to learn and grow (McGeer, 2008). We not only believe that they will be capable of solving their problems, but also trust that they will do so. Fundamental or radical hope is about trusting that the unexpected, things we cannot foresee but wish and believe in, can occur (Lear, 2006).

Again, two extreme positions can be traced back to the ancient Greek and the Christian philosophical traditions, which had an immense impact on the culture and people of their times. In the Greek philosophy “elpis” had different connotations but basically denoted the prediction or anticipation of a future state of affairs. Due to the unreliable nature of the gods and goddesses, most philosophers considered elpis as irrational optimism and haughty self-confidence (Cairns, 2019). Ignoring hard facts and lack of experience makes people hope for the better, which in reality is nothing other than wishful thinking (Blöser & Stahl, 2017a). This lack of trust in the grounds and conditions for a better future was adopted by philosophers of the twentieth century like Schopenhauer (1918/2010) and Nietzsche (1885/2006), who believed in the impossibility of progress to overcome evil and pain on earth.

Precisely the opposite is represented by the Christian virtue of hope, which is anchored in the faith and trust in a benevolent God as the elementary source of hope. Christian hope is not based on knowledge but on faith in those things we do not see and do not understand. Through faith in God, hope escapes the realm of fear and despair related to uncertainty and adopts the quality of certainty and conviction that only can be explained by God’s love and mercy (van Vliet, 2020). Based on this faith in God, Christian hope evolves and expands into interpersonal trust in other human beings (Jeffrey, 2019; Marcel, 1951). The opposite of hope is not only despair, a lack of faith in God, but also the presumption of trusting only oneself rather than relating to and trusting other people and God (Pinsent, 2020).

To trust others is, as Marcel (1951) pointed out, to be open to the other. In Heidegger’s (1953/2010) philosophy, man is thrown back on himself in a world that is inhospitable for him. In contrast to Heidegger, for Marcel human existence is not embedded in a threatening world, but rather in a personal community of concrete relationships with other people. For Marcel, the question is how man can break through loneliness in a technocratic and materialistic world and regain meaning to lead a happy and fulfilling life. This hope is an interpersonal and self-transcendent phenomenon. Marcel sees the very essence of existence and hope in the relationship with other people and contrasts this with a philosophy of fear and despair. True hope must be directed towards someone else to escape the temptation to destroy oneself in despair. In a living relationship with someone else the suffering and desperate person ceases to be an object, he or she becomes a subject and is thus restored to his or her being and dignity. Hope at its best is not only a hope for me but a hope for something that unites us. It presupposes that we share life. Therefore, for Marcel, every fundamental “I hope” is in fact an “I hope for you”. At the same time, hope is essentially for-us, i.e., hope for all members of our community. The resulting formula of true hope is “I hope in thee for us”.

At the bottom of the interpersonal and social account of hope is a relational understanding of the self. Whereas people in individualistic cultures see the self as an isolated entity, people in collectivistic cultures view the self mainly in relation to others. According to Triandis (1997), the interdependent (relational) conceptualization of the self is characterized by the conviction that the self cannot be separated from others or from the social context. In individualistic cultures, on the contrary, the individual is defined by an independent self in search of self-actualization. Trust in the face of uncertainty implies a sense of vulnerability when hoping. The recognition and acceptance of our own vulnerability and the conviction that human flourishing is only possible within a community of people who care for each other is what makes solidarity a vital element of hope (Kadlac, 2015). When we trust, we expose ourselves to the possibility of being disappointed.

In Erikson’s developmental psychology, hope is the first human virtue that must be developed in early childhood out of the tension between existential fear and fundamental trust in the caregivers. McGeer (2004, 2008) recognized in hopeful trust the key force in the development of one’s own and others’ agencies. According to McGeer (2008), substantial trust and substantial hope can go far beyond existing evidence and current capabilities. They are the driving force for the transcendence of our limits and the development of new competencies in collaboration with others. Therefore, substantial hope is based on trust in the availability of resources that sometimes are at hand and sometimes are not accessible yet but could be available in the future. For McGeer (2004), good hope is therefore a responsive hope characterized by mutual care and support. Trust and hope are therefore linked to humility, patience, and persistence (Shade, 2001). When we trust others we recognize our limitations with modesty and the need for support and care. Trust is also the requirement for persistence and perseverance, not only in keeping our active commitment towards our hopes but also in being able to wait until better conditions arrive patiently.

In a similar sense, and following the work of Earle and Siegrist (2006), we must distinguish between the concepts of trust and confidence. Whereas confidence is defined as a reason-based assessment of a high probability of achieving a goal, fitting the concepts of optimism and dispositional hope, trust is basically a relational phenomenon supported by social attachment and characterized by shared values such as benevolence, integrity, fairness, and caring. Perceived hope, as we understand it, is related to trust rather than with confidence since if one is confident, there is no need to hope (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010). Trust relates to the interdependency with another person and therefore with vulnerability, uncertainty, and faith. To the contrary, self-confidence (White, 2009) is characterized by the belief in individual achievements, persistence, resilience, self-awareness, knowledge, experience, and personal success, all attributes closely related to the definition of Snyder’s (1994) dispositional hope.

Pragmatist philosophers highlight our dependency on others, and the necessity to trust that others will also hope and engage themselves for the common cause, especially regarding social and collective hope, e.g., for peace, justice, or a sustainable society, (Stitzlein, 2019). Trust has been identified as the most fundamental condition for the willingness to develop a shared vision of the future and to cooperate in promoting social change (Braithwaite, 2004). Furthermore, political hope needs public trust in social and democratic institutions (Huber, 2021; Moellendorf, 2006; Stahl, 2019). Northcott (2020) also encourages us to trust nature and all living creatures to cooperate with them and create a network of ecological practices to enact a sustainable future.

In sum, trust is at the core of most sources of hope: Trust in our current and future abilities, trust in family members and friends who are ready to support us emotionally and instrumentally, trust in the broader community and in social and political institutions, and trust in a Divine Power always present and on our side. People in different countries or belonging to different social groups can vary in what they consider to be sources of hope (Averill et al., 1990; Averill & Sundararajan, 2005). People in collectivistic cultures may rely more on the emotional and instrumental support of their family members and closest friends. Very religious people might put their hope on a benevolent Higher Power. In individualistic societies, hope is based on the notion of autonomy, independence, and self-efficacy, relying mainly on oneself, on one’s capabilities and commitment. However, sometimes there is little that one can do to contribute to the fulfillment of one’s hopes.

2.4 Conclusion

The primary purpose of this chapter was to lay the theoretical foundation and present a basic universal conceptualization of hope which would allow a differentiated and culture-sensitive study of the phenomenon. In order to make justice to numerous modes of hoping, we adopted an inter- and transdisciplinary approach. During the past decades and even centuries, hope theory and research in psychology, philosophy, and theology evolved in different, sometimes opposite directions, illuminating various facets of the existential, pervasive, and mysterious phenomenon of hope. Although each school and concept can be rooted in specific religious, cultural, and scientific worldviews, there seems to exist a common core underlying all or at least most of the concrete experiences. The main endeavor is thus twofold. Firstly, to distinguish universal features of hope common to a great variety of situations and cultural contexts in which hope comes to bear and to distinguish them from other concepts such as optimism and self-confidence. The second main focus is to identify several forms in which the universal features of hope manifest themselves in different experiences and environments.

Based on traditional theories and recent research, we proposed a transdisciplinary concept of hope that could integrate many aspects and dimensions related to a diversity of intra- and interpersonal processes. We conceptualized hope as composed by three basic elements which are a wish or desire for a valuable good, the belief that the realization of the hope-for good is possible but uncertain or even unlikely, and the trust in the availability of existing or future, either internal or external, resources that could foster its fulfillment. These three elements—wish, belief, and trust—seem to have a universal character that manifests itself in a variety of forms. Different people in different circumstances hope for different ends, believe in different things, and trust various sources of hope. From individual hopes for personal endeavors, through interpersonal hope from and for people we love, to collective hope for a better world, we must recognize and study the many targets, beliefs, and sources of hope and their effects on people’s general level of hopefulness. With this theoretical approach and conceptualization of hope, we intend to set the foundations for a differentiated, culturally responsive, and transdisciplinary empirical research agenda. The subsequent chapters will present the first theoretical and empirical findings of the Hope Barometer program and generate new questions for further research.