Well-being and cultural context Raz

Well-being and cultural context Raz (1988) considers the nature of communal living in terms of personal well being, which he deconstructs via goals and social forms. A person’s goals are important to Raz’s analysis because well-being is considered from the point of view of the individual. Goals are different from the biological needs of shelter, food and so forth, and instead incorporate plans, relationships and ambitions, are consciously held, and play an implicit role in the actions and reactions of the individual. Thus, ‘improving the well-being of a person can normally only be done through his goals. If they are bad for him the way to help him is to get him to change them, and not to frustrate their realization’ (Raz, 1988, p. 291). Social forms are defined similarly to Stavenhagen’s culture, as shared beliefs, folklore, collectively shared metaphors and the like. Social forms pervade an individual’s decisions, such that ‘a person’s well-being depends to a large extent on success in socially defined and determined pursuits and activities’ (Raz, 1988, p. 309). Thus, ‘a
person can have a comprehensive goal only if it is based on existing social forms, i.e. on forms of behaviour which are widely practiced in his society’. Which is to say that goals cannot be selected by an individual in a purely objective manner; the important aspects of one’s life are deemed so with reference to social forms. Thus ‘engaging in the same activities will … have a different significance in the life of the individual depending on the social practices and attitudes to such activities’ (Raz, 1988, p. 311). This latter point has particular significance for those working internationally on adaptation, as it draws attention not only to the potential inappropriateness of her or his own views on the best adaptation options, but also to the fact that a successful adaptation approach in one location will not necessarily translate to a different cultural context. Raz’s model allows analysis of the mechanisms of social interaction and personal
well-being. Importantly, the structure of goals (important life plans) and social forms (culture) helps to place individual autonomy and well-being in a cultural context. Kymlicka (1989) offers broadly similar analysis, but refers to the need to
‘see value’ in the activities that make up our goals. However, the range of options in which we may see value is limited by the cultural ‘context of choice’. Analogous to social forms, the context of choice determines the importance of our actions, as those actions ‘only have meaning to us because they are identified as having significance by our culture, because they fit into some pattern of activities which can be culturally recognised as a way of leading one’s life’ (Kymlicka 1989, p. 189, emphasis in original). The phrasing here is evocative of Raz. Interestingly, Kymlicka also offers empirical evidence to demonstrate the interdependence of the individual and society. For example, the practice by oppressive regimes of attacking identity and culture provides evidence of the importance of cultural heritage in providing individuals
with ‘emotional security and personal strength’ (Kymlicka, 1989, p. 193). This points to the power of identity politics, and is the complement of the subjective sense of group membership that is heightened when communities are placed
under threat (Cohen, 1999).