The most used flourishing measures all approach the question of what it means to live well from a universalist perspective that assumes that there is a single, overarching model of what flourishing looks like across cultures. Because the question of what components make up flourishing has major theoretical implications for how individuals and society should function, it is of critical importance to examine the context of these assertions. The majority of the flourishing research to date has largely been based on WEIRD samples and have been created by WEIRD scholars. Because flourishing researchers have failed to examine their own positionality and the assumptions and ideologies that are incorporated into their measures, scholarship in the field of flourishing is still largely guided by normative, ethnocentric assumptions about what flourishing entails. These universalist theories under-emphasize cultural differences in expressions of flourishing and tend to homogenize the lived experience of diverse individuals. Operating in such an environment, it is no surprise that models of flourishing devised in the West incorporate a view of individual flourishing that is reflective of a cultural zeitgeist in which social relationships, environmental health, and religious values are devalued compared to individual traits and achievements. By calling out the weakness in these measures, I underscore the need for researcher reflexivity as well as the importance of incorporating differing cultural traditions into broad psychological claims of what it means to live well as a human being in this world.

Author: Nona Kiknadze