To attain happiness and to avoid mood disorders, which should we pursue

The messages of modern society are all too familiar to us: buy more, eat more, sleep more, take more pictures, and care less about the effects of our actions. We are encouraged to maximize pleasure while avoiding anything that inconveniences us. We cloister ourselves with our material goods and social media habits, promoting self-centeredness. This induces a fluctuating happiness in which phases of pleasure and displeasure repeatedly alternate, which can result in various mood disorders and has been linked to decreases in well-being. In this article, we are going to analyze self-centeredness and its consequences and also interpret its role in a variety of mood disorders and various areas of life.

The Self-centeredness / Selflessness Happiness Model (SSHM) is a theoretical model proposed by Dambrun et al. in 2011 [1]. This model represents different sorts of happiness that are dependent upon the self, particularly the structure of the self. They claim that self-centered psychological functioning derives from how someone perceives themselves and the belief that they are powerful, permanent, and independent. This functioning causes fluctuating happiness and afflictive affects which are also the roots of many mood disturbances. This is heavily contrasted by the perception of the self as flexible which leads to selfless psychological functioning and is a crucial factor at attaining more authentic/durable happiness [1].

After proposing this model, Michael Dambrun conducted a study in 2017 that built upon this model. According to this research, self-centered psychological functioning allows individuals to fluctuate between joy and sorrow, a vacillation that results in afflictive affects. Conversely, selfless psychological functioning gives the individual more emotional stability and feeling of harmony with the environment. They tested these hypotheses in two studies consisting of a heterogeneous sample of citizens (n=547). Analyses of these two studies indicate that self-centeredness (measured by egocentrism and materialism) and selflessness (measured by transcendence and connectedness to others) were two different psychological constructs rather than strict oppositional ideas.

In addition to showing the distinct functioning, these analyses also revealed that self-centered functioning is significantly associated with fluctuating happiness that is the root of afflictive affects. However, selflessness is linked to authentic/durable happiness, which is the result of perceiving the self as flexible and harmonious with the environment and universe. These associations are mediated by distinct psychological processes. For self-centeredness, afflictive affects play a crucial role in the correlation with fluctuating happiness in self-centered individuals.

In contrast, selfless individuals attain authentic-durable happiness that is partially mediated by emotional stability and perceiving themselves as harmonious with others and the universe (2). In our view, individuals who are more concerned about their happiness are more susceptible to mood fluctuations and disorders, while individuals who have more significant interest for the happiness of others attain more robust and durable emotions.

These studies also suggest that self-centeredness causes problems in society; as such, we will to analyze the results later.

Fluctuating happiness in the self-centered individual

The idea of the self as a real, permanent entity with its distinct boundaries results in self-centered psychological functioning. Laborit’s [3] study suggests that each organized structure in the form of an entity seeks gratifications that positively reinforce it and avoids things that risk its homeostasis. The hedonic principal is a major ruler in self-centered functioning and is deeply associated with egoism, egocentrism, an exaggerated importance given to the self, and ego inflation (through material possessions, for example) (e.g. Higgins,1997) [4].

The hedonic principle and its associations are also correlated with some personality disorders, particularly narcissistic personality disorder [5]. This principle induces the individual to focus on attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. Feelings of temporary happiness, joy, and gratification are the result of impulsive actions for attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. However, only the presence or absence of certain stimuli reinforce the individual and only give temporary pleasure and happiness (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006 [6]). The experience of pleasure depends on circumstances, is an unstable condition that may soon become neutral or may be displaced with displeasure. (i.e., hedonic adaptation, e.g., Brickman, Coates & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Lyubomirsky, 2011 [7]). Focusing on attaining more pleasure and avoiding displeasure lead an individual to recognize and realize the impossibility of attaining valued objects, durable pleasure, and cause them to repeatedly vacillate between pleasure and displeasure and the arising affects such as frustration, nervousness, anger, hostility, or jealousy, all of which damage their well-being and health (e.g., Miller) [8]. Contrarily, altruism, also called selflessness or focusing on others’ happiness, is significantly associated with a higher quality of well-being, health, and longevity [9].

Self-centeredness cause depressive symptomatology

A self-centered lifestyle may cause not only mood disorders but also social problems that also increase the prevalence of different mood disorders. Loneliness is a big problem in contemporary society, though we mostly live in crowded cities adorned with skyscrapers. As the title describes, a study conducted in 2017 shows loneliness and self-centeredness have a reciprocal effect that cause depression and various mood disorders, as well as health and social problems [10].

Loneliness increases not only the motivation to repair or replace deficient social relationships, but also the implicit motivation for self-preservation. John T. Cacioppo et al. reported a cross-lagged analysis of 10 waves of longitudinal data (n=229) on loneliness and self-centeredness (as gauged by Feeney and Collins’s measure of choric self-focus) in a representative sample of middle-aged and other adults. Loneliness increases the implicit motivation for self-preservation, and loneliness in the current year anticipates self-centeredness in the following year beyond what is reasoned by current-year demographic variables, self-centeredness, depressive symptomatology, and overall negative mood and emotions. Their study also revealed that self-centeredness in the current year foretells loneliness in the subsequent year, a reciprocal relationship that could potentially contribute to the maintenance of loneliness [12].

Generation Me and its consequences on human mood

An increase in narcissism with some indicators of increased self-focus in Americans born after 1970 leads authors to describe that generation as “Generation Me” [5, 12]. This narcissism and self-focus are also intimately related to self-centered psychological functioning since both are formed by an exaggerated importance given to the self, ego-inflation, and so on. We think self-centered psychological functioning may also be considered as a part of this dynamic, thus being a member of Generation Me may be one of the major risk factors for narcissistic personality traits and disorder [2, 12].

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by a grandiose self-view, unrealistic sense of entitlement, exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings [13, 14]. Narcissists who consider themselves to be superior to others, and also have unrealistic expectations for the future, become angry and aggressive when in trouble, take more resources for themselves and leave less for others, and value money, fame, and image over family, helping others, and community. Though narcissism has some benefits, like public speaking, it has lots of adverse effects on human mood and behavior and comorbidities with psychological disorders [15].

Selfless functioning

The principle of “harmony” has a primary role in the selflessly functioning individual; harmony directs all mental activities (conation, motivation, attention, emotion, cognition, behavior). Harmony and emotional stability are associated with empathy, benevolence, compassion, and deep respect; all of these have a beneficial effect on behavior and a reduction of psychological distress [2]. Many studies have revealed the results of altruism on happiness and health and have consistently found a deep and intimate connection between altruism and current and future health and well-being.

References

1. Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15 (2), 138-157.
2. Dambrun M. Self-centeredness and selflessness: happiness correlates and mediating psychological processes. Hung T-M, ed. PeerJ. 2017; 5:e3306. doi:10.7717/peerj.3306.
3. Laborit (1979) Laborit H. L’inhibition de l’action: biologie, physiologie, psychologie, sociologie. Edition Masson; Paris: 1979.
4. Higgins (1997) Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. 1997; 52:1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Jean M. Twenge The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We Vol 1, Issue 1, pp. 11 – 16,First published date: March-01-20131177/2167696812466548
6. Wallace & Shapiro (2006) Wallace BA, Shapiro SL. Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. American Psychologist. 2006;61:690–701. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.690. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Brickman P., Coates D., Janoff-Bulman R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 917–92710.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Miller et al. (1996) Miller TQ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Guijarro ML, Hallet AJ. A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119:322–348. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.322. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. “altruism (n .)”.Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
10. Cacioppo JT, Chen HY, Cacioppo S. Reciprocal Influences Between Loneliness and Self-Centeredness: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis in a Population-Based Sample of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Adults. Pers Soc Psychol Bull.2017 Aug;43(8):1125-1135. doi: 10.1177/0146167217705120. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
11. Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press; 2006.
12. PubMed Caligor, E; Levy, KN; Yeomans, FE (May 2015). “Narcissistic personality disorder: diagnostic and clinical challenges.”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 172 (5): 415–22. PMID25930131. doi:1176/appi.ajp.2014.14060723
13. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.
14. Cai H, Shi Y, Fang X, Luo YLL. Narcissism predicts impulsive buying: phenotypic and genetic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:881. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00881.
15. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.

Although, there is a lack of theoretical and philosophical background to understand the homeschooling movement I would like to use some philosophy of

teaching theories to understand and analyze counter-culture and controversies in Mitchell L. Stevens’ book. The author tries to offer a broad understanding in the North Eastern American states in the homeschooling movement. The author focuses to answer why the homeschooling families walked away from one of the most central institutions of modern life and what do those families think about conventional schools. Stevens continues by saying that We inherit traditions of meaning that help define what we think and lend words to what we fell. I wanted to learn about the intellectual traditions from which home schooling had grown (Stevens, 2001, p.15). When I reviewed the book I wanted to discover what kind of inherited tradition and mentality he found or didn’t find in the book while I was writing this paper. The author’s perspective about the homeschooling movement seems to be more narrative and insightful than theoretical and philosophical, which a sociological study is supposed to rely on.

On the cover of the book Stevens talks about the great successes of home schooled children, their making headlines by winning national spelling bees and excelling at elite universities, but he does not extend the argument far enough. He does not talk about the experiences of these children, their feelings and ideas about being home schooled, or the structure of their educational curriculum. Although he mentions some studies about those children by saying that home schooled children are academically successful and remarkably well socialized he does not explain how and why homeschooling brings these results. This shows that Stevens is more concerned with the adult movement in homeschooling than with how it will affect the children’s world contrary to the title of the book.

While the book states that the vast majority of homeschooling parents were conservative Christian or evangelical Protestant there are some exceptions to that which make the movement harder to understand. These exceptions include families who are atheist, gay or single parent rather than all conservative Christian. I see a shift toward theories based on a postmodern approach because many parents have become skeptical about other types of modern schooling. Homeschooling families place great emphasis on their children’ showing initiative and being physically and psychologically healthy. For homeschooling families’ modernism does not have a capacity to fulfill the needs of young children because there is so much influence of commercial culture, including overly sexualized and secularized materials. While homeschooling families unmask the secular political ideology in regular public schooling, they come with their hidden agenda (religious or non-secular education) unlike in postmodernism. This is because postmodernism gives great emphasis on individual intention. Hlebowitsh says that postmodernists stress the value of individual initiative, the recognition of human intention, the unmasking of political ideology in knowledge, the taming of social control mechanism in the school, and the general idea that society is marked by conflicting interests of class, gender, and culture (Hlebowitsh, 2001, p. 119). Postmodernism is skeptical to see things as all good and perfect, but homeschooling families are pretty sure what they want out of home schooling. According to many homeschooling families, in this modern world individuals are not conscious about God and the importance of family ties, especially mother and child/children, are uniquely important. Consequently, the movement in the book seems to be not so new and very similar to early colonial New England School tradition in terms of its being exclusive and based on Bible lesson plans. In chapter three, entitled Natural Mothers and Godly Women, Stevens recalls Dame schooling that is based on women educators (widowed or unmarried) in the New England early colonial era. These women did not necessarily train to be a teacher but taught to read the Bible and lessons based on its Scriptures, which is very similar to the homeschooling movement today. Stevens book fails to do this, or describe some other types of historical ties behind the movement. I wonder if he intents to make this connection on page 15 by using the term inherit tradition in the homeschooling movement.

In the Homeschooling Journal, Debra Strayer (Stevens, 2001, p.66) says that:

As teaching parents, we are presented with a huge array of educationally important things to serve our children. Many things are considered essential, such as phonics and math. Many are deemed very important, such as writing and science, with our study of the Bible as the central diet. As we consider the many things our children simply must have, we tend to eliminate those things that are cumbersome and difficult to schedule

In this quote Strayer expresses the feelings of many homeschooling families by saying that other types of schooling are more heavily weighted on unnecessary courses and scheduling than core subjects’ courses. The homeschooling families like to eliminate those things from their children’s learning experience. While they make these arguments on the surface they tend to be subject-centered rather than child-centered. This is similar to one of the conservative philosophies of teaching theory, which is essentialism. In this type of teaching philosophy learning is primarily based on the transmission and protection of common core cultural knowledge. This common culture relies on the values of Western civilization and the ideal learning experience is strictly based on academic discipline. While those statements translate the homeschooling movement, the author does not tend to make any type of historical or philosophical connection to interpret and understand the movement. Because these parents do not count on their children’s ideas and feelings, they ignore the real view of their children and they only think of molding them into the shape that they want them to be. Thus, parents, not the children, have the authority to make the choices and offer selections.

According to Rousseau, who is the father of the child-centered approach, children are best educated in a free environment and schools tend to destroy the natural learning process. Having an educational agenda undermines the individual’s natural and spontaneous learning process. As is seen in this statement, what Rousseau proposed with child-centeredness was totally different than what homeschooling families intend to do. I think the author needs another term instead of child centered at page 88. I believe those children are successful because of subject or discipline centeredness of homeschooling movement but not because of the child-centeredness of the movement.

Although I find Stevens book very enlightening, I see some gaps in terms of its theoretical and philosophical background. The author perceives homeschooling as a new social movement, but the question about what type of new social movement stays unclear and/or unanswered. I also realize this gap comes from the nature of the homeschooling movement. Even though, I try to understand Stevens’ book based on some teaching theories, it is hard to frame the movement because of a wide range of homeschooling families’ backgrounds and their expectations from the movement. Stevens’ book offers a very insightful approach to understanding homeschooling families. One of the strongest sides of his book is its vast range of homeschooling designs and the richness of his survey sample distributions. In terms of his methodology, this increases the accuracy of the information he provides through surveying. This shows that the author reached out to many homeschooling families and learned a lot about their world. Finally, I find Stevens successful in his ability to reflect his experiences insightfully with homeschooling families behind the movement.

References

• Hlebowitsh, Peter S., (2001). Foundations of American education (3 ed.). Wadsworth T. Thomson Learning. Belmont, CA
• Stevens, Mitchell L., (2001). Kingdom of children: Culture and controversy in the homeschooling movement. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey