1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A popular theme that runs through academic discourses in philosophy,

psychology and sociology as well as finding a place in popular discourses such as

films and literature is the struggle faced by the individual self in finding expression

against the injunctions of society. In academic discourse, this attains scientific

legitimacy in the idea of the attainment of an actualized self and living an authentic

life through the exercise of choice as essential for well-being. Although this idea

forms the essence of humanistic psychology, other streams within psychology also

pay allegiance to it, albeit in different forms. Implicit in these formulations is the idea

of the self-society relationship and the premium placed on choice exercised by an

individual to fashion a way of life that is in tune with her or his nature, needs and

personal preferences – that is, in accordance with a “real” self.

However, this idea of the individualized self and the struggle between it and

society is itself now understood as a product of history and culture by theorists from a

social constructionist perspective (Sampson 1988, 1989; Kitzinger 1992). Analysis of

the evolution of societies and the selves/characters of the people living in them shows

how such constructs as the “real” self that stands against society are a feature of a

particular type of society and the product of certain historical age – what is called

“modernity” (Baumeister 1987; Logan 1987). Again, cross-cultural studies in

psychology also show how the selves in cultures described as individualistic and

collectivistic vary and how the individualized self is common in Western societies

(Triandis 1989; Markus and Kitayama 1991).

If the “real self” is a socio-historical construction, would this mean that ideas

of living an authentic life in alignment with a real self and free of society’s

constraints, is also a socio-historical construction, that it might not be important for

members of a different socio-cultural configuration? And moving a little beyond this

question, do these constructions of selfhood, as evolving against the larger social,

cultural, economic and political dynamics entail different understandings, different

potentials for well-being? This latter question has two foci: the relationship between

the self and society (and the related idea of choice/non-choice) as it evolves in the

lives of people and the consequences of this for their well-being. Together these

2

constitute two main areas for theory development in this thesis. Since the self-society

relationship is understood as it evolves in the lives of its members, the study also

answers questions about how the self develops across the life-course of young people

living in different cultures/societies. In other words, the study also contributes to

knowledge about how young people approach love/marriage and work against larger

societal dynamics and cultural practices that regulate these transitions into adulthood.

Before going on to the theoretical premises that inform this thesis, I would

like to explain the manner in which I came upon this research problem.1 This research

was conducted during the period when I moved from my mid to late twenties; a

period of “youth” where me and my contemporaries, i.e., my friends, acquaintances

and relatives that come from the “same generation” as myself, are faced with making

the two primary choices associated with youth: work/career and love/marriage.

My contemporaries, I broadly classify as belonging to two groups one from

Mars and the other from Venus. The Martians, like me, are the kind who exercise a

high degree of personal choice at significant junctures of their life such as what kind

of career to pursue and what kind of a life-mate they are looking for. They make these

choices in accordance with their inclinations, interests and talents, often coming into

conflict with the expectations from a largely “traditional” society, resulting in the

self-society conflict referred to earlier. They are the kind who look for much more –

than the people from Venus – from the experiences that these choices entail. They are

also the kind whose parents are exasperated and alarmed with their often protracted

searches for their career niches and life-partners. Thus said my friend’s mother to her

after the many prospective husbands that she declined: “You will be happier trying to

fit yourself into any reasonably well fitting vessel rather than looking for that vessel

that will exactly fit you!”

Then, there are the folks from Venus exemplified by my cousin, whose

parents and uncles and aunties decided that she should stop studying and get married

at 23, that she not have a career (although recently, with the backing of her husband

and her in-laws, she has resumed it), also whom to marry and when best to have kids.

However, as dismayed as I was at the ease with which she seems to be pushing away

1 The constructivist methodology that the study adopts understands reality as co-constructed by the researcher in alliance with the participants. The researcher’s biography – both personal and professional – is understood to influence the perspective brought to the research. The brief biographical sketch shows my positioning and the resultant perspective I get on the research : how the questions are framed, as well as the frames I apply on the answers.

3

her chances for happiness, five years into her stint as a wife and mother, I’m amazed

at the general contentment in her demeanor and her simple unquestioning embracing

of these roles. And further puzzling was my Martian friends’ state of affairs a good

proportion of them were still floundering in their search for that niche and often

dissatisfied with their choices and ever on the lookout for better opportunities. And

their parents, who are understandably often dismayed at the ease with which their

children give up apparently excellent opportunities and go searching for newer ones.

To the Martians (including me), their parents’ lives (which resemble the Venusians

lives more than the Martians) are as puzzling as theirs are to the parents. A quarter

century ago, their parents chose amongst the basic Science or Arts or Commerce

options and most were in the same line of work, even the same job that they first

chose when they started working. And content. Moreover, most also were living in

stable apparently satisfying marriages; arranged marriages in which they had little

choice.

I found this paradoxical. Should not an increase in choice and the freedom to

make choices to suit oneself be related to higher satisfaction than when your choices

are directed from outside (family/society/tradition)? What seems to be happening

here? An initial foray into the literature in the increasingly popular positive

psychology or happiness studies tradition (Diener 2000; Oishi 2000; Suh 2000)

offered some explanation. I understood that part of the confusion clears when the

Martians and Venusians are understood as being from different worlds with different

ideas about what the “good life” entails. So, the explanation went, for my Martian

friends, happiness meant self-fulfillment, whereas for my Venusian friends (and our

parents), it was defined more in terms of fulfilling social roles and obligations. Thus,

for instance, the literature showed that the glorification of choice found in “Western”

theories of well-being finds cross-cultural challenges: in societies characterized as

collectivistic, where the individual is subordinate to the group, individual choice is

de-emphasized and is not a critical factor in determining the well-being of the

individual (Iyengar and Lepper 1999; Oishi 2000).

However, the psychological literature still failed to explain the dissatisfactions

faced by my Martian friends and it was only traveling further afield into the

4

sociological terrains2 that some of the apparent contradictions I observed found

explanation. There is much sociological analysis which talks about the tribulations

faced by the individual in late-modern societies that offer an excess of choices and

unprecedented opportunities for self-determination and self actualization as a result of

large scale social processes such as increasing mobility, technologization and

globalization (Berger 1973;Gergen 1991/2001;Giddens 1991; Beck 1992 ). Such

literature talks about the hidden costs accompanying the apparent benefits of choice

such as the challenges faced by people in forming and maintaining a stable sense of

self in a world that is increasingly fragmented through multiple value stands, criteria

for success and ideas of the good life.

The examples cited above make an easy and artificial distinction between

different kinds of social realities by slotting them into neat categories such as

“Martians” and “Venusians”. Even while acknowledging this, they still serve to

illustrate the puzzle that I observed and which led to my research objective: to

understand the choices (or not) in the life courses taken by young people in the

identity relevant arenas of love/marriage and work and understanding the

consequences of these for their well-being.

The Study in Brief: Nature, Scope and Relevance3

The effects of large-scale social changes are magnified for the youth of the world.

This is because youth is understood as a time when people make their adult

commitment in the world of love/marriage and work against the prevailing cultural

understandings of the youth life-stage and against the social, political and economic

frameworks of the society they live in (Erikson 1950/1985; Eisenstadt 1972; Gore

1977). Thus, youth represent the “newest” values and practices of a society.

Educated, employed, young men and women (in their late twenties to the mid

thirties), of different socioeconomic status (from now on referred to as SES) and

living in Dharmadam (a village in Kerala), Mumbai and Glasgow (Scotland) are the

2 I got my Bachelors and Masters degrees in Psychology (with no sociology course modules).As under-exposed as I was to sociological perspectives, TISS allowed me the flexibility to make my study inter-disciplinary and foray into sociology. The pre-doctoral course (6 theoretical review papers) and the required research methodology course with its “social theories” component especially, were very useful in this regard. Reflecting the inter-disciplinary nature of this thesis, my doctoral research guides are Dr Rajani Konantambigi (psychologist) and Dr N Jayaram (sociologist), as also Dr Andy Furlong (sociologist) from the University of Glasgow, for the one year I spent there as a Commonwealth scholar. 3 Chapter III, the methodology chapter elaborates on the nature, scope and relevance. The chapter also justifies the choice of participants, contexts of study and the methodology adopted.

5

participants of this study. They have been chosen to reflect different degrees of choice

sought and available at the intersections of these power positions (gender and SES)

and type of society (“modern” vs “traditional”). The study adopts the life-story or

biographical method within a social constructionist methodology to understand the

meanings made by young people across socio-cultural contexts; specifically, the

meanings they make of their love/marriage and work transitions and the

consequences of these. This methodology allows for an understanding of culture as

negotiated – in the meanings made by participants. It is also processual – in the

storied nature of the narratives that charts the meanings made of life-events that has

evolved across time.

A distinguishing feature of the study is its interdisciplinary nature and a chief

contribution it makes is the bridging of disciplinary boundaries. The study draws

from and informs several research traditions in psychology and sociology. Two broad

traditions in these disciplines conceptually align with the choice construct: the

theories of individualism/independence and collectivism/interdependence (e.g.,

Hofstede 1980; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1989) from cross-cultural

psychology and theories of modernity and tradition and the types of selves/characters

inhabiting these types of societies (e.g., Gergen 1991/2001; Giddens 1991/2001; Beck

and Gernsheim 1999), from sociology. These frames are applied to the storied

understandings of transitions into adulthood by the participants or the choices made

(or not) in the realms of work and love/marriage. Thus, the study also informs

psychological and sociological research done in India and Europe/North America

with their distinct perspectives on youth transitions into adulthood (e.g., Furlong and

Cartmel 1997; Brannen and Nilsen 2005). Finally, the study develops a theory of

well-being that draws from and contributes to debates that consider the link between

culture/ society and well-being in psychology (e.g., Diener and Suh 2000; Oishi 2000;

Suh 2000) and sociology (e.g., Berger et al. 1974; Gergen 1991/2000; Giddens 1991).

In addition to developing theory that adds to and complements existing

knowledge in sub-disciplines such as youth sociology and cross-cultural psychology,

the findings of such a study may also be useful in three other ways. One, it can

contribute to the development of theories of optimal human functioning that are

contextualized to particular types of societies or culture. Such theories can inform

theory and practice in counseling and therapy through an acknowledgement of the

cultural embeddedness of notions of the self, its needs and its well-being. Secondly,

6

the findings of such a study may also find applications in formulation of the

development objectives of a nation. In common practice, this is based on objective

indicators which could be economic (e.g., GDP) or social (e.g., education, infant

mortality, etc). Whereas these indices of development are useful and appropriate, in

recent years, subjective indicators of well-being/quality of life in societies are

increasingly beings seen as a necessary supplement to the objective indices (Diener

2000; Dent 2008; Asthana 2009). As a criterion for judging societies, subjective

well-being or happiness is important because a society functions poorly when a

majority of its people is discontent, anxious or depressed. The study throws up

questions about the paradoxes of “progress” by examining the costs and benefits (in

terms of well-being) associated with different value-configurations –

traditional/developing and modern/developed. Finally, demographic changes are

increasingly pitting the youth of the world as a category of much relevance to

contemporary societies. In India, youth (15-34 years) constitute a major and

increasing percentage of the work-force (15-59 years) and contributes to the

“demographic dividend” or the increase in rate of economic growth due to an increase

in the share of working people in the population. However, this demographic

dividend is not expected to last beyond 2030 by which time, the demographic trends

in India would parallel those of the world where in general, the economically active

adult population is projected to shrink in the future relative to the economically

dependent (Mortimer and Larson 2002; Jayaram 2009). Against such a scenario, it

becomes important to invest in youth as the adults of the future. Knowledge about

how youth experience of transitions to adulthood are influenced by larger social

dynamics may become useful for shaping future research agendas and informing

policy makers and practitioners that deal with youth in such fields as education,

psychology and economics. Such an endeavour is also particularly relevant in a

developing country such as India where a “clash of civilization” of sorts has occurred

since independence between the Western, individualistic, rational utilitarian ethos

(required by the development goals of modernization) and agrarian-based,

collectivistic, traditional ethos of India. The youth, as barometers of social change in

a society are especially vulnerable to the negative repercussions of such a clash,

especially in the realm of personal life and happiness.

Having laid-out the bare-bones of the doctoral study, I now present the

manner in which the thesis presents the study.

7

The thesis layout:

The following chapter – the second chapter – presents the conceptual handles that the

study uses to answer the question of choice and its consequences in how young

people approach love/marriage and work. This briefly considers various

methodological perspectives that can be taken to understanding the self-society

dynamic or choice, before locating the approach that the study adopts amongst these.

As noted, this approach draws from ideas of modernity and tradition in sociology and

individualism/independence and collectivism/interdependence in psychology. In

sociology, the review presents theories that link larger social processes such as

modernization in the 19th century to individual psychology, through the

modernization theories formulated post World War II to the contemporary theories of

late modernity and identity. The chapter also presents a critique of the constructs of

modernity/tradition and individualism/collectivism.

The third chapter reviews literature that understands choice in youth

transitions across cultures. Youth transitions research in the advanced nations

typically focus on school to work transitions against increasing de-standardization of

these processes under conditions of modernity and the consequent individualization;

most of these studies use qualitative methods. Youth transitions studies in India are

typically survey studies of youth attitudes to work, love/marriage and how these are

patterned according to urban/rural divides, SES and gender.

The fourth chapter reviews literature that articulates the interface between

choice and wellbeing across cultures. The chapter first presents various

conceptualizations of well-being in psychology. Next, it reviews different theories of

well-being that implicitly or explicitly considers the importance of or the

consequences of choice for well-being. Next, it reviews studies of the patterning of

well-being across nations characterized as individualistic or collectivistic and finally

it reviews research that considers the cross-cultural correlates and constructions of

well-being.

The fifth chapter, the methodology chapter presents the research questions and

the methodology adopted to answer the research questions. A detailing of the gaps

identified in the literature reviewed paves the way to a formulation of the research

objectives and the research questions. This chapter conceptualizes choice, society,

culture and well-being as they are understood in the study. It shows how using

qualitative methods within a social constructionist paradigm is appropriate for

8

answering the research questions. It justifies the selection of youth as participants in

the research and the selection of the research contexts (Dharmadam, Mumbai and

Glasgow). Finally, it details the procedures I undertook for data collection and data

analysis.

The sixth, seventh and eighth chapters constitute the two main analytical

chapters. The fifth applies the choice lens to the work stories of the participants and

the sixth to the love stories of the participants across Dharmadam, Mumbai and

Glasgow, the three sites of research. In both chapters, the stories present the themes

that emerge when applying the choice lens to the participants’ stories of how they

approached and finally made their choices in the past, the manner in which they

evaluate the choices made as they live them and finally, how they envisage the future

with regard to their work and love/marriage. The seventh chapter presents the final

analytical chapter that brings out the potential for well-being in the characteristic

patterns of meaning-making associated with different choice contexts; the theory of

well-being builds on the themes developed in the previous two analytical chapters.

The final chapter, the ninth, presents the contributions of the study. It

contextualizes the main findings from the study within the larger debates in the

disciplines of psychology and sociology as identified in the literature review.