The origins of wellbeing date back to 1948 when the World Health Organization expanded its definition of health to include “physical, mental, and social wellbeing.” (Gibas et al., 2015).

In the mid-1960s, Raymond Bauer began to establish methods to measure and quantify indicators of social wellbeing beyond conventional economic measures, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Gibas et al., 2015).   In 1972, Bhutan’s young King Jigme Wangchuk coined the term “Gross National Happiness” (Gibas et al., 2015).  In the 1980s, Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach argued that wellbeing depended upon the degree to which people had the capacity to take advantage of the resources available to improve their wellbeing (Gibas et al., 2015). This catalyzed a new person-centered approach. 

READ MORE

Resilience research going back 50 years, catalyzed by the work of Emily Werner, has long explored the concept from the perspective of the individual, especially high-risk children (Fleming & Ledogar, 2008; Luthar et al., 2000; Richardson, 2002). Resilience theory shifted models focused on identifying risk factors for psychological and behavioral problems to a model that identified the internal strengths for coping with and overcoming adversity (Richardson, 2002). Since the 80s, resilience has been seen as a process of coping, not a trait. In addition, the literature has increasingly turned towards measuring the resilience of whole communities. Also relevant is Polyvagal Theory, proposed by Stephen Porges in the early 2000s, which describes the linkages between the stress response system and other neural networks that support prosocial behavior, health, and resilience (Sullivan et al., 2018).

Resilience begins with a disruption to homeostasis created by adversity. Resilience involves finding a sense of safety, self-regulating the stress response system, and finding insight and an integrative understanding of one’s strength, and coping qualities (Fleming & Ledogar, 2008; Richardson, 2002). This strengthens the resilient qualities that enabled the recovery. Without this resilient reintegration, people may continue to experience adversity because they have not developed the characteristics that allow for ongoing growth (Richardson, 2002). Others may turn to maladaptive behavior, such as addiction and other negative coping mechanisms. 

READ MORE

Our autonomic nervous system is made up of two branches: the sympathetic branch that activates to protect us from danger (fight/flight), and the parasympathetic branch, which helps us relax, feel safe, and restore ourselves. Normally, when we feel safe, our body regulates between the two branches as necessary. According to Polyvagal theory, there are three primary neural networks involved in the detection of and response to safety or threat, which enable the conditions for resilience. In times of safety, the “social engagement system” or ventral vagal complex (VVC), is responsible for regulating facial expressions and communications, in connect with breathing and heart rate, supporting more prosocial and adaptive social interactions in response to challenges (Sullivan et al., 2018). Second, the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) has an inverse relationship with the VVC. Third, the dorsal vagal complex (DVC) are nerve networks connected to organs below the diaphragm and involves activation of the “freeze” response in very severe terror, experienced as an almost complete shut-down of the body (Sullivan et al., 2018). When the VVC is active (and the SNS is downregulated) and a person feels safe, a person is in the optimal state for experiencing feelings of connectedness, love, empathy, compassion and altruism (Gerbarg et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2018). 

The mechanisms underlying PTSD involve the stress response system failing to shut off or self-regulate (Vermetten & Bremner, 2002). Any prolonged experience of a threat with a maladaptive response may result in longer-term imbalances in body, emotions and behavior (Sullivan et al., 2018). Often, traumatized individuals respond to new, perceived danger with paralysis and immobilization (Kolk, 2006).

Occasionally, the impact of a traumatic event goes beyond the individual and next generation to affect the entire community - such as with war or natural disaster - dismantling collective structures such as social networks, families, political systems, economies, health services, and trust (Hostland, 2012; Steidle, 2019). Collective wellbeing depends on objective, material elements such as social justice, welfare, law enforcement, leadership, and cultural identities, as well as the subjective perception of safety, trust, respect, satisfaction with treatment, and support (White, 2010). Individual and collective repair comes through the ongoing building of resilience and, when necessary, specific trauma-healing interventions.  

Effective trauma-healing interventions require a reprogramming of the stress response system through careful trauma-informed practices, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, prolonged exposure, and cognitive processing therapy, that allow people to feel safe again (Van der Kolk, 2006; Watkins et al., 2018).  Mind-body therapies that foster interoception, along with mindfulness capacities of nonjudgment and non-reactivity, together support the reappraisal of sensations as non-threatening for greater adaptive responses and improved self-regulation (Sullivan et al., 2018). This can lead to outcomes of eudaimonic wellbeing, sense of connection, peace, and physical, emotional and behavioral health, again driving prosocial behavior and resilience (Gerbarg et al., 2019; Sullivan et al., 2018). 

Following are a range of concerns involving measuring wellbeing, resilience and trauma-healing:

In the wellbeing literature, self-reported metrics are shown to be important contributors to measures of social progress (Cooke et al., 2016). Wellbeing takes place within the context of relationships and community, influenced by how people experience support/care or neglect/exploitation by social structures and power relations within the home and society (White, 2010). Four fields have shown the importance of wellbeing for social impact thus far :

• In the field of public policy, leaders are recognizing that integrating measures of wellbeing into policy evaluation allows for a broader set of indicators of people’s needs and desires towards a more positive end goals (OECD, 2013).

• Likewise, in international development, there is a shift towards more person-centered metrics of wellbeing instead of exclusively objective, external measures that only hint at wellness (Camfield et al., 2008).

• In the humanitarian aid field, the effect of stress and its impact on burn-out, secondary trauma, and compassion fatigue are well documented in anecdotal accounts (Ehrenreich & Elliot, 2004).

• Among social entrepreneurs, an investment in inner wellbeing has been shown to result in an increased sense of self, clarity of purpose, better balance, more positive and compassionate relationships, a reduction in anxiety around failure, greater space for creative possibilities, openness to diverse perspectives and collaboration, and a more holistic approach to problem-solving (Severns and Murphy Johnson, 2020).

Community wellbeing includes:

(1) mental and behavioral health,

(2) healthy behavior of participants in community, and

(3) perceived quality of life (Norris et al., 2007).

There is a bidirectional, interrelationship between individual wellbeing and collective wellbeing. In particular, in circumstances like war, terrorism, or even natural disaster, trauma-healing is necessary for both individual and collective functioning, which means trauma is inextricably linked to the realm of social change. Endeavors that give survivors a voice in the context of political or social change, as well as a sense of empowerment, connection, and self-sufficiency, are critical not only to individual psychological healing but also to the effectiveness of community reconstruction (Herman, 1997). Such processes help to restore that sense of connection between survivors and community on which collective wellbeing depends and help to catalyze community members to act in alignment with common values (Herman, 1992).  Social capital and resilience are fostered by efforts like restorative justice endeavors, which use a collective dialogue process to rehabilitate the offender, empower the survivor, and focus problem-solving on the systemic level with outcomes for the common good (Chavis & Pretty, 1999).  Collective practices, such as cultural and spiritual or religious ceremonies, can help people heal as a community and further restore a sense of dignity, solidarity, trust, and control (Fenton, 2018; Hostland, 2012; The Psychosocial Working Group, 2004).