Exploring the Relational in Relational Wellbeing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall comments

This is a very intelligent and insightful piece, that offers some important theoretical analysis of what is relational in relational wellbeing (RWB). The analysis is then applied to primary empirical research conducted in Zambia in 2010 and 2012, with the latter drawing out well the theoretical themes explored prior. My more specific comments below should therefore be read with this very positive assessment of the paper as it stands in mind. Subsequently, the comments below are mainly offered as ‘food for thought’ to inform minor changes and acknowledgements that I suggest should be made, rather than as changes requiring substantial revisions as such.

More specifically

1.      The paper usefully highlights in a number of places, how different relational aspects of RWB are often in conflict or in tension with each other, leading to various trade-offs that might be made in negotiating complex and multidimensional relational experiences of well-being. These conflicts and tensions are important to acknowledge in any version of RWB, for, as the paper argues, it allows for the problematisation of what is relational, and the complexities involved in enhancing well-being. However, for me, the conflicts and tensions run deeper than what is generally implied in the theoretical analysis. For example, some people who are defined by others as ‘outsiders’ (so outside dominant relational norms and practices) use this ‘label’ as a platform for enhancing their well-being. I’m thinking of radical disability identity politics, for example, which I’m familiar with, which sees the ‘outsider status’ attributed to ‘being disabled’, as at once oppressive and liberating. This highlights the paradoxical character of relational in this context (as well as it being conflictual) which, for me, is also important to acknowledge in any RWB account.

2.      The critique of subjective well-being (SWB) found in the paper, while has an important point to make concerning ‘the individual’ being mistakenly seen as the fundamental ‘subject’ of well-being, for me oversimplifies and caricatures SWB as its target for criticism. Notably, and ironically given the analysis provided by the paper in 1 above, the author(s) fail to acknowledge the complexities and conflicts within SWB understandings and measurements, which are frequently acknowledged and explored in depth by proponents of SWB.  For example, in lines 305 to 306 the author(s) state that “SWB … literally provides only a number representing ‘how happy’ people are, without any attempt to investigate the nature of that happiness.” Of course, the media and politicians will often promote SWB in this very crass way, but this is usually not the case for SWB proponents in academia. Whether from philosophy, positive psychology, or other social/human science disciplines, SWB proponents are usually very aware of the problems in defining happiness, and of the conflicts and tensions that occur within SWB as a result. For example, the academic report submitted to the UK's Office for National Statistics in 2011, Measuring Subjective Well-Being for Public Policy, defends a three dimensional account of SWB, reflecting subjective evaluation, experience, and what the report calls autonomous ‘meaning making’. In the process, the authors of the report also highlight how these dimensions are often in conflict and in tension, and moreover lead to and expose relational questions and correlations concerning a person’s social characteristics ­– such as, their demographic characteristics, employment status, marital status, gender, and so on. Regarding the philosophical literature, proponents of SWB spend a lot of time problematising and discussing the meaning of happiness, and/or whether happiness should be seen as a reliable ‘marker’ for understanding SWB in any event. Again, in the process, relational aspects of well-being (as described in this paper) are also often highlighted and explored by these same authors as an important, even essential, aspect of SWB.

3.      On lines 27-28 should it read well-being rather than being? It could be either.

Author Response

Thank you for this kind and insightful review. Your first point on the conflictual and contradictory aspects of relationality is well taken, and the example you give of radical disability politics is an intriguing one. I haven't been able to do this point justice, but have added a sentence (273-4) which strengthens recognition of the often ambiguous and conflictual character of relationships.

Your second point is well taken.  I have softened the critique of SWB and given a broader description of it. 

I am happy with being in line 27-8 so have left it as it is

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, well-argued and important paper in the wider research on wellbeing. Focusing on the various aspects under the larger term ‘relational wellbeing’, and acknowledging how this cannot fundamentally be a discrete category, is a particularly relevant conversation, as is linking it to three drivers: personal, societal and environmental. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and I thought the balance of theoretical with the practical meshwork case study in Zambia was well done.

 

My main comments are as follows:

I found the opening vignette slightly jolting – the abstract mentions Zambia, the paper opens with a quote from an NHS staff member, then the outline of the rest of the paper discusses Zambia. I think you need to rethink or reframe this opening bit slightly – I know you mention in later on, where it does link, but until then it does not seem to fit very well. If you want to keep it, perhaps you should add a sentence or two to that paragraph which makes the link between it and Zambia more explicitly.

Under the title, ‘Case study: A meshwork of kin’, I suggest moving some of the paragraphs around for clarity. Consider moving the two paragraphs on meshwork (lines 358-375) to the beginning (or after first paragraph) of this section. It flows better to me to have the specifics of the case study together – i.e. the study location paragraph and the paragraph starting line 376 which delves into what people said.

Lastly, do ensure that you blind your articles - you make explicit references to your previous published worked. It would be better to leave it as (AUTHOR, YEAR) at the review stage. 

Specific typos/sentences that need attention are as follows:

Pg 1, abstract, line 15 – ‘power and how it is the interactions

Pg 4, line 176 – rather than an inner state

Pg 4, line 177 – wellbeing as a process

Pg 5, line 182 – wellbeing as a process

Pg 5, line 224 – should interleaved be interweaved?

Pg 7, line 307 – in that it is concerned with

Pg 7, line 326 – need to capitalise ‘In’

Pg 7, line 327 – add a comma after ‘section’

Pg 8, line 356 – change till to until

Pg 8, line 358 – add a comma after culture

Pg 8, line 368 – or as connections

Pg 8, line 375 – I feel this should have a reference after it (specific to Zambia)

Pg 9, lines 415-417 – This sentence reads confusingly. I’m not sure what ‘stand’ means in this context, nor who is proving an inside track (or what this means in this context) to seek help from ‘them’ (birth family? Foster family?). I think this needs rephrased for clarity.

Pg 9, line 433 – wellbeing as a process

Pg 10, line 448 – forms of drivers

Pg 13, line 620 – forms of drivers

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only minor typos noted; these are listed above.

Author Response

Thank you for this thoughtful and helpful review. 

I have added a couple of sentences to the opening paragraph to link the opening vignette to the main case study from Zambia.

I tried to follow your suggestion regarding shifting paragraphs in the section 'a meshwork of kin', but each of the changes I tried to make brought its own problems, so in the end I left it as it was.

I take the point about blinding the article for the review process.  I am sorry I didn't do this, but at this stage it seems to me no longer relevant, since both reviewers have seen the earlier version and both suggested only. minor revisions, so I have left the references as they are.

I have corrected most of the typographical errors you noted.  Some I have left - e.g. I deliberately wrote wellbeing as process, rather as a process, so I hope that is OK.