Balance and Harmony: The Hidden Heart of Happiness
January 2024 Issue
Dr. Timothy Lomas, Psychology Research Scientist, Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program
As we emerge from our holiday cocoons and breathe in the bracing air of a fresh new year, people’s minds are invariably filled with hopes and dreams for the coming months. Many aspirations will be shared in common, arising from our universal human nature: health and happiness, love and laughter, peace and purpose, to name a few. These yearnings are as old as civilization itself, and their ever-present relevance and desirability need little scientific study or validation. However, as to how to attain these desiderata, this remains – as it always has – an issue of considerable discussion and debate.
What are the dynamics by which they grace our lives and exert their beneficent effects? Are there secret formulas that help conjure them into being, or elusive recipes that prolong their appearance? By what principles should we live to encourage these gifts? No doubt there are many answers to these questions. But whatever else may also be relevant and true, part of the answer involves two interrelated principles which are integral to all that is good in life, but whose importance is seldom fully appreciated: balance and harmony (B/H).
To be fair, these are not totally overlooked. These days most people’s wellbeing-related lexicon includes phrases like “work-life balance” or a “balanced diet”. Likewise, these notions have accrued a relatively substantial research base: a cursory search on Google Scholar for these phrases returns 441,000 and 141,000 hits respectively, which is respectable. That said, these figures are significantly less than for other phrases in these arenas, such as “occupational health” (2,980,000) or “exercise training” (1,130,000). Moreover, these fragmentary acknowledgements aside, the deep, fundamental significance of B/H across all aspects of life – which I have described as a “golden thread” running though all elements of wellbeing – is rarely recognized or remarked upon.
Dynamic Principles of Wellbeing
The place to begin with appreciating B/H is the subtle but significant point that these are not simply wellbeing-related outcomes that could be added to a list of other desiderata like those listed above, such as health and happiness. Rather, these are dynamic principles that apply to these cherished goods. B/H are therefore closer to concepts such as “more” or “less,” in that they describe the state of phenomena. Just as something can be appraised as having more or less in certain respects (e.g., quantity, quality), so too can it be described as being in balance or harmony to varying degrees.
Let’s clarify this point by considering what balance and harmony actually mean. These can of course be defined in various ways. However, in writing a chapter on this topic for the 2022 World Happiness Report – analyzing data from the Gallup World Poll, as discussed below – my colleagues and I fashioned definitions which captured the common spirit of their use across various fields. Thus, we suggested that balance tends to mean that “the various elements which constitute a phenomenon, and/or the various forces acting upon it, are in proportionality and/or equilibrium, often with an implication of stability, evenness, and poise.”
These dynamics often apply to binary phenomena, as reflected in its etymology, being derived from the Latin bilanx, which refers to two (bi) scale pans (lanx). That said, the term can also apply to relationships among multiple phenomena, as with a “balanced diet.” Substantively, the relevant elements may either be poles of a spectrum (e.g., hot-cold), or discrete categories that are frequently linked (e.g., work-life), while temporally such connections can be synchronic (e.g., neither too hot nor cold) or diachronic (e.g., averaging good work-life balance over a career). Crucially, whatever the composition of elements, balance usually does not mean a crude calculation of averages, nor locating a simple mid-point between extremes, but skilfully finding the right point or amount, an ideal also known as the Goldilocks principle.
By contrast, harmony means “the various elements which constitute a phenomenon, and/or the various forces acting upon it, cohere and complement one another, leading to an overall configuration which is appraised positively.” This meaning too reflects its etymology, deriving from the Latin harmonia, meaning joining or concord. This “concord” can then obtain in respect to all manner of phenomena. In classical Chinese and Greek philosophy, for instance, harmony was often elucidated with reference to music, where it denotes an ordered arrangement of numerous notes which complement each other tonally and aesthetically.
In this concord one can appreciate the subtle yet meaningful distinction between balance and harmony. While both are invariably a desirable good, balance is more neutral and detached, while harmony is often “warmer” and even more positively valenced, with a more definite sense of flourishing. Describing a work team, for instance, as balanced could imply a good mix of people and skills, yet it would not necessarily mean they got on well or thrived as a unit. But these latter qualities may well be evoked if the team were deemed harmonious.
So far, so good. In fact, when we consider these definitions, one might wonder how the importance of these principles has been overlooked. Surely their value is self-evident? However, this is not the case, and the main reason is a conflict between two ways of seeing and approaching the world.
Optimizing Versus Maximizing
In what spirit should we consider and engage with the good things in life? The answer to this might seem obvious. It may seem common sense that if something is good, then we should necessarily want and seek more of it (and vice versa with the bad aspects of existence). Let’s call this the “maximizing” mindset. Phenomena are categorized as good and bad, and our aim is to maximize the former, while minimizing and ideally even eradicating the former. Yet, if we take a step back, we can appreciate this is not the only way of looking at the issue.
In fact, this mindset is directly at odds with the principles of B/H. Moreover, on reflection, we can see that a maximizing approach may well not be ideal in most instances, and indeed is usually counterproductive. Take nearly any aspect of life: rarely is it the case that more is simply better. Sure, a nice meal or slice of cake is good, but clearly you’re not going to just keep on stuffing yourself past satiation. We need to workout, but there’s a point beyond which it could be detrimental. We all require plenty of rest and sleep, but there’s a line beyond which one risks slipping into lethargy. Even drinking too much water can be harmful. And on and on. In all these cases, it is a case of getting the right amount – striking a fine balance between too little and too much. This we might call the “optimizing” approach.
Let’s note that not all aspects of life are subject to these dynamics. Indeed, arguably the very most important elements may well be exempt, which is precisely how we know they are so vital. I don’t think it’s possible to be too healthy or too loving, for instance, and our best life is not found by striking a balance between being ill and well or between love and hate. However, even in these cases, their dynamics are still often defined by qualities of B/H. Most elements of health, for instance, involve an optimal balance between deficiency and excess, as denoted by the prefixes “hypo” and “hyper” (e.g., one would want to avoid both hypothermia and hyperthermia). Likewise, the best, most skilful expressions of love surely require striking balances of various kinds: between being under- and over-protective, for instance, or giving and receiving, speaking and listening, and so on.
Thus, there is a fundamental tension and conflict between the maximizing versus optimizing approaches. This is the key reason why the importance of B/H – which are the defining features of the optimizing perspective – is often overlooked. For, crucially, it is the maximizing perspective that has come to assume dominance ... in Western cultures at least, as we consider next.
Cultural Preferences
The short story here is this: the West has developed a preference for the maximalist approach to life, whereas other regions, notably the East, have instead come to prefer an optimalist one. This simple statement is of course riddled with caveats, which makes for a much longer story – far too long than can be adequately conveyed in a short article. Indeed, any attempt at sweeping cultural generalizations is a fool’s errand, given how complicated, heterogenous, and dynamic any one country is, let alone a grouping as vast and expansive as “The West” or “The East.”
Thus, one can always find many persuasive counter-examples to the short story above. Indeed, in the West, many notable ideas and traditions that reflect an optimizing spirit have been fashioned over the centuries, such as the “golden mean” advanced by Aristotle. This holds that virtue requires skilfully treading a middle line between opposing vices of excess and deficiency. Courage for instance involves avoiding both cowardice and recklessness. This does not mean, as noted above, a crude calculation of averages, but rather finding the right level of boldness and caution that befits the situation and one’s personal qualities, allowing one to attain – in the memorable words of Hemingway – a measure of grace under pressure.
However, even if there are counter-examples to a generalization, that does not negate its overall truth and validity. That some women are taller than some men, for instance, does not undermine the observation that, on average, men tend to be taller. So too with these two approaches to life: on the whole, it does appear that Western cultures have come to prefer the maximalist stance, while Eastern cultures are characterized by an emphasis on the optimalist perspective. This view was advocated, for example, by Kaiping Peng and Richard Nisbett in an influential article in American Psychologist on cultural differences in cognitive styles.
They suggested the West had come to embrace linear and analytical styles, such as formal either/or logic. This logic underlies the maximalist mindset, where phenomena are designated as either good or bad, and hence sought or resisted on that basis. Thus, many people may well naturally covet sunshine, company, excitement, wealth, achievement, and so on, while denigrating rain, solitude, boredom, poverty, failure. By contrast, Eastern cultures have fashioned tendencies towards more holistic and dialectical cognitive styles, such as forms of “both/and” logic. With that, rather than a given phenomenon being simply good (e.g., conducive to wellbeing) or bad (e.g., detrimental to wellbeing), it can be both good (i.e., in balance) and bad (i.e., out of balance, involving too little or too much), depending on the context.
A prosperous natural environment requires sunshine and rain. There is a time and place for company and for solitude. Excitement may be preferable but there is nevertheless some value in boredom, such as facilitating insight and creativity. Poverty per se may never be ideal, but people have found merit in a relatively minimalistic or ascetic lifestyle, while conversely excessive wealth may bring its issues, certainly for society as a whole (e.g., corroding social solidarity) but even for the wealthy themselves (e.g., feeling insecure or isolated in a gilded cage). Achievement will always feel better than failure, but the latter may well have unexpected benefits, from honing one’s character to generating new insights and inventions. And so on.
The Eastern preference for this dialectical cognitive style is reflected beautifully in its myriad spiritual and philosophical traditions, perhaps above all Taoism, as exemplified by its famous yin-yang motif. This symbol denotes the mutual interdependency of dark and light – and, by extension, all binary opposites – in which each relies upon the other for its existence. Indeed, this vision pertains not only to the specific tradition of Taoism, but is reflected across others systems of thought – hence Peter Li describing “yin-yang balance” as “a unique frame of thinking in East Asia that originated in China but is shared by most Asian countries.” The ideal is reflected, for instance, in the Buddhist teaching of the “middle way,” which presents the spiritual path as finding a skilful balance – much like the notion of the golden mean – between various undesirable extremes, such as avoiding both self-denial and self-indulgence.
By contrast, the West overall has been animated by the ethos of maximalism. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that there has been a continual struggle between these rival spirits, manifesting across all fields of endeavour, from academia to the arts. Thus, optimalism has certainly held sway for certain people or at particular times. On the whole though, maximalism has tended to win out. This is revealed most starkly by the inter-related economic trends of consumer capitalism and neoliberalism that have come to dominate many Western societies, where the quest is always for more, bigger, better, aiming for perpetual growth and development no matter the cost, not least to the environment. Such is the orthodoxy of this ideology that contrary perspectives stand out starkly as bold revolutionary ideas, such as those offered by economist E. F. Schumacher in his landmark book “Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered.”
Of course, in this globalised age, these maximalist ideals are no longer confined to the West, and have been exported worldwide. Indeed, this is one of the reasons we find ourselves in so many interlocking predicaments, from the climate crisis to international conflict. This precarity is all the more reason to redress this tendency towards maximalism, and encourage the embrace of a more optimalist perspective. However, these cognitive and cultural biases have permeated academia too, hence our relative unappreciation of B/H.
Academic Biases
As with any other human activity, academia is influenced by the cultural contexts in which it is practised. It is therefore significant that fields like psychology have historically tended to be Western-centric. Of course, there are psychologists all over the world, whose scholarship is shaped in various ways by their own particular milieu. Nevertheless, it is still true that the field overall has been dominated by psychology as taught and practiced in Western contexts, and especially the USA, with this influence being just one aspect of the more general global hegemony of this superpower during the 20th Century. For instance, the vast majority of research in top psychology journals involves both participants and academics from the USA, and other Western cultures more generally.
This point was vividly brought to people’s attention by Joe Henrich and colleagues, who influentially argued that most research in psychology is conducted by and on people in societies they called “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic). Of course, one cannot simplistically classify places in a binary way as WEIRD or non-WEIRD: critics of the acronym have since emphasized that each element is a spectrum upon which countries may be situated. Nevertheless, it is true that most of the world is not as WEIRD as the USA.
This cultural bias has numerous implications, particularly as psychology tends to aim for universality. If research is mostly from WEIRD societies, one can rightly question how generalizable the results are. This is partly about the participants who are the subjects of the research: life is very different across the world, so the responses people in the USA tend to give to psychological surveys and experiments are likely to differ significantly from citizens of other places. But it is also a question of the researchers themselves, and the theories and ideas they are interested in, for these aspects of research too – no less than the responses of participants – are shaped by cultural dynamics.
The latter point is exemplified by the treatment of the principles at the heart of this article: since B/H have been relatively neglected in Western cultures more generally, they have likewise been rather overlooked within academia. One indication of the relative weight given to a topic, for example, is the number of psychometric scales developed to assess it. In that respect, very few index balance or harmony in life, and those that do generally focus on specific domains. With balance, although one can find scales for particularities like work-life balance or physical balance, there does not yet seem to be one on general balance in life. With harmony, one similarly finds questionnaires for specific domains, like family harmony or group harmony, while more broadly, there is a recent harmony in life metric. However, the psychometric work in this area is very sparse, certainly by comparison to other constructs relevant to wellbeing; for example, a review of resilience identified 27 scales pertaining to just that concept alone.
However, the tide may now be turning. In light of the critiques of Western-centricity, fields like psychology are making concerted efforts to expand their horizons, geographically and conceptually, and are conducting more research in non-Western countries – an emergent movement I have described as a burgeoning new wave of global scholarship. A review of positive psychology interventions, for example, found that although 78.2% of the studies were conducted in Western countries, there was “a strong and steady increase in publications from non-Western countries since 2012,” indicating an encouraging “trend towards globalization” of wellbeing research. Most relevantly here, these dynamics include new research into our central topics of interest here.
New Research
Within the broader movement to redress the Western-centricity of psychology and to engage in more cross-cultural research, there has been a welcome surge of interest in B/H. This includes an initiative with which I’ve had the privilege of being involved over the past few years, namely the Global Wellbeing Initiative (GWI), a partnership between Gallup and the Japan-based Wellbeing for Planet Earth foundation. Launched in 2019, its remit is to explore wellbeing from a global perspective, primarily through a module of questions featured within the Gallup World Poll.
Its creation was driven by the recognition that although the Gallup has excelled in researching wellbeing globally since 2005, it has still been subject to the Western-centric influences that characterize wellbeing research more broadly. Its main measures of mental wellbeing, for example, are Hadley Cantril’s life evaluation “ladder” (which invites people to consider where they stand on a 10-rung ladder whose base and top respectively represent the worst and best possible life imaginable), and several on high arousal positive emotions. It is not that these are irrelevant globally; people worldwide understand and respond affirmatively to them. The issue is whether they capture everything we wish to know about wellbeing, or conversely whether the poll is missing some crucial insights into wellbeing found in other cultures.
The arguments around the Western-centricity of psychology suggest the latter may be the case. As such, the GWI has sought to incorporate ideas around wellbeing associated with non-Western cultures, with a focus on Eastern cultures in particular (given the Japanese location of the foundation). The first set of questions were included in the 2020 World Poll, and included one item on balance: “In general, do you feel the various aspects of your life are in balance?” (response options: yes; no; don’t know; and refused to answer). Subsequently, the module has evolved through several iterations, and by the 2023 version became entirely centred on various aspects of B/H, which we have begun to refer as “harmonic principles of wellbeing.”
The data emerging from this initiative are remarkable, and while there are many nuanced stories to be told, the essential message is this: B/H are indeed – as we suspected – important to people’s wellbeing across the globe. This is revealed for instance in the chapter my colleagues and I wrote for the 2022 World Happiness Report, focusing on the 2020 balance item. This had a correlation of .25 with life evaluation (Cantril’s ladder), which is – alongside the GWI item on peace in life (also .25) – higher than any other variable examined in the report (with the next two highest being household income and having friends to count on, both at .22). Likewise, in a regression analysis, balance was the third highest predictor of life evaluation at 0.37 (p < 0.001), meaning that people whose lives are balanced had 0.37 points higher life evaluation than those who are not in balance (holding all other independent variables constant).
Moreover, the data are full of intriguing patterns which demand further exploration. Despite the association of B/H with the East, for instance, the average percentage of people deeming their life in balance was actually higher in Western countries (81.0%) than in East Asian countries (71.2%) or the rest of the world (69.0%). Indeed, the top ten countries for balance were all European, while those in the East did not rank particularly highly relative to other nations. Another notable pattern pertained to economics, with a strong correlation of 0.69 between balance and GDP per capita. One can see this in the rankings, with the top ten all ranking highly on GDP per capita, while the bottom ten are mostly poor African countries. We argued therefore that balance in life might at least partly be related to material prosperity.
However, our exploration of this topic is only just getting going, and while it is a standard trope in academia to say more research is needed, that is especially true in this case. Nevertheless, even these initial forays into the matter suffice to indicate that B/H really are central to a life well lived.
Moving Forward in Balance and Harmony
So, as we take our first steps into 2024, perhaps we can seek to be guided by the light of B/H. It is a truism to say that the world is in trouble, beset by a litany of challenges which barely need enumerating – from the rise of popularism, isolationism, and political polarisation, to simmering international conflicts, to the escalating concerns around climate change. Likewise, people may be facing their own personal struggles, doing their best to navigate the obstacles fate has placed in their way. While it would be reductive and overly simplistic to suggest that B/H are a panacea, or the single solution to these various issues, I do believe these principles are almost certain to be at least part of the solution in some way. So, whatever this new year brings, I hope we can all find a little more balance and harmony in our lives, and that in so doing so our world might become a little brighter, better, and more hopeful.
Dr. Timothy Lomas has published over 80 papers and 11 books related to well-being, including his latest, Happiness, which argues the ways in which the meaning of happiness has evolved across the last several millennia.
Contributing editors: Bryce Fuemmeler and Alexis Sargent