Social Constructions
As a psychologist, I think that the matter of Worth can be addressed by exploring how individually and collectively we think and feel about Worth individually and collectively. I agree with Marcus Aurelius that Worth relates directly to our personal and collective values. As someone who is oriented toward a “constructivist” rather than “objectivist” view of the world, I am inclined to believe that there is no such thing as an “objective” definition of Worth (or of values), not a single, quantifiable way in which to measure the “amount” of Worth held by an individual or community.
Rather, Worth is a constructed narrative (Bergere and Luckmann, 1966). It is a “story” about important things or outcomes that are highly valued (as Aurelius proposed). It is a multifaceted lens that can be directed to any element in society, be it monetary, societal, or religious. The lens can instead be directed systemically to many elements that are tightly interconnected in a complex societal web. Taking a constructivist and systemic perspective regarding Worth, I propose that the psychology of Worth is interwoven with the economics of Worth and the location of Worth in a specific societal context.
As an arbitrary construct, “Worth” can be used in either a constructive or destructive manner by members of a society. We can seek to be Worthy by trampling over other people or being of service to members of our community. Governmental leaders can determine the Worth of our nation by focusing on the generation of wealth, irrespective of the damage done to people and the environment in pursuit of wealth. These leaders can also gauge national Worth by assessing the quality of life led by the citizens of their country or by determining the extent to which national institutions seek to sustain the global environment on behalf of future generations who will (hopefully) be living on Mother Earth.
Individual and collective worth
I first consider Worth as it relates to an individual’s sense of contributing to the world constructively and tangibly. Worth, in this regard, centers on the world of work. How do we achieve a sense of Worth through the work we do? I focus in particular on the matter of control. To what extent do we have control over the work in which we engage? Are the outcomes of our work mostly in our own hands or in the hands of other people? I consider the forces that influence the dynamics of control in our life and point in particular to the forces of capitalism in our society as they determine or at least strongly influence the extent to which we control our work—and our destiny.
While the matter of individual Worth is “worthy” of study in and of itself, our mid-21st-century world provides a sense of Worth at both a collective and personal level. Our community is “worthwhile” or “worthless,” as is the country where we reside. There are widely publicized assessments of Worth at a national level, and proclamations in religious institutions of the Worth to be assigned to lives being lived in an ethical and “Godly” fashion and to lives being lived in an “unworthy” and sinful manner.
The collective assessment of Worth is important because of the power residing in collective perspectives on human values and societal outcomes. A collective perspective is also of value because the leverage points to increasing (or decreasing) a personal sense of Worth often reside at the level of community and society. I turn to this second level of analysis regarding the Psychology of Worth in the third essay in this series. Consideration is given to what Alexis de Tocqueville (de Tocqueville, 1835/2000) once identified as the “habits of heart” in a community. These habits engender a sense of Self-Worth. In subsequent essays, I consider ways individuals can engender Worth in other people by giving back to their communities (and families) through acts of generativity.
