1. Cadrul teoretic necesar ...

2. Partea a doua cuprinde o trecere în revistă a metodelor de cercetare utilizate în cercetarea de teren:
am ales să realizez o cercetare calitativă, utilizând tehnica interviului semistructurat.

3.Din datele obţinute - diseminate în ultimul capitol al lucrării - am constatat că...

2. Metodologie

Obiectivul principal: Scopul acestei cercetări este

Obiective specifice:

Modalitatea mea de abordare este una calitativă, utilizând ca tehnică de cercetare interviul
semistructurat. Interviul de cercetare este „o tehnică de obţinere, prin întrebări şi răspunsuri a
informaţiilor verbale de la indivizi şi grupuri umane în vederea verificării ipotezelor sau pentru
descrierea ştiinţifică a fenomenelor socioumane” (Chelcea, 2007, p. 296). Interviurile sunt realizate în
profunzime, durata celui mai scurt fiind de treizeci şi cinci de minute, dar ajungând şi la trei, patru ore.
Ghidul de interviu este alcătuit din câteva teme de discuţie pe care le-am urmărit în toate întrevederile
avute...

Temele de discuţie abordate sunt următoarele:

La acestea s-au adăugat şi întrebări spontane, dictate de dinamica dialogului purtat cu tatuatorii

Metoda de eşantionare utilizată este una ....

Sociologic:

Psihologic:

Filosofic:

1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/

In filosofie, scriitorii care trateaza tema fericirii, se raporteaza la acest concept fie ca la o ”stare de spirit”, fie
ca la ”viata implinita a unei persoane”. Fericirea, in sensul sau psihologic, a reprezentat intotdeauna o
preocupare a filosofilor. Principalele teorii despre fericire cu care aceasta stiinta opereaza sunt cea a
hedonismului (hedonism), a satisfactiei cu viata (life satisfaction theory) si a starii emotionale ? (emotional
state view)
Hedonistii asociaza fericirea cu directia in care balanta cu experiente placute sau neplacute se inclina, in plan
individual: pentru ei, un indicator al fericirii este frecventa si intensitatea placerii resimtite zilnic. In cazul
teoriei despre satisfactia cu viata, fericirea deriva din masura in care individul reuseste sa
mentina o atitudine pozitiva in raport viata sa ca intreg, in timp ce the emotional state view face
trimitere la starea emotionala, in ansamblul ei, pe care omul o are, dominant, de-a lungul vietii.

Philosophers who write about “happiness” typically take their subject matter to be either of two things, each
corresponding to a different sense of the term:

1. A state of mind
2. A life that goes well for the person leading it
- hedonism, the life satisfaction theory and the emotional state theory

 we find that happiness in the psychological sense has always been an important concern of philosophers.

Philosophers have most commonly distinguished two accounts of happiness: hedonism, and the life
satisfaction theory. Hedonists identify happiness with the individual's balance of pleasant over unpleasant
experience, in the same way that welfare hedonists do.[5] The difference is that the hedonist about happiness
need not accept the stronger doctrine of welfare hedonism; this emerges clearly in arguments against the
classical Utilitarian focus on happiness as the aim of social choice. Such arguments tend to grant the
identification of happiness with pleasure, but challenge the idea that this should be our primary or sole
concern, and often as well the idea that happiness is all that matters for well-being.
Life satisfaction theories identify happiness with having a favorable attitude toward one's life as a whole. This
basic schema can be filled out in a variety of ways, but typically involves some sort of global judgment: an
endorsement or affirmation of one's life as a whole. This judgment may be more or less explicit, and may
involve or accompany some form of affect. It may also involve or accompany some aggregate of judgments
about particular items or domains within one's life.[6]
A third theory, the emotional state view, departs from hedonism in a different way: instead of identifying
happiness with pleasant experience, it identifies happiness with an agent's emotional condition as a whole.
[7]
 This includes nonexperiential aspects of emotions and moods (or perhaps just moods), and excludes
pleasures that don't directly involve the individual's emotional state. It might also include a
person's propensity for experiencing various moods, which can vary over time. Happiness on such a view is
more nearly the opposite of depression or anxiety—a broad psychological condition—whereas hedonistic
happiness is simply opposed to unpleasantness. For example, a deeply distressed individual might distract
herself enough with constant activity to maintain a mostly pleasant existence—broken only by tearful
breakdowns during the odd quiet moment—thus perhaps counting has happy on a hedonistic but not emotional
state view. The states involved in happiness, on an emotional state view, can range widely, far more so that the
ordinary notion of mood or emotion. On one proposal, happiness involves three broad categories of affective
state, including “endorsement” states like joy versus sadness, “engagement” states like flow or a sense of
vitality, and “attunement” states like tranquility, emotional expansiveness versus compression, and confidence
(Haybron 2008). Given the departures from commonsensical notions of being in a “good mood,” happiness is
characterized in this proposal as “psychic affirmation,” or “psychic flourishing” in pronounced forms.

2 http://www.findingauthentichappiness.com/psychology-of-happiness.html
Psihologii definesc fericirea ca fiind o simpla emotie, de durata, tradusa printr-o stare de bine si de multumire cu
sine si ceilalti. Acest sentiment este considerat de psihologi cel mai important item de evaluare a parcursului nostru
personal si profesional.

psychologists, in general, define happiness as nothing else that an emotion, a long-term sense of emotional
well-being and contentment - a broad "feeling" that one is happy. Happiness is commonly considered by
psychologists the main way we can evaluate how well our life is going.

3 http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/martin-seligman-positive-psychology/

Martin Seligman, unul dintre cei mai influenti specialisti ai Psihologiei Fericirii este pionierul
Psihologiei Pozitive (termenul a utilizat pentru prima data de Abraham Maslow), creand atat o
teorie despre ”de ce oamenii sunt fericiti”, dar utilizand si mijloace de cercetare in acest parcurs.
Acesta a descoperit trei dimensiuni ale fericirii: placere si gratificatie, capatarea de contur a
calitatilor si virutilor, scop si inteles al existentei individului.

Martin Seligman is a pioneer of Positive Psychology (the term itself was coined by Abraham
Maslow), not simply because he has a systematic theory about why happy people are happy,
but because he uses the scientific method to explore it.
THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF HAPPINESS
According to Seligman, we can experience three kinds of happiness: 1) pleasure and
gratification, 2) embodiment of strengths and virtues and 3) meaning and purpose. Each kind of
happiness is linked to positive emotion but from his quote, you can see that in his mind there is a
progression from the first type of happiness of pleasure/gratification to strengths/virtues and
finally meaning/purpose.

The very good news is there is quite a number of internal circumstances […] under your
voluntary control. If you decide to change them (and be warned that none of these changes come
without real effort), your level of happiness is likely to increase lastingly. (Seligman 2002, p.
xiv)

4 https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletters/authentichappiness/happiness
O alta analiza psihologica asupra fericirii ofera explicatii despre originea acesteia prin patru
teorii: cea a hedonismului (care apare si in abordarea filosofica), a dorintelor- Desire theory-, a
listei obiective- Objective List Theory- si a fericirii autentice/depline- Authentic Happiness. Lista
de obiective

Teoria dorintelor, in viziunea lui Griffin (1986) consta in obtinerea a ceea ce individul isi
doreste. Fericirea izvoraste din simpla indeplinire a capriciului si face abstractie de sentimentele
de placere sau neplacere incercate.

In cazul listei obiective, Nussbaum, 1992 si Sen, 1985 pleaca de la premiza ca fiecare individ
are o lista de obiective/prioritati, care odata atinse ii asigura permanenta stare de bine, in timp ce
Seligman (2003), prin fericirea autentica, descrie o fericire deplina prin impletirea a trei stari de
fericire: : the Pleasant Life (pleasures), the Good Life (engagement), and the Meaningful Life.

Desire theory can do better than Hedonism. Desire theories hold that happiness is a matter of getting what you want
(Griffin, 1986), with the content of the want left up to the person who does the wanting. Desire theory holds that that
fulfillment of a desire contributes to one's happiness regardless of the amount of pleasure (or displeasure).

Objective List Theory

Objective List theory (Nussbaum, 1992; Sen, 1985) lodges happiness outside of feeling and onto a list of "truly
valuable" things in the real world. It holds that happiness consists of a human life that achieves certain things from a
list of worthwhile pursuits: such a list might include career accomplishments, friendship, freedom from disease and
pain, material comforts, civic spirit, beauty, education, love, knowledge, and good conscience. Consider the
thousands of abandoned children living on the streets of the Angolan capitol of Luanda.

Authentic Happiness

Where does our Authentic Happiness (Seligman, 2003) theory stand with respect to these three
theoretical traditions? Our theory holds that there are three distinct kinds of happiness: the Pleasant
Life (pleasures), the Good Life (engagement), and the Meaningful Life.

5 https://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/activities/documents/Veenhoven_paper.pdf

HOW DO WE ASSESS HOW HAPPY WE ARE? Tenets, implications and tenability of three
theories Ruut Veenhoven Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands,

 
Utilitarian moral philosophy holds that we should aim at greater happiness for a greater number.
Yet two theories about how we assess how happy we are imply that there is not much value in
happiness and that happiness cannot de raised lastingly. These two theories are: (1) ‘Set-point’
theory, which holds that we are mentally programmed for a certain degree of happiness, and (2)
‘Comparison’ theory holding that happiness results from a rational mental calculus involving
comparison with standard of the good life. An alternative mental theory that fit better with
utilitarian creed is the (3) ‘Affect’ theory that happiness depends on unreasoned emotional
experience, which reflects gratification of needs. These theories are described, their theoretical
plausibility is discussed and the empirical support evaluated.

Ruut Veenhoven, sociolog recunoscut pentru munca sa de cercetare in domeniul fericirii, discuta
in studiul ” HOW DO WE ASSESS HOW HAPPY WE ARE? Tenets, implications and
tenability of three theories” trei teorii despre fericire, si anume: ‘Set-point’ theory, conform
careia cu totii suntem mental programati la un anumit nivel de fericire, Comparison’ theory -
fericirea izvoraste dintr-un calcul mental ce implica o comparatie cu ceea ce inseamna standarde
de viata buna si affect theory-experienta emotionala izvorata din satisfacerea nevoilor.

Happiness is a highly valued in present day society. Not only do people aim at happiness in their
own life but there is also growing support for the idea that we care for the happiness of other
people and that governments should aim at creating greater happiness for a greater number of
citizens (Bentham 1789). This classic philosophy is not only more accepted these days, but also
more practicable, now that scientific research provides more view on the conditions for
happiness (Veenhoven 2004). In that context, happiness is commonly understood as how much
one likes the life one lives, or more formally, the degree to which one evaluates one’s life-as-a-
whole positively. A central element in this definition is subjective ‘evaluation’ or ‘liking’ of life,
also referred to as ‘satisfaction’ with life. These words refer to a mental state but leave some
ambiguity about the precise nature of that state. That question is differently answered in three
theories linked to different theories about how we evaluate life. Set-point theory sees the
evaluation as a stable attitude towards life and focuses more on the mental processes that
maintain this attitude than on the processes that have brought it about.

6 https://www.le.ac.uk/sociology/db158/SCompass%201pt5.pdf

To locate happiness as a research topic, we can begin with a distinction between objective and
subjective well-being, where the latter is well-being that we experience and are conscious of
experiencing. Happiness is the affective component of subjective well-being, while “life
satisfaction” is the cognitive component, the evaluations we make about how well our lives are
going. Examples of objective forms of well-being include income and other economic “goods”,
political rights and freedoms, social relationships and health (a list far from complete)
7 http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven/Pub2000s/2000c-full.pdf

THE FOUR QUALITIES OF LIFE Ordering concepts and measures of the good life Ruut
Veenhoven Journal Of Happiness Studies, 2000, vol 1, pp 1-39

Termenii de ”calitatea vietii”, ”stare de bine” si ”fericire” au sensuri diferite unul de celalalt,
desi, de cele mai multe ori acest aspect este ignorat si sunt folosite intersanjabil. ”Fericire” este
utilizat deseori ca un termen care inglobeaza prin sens atat ”calitatea vietii” cat si ”starea de
bine”. Lucrarea ”THE FOUR QUALITIES OF LIFE Ordering concepts and measures of the
good life” de Ruut Veenhoven analizeaza fiecare din acesti termeni si propune o clasificare
bazata pe ”viata”, cu sansele acordate de aceasta, dar si rezultatele obtinute, si ”calitati”, acestea
din urma fiind clasificate in exterioare si interioare. Impreuna, aceste dihotomii creaza 4 calitati
ale vietii: a) conditiile de trai oferite de mediul inconjurator (livability of the environment), b)
adaptabilitatea la situatiile din viata si resursele individului (life-ability of the individual), c)
utilitatea pe care o avem in timpul existentei / sensul vietii- external utility of life si d) aprecierea
subiectiva a vietii (inner appreciation of life).

The terms 'quality-of-life', 'wellbeing' and 'happine ss' denote different meanings; sometimes
they are used as an umbrella term for all of value, and the other times to denote special merits.
This paper is about the specific meanings of th e terms. It proposes a classification based on two
bi-partitions; between life 'chances' and life 'results', and between 'outer' and 'inner' qualities.
Together these dichotomies imply four qualities of life: 1) livability of the environment, 2) life-
ability of the individual, 3) external utility of life and 4) inner appreciation of life. This fourfold
matrix is applied in thr ee ways: firstly to place related notions and alternative classifications,
secondly to explore substantive meanings in various measures for quality of life and thirdly to
find out whether qua lity-of-life can be measured comprehensively. This last question is
answered in the negative. Current sum-scores make little sense. The most inclusive summary
measure is still how long and happily people live.