The LCL Initiative – ‘Mapping’ the Five Causes
‘Generative of Life, built on Trust’
The LCL Framework suggests that, beyond basic requirements for life itself (energy, shelter, water, etc.), there are five leading ‘causes’ of life. Each leading ‘cause’ is understood both as a discrete concept, and as part of a patterned ‘transformational ensemble’ capable of comprehending the complex real.
Taken together, these five ‘causes’ explain and provide a theory for how ‘life’ beyond basic material needs emerges, is sustained and may be enhanced. There surely are other causes, and other ways of describing the leading ones; these five ‘leading causes’ are not written in concrete. Neither are they arbitrarily defined; each, however named, points to various established bodies of thought and practice.
Here we briefly provide the beginnings (only) of a ‘mapping’ of the five concepts, to which we will add as the Initiative develops. Here it serves to help you begin to think about the framework and its concepts—how useful they are, whether they are meaningfully framed, what they might miss.
Coherence
Coherence refers to the many ways we make sense of life, how life makes sense to us, to see our life journey as intelligible and neither wholly random nor victim to inexplicable forces
§ Best known work here: Aaron Antonovsky and his theory of ‘salutogenesis’ (see Appendix A for bibliographical references). He posited a ‘Sense of Coherence’ (SOC scale) as the primary variable enabling one to predict how well anyone copes with significant stressors. A sense of coherence depends upon: a) life appearing structured, predictable and explicable; b) resources are available to give one confidence in this; c) it is worth investing and engaging in action to meet the challenges. Whether a stress factor is pathogenic, neutral or salutogenic depends upon what Antonovsky called ‘generalized resistance resources’ (GRRs). This can include, for example, material resources, intrapersonal strength and social resources. [One might argue that the other four ‘leading causes of life’ we name are more precise understanding of intrapersonal and social resources.]
§ Antonovsky’s work has continued; see, for example, the Center on Salutogenesis, University West, Sweden (http://www.salutogenesis.hv.se/eng/Salutogenesis.5.html), which views the idea as an umbrella concept (Appendix B) encompassing a widely scattered body of work [it is a worthwhile question to ask whether the LCL Framework offers a better way of gathering the congruent work].
§ The widely used notion of ‘resilience’ also arises in this connection, which may be described as positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health in spite of adversity (Wald, Taylor, Asmundson, Jang, & Stapleton, 2006). Two conditions are thus required to infer resilience: (1) the presence of significant adversity or a threat to adaptation or development, and (2) either adequate adaptation or recovery to adequate functioning (Riley & Masten, 2005). [The question arises: is resilience a ‘cause’ or, rather, an outcome of other causes? It probably encompasses more than a sense of coherence, but again is probably insufficiently comprehensive to cover the range of ‘causes’ suggested by the LCL Framework, another question to pursue.]
§ It is also possible to see the First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986 as a key shift (in the field of health care, at least) towards a salutogenic approach, but as Antonovsky’s followers, Eriksson and Lindstrom (2008), argue, the movement for health promotion itself lacks a sustaining, integrating theory. Health promotion has been defined by the WHO (1998, 1-2) as ‘the process of enabling people to increase control over the determinants of health and thereby improve their health.’
§ Finally, we may refer here to the positive psychology (e.g. Seligman, 2011; Keyes, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), which also focuses on what is generative rather than pathological. Yet, as in Keyes’ model of the ‘death’ versus ‘abundant thriving’ continuum, the primary focal concepts are prevention, resilience, and coping—very similar to Antonovsky—and not really on what ‘causes’ life.
§ …
Connection
As human beings we find life through complex social relationships and connections to one another, building communities of various kinds that enable us to adapt to changing threats and opportunities.
§ The idea of ‘social capital’ is most commonly invoked in terms of connection, and it has been widely applied in many disciplines (see Bourdieu, 1990; Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000). Generally, scholars distinguish between bridging, bonding and linking social capital, but in every case, the notion of ‘ties’ between people is central.
§ Connectedness has also been described as the state ‘when a person is actively involved with another person, object, group, or environment, and that involvement promotes a sense of comfort, wellbeing, and anxiety-reduction’ (Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, and Bouwsema, 1993: 293).
§ Neurological studies (de Waal, 2009) have also recently emphasized the importance of connection in the complex relationships that human beings enter into, as have studies by scientists like Fricchione (2002) in investigating ‘adaptive processes’ in human development.
§ Similarly, network science, applied to both natural and social scientific fields, is uncovering many new insights into how connectivity works, what works, and why it works (see, for example, Barabasi, 2003).
§ The idea of ecological health (Chesworth, 1996; in business, see Hawken, 2012), not unlike the Sesotho notion of bophelo, stresses the importance of connections across family, community, and other dimensions of human relationality.
§ …
Agency
To have the will and the resourcefulness to act, and to act with the full capabilities we have as human beings, is a central ‘cause’ of life.
§ Agency is a crucial concept for the field of occupational health. The American Occupational Therapy Association, whose motto is ‘living life to the fullest,’ describes OT as ‘helping people across the lifespan participate in the things they want and need to do through the therapeutic use of everyday activities.’
§ In psychology, Bandura (1982) highlighted the notion of ‘self-efficacy’ in the capacity to cope.
§ Zygmunt Baumann’s (1998, 2000) sociological analyses focus on mobility as a vital question of agency in the global economy and polity.
§ The idea of human agency also lies behind most of the ten human capabilities that Martha Nussbaum (2000) regards as fundamental to full human functioning, including ‘bodily integrity,’ ‘sense, imagination and thought,’ ‘practical reason,’ ‘affiliation,’ ‘play’ and ‘control over one’s environment.’
§ Various theories of development in the field of economics, especially those that Korten (1990) calls fourth generation or ‘people-centred’ development, regard local agency as a sine qua non, among them being the asset based community development theory (Kretsmann & McKnight, 1993) we have used a great deal.
§ …
Intergenerativity (“Blessing”)
When our lives are blessed and nurtured by those who come before and after us, we become encouraged, strengthened, enlivened and more able to shape our own lives, to make vital choices.
[“Blessing” should be understood as bestowing upon another approval or praise – affirming their sacredness as person – or, as in the Latin ‘benedicere’, wishing well and speaking well of the other.]
§ A term in Erik Eriksson’s theory of psychosocial development, ‘generativity’ refers to ‘an adult’s concern for and commitment to promoting the well-being of youth and future generations through involvement in parenting, teaching, mentoring, and other creative contributions that aim to leave a positive legacy of the self for the future’ (Foley Center for the Study of Lives, www.sesp.northwestern.edu/foley/; see also McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998).
§ The famous Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development longitudinal study of a cohort of about 1000 people from Dunedin, New Zealand, born in one year in the 1970s, includes an on-going Parenting Study and Next Generation Study (http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/).
§ Community psychologists have focused our attention on ‘historical trauma,’ the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over generations of families or particular population groups (e.g. Native American, Maori, etc.) – which suggests that there must be a positive, non-pathological counterpart (e.g. the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee?).
§ Epigenetics (non-genetic factors that influence gene expression across generations) in microbiology similarly suggests that there are discernible generative factors that positively influence life.
§ In sociology, the idea of the ‘significant other’ (often, but not necessarily, including parents and grandparents; see Stack Sullivan, ; Mead, 1934) those who directly socialize the person to whom they are significant, providing a reference point for identity, belief and behaviour.
§ …
Hope
Hope in the deepest sense is not optimism or wishful thinking: it is about imagining a different, healthier future and finding the energy to do something to try to bring that future into being. It is thinking and acting forwards. If we can see a positive future this nurtures the life force to enable it to happen.
§ Many have probed the significance of hope for human life (noting that this is not to be confused with ‘wish,’ ‘desire’ or mere ‘feelings of optimism’), including several 20th Century philosophers (e.g. Marcel, 1962; Bloch, 1986).
§ Schachter et al’s () studies suggest that hope as ‘anticipatory consciousness’ (Bloch’s meaning too) can be grounded in neurobiology too, located in what he calls our ‘prospective brain.’
§ David Harvey (2000), economic geographer, links hope to individual and collective action ‘within an on-going flow of living processes’ he terms ‘the web of life.’
§ Various studies in psychology have also attempted to assess the significance of hope for health (see, for example, Scioli et al, 1997)
§ …
Taken together, these five ‘causes’ explain and provide a theory for how ‘life’ beyond basic material needs emerges, is sustained and may be enhanced. There surely are other causes, and other ways of describing the leading ones; these five ‘leading causes’ are not written in concrete. Neither are they arbitrarily defined; each, however named, points to various established bodies of thought and practice.
Here we briefly provide the beginnings (only) of a ‘mapping’ of the five concepts, to which we will add as the Initiative develops. Here it serves to help you begin to think about the framework and its concepts—how useful they are, whether they are meaningfully framed, what they might miss.
Coherence
Coherence refers to the many ways we make sense of life, how life makes sense to us, to see our life journey as intelligible and neither wholly random nor victim to inexplicable forces
§ Best known work here: Aaron Antonovsky and his theory of ‘salutogenesis’ (see Appendix A for bibliographical references). He posited a ‘Sense of Coherence’ (SOC scale) as the primary variable enabling one to predict how well anyone copes with significant stressors. A sense of coherence depends upon: a) life appearing structured, predictable and explicable; b) resources are available to give one confidence in this; c) it is worth investing and engaging in action to meet the challenges. Whether a stress factor is pathogenic, neutral or salutogenic depends upon what Antonovsky called ‘generalized resistance resources’ (GRRs). This can include, for example, material resources, intrapersonal strength and social resources. [One might argue that the other four ‘leading causes of life’ we name are more precise understanding of intrapersonal and social resources.]
§ Antonovsky’s work has continued; see, for example, the Center on Salutogenesis, University West, Sweden (http://www.salutogenesis.hv.se/eng/Salutogenesis.5.html), which views the idea as an umbrella concept (Appendix B) encompassing a widely scattered body of work [it is a worthwhile question to ask whether the LCL Framework offers a better way of gathering the congruent work].
§ The widely used notion of ‘resilience’ also arises in this connection, which may be described as positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health in spite of adversity (Wald, Taylor, Asmundson, Jang, & Stapleton, 2006). Two conditions are thus required to infer resilience: (1) the presence of significant adversity or a threat to adaptation or development, and (2) either adequate adaptation or recovery to adequate functioning (Riley & Masten, 2005). [The question arises: is resilience a ‘cause’ or, rather, an outcome of other causes? It probably encompasses more than a sense of coherence, but again is probably insufficiently comprehensive to cover the range of ‘causes’ suggested by the LCL Framework, another question to pursue.]
§ It is also possible to see the First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986 as a key shift (in the field of health care, at least) towards a salutogenic approach, but as Antonovsky’s followers, Eriksson and Lindstrom (2008), argue, the movement for health promotion itself lacks a sustaining, integrating theory. Health promotion has been defined by the WHO (1998, 1-2) as ‘the process of enabling people to increase control over the determinants of health and thereby improve their health.’
§ Finally, we may refer here to the positive psychology (e.g. Seligman, 2011; Keyes, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), which also focuses on what is generative rather than pathological. Yet, as in Keyes’ model of the ‘death’ versus ‘abundant thriving’ continuum, the primary focal concepts are prevention, resilience, and coping—very similar to Antonovsky—and not really on what ‘causes’ life.
§ …
Connection
As human beings we find life through complex social relationships and connections to one another, building communities of various kinds that enable us to adapt to changing threats and opportunities.
§ The idea of ‘social capital’ is most commonly invoked in terms of connection, and it has been widely applied in many disciplines (see Bourdieu, 1990; Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000). Generally, scholars distinguish between bridging, bonding and linking social capital, but in every case, the notion of ‘ties’ between people is central.
§ Connectedness has also been described as the state ‘when a person is actively involved with another person, object, group, or environment, and that involvement promotes a sense of comfort, wellbeing, and anxiety-reduction’ (Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, and Bouwsema, 1993: 293).
§ Neurological studies (de Waal, 2009) have also recently emphasized the importance of connection in the complex relationships that human beings enter into, as have studies by scientists like Fricchione (2002) in investigating ‘adaptive processes’ in human development.
§ Similarly, network science, applied to both natural and social scientific fields, is uncovering many new insights into how connectivity works, what works, and why it works (see, for example, Barabasi, 2003).
§ The idea of ecological health (Chesworth, 1996; in business, see Hawken, 2012), not unlike the Sesotho notion of bophelo, stresses the importance of connections across family, community, and other dimensions of human relationality.
§ …
Agency
To have the will and the resourcefulness to act, and to act with the full capabilities we have as human beings, is a central ‘cause’ of life.
§ Agency is a crucial concept for the field of occupational health. The American Occupational Therapy Association, whose motto is ‘living life to the fullest,’ describes OT as ‘helping people across the lifespan participate in the things they want and need to do through the therapeutic use of everyday activities.’
§ In psychology, Bandura (1982) highlighted the notion of ‘self-efficacy’ in the capacity to cope.
§ Zygmunt Baumann’s (1998, 2000) sociological analyses focus on mobility as a vital question of agency in the global economy and polity.
§ The idea of human agency also lies behind most of the ten human capabilities that Martha Nussbaum (2000) regards as fundamental to full human functioning, including ‘bodily integrity,’ ‘sense, imagination and thought,’ ‘practical reason,’ ‘affiliation,’ ‘play’ and ‘control over one’s environment.’
§ Various theories of development in the field of economics, especially those that Korten (1990) calls fourth generation or ‘people-centred’ development, regard local agency as a sine qua non, among them being the asset based community development theory (Kretsmann & McKnight, 1993) we have used a great deal.
§ …
Intergenerativity (“Blessing”)
When our lives are blessed and nurtured by those who come before and after us, we become encouraged, strengthened, enlivened and more able to shape our own lives, to make vital choices.
[“Blessing” should be understood as bestowing upon another approval or praise – affirming their sacredness as person – or, as in the Latin ‘benedicere’, wishing well and speaking well of the other.]
§ A term in Erik Eriksson’s theory of psychosocial development, ‘generativity’ refers to ‘an adult’s concern for and commitment to promoting the well-being of youth and future generations through involvement in parenting, teaching, mentoring, and other creative contributions that aim to leave a positive legacy of the self for the future’ (Foley Center for the Study of Lives, www.sesp.northwestern.edu/foley/; see also McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998).
§ The famous Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development longitudinal study of a cohort of about 1000 people from Dunedin, New Zealand, born in one year in the 1970s, includes an on-going Parenting Study and Next Generation Study (http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/).
§ Community psychologists have focused our attention on ‘historical trauma,’ the cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over generations of families or particular population groups (e.g. Native American, Maori, etc.) – which suggests that there must be a positive, non-pathological counterpart (e.g. the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee?).
§ Epigenetics (non-genetic factors that influence gene expression across generations) in microbiology similarly suggests that there are discernible generative factors that positively influence life.
§ In sociology, the idea of the ‘significant other’ (often, but not necessarily, including parents and grandparents; see Stack Sullivan, ; Mead, 1934) those who directly socialize the person to whom they are significant, providing a reference point for identity, belief and behaviour.
§ …
Hope
Hope in the deepest sense is not optimism or wishful thinking: it is about imagining a different, healthier future and finding the energy to do something to try to bring that future into being. It is thinking and acting forwards. If we can see a positive future this nurtures the life force to enable it to happen.
§ Many have probed the significance of hope for human life (noting that this is not to be confused with ‘wish,’ ‘desire’ or mere ‘feelings of optimism’), including several 20th Century philosophers (e.g. Marcel, 1962; Bloch, 1986).
§ Schachter et al’s () studies suggest that hope as ‘anticipatory consciousness’ (Bloch’s meaning too) can be grounded in neurobiology too, located in what he calls our ‘prospective brain.’
§ David Harvey (2000), economic geographer, links hope to individual and collective action ‘within an on-going flow of living processes’ he terms ‘the web of life.’
§ Various studies in psychology have also attempted to assess the significance of hope for health (see, for example, Scioli et al, 1997)
§ …
