Eudaimonism and Hedonism: Finding Happiness in the Social World
How do social structures, economic conditions, and cultural values shape our pursuit of happiness? This essay explores the sociological dimensions of eudaimonism and hedonism, examining how different social frameworks reinforce either a pleasure-driven or meaning-oriented approach to well-being.
I first encountered these concepts while reading Against Everything by Mark Greif, which led me to question how contemporary societies define happiness. Is happiness a matter of individual choice, where one consciously adopts either a hedonistic (pleasure-driven) or eudaimonic (meaning-centered) lifestyle? Or is happiness shaped by social structures, economic conditions, and cultural values, which guide people toward one framework over the other?
The Social Worlds of Eudaimonism and Hedonism
Although eudaimonism and hedonism originate as philosophical concepts, they are not merely personal pursuits but operate within broader social realities. Consumer culture, for instance, often promotes hedonism, encouraging instant gratification and material consumption, reinforcing the idea that happiness is tied to external pleasures. Meanwhile, societal expectations regarding work, family, and personal achievement tend to align more closely with eudaimonism, emphasising long-term fulfilment over immediate satisfaction.
Economic conditions also influence how these frameworks manifest. Is hedonism more prevalent in affluent societies, where financial stability enables greater access to leisure and luxury? Conversely, do communities facing adversity lean toward eudaimonism, finding meaning in resilience, collective well-being, and personal growth? These questions highlight the complex ways in which social class, cultural narratives, and institutional structures shape our pursuit of happiness.
Flourishing and the Social Dimension of Happiness
To understand happiness as a socially constructed experience, we must analyse how societies institutionalise eudaimonism and hedonism. Sociologist Peter L. Berger, in The Sacred Canopy (1967), introduced the concept of "nomos"—the structured social order that provides meaning and stability in human life. According to Berger, societies construct a shared reality through institutions, norms, and belief systems, shaping how individuals define and pursue happiness.
This concept of nomos is crucial to understanding hedonism and eudaimonism as social structures. While hedonism appears to focus on individual pleasure, it still functions within a social framework, shaped by cultural norms and expectations. Similarly, eudaimonism—as a qualitative and meaning-driven pursuit of happiness—depends on nomos to provide the moral and institutional structures necessary for human flourishing.
Hedonistic vs. Eudaimonic Social Structures
If we consider hedonism as a social structure, a "hedonistic social order" would prioritise individual pleasure as the dominant cultural value. In such a society, norms and institutions would encourage personal gratification, sometimes at the expense of responsibility, long-term fulfillment, or collective well-being. This contrasts with a eudaimonic social structure, where happiness is cultivated through meaning, virtue, and personal growth. Institutions such as family, religion, education, and law play a critical role in shaping eudaimonic well-being by providing stability, moral guidance, and a sense of purpose.
While both frameworks influence how individuals pursue happiness, they differ fundamentally in values, priorities, and long-term societal impact.
The Social Controls of Happiness
This raises an important question: What are the social controls surrounding happiness?
Both hedonism and eudaimonism rely on social norms and external judgments to shape individual behaviour:
In a hedonistic framework, social controls are embedded in consumer culture—marketing, media, and peer influence subtly dictate what constitutes happiness.
Eudaimonic institutions—such as education, religion, and governance—establish explicit moral frameworks that guide long-term well-being.
In both cases, the pursuit of happiness is not entirely autonomous but is regulated by external forces that define what is "acceptable" or "desirable" within a given society.
Agency, Autonomy, and Cultural Influence
Through free will and autonomy, we can see how cultural influences shape both hedonistic and eudaimonic ideals. However, societal expectations operate differently within each framework:
Eudaimonic institutions impose explicit moral and social expectations, often upheld by figures of authority(religious leaders, educators, parents, lawmakers).
Hedonistic institutions function more subtly, embedding their values within consumer culture through subliminal messaging in media, advertising, and visual discourse.
In this sense, hedonistic nomos are deeply intertwined with consumer-driven society, where pleasure and gratification are reinforced through implicit cues. Meanwhile, eudaimonic nomos are upheld through direct guidance, structured expectations, and institutionalised moral frameworks.
Hedonism vs. Eudaimonism: Which Sustains Happiness?
When considering quality of life (QoL), which framework—eudaimonism or hedonism—is more effective in sustaining happiness?
The answer is complex, as it depends on how we define and measure happiness:
Hedonism prioritises pleasure and immediate gratification, emphasising enjoyment and the avoidance of discomfort. While this can create short-term happiness, it may not always lead to deep or lasting fulfilment.
Eudaimonism, on the other hand, focuses on personal growth, meaning, and virtue. It often involves delayed gratification and effort—such as pursuing education, fostering deep relationships, or contributing to society—but tends to result in long-term and more sustainable happiness.
While hedonism offers instant satisfaction, eudaimonism provides a more enduring and meaningful sense of well-being.
Final Thoughts: The Role of Society in Cultivating Happiness
As societies navigate economic uncertainty and shifting cultural values, understanding how social structures shape happiness is essential in fostering well-being on both an individual and collective level. Rather than viewing hedonism and eudaimonism as opposing forces, we might consider how societies can balance short-term pleasure with long-term fulfilment, ensuring that individuals experience both joy and meaning in their pursuit of happiness.