You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This article posits the need and expands on the idea of reimagining adulthood by centralising eudaimonia (‘the good life’) rather than just hard work. Winnicott (1958) forged an understanding of the positive aspects of health and living accessed through play, namely spontaneity, creativity, individuality and being. Fromm (1941, 1955) saw creativity and spontaneity as integral to relating authentically with oneself and others. He maintained that thwarting these psychic needs hinders the overall experience of life and generates negative psychosocial traits. We will look at the conceptual foundation for adult play—as an essential element of eudaimonia—that the two have laid in the past. We further emphasize the need to unwrite the age norms of adulthood that relegate play to childhood and leisure1 to later life. ‘Adulthood’ is stunted to the extent that values of ‘hard work’ are placed central, without playfulness and leisure being equally honored as part of living a full, healthy adulthood.
In the first section of this article, we provide theoretical background concerning the relationship between health, eudaimonia, and age norms. We do this in the following steps. We give a very brief outline of the history of the concept of ‘the good life’ from its appearance in ancient Greek philosophy through its articulation in positive psychology as ‘human flourishing.’ Next, we discuss the segmentation of adulthood and its narrow association with work. We then describe the theories of Winnicott and Fromm concerning living fully, how this encompasses health but extends beyond it, and how creativity, playfulness, and spontaneity are essential elements.
In the second section we turn to the issue of adulthood and the work-ethic in the historical context of Western capitalist development. We begin by an overview of the history of early capitalism, relying heavily on the classical sociological theories of Marx and Weber as a basic foundation. We then discuss changes in the