The impetus behind globalisation is economic growth (at the national level) and profit maximisation (corporate level). Ultimately at the individual level, it is the quest for a higher standard of living. But, it has been widely felt, when the standard of living goes up, the quality of life goes down. In fact 30 years ago, it was this unhappy realisation in the developed West that led to a new field of study known as Quality of Life studies.
Standard of living is measured by per capita income – what money can buy. There is no question that globalisation brings a higher standard of living, though unevenly. But does it really lower the quality of life? It all depends on how ‘quality of life’ is understood and measured.
Since standard of living is a measure of material comfort, quality of life is likewise a reference to non-material comfort. Basic to a high quality of life is an absence of chronic anxieties and an overall satisfaction with life. Though quality of life refers to a subjective experience, it is usually measured quantitatively just like standard of living.
For instance, some years ago, the Geneva-based Corporate Resources Group undertook a study of 118 cities worldwide, ranking them according to quality of life. They used four quantifiable criteria: the level of personal security, public services and infrastructure, medical and health considerations, and political and social stability. The result was that the top 30 positions, with the exceptions of Singapore (9) and Tokyo (28), were all occupied by Western cities. ‘Boring’ Geneva came in first while strife-torn Algiers was last. Kuala Lumpur was 53.
The result is puzzling. In the first place, it was the unpleasant realisation that the quality of life in developed societies had deteriorated that prompted interest in the study. How then is it possible that the cities with the best ‘quality of life’ are cities in the developed world?
The answer is simple: though the criteria go beyond measuring standard of living, they still measure the wrong things.
Based on the four criteria used in the above study, as long as people felt safe on the streets and in their homes (even if lacking peace in their hearts); as long as there was convenience (even if lacking contentment); as long as they were physically healthy (even if spiritually empty); as long as there was no frequent change in government nor occurrence of riots (even if marriages were falling apart and children unmanageable) – the people were considered to have a high quality of life, even if they were experiencing a pervasive sense of discontentment as well as emptiness and meaninglessness!
What were measured are basically social, political and economic factors that are contributive to, but not necessarily indicative of, a better life beyond material comfort. Non-material comfort is also affected by other quantifiable factors not measured (such as parents’ working and children’s schooling hours) as well as non-quantifiable factors (such as parents’ pressure at work and children’s pressure at school).
The concept of quality of life is flawed not only in how it is measured but also how it is understood, at least among English-speaking people.
The biblical view
In the Gospels, there are two Greek words that can be translated ‘life’: bios, from which we get ‘biology’ and zoe, from which we get ‘zoology’. From the word ‘bio-graphy’ (the writing of a person's bios), we can see that bios is the kind of life that we read about in a biography, that is the life of a person that can be described. In contrast, zoe refers to the inner indescribable vitality and there is no such thing as a ‘zoo-graphy’.
Standard of living is the standard of bios. What is labeled ‘quality of life" is actually quality of bios and not zoe. It is more consistent to label it ‘quality of living’ and reserve ‘quality of life’ for quality of zoe, a concept ignored in secular thinking but crucial to Christian theology.
Jesus says: "I have come that they may have zoe, and have it to the full" (Jn 10:10). He is not saying we do not already have a zoe, without which we would have no bios. But a zoe not filled with Christ is one that is ‘alive’ just enough to sustain the bios and to keep nagging the person that something is still missing. Also, without an assurance of an eternal hope that comes with a Christ-filled zoe, one is most likely to experience meaninglessness.
Such a fulfilled zoe enables one to be happy despite a low standard of living. And with a life of such high quality, a high standard of living will lead to a high quality of living. This quality of life and living that Jesus offers is available to everybody. But many – even those who go to church – have not found it. Why?
Preoccupation’s distraction
Jesus says there are hearers of God’s Word "who have heard, (but) as they go on their way are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life (bios), and bring no fruit to maturity" (Lk. 8:14). He is saying that those preoccupied with standard and quality of living are unable to benefit from the hearing of God’s Word.
In a globalising society, this temptation is extremely great due to unprecedented economic opportunities as well as the atheistic mood that infuses such a society in which God does not seem or feel real anymore. (In the pre-modern world, the concept of ‘economic growth’ was non-existent.)
This has serious implications for Christians as well as non-Christians. For a preoccupation with temporal things leads non-Christians to reject, and Christians to neglect, Jesus as the Source of life of the highest quality. Also, such a preoccupation renders one less able to cope with the problems of modern living. For example, his emotions may go up and down with the stock market.
Thus, generally speaking, when the standard of living goes up, the quality of life, and even the quality of living, goes down. But if Christians recognise the spiritual implications of globalisation and see through the muddled thinking behind ‘quality of life’ and respond accordingly, it is possible to enjoy a high standard and quality of living through the cultivation of a high quality of life. |
