Quality of life refers not only to the satisfaction of basic material needs of society, but also to search for a comprehensive response to the need for self-realization and human beings.
Some authors define the environment as the environment and special conditions affecting the life circumstances of individuals or society as a whole. Includes all natural, social and cultural norms in a given place and time, which influence human life and future generations. That is, not just the space in which life unfolds but also covers living things, objects, water, soil, air and relations between them, and such intangible elements such as culture.
In people, the way they feel or think about something is directly influenced by environmental factors, especially culture. In this way, if you plot the process, people (defined as social beings) become the intersection of these factors, namely, "we, human beings operate in our lives in many different domains of reality, which as different networks of conversations and explanations intersect in our bodies. In other words, the ego is a dynamic mode in a multidimensional space of human identities, and the self - the individual human - is the embodiment that performs the intersection of networks conversations that constitute the ego. " If given another reading to this approach, we can say that maintains that human beings have encapsulated some form of feeling and thinking (our subjectivity), ie the subjective experience itself is limited by the culture in which it is insert, so if an African woman is about to marry is not going to feel and think the same about marriage to a Chilean woman who is in the same situation, simply because they are two different people that were built in different places with different characteristics, with different social representations and rituals other than marriage.
According to the above, if it is determined by the culture in which it is embedded, one might think that the quality of life would be the same for the different cultures and then defined the concept could address the various factors of each culture, but not enough. There is a space in the middle of the intersection of factors that influence the actions as referred to as culture, personal history, socio-cultural and geographical location where born, etc.. and that space is what gives each person how he feels about life, expectations, goals, desires, sense of life, etc and relates directly to freedom (always understood as limited by factors environment.) "Freedom, rightly understood is a performance by the person in the orderly sequence of events in her life. You are free voluntarily move freely and responsibly to play their important role in a world where certain events happen for him and his choice and spontaneous will. " Is this freedom that difference being of each person, that space at the heart and is intersected by many factors is what makes choosing different things, in other words is subjectivity itself.
From this perspective, one can not talk about quality of life without considering individual differences, without considering the importance of subjectivity that surrounds it and most importantly not forget you're talking about the happiness of people.
As mentioned above, many people have tried to theorize about the concept of quality of life, and how people's reach. These theories usually are biased by vision or approach that is attached who posed, therefore, have limitations in their concepts. In this sense, it is interesting to take into consideration how much subjectivity, personal differences and spirituality (such as experience, experiences, parenting styles, place of birth, etc.) when defining the concept of quality of life and subjective wellbeing. These factors play a fundamental role in what the person is going to understand or to search for subjective well-being or quality of life and how to face adversity.
While in recent times has moved towards a post material conception as regards the ways in which people would get subjective, still managed theories do not address the more spiritual aspects, subjective half of which comprises the world and reality is constructed.
It is understandable that when it comes to organizations that wish to implement policies and measures of quality of life within a population (eg, WHO), is necessary to operationalize the concept elements "objective" or observable and that it becomes more difficult abocarse to individual or subjective elements. In this regard, Wilson has been successful as regards the approach to core needs within different cultures, such as food, could be applied in this regard. But each person will find how to use the satisfiers and meet their needs.
Noting the existing theories about quality of life, Diener has been one of the most considered subjective and personal aspects into their approaches. Some of the aspects taken into account include the culture, the separation of cognitive and affective aspects and leaves space for a personal assessment within their concept of quality of life. As for the theories raised by Diener, known as the top - down "and" bottom - up ", are considered salvageable, from the position of the authors of the article, the space left open to consider reflection and reading of the individual's own situation, but would then consider them as satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to their subjective assessment. From this point of view for the people is not the situation itself causing satisfaction, but it's personal assessment. In another area but within these same theories, which is known as "bottom - up" is considered salvageable reference to the small happiness that can be experienced daily, the awareness that one can be happy all the time and not see the happiness only as a long-term goal
Another theory proposed by Diener considering subjective and personal aspects is the theory known as teleological or finalist. This recognizes the subjective well as possible to achieve through the establishment, enforcement approach and your goals. Within this theory Diener presented the factors relevant to the context or culture. In this view we can appreciate an approach to the subjective and personal differences within the concept of quality of life. In raising that not all goals will produce subjective well-being, Diener is considering the action of the person in achieving this, it would not be the goal itself that the person would hit him, but the development of their own capabilities , the chances of achieving the goals of the valuation of the company, etc.
In modern societies there is a tendency to fear to live day by day, to look ahead and see nothing. By raising real goals becomes the future, enabling some way to calm the anxiety that this produces, improving the quality of life and subjective well-being obtained.
In cognitive theories, social comparison is the one that best presents subjective aspects in the concept of quality of life. This theory is very real in the sense that in the comparison companies exist in most areas. As for subjectivity, we propose that an understanding of comparison is part of the working of the person, the way it builds the world will give to understand why the guidelines should receive the information you give other people ; according to the image itself will have to compare themselves with realities "best" or "worse." All this depends on the very conception of their reality and their personal lives, their experiences, etc.. Finally, the need for observing one's own life and reality in order to reach a conclusion after a comparison with other individuals or groups, which is part of a clearly subjective, either cognitive or emotional. From this, comparisons, consider the person's own subjective well-being or quality of life.
This theory also raises the inability of the person to achieve subjective well-being if their significance should not have it nearby or are not good. In this emotional factors are involved, therefore, subjective.
As to theories that do not consider subjectivity in their approaches, we believe that activity theory is one of them, because it is too broad in its conception, in that it does not specify what means activity or if there is development by the person at the time of the activity. It would be possible to deduce that the activity itself that give subjective well-being, only be obtained by realizing. On this basis it is considered quite reductionist and ignores important elements when talking about people who are embedded in society, among these personal factors, the different conceptions of activity, the stories of each person, ie the components that make up the subjectivity of the individual.
Ever since the axis of subjectivity, the fact conceptually understand "quality of life" requires an understanding that the design: "life" refers to a form of existence than the physical only because the field should be considered individual's social relationships, their access to cultural, ecological and environmental surroundings, the risk is subject to physical and mental health, among other things, in other words, in addition to their links with others in the social and community transcends their individuality. Now, therefore, "Quality of Life is a relative concept that depends on each social group and what it defines as its ideal location for their welfare access to a range of goods and services, and the exercise of their rights and respect for their values "is how each social group identifies trends in welfare, therefore it is necessary to differentiate the various lifestyles, aspirations and ideals, ethical and idiosyncrasies of social groups, to distinguish different magnitudes links and can thus better sizing respective variations between each other sectors of the community, to cite one example, in the case of companies that have solved their basic needs, in terms of goods and services, its objectives welfare is more oriented toward family and professional fulfillment of the social group, that is, given the existence of other more developed societies, welfare standards are different and so the definitions of quality of life. And as posed Blanco (1988) values, desires and agendas vary markedly in time and within the areas and layers that make up social structures. The quality of life would also be historically and culturally constructed with values subject to the variables of time, space and imagination, with particular degree and scope of development of each age and society, and its consequent particular way of looking at the world: Subjectivity. Stated another way, it would be unrealistic to aspire to the unification of a single criterion of quality of life.
From the above, the concept quality of life is seen as subjective and throughout the world the quality of life varies in the culture in which is framed in space and time. Gallopin (1980) mentions that the very central point depends on the situation, and that all relevant environmental variables can and should be different in different contexts. What in a given environment is positive or negative, within certain limits lower and upper ends, you can change a lot of different events and, except in the case of variables such as those affecting human health (which is an objective trend quality of life), it is almost impossible to sort the quality of the environment on a universal basis.
However, there are trends, so to call them-which are considered as basic to life can be assessed as having a quality or objective tendencies, these are primarily the satisfaction of basic needs as Maslow put it, and this is evident if you ask a person what is quality of life, many will relate to access to decent and well paid to give them access to goods and basic services like housing, education, health and nutrition, utilities, transportation road recreation, security, among many others.
The evaluation of the concept has a similar situation. For some authors the research approaches of this concept are varied, but could fall into two types: quantitative approaches, whose purpose is to operationalize the quality of life. To do this, have studied different trends: Social (refer to external conditions related to the environment such as health, welfare, friendship, living standards, education, public safety, recreation, neighborhood, housing , etc.), Psychological (subjective measure of the individual reactions to the presence or absence of certain life experiences) and Green (measure the fit between the resources of the subject and the demands of the environment) and qualitative approaches that adopt a posture of listening and attention to the person as she recounts her experiences, challenges and problems and how social services can support them effectively.