Baselines of Power: Why Well-Being is a Question of Authority
Whether we like to admit it or not, humans operate with the belief that there are general standards or baselines for well-being. Across societies, cultures, and institutions, we act as though there are certain conditions, behaviors, or achievements that define a “good” or “healthy” life. The tension, however, lies not in the existence of these standards, but in who gets to define them. This question: who holds the authority to declare what counts as well-being gives rise to hierarchies of power. Authoritarian institutions such as governments, churches, and other centralized authorities are often built upon these definitions, and one of the primary ways they communicate and enforce these baselines is through what we commonly call “shared values.” These shared values operate as instruments of social control, shaping norms that people are expected to accept, internalize, and follow.
When an individual proposes ideas of standards or baselines that diverge from those established by existing power structures, opposition and obstruction inevitably emerge. Even if the individual’s intention is genuinely to promote well-being, the act of challenging institutional authority is perceived as a threat. Defining well-being is, at its core, a mechanism of power: whoever controls the baseline controls the levers of social, moral, and political influence. This is why conflicts over standards are rarely just about ideas they are contests over authority, legitimacy, and control.
The paradox, however, is that while humans broadly believe in general standards for well-being, any attempt to impose these from above inevitably reflects the values and priorities of the authority, not the individuals who are subject to them. Contentment or subjective satisfaction alone does not equate to true well-being, and yet institutional baselines often fail to account for the lived realities, values, and choices of diverse communities. As a result, hierarchical imposition of standards regardless of intent when imposed violates the fundamental principles of the very standards that are being established.
The solution to this tension lies in massive, large-scale individualism. True general standards or baselines for well-being cannot be imposed from above; they must emerge from the autonomy of individuals. By decentralizing authority and recognizing that each person is best positioned to determine what flourishing means for themselves, the problem of top-down imposition is dissolved.
Standards then become a reflection of lived experience, choice, and experimentation, rather than instruments of control by groups of people. In this sense, redistributing decision-making power to individuals at scale is not just a philosophical argument it is the only viable path to a genuine understanding of well-being that is both universal in intent and authentic in application.
In essence, the struggle over well-being is a struggle over power. Institutions maintain control by defining baselines; individuals challenge that control when they propose alternatives. Recognizing this, the path forward is not merely about negotiating metrics or articulating “shared values.” It is about reclaiming authority for individuals, allowing them to define and enact well-being for themselves. Only through such large-scale individual autonomy can a truly meaningful baselines for human flourishing exist and we can begin to mitigate injustices and resolves on a global scale.
Copyright © 2025 Jameel Gordon - All Rights Reserved.
