Definitions of health can also focus on different aspects of health. Some are idealistic, as in the WHO definition offered earlier. Some definitions have a more functional view of health, where it is seen as the ability to be able to ‘do’ things and get on with life. Other definitions centre on the idea of health as a commodity. For example Aggleton (1990) argues that health is something that can be bought (by investment in private health care) or sold (through health food shops), given (by medical intervention) or lost (through disease or injury). The parallels with contemporary consumerism are evident in this type of definition and Bambra et al. (2005) note how, under capitalist systems, health has become increasingly commodified.
Other types of definitions draw on the idea that health is about being able to cope and adapt to different circumstances and achieve personal potential and may be more aligned with ideas from humanism. Drawing on humanist ideas, health might also be considered as self-actualization and many modern concepts of health acknowledge aspects of self-realization and self-fulfilment for the individual as important for subjective health (Svalastog et al., 2017). Such notions link with the idea of empowerment, a concept discussed in more detail later in this book. Health might enable the process of self-actualization or the attainment of health might constitute self-actualization. Either way, research appears to show that this is an important idea that has implications for health and, specifically, health-promoting behaviours (Acton and Malathum, 2008). Seedhouse (2001) described health as the ‘foundations for achievement’. In keeping with the position of this chapter Seedhouse starts from the point of acknowledging that health is a complex and contested concept. Seedhouse views health as the means by which we achieve our potential, both as individuals and as groups. Seedhouse (2001) therefore describes a person’s optimum state of health as being ‘equivalent to the set of conditions that enable a person to work to fulfil her realistic chosen and biological potentials’. This perspective also broadens understandings of health beyond the absence of disease or ‘abnormality’ as understood using a medical model (this will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter). Someone may be, for example, encountering disease or be disabled and still lay claim to health, thus challenging assumptions of a ‘normality’ of health. As Blaxter (1990: 35) argued, ‘health is not, in the minds of most people, a unitary concept. It is multi-dimensional, and it is quite possible to have “good” health in one respect, but “bad” in another’.
In what ways can health be considered a purchasable commodity? How does health differ from other products that can be bought, sold and invested in?
Health can also be conceived of in a number of other ways. Health may be regarded as a value (Downie and Macnaughton, 2001) and, while most people would argue that ‘good’ health is of value too, the degree to which people will strive for, or prioritize, health will, of course, vary according to individual circumstances. Health is also viewed both as a right and as a responsibility. The Constitution of the World Health Organization of 1946 first held up health as a human right in the statement ‘the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being’ (cited in WHO, 2008a: 5). Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 references health in relation to the right to an adequate standard of living and many of the other articles are indirectly related to the ‘right to health’. Many people point to the requirement to meet basic human needs in order to achieve health, such as adequate sanitation and resources for life like shelter and food (Capone et al., 2018). ‘The right to health was again recognized as a human right in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (WHO, 2008a: 5). Viewing health as a ‘right’ can create tension, because with this comes a sense of responsibility for health that in turn generates debate as to who has responsibility for health – the individual or the state? These issues are discussed in more detail later in this book.
Learning task 1.2
Comparing definitions
Activity
Compare and contrast two different definitions of health as discussed.
1 What do the definitions have to offer in terms of furthering our understanding of health?
2 What are the limitations of them? What are their strengths?
3 How would you alter the definitions? What would you add or remove and why?
4 How do the definitions compare or contrast with your own definition of health from learning task 1.1?
The variety and breadth of definitions of health presented here are not exhaustive but they serve to illustrate the many different ways in which health can be conceived and experienced and the problematic nature of trying to produce a definition that suits everyone. Downie and Macnaughton (2001: 11) argue that ‘health does not have a clear identity of its own’ and therefore we are faced with a real challenge when trying to define what it is. However, what we do know is that health is influenced by a wide range of factors. This will be discussed in more detail throughout this book.
Essentially the concept of health is not static or stable over time or within different contexts. It is influenced by a plethora of things and means different things to everyone. The meaning of health is also contested and, as has been demonstrated, ‘there is no universally agreed definition’ (Pridmore and Stephens, 2000: 30). Indeed, the concept of health remains elusive (Johnson, 2007). In his book Creating Health for Everyone: Principles, Practice and Philosophy, Colin Johnson (2007) offers a definition of health that extends to nearly four pages, which illustrates the nebulous nature of it and the somewhat impossible task of trying to produce a universally acceptable definition! However, he does state that ‘the concept of health is a cluster of sub-concepts, which together constitute a dynamic whole’ (p. 91) acknowledging the range of influences on understanding. Johnson (2007) offers a framework of definitions of health that has four categories of definition – dictionary definitions, assumptive definitions, determinist definitions and spiritual definitions. While the framework Johnson uses provides a valuable contribution to our knowledge about definitions of health we are really not that much further forward in terms of concrete understanding (and, indeed, we may never be). The extent to which this actually matters is debatable.
Given the difficulties of trying to produce a satisfactory definition of health, the next section of this chapter will examine different theoretical perspectives on the nature of health and consider what these might have to offer to our understanding of ‘what health is’.
Theoretical perspectives
This section of the chapter