Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4154
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social
Uncertainty
Renata Dopierała
University of Lodz, Poland
DOI: ht t ps: //do i.o rg/10 .18778/1733- 8 077.18.4. 08
Renata Dopierała, Ph.D., works at the Department of
Sociology of Culture, Institute of Sociology, Faculty of Eco-
nomics and Sociology, University of Lodz, Poland. Her re-
search interest lies in the sociology of everyday life (with
the main focus on the issue of privacy) and the sociology of
things. Her interests also include the phenomenon of con-
sumerism and anti-consumption lifestyles.
email address: renata.dopierala@uni.lodz.pl
Abstract: The article discusses popular Stoicism (a modern, simplied, and often commercialized
version of ancient Stoicism), which is oered as an answer to the uncertainty of modernity. The -
nancial, political, climate, and health crises have been detrimental to the sense of agency and control
over one’s life, leading individuals to seek ways of (subjectively) regaining it. Popular Stoicism can be
viewed as an expert system providing individuals with a specic vision of happiness and the good
life, in addition to oering practical knowledge on how to dene an area of individual agency by
negotiating the boundaries between that which is within one’s power and that which is not. Reec-
tions begin with a juxtaposition of ancient and contemporary Stoicism, focusing on their dierent
socio-cultural origins, followed by a synthesis of the principles of ancient Stoicism on happiness and
the good life and a detailed interpretation of the ‘oering’ of popular Stoicism in the relevant areas.
In the laer context, two chosen Stoic exercises (necessary to achieve happiness and the good life)
are discussed—the ability to recognize what things depend/do not depend on us and Stoic emotion
work. The practices and techniques recommended as a part of constant work on oneself are also
supposed to teach individuals to adapt to their unstable reality. As a result, the popular version of
Stoicism perpetuates the mechanisms of the culture of individualism, which holds the individual
fully responsible for their life, and the therapeutic and counseling culture (based on one’s readiness
to constantly self-improve), which is a new form of disciplining in a neoliberal society. Both are
important elements of the everyday life and lifestyle of the middle class. This class is interested in
self-fulllment and is the primary target audience of contemporary Stoic handbooks. The consider-
ation is based on fragments of books on popular Stoicism, mainly wrien by Polish philosophers,
subjected to qualitative content analysis.
Keywords:
Stoicism; Popular
(Modernity)
Stoicism; Good Life
and Happiness;
Therapeutic and
Counseling Culture
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 155
According to numerous theorists and
researchers, late modernity is charac-
terized, among others, by processes
of social acceleration, which evoke the
feeling of alienation (see: Rosa 2013; 2020), recur-
ring economic crises aecting local economies and
global networks, exacerbating climate changes, and
transformations of capitalism that no longer is ‘only’
increasingly more expansive and competition-ori-
ented but is also becoming a surveillance capitalism
(see: Zubo 2020). My intention here is not to assess
the degree to which these diagnoses aptly describe
our reality, and I will also refrain from reconstruct-
ing arguments in favor of such beliefs or their count-
er-discourses.
Among many consequences of the aforementioned
phenomena, one merits special aention—uncer-
tainty that should be viewed as the instability and
unpredictability of the social order,1 which, in turn,
leads to the collapse of ontological security2 (Gid-
dens 1990; 1991). The loss of faith in the immutabil-
ity of the rules of social life has been exacerbated
by the COVID-19 pandemic and the currently on-
going war in Ukraine, so much so that it has be-
come a structural element of individual experience
(see: Blokker and Vieten 2022:1). As demonstrated
by research conducted during the pandemic, the
more an individual realizes how everyday life has
become unstable, the stronger their need to regain
1 Uncertainty manifests itself in many aspects of individual life
inuencing each other, the most noticeable of which include: ma-
terial (decreased or lost income, and thus the inability to maintain
a constant budget), professional (loss of employment or the possi-
bility of workplace closure, reduction of hours worked, precarity),
as well as emotional and health-related (mental health disorders
in various age groups, increased rates of somatic disorders).
2 Ontological security is “the condence that most human be-
ings have in the continuity of their self-identity and in the con-
stancy of their surrounding social and material environments
of action” (Giddens 1990:66); it relies on people’s ability to give
meaning to their lives.
cognitive control (Drozdowski et al. 2020). A conse-
quence of the pandemic—one that is relevant to this
analysis—is an opportunity for the entrenchment
of dominant therapeutic and counseling discours-
es. According to Marek Krajewski and Małgorzata
Kubacka (2020:72 [trans. RD]), “the pandemic could
enforce and legitimize the symbolic power of cer-
tain groups (coaches, psychologists, personal train-
ers, etc.), rendering their knowledge even more vital
to aaining the good life.” The idea of the good life
mentioned by the authors, together with the relat-
ed discourses of happiness and high quality of life,
determine an individual’s goals and lend direction
to their actions. Considering the deepening sense of
uncertainty, those ideas also become problematic.
When faced with the phenomena described above,
living a satisfying and fullled life is rendered dif-
cult. As a result, individuals seek solutions that
enable them to develop a sense of being able to
inuence reality and regain control of their lives
(which is vital to one’s subjective sense of well-be-
ing). One such solution involves ‘testing’ the models
of the good life oered by the consumerist culture
of capitalism. That is because such situations gener-
ate demand for knowledge, the sources of which in-
clude the various expert systems (see: Giddens 1990;
1991). Philip Rie (1966) stated that when normative
control weakens, an increase can be observed in
the demand for expert advice, and the chief prob-
lem for individuals is improving themselves. From
this point of view, an example of an expert system
appears to be Stoicism, which is becoming increas-
ingly popular3 and has been described by a certain
3 During the pandemic, the popularity of Stoicism has grown
in the UK. According to Penguin Random House, print sales
of Meditations are up 28% for the rst quarter of 2020 vs. 2019,
while print sales of Leers from a Stoic are up 42% for the same
period. The sales of Meditations have been quietly on the up for
the last eight years, around 16,000 copies were sold in 2012, but
this increased to more than 100,000 copies in 2019 (Flood 2020).
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4156
commentator as a philosophy “built for hard times”
(Anderson 2012). The philosopher Jules Evans (2019)
said: “Stoicism is popular now because people feel
out of control. . .Stoicism says, accept that you can-
not control the external world, but that you can
nd a measure of serenity and happiness and mor-
al meaning by focusing on what is in your control,
your own beliefs and your own actions.” The rec-
ommendations oered by the contemporary version
of Stoicism seem to resonate with the uncertainty
of modernity, as not only do they oer strategies of
regaining a sense of inuence and control (it is de-
batable how illusory these may be) but also present
methods of achieving happiness and the good life,4
which many individuals—particularly those from
the middle class—perceive as directives and man-
uals. The nominally dierent frameworks of inter-
preting individual experiences oered by modern
Stoicism are, in my opinion, a socially-relevant topic.
The article analyzes three publications on modern
Stoicism wrien by Polish authors5 (constituting
the primary data corpus), as well as two translated
publications (as additional materials)6; the authors
4 William B. Irvine, a modern American philosopher and
proponent of Stoicism, said this when interviewed in 2020:
“I think that the rst half of the year has already given us plen-
ty of reasons to believe that this is the philosophy that really
makes life more bearable. Since we have no power over how
the virus appears and spreads, even if we make sure to follow
the rules and regulations, we can only accept everything that
is happening around us with a Stoic demeanor and be grateful
that we are still alive because we could be gone, that every day
spent with our loved ones is an additional reason to be happy”
(Irvine 2020a [trans. RD]).
5 Mazur, Tomasz. 2014. O stawaniu się stoikiem. Czy jesteście goto-
wi na sukces? [Becoming a Stoic. Are You Ready for Success?]. War-
saw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; Seidler, Paulina F. 2022. Po
prostu spokój. Jak dobrze żyć po stoicku [Plain Peace. How to Live in
a Stoic Way]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Zwierciadło; Stankiewicz,
Piotr. 2014. Sztuka życia według stoików [The Art of Living accord-
ing to the Stoics]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo WAB.
6 Sellars, John. 2021. Lekcje stoicyzmu [Lessons in Stoicism]. War-
saw: Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca; Irvine, William B. 2020b.
Wyzwanie stoika. Jak dzięki lozoi odnaleźć w sobie siłę, spokój
of all these publications are philosophers. They re-
construct the premises of Stoicism based on source
materials (cited more or less extensively). However,
it is not my role to verify the validity of their ex-
egeses and doctrine compliance. Considering the
subject maer of the paper, out of the extensive re-
search material, I chose and analyzed only elements
of happiness and the good life. The methodology
used was qualitative content analysis, the purpose
of which was to systematically and reliably deter-
mine how these topics are presented in the analyzed
publications. The analysis led to the discovery of
new categories and aspects of the main subjects: the
modern understanding of happiness and the good
life, ways of achieving them (self-development prac-
tices and exercises), and their implications for in-
dividuals in the current socio-cultural context. My
analysis begins with a juxtaposition of ancient and
contemporary Stoicism, focusing on their dierent
social, political, and cultural origins, followed by
a synthesis of the principles of ancient Stoicism on
happiness and the good life. In subsequent sections,
I provide a detailed interpretation of the ‘oering’ of
popular Stoicism in the relevant areas, focusing on
its individual (identity-related) and socio-cultural
consequences.
Ancient Stoicism and Popular Stoicism—
Recognition
Stoicism is a Greek school of philosophy founded
by Zeno of Citium in the 3rd century BCE, devel-
oped by Chrysippus of Soli into a comprehensive
system that, over the course of ve centuries from
i odporność psychiczną [The Stoic Challenge: A Philosopher’s Guide
to Becoming Tougher, Calmer, and More Resilient]. Cracow: In-
signis Media. That is because the books by Polish philosophers
are comparable in size and provide an extensive account of Sto-
ic beliefs, whereas translations, due to their smaller size, gener-
ally only provide cursory overviews.
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 157
its inception, underwent transformations, which
reected the changing socio-cultural environment
at the time. “Stoicism arose and became popular
in dicult, trying times—the Greek city-state was
breaking down, the world no longer felt stable, and
change (and chaos) was everywhere. Similarly, for
many people today, our world feels out of control in
many ways: socially, politically, and environmental-
ly” (Evans 2019). Greek Stoicism was referenced by
such Roman thinkers as Seneca and Marcus Aure-
lius (who represent the late school of Stoicism), who
were responsible for propagating its ideas. Stoicism
was developed in Hellenic Athens, which means
that its tenets were intended for citizens, that is, free,
educated people who did not work for a living, but
were eligible to decide on public/political maers—
these criteria were only met by high-status and
wealthy males7 (an exception to this was Epictetus,
who was a purchased slave). Ancient Stoicism—de-
spite its professed egalitarianism—was thus intend-
ed for a narrow group of practitioners who could
aord to devote themselves to a vita contemplativa,
using Stoic exercises and practices to become the
ideal sages—men of wisdom and virtue.8 The ethical
aspect of Stoicism (relevant from the perspective of
this consideration and analyzed in detail in the fol-
lowing sections of the article) focused on the highest
human good and the main goal of human activity,
which was believed to be the pursuit of happiness
and virtue, and entailed recommendations on how
to live well. The return to Stoicism, which began in
the second half of the 20th century, has assumed
7 The political community excluded women, slaves, and for-
eigners; the former were primarily occupied with the pri-
vate sphere (the home), which, at the time, was separated
from the public sphere and maers related to various neces-
sities of life.
8 Virtue used to mean something dierent than it does today.
In this case, classical Stoicism can be viewed as more aligned
with modern guides, as it approaches virtue as a relatively
stable character trait that can be cultivated within ourselves.
various forms (to account for various needs and
expectations of individuals, as well as their dier-
ent development stages), although it does not sim-
ply draw upon or reference the original school of
thought, as was the case in the Renaissance, for ex-
ample, but constitutes its ‘reactivation’ as a still-rel-
evant philosophy (see: Mazur 2010; Stefaniuk 2017).
Currently, Stoicism is particularly popular in the
West, as evidenced not only by various new research
papers circulating in the hermetic world of academia
but also by popular culture texts that promote Stoic
ideas as oering utility for modern individuals. This
version is referred to as Pop Stoicism or popular Sto-
icism and is dened as “contemporary commercial-
ized Stoicism or, to be more precise, commercialized
elements of Stoicism” (Stefaniuk 2017:49).9 From this
perspective, Stoicism serves as the base for self-help
books, self-fulllment, and self-development guides
and coaching publications. The Internet is also rife
with dedicated podcasts, blogs, newsleers, and
Instagram and Facebook accounts created by both
professional and amateur philosophers. “Modern
Stoicism has become an industry. And a mega-in-
dustry at that. For the consumers seeking wisdom
on how to live the good life—and there are a lot of
them—there are daily digests of Stoic quotations,
books, and websites packed with Stoic wisdom to
kick-start your day, podcasts, broadcasts, online
crash courses, and more” (Sherman 2021).
In Poland, translations are available of books by such
philosophers as William B. Irvine and John Sellars,
as well as the non-philosophers Ward Farnsworth
9 The author states: “when we mention ‘pop-Stoicism’ or the
simplistic modern form of ‘commercialized Stoicism,’ it is nec-
essary to distinguish it from the Stoicism of ancient philoso-
phers, that is, from the ‘proper’ or ‘original’ Stoicism, which
has long been the subject of serious academic research and dis-
cussion” (Stefaniuk 2017:50).
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4158
(a lawyer), Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman
(a writer and a publisher). Also published are pa-
pers and books by Polish academic philosophers
claiming to apply the principles of Stoicism in their
everyday lives. The most recognizable being To-
masz Mazur and Piotr Stankiewicz. These authors
share their experiences not only with readers of tra-
ditional book publications and course participants
but also with users of new media, in which they are
active in a multitude of ways—they operate web-
sites, record podcasts, write blog posts, and appear
on various shows. Piotr Stankiewicz describes him-
self as a teacher of reformed Stoicism, while Tomasz
Mazur refers to himself as a philosophical develop-
ment trainer who promotes “philosophical self-de-
velopment,” which, among other activities, involves
seminars and workshops. Another philosopher
is Marcin Fabjański, the founder of the Apennine
School of Living Philosophy, established in Italy
and drawing upon the “teachings of the Stoics, Epi-
cureans, Buddhists, and Taoists, as well as modern
and contemporary philosophers.” The above initia-
tives, apart from those aimed at popularization, are
purely commercial in nature and constitute—more
or less intentionally—a part of the counseling cul-
ture (this is exemplied by the terminology used,
e.g., “philosophical development trainer”).
In addition, blogs and podcasts are established
by individuals who are not trained philosophers,
but who—in their perception—practice Stoicism,
forming a community of people who share a sim-
ilar system of beliefs and aitudes towards reality.
Such blogs either focus fully on various elements
of Stoicism (its history, principles, or practices)
or combine Stoic themes with other ideas that are
considered useful in aaining the good life, for ex-
ample, mindfulness, minimalism, et cetera. Other
blogs and podcasts illustrate its pragmatic, selective
applications to particular aspects of reality, for ex-
ample, business ventures, improving interpersonal
relationships, achieving fulllment in romantic re-
lationships, and seeking tranquility via Stoic medi-
tation (such cases are akin to applying mindfulness
to achieve a particular goal, e.g., to reduce stress [see
the works of Jon Kabat-Zinn]).
Classical Stoic Happiness and the Good
Life
Happiness is a recurring goal of individuals, which
is why it is necessary to begin by recapitulating the
views held by classical Stoics regarding happiness
and the related understanding of nature, before re-
ferring to the broader conceptual constructs of the
‘good life’ and ‘quality of life,’ as well as the popu-
larized versions of these two phenomena.
The belief that happiness is an important goal of
human life and that the purpose of philosophy is
to enable its aainment, was not only espoused by
the Stoics. This aspect is present in nearly all ancient
schools of philosophy (Epicureanism, the Cyre-
naics), although the Stoics diered greatly in their
approach to the issue. That is because the Stoics be-
lieved that happiness, if contingent upon external
factors, was uncertain and that to ensure a constant
level of happiness, it was necessary to either gain
independence from these factors or overcome them.
The other solution (control over the world) was seen
as impossible, which is why the only way of becom-
ing independent was to ‘develop’ self-control. The
pursuit of happiness entails a degree of self-deni-
al—“to achieve everything, one must deny oneself
everything” (Tatarkiewicz 2002:132 [trans. RD]).
A person who subscribes to this view thus pur-
sues only internal goods, which are only within
their power, making them certain. Internal goods
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 159
are a virtue, viewed as the sum of wisdom, inde-
pendence, and happiness. “In viewing virtue as the
sole condition for happiness, [the Stoics] practically
equated it with happiness, considering it to be the
highest good or even the only true good” (Tatark-
iewicz 2002:132 [trans. RD]).
Thus, the road to happiness does not involve chang-
es to the external world, but changes to one’s views—
erroneous individual beliefs and judgments—on
reality. “Everything depends on opinion; ambition,
luxury, greed, hark back to opinion. It is according
to opinion that we suer” (Seneca 2017:78.13 [trans.
RD]). The belief that views can be modied stems
from the division into that which is and is not with-
in the power of the individual. Happiness is within
the power of the individual—a positive or a negative
mood originates from our will, and thus the source
of suering is not external but a result of our inter-
nal aitudes. As stated by Epictetus (1961:455 [trans.
RD]), “Of things that exist, some are in our power
and some are not in our power. Those that are in
our power are conception, choice, desire, aversion,
and in a word, those things that are our own doing.
Those that are not under our control are the body,
property or possessions,10 reputation, positions of
authority, and in a word, such things that are not
our own doing.” Things in our power are all spir-
itual states, including happiness and unhappiness,
while things beyond our control are prestige, mon-
ey, and health—“as only that is within our power
10 “Both ownership and wealth are independent of the individ-
ual as they can easily be lost. Control over material items is
thus illusory and cannot be maintained. External things are
independent, but one’s relationship with them is under one’s
control. All these impermanent, inconsequential things are
not indispensable to happiness, and lack thereof cannot be
a source of unhappiness; in this sense, they are neutral. The
Stoics strove to convince people to make them neutral in an-
other sense as well—so that they caused neither desire nor
disgust. A wise man ignores them, which is why he is truly
independent” (Tatarkiewicz 2002:133 [trans. RD]).
which is fully and unconditionally in our power”
(Epictetus 1961:457 [trans. RD]). A consequence of
these beliefs is the view that an individual is capa-
ble of making oneself happy (Stankiewicz 2014:67-
68), which necessitates self-development by various
techniques and practices.
Regarding the other aspect, adapting to nature,
which is reasonable and harmonious, is part of
achieving individual perfection. Living in accor-
dance with human nature was synonymous with
living in accordance with nature in general—it was
an expression of virtue. The Stoics equated a virtu-
ous life with living in alignment with nature. A vir-
tuous existence was free and aligned with reason,
as that was the nature of man, not passions. Virtue
was thus wisdom, knowledge, and reason (Tatark-
iewicz 2002). To summarize, according to the classi-
cal version of Stoicism, a happy person understands
reality (the order of things) and accepts everything
that happens to them. The suering they experience
should not cause them to lose balance or cloud their
understanding of the order of things—that which is
within the laws of nature cannot be viewed as mis-
fortune. To live the good (i.e., happy) life, one must
also be able to distinguish between good and evil—
human ignorance in that regard causes individuals
to perform evil acts, whose consequences are not
only an unhappy life but also the ruination of their
character.
Popular Stoic Happiness and the Good
Life
The authors of popular Stoicism publications rec-
ommend it to those who are looking for balance,
happiness, and quality of life (Irvine 2020b) or
want to remain calm, make wise decisions, nd
the meaning of life and a sense of happiness (Se-
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4160
idler 2022), thus searching a guide to the art of the
good life (Stankiewicz 2014). Such texts do not ad-
dress Stoicism as a philosophy applying to the en-
tire human life (unlike ancient Stoicism), but as a set
of techniques and exercises that dene what one
should strive for and how to achieve it concerning
a given area or fragment of social reality; hence, the
term “fragmentary stoicism”11 (Mazur 2010:239).
References to Greek Stoicism are few and are out-
numbered by Roman writers—Epictetus, Seneca the
Younger, and Marcus Aurelius.
According to Piotr Stankiewicz’s interpretation,
happiness and the good life are “the goals of the
Stoic philosophy and its raison d’être. To live a Stoic
life is to be merry, to live well and happily. Stoic
happiness is the fullest, most perfect, and lasting;
it is characterized by independence, self-determi-
nation, and agency” (Stankiewicz 2014:490 [trans.
RD]). Another aspect is pointed out by John Sellars
(2021:26), who states that “when we begin to rule
over our judgments, we will gain full control over
our lives. We will decide what is important to us,
what we want, and how to proceed. Our happiness
will be under our control. We have control over ev-
erything really important to our well-being.” From
this point of view, popular Stoicism serves many
functions relevant to the contemporary socio-cul-
tural landscape.
First, popular Stoicism—provided that certain con-
ditions are met—is supposed to provide the in-
dividual with not only happiness (narrow sense,
see: Czapiński 2004a) but also a high quality of
life (broad sense). These discourses currently play
11 According to Tomasz Mazur, the main contemporary forms
of Stoicism include historical, academic, professional, religious,
political, and supportive (in the psychological sense) Stoicism
(see: Mazur 2010).
a dominant role in shaping how individuals pur-
sue the meaning of life and are also a restrictive
criterion for assessing if these pursuits are prop-
erly designed. In the aforementioned publications,
happiness12 and the good life appear together as
a construct presented as if it were self-evident, for
example, according to Stankiewicz (2014), the hap-
piness the Stoic seeks is eudaimonia—the good life or
well-being. This approach is akin to that of ancient
philosophy in which eudaimonia was a combination
of well-being, happiness, and ourishing. In books
on popular Stoicism, the term “well-being”13 is ac-
companied (though more rarely) by the term “qual-
ity of life,” which is also not explained. The authors
of the analyzed publications use the terms “happi-
ness,” “quality of life,”14 “well-being,” and “the good
12 The most popular concept of happiness denes it as a “[last-
ing and complete] satisfaction with one’s life as a whole” (Ta-
tarkiewicz 1966:1; 1962). From this point of view, happiness is
understood as “a typically long-term psychological condition—
not the acute emotion of feeling happy, but rather whatever
it concerns us when we talk of someone’s being happy these
days” (Hayborn 2003:306). Hayborn distinguishes psycholog-
ical happiness from a philosophical one. In the laer case, it
is conceived dierently as “a kind of well-being or ourish-
ing that in the ancient Greek of Aristotle and Plato went by
the name of eudaimonia” (Hayborn 2003:306). Happiness may
also be considered in a broader sense—close to the notion of
well-being.
13 There are multiple conceptions of well-being, for example, Ed
Diener (1984) denes subjective well-being as a combination of
positive emotions and the degree to which one appreciates and
is satised with one’s life. Carol Ry (1989) proposes an alter-
native idea of psychological well-being that is measured with
six constructs related to self-actualization: autonomy, personal
growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance, environmental mas-
tery, and positive relations with others. Psychological well-be-
ing is a core feature of mental health, including two dimen-
sions (see: Czapiński 2004b): hedonistic or aective (mood, the
balance of emotional experience, feeling of satisfaction) and
eudaimonic or spiritual (fulllment, value of life, cardinal vir-
tues, long-term goals, and one’s needs).
Philosophers dierentiate between well-being and the good
life; well-being refers to what an individual experiences phys-
ically and mentally together with the interpretation of these
experiences, while the good life is understood more broadly as
the fulllment of external conditions independent of states of
consciousness (Lazari-Radek 2021:114-115).
14 The quality of life, in turn, is perceived as multidimension-
al, encompassing emotional, physical, material, and social
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 161
life” interchangeably, even though modern philo-
sophical, psychological, and sociological literature
draws distinctions between them. These terms are
not synonymous, even though their semantic scopes
overlap to a large degree. However, due to the limit-
ed scope of this paper, the dierences between them
cannot be discussed in detail here.
Second, its goal is to aain happiness, which is spe-
cically dened as autonomy, self-determination,
decision-making, and a sense of control. These traits
merit aention as they can be understood to mean
something dierent than the aforementioned sense
of perspective and acceptance of reality, which are
typical for the classical version of Stoicism. These at-
tributes can be viewed as the expected and preferred
aitudes within the consumerist culture of capital-
ism, valued positively by those who have internal-
ized these functional paerns. In actuality, these
are socially-constructed mechanisms of adapting
to the requirements of that culture. Self-determi-
nation, commonly associated with viewing oneself
as a project or enterprise that must be managed, is
key in that respect (Pop Stoics view classical philos-
ophers as the masters of self-management—more
on that in a later section). Autonomy, the subjective
sense of self-direction and agency, is related to con-
trol that is located in the individual. Agency refers
to the need to be exible, able to adapt (constantly
improve) to shifting conditions and the ‘necessity’
of making choices and actively steering one’s life.
Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello identify a new for-
mula of capitalist culture (from the 1980s onward)
that manifests itself in discourse via communica-
tion paerns containing expert recommendations
on how to harmonize modern entrepreneurship
well-being. It can refer both to the individual experience of life
and to the living conditions in which people nd themselves.
Hence, quality of life is highly subjective (Rokicka 2013).
with the actions of individuals with particular char-
acter traits (example terms include “activity,” “proj-
ect,” “adaptation,” “exibility,” and “creativity”).
Outside of discourse, methods of forming desirable
individual behaviors exist, which are specic to con-
temporary capitalism (the demand for displaying
initiative, forcing project-oriented thinking, expect-
ing risk-taking behaviors, and assuming responsi-
bility). That means promoting managerial behaviors
not only in one’s professional life but in one’s private
life as well (see: Stachowiak 2014).
Third, it is possible to interpret popular Stoicism
in a way that emphasizes its negative eects on in-
dividuals. Similar to other visions of the good life,
they rely on a paradoxical intertwining of happi-
ness with the expectation structure. As noted by
Eva Illouz (2012:16 [trans. RD]), the reason we are
unhappy is that “we are oered lifestyles that ap-
pear within our reach, as well as the belief that, if
we strive hard enough, we can achieve our dream
life.” By placing these expectations within the “I,”
an individual is not only able to but is also obligat-
ed to work harder on themselves, which contributes
to blaming oneself for any shortcomings, imperfec-
tions, and weakness. According to Illouz (2012:16),
failure to aain the good life is a problem that af-
fects everyone, regardless of class. Its cause lies in
a manufactured cultural fantasy according to which
anything can be achieved on one’s own.
Work on Oneself—Stoic Training and
Exercises
In addition to believing that the goal of individual
pursuits is happiness, the Stoics also identied ways
of aaining it. Their method comprises deliberate
(conscious) hard work on oneself, which involves
certain techniques and exercises and requires inter-
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4162
nal discipline, mobilization, and self-reection (Ma-
zur 2014:111; Seidler 2022). These techniques arise
from the fundamental Stoic belief that well-being,
mood, and feelings are contingent on one’s cogni-
tive aitude, on which individuals have inuence
and are thus able to change it. “The Stoics believe
in the tremendous power of man. That we can moti-
vate ourselves, control our emotions, and guide our
inner life, that we have enormous inuence on our-
selves. This philosophy cultivates in us a belief that
we can change ourselves and our thinking so that
we can live a good, happy life, nd our way out of
any situation, and face even the greatest challeng-
es. [Stoicism] is an art of life that requires chang-
ing how we view the world, think about ourselves
and the world, changing our habits. It is a kind of
internal transformation or conversion” (Seidler
2022:16-17 [trans. RD]). The transformation of the
individual’s dispositions is usually a two-stage pro-
cess, each with a dierent way of perceiving the self
(building an identity) and aitude towards reality.
The rst stage is the “time before,” and the second
is the “time after” discovering and practicing Pop
Stoicism. A transition between these two modalities
is possible thanks to popular Stoicism assuming the
role of an expert system. This expert opinion delin-
eates the areas where work must be performed on
oneself—one’s desires, actions, and thoughts (base
elements), as well as how that work is organized—
internal mobilization; ceaseless, strenuous eort;
hard work; discipline and self-reection that are
supposed to bring the individual closer to happi-
ness. This statement serves to illustrate the therapy
discourse characterized by exposing the “internal
life” of the individual and the increasing role of in-
stitutional and informal counseling. As observed by
Małgorzata Jacyno (2007:148 [trans. RD]), “the mod-
ern man has an inside that he can choose, shape,
model, mold, change, educate, and manage,” and
this process follows a plan of action and design for
what is being managed. According to Michel Fou-
cault (2018), the discourse developed by the therapy
culture is a new form of disciplining and manag-
ing a neoliberal society. In the processes leading
to the emergence of the modern form of the “I,” he
identied the importance of the discourse originat-
ing particularly from psychology (psy-disciplines).
The language of psychology that penetrates various
areas of life is a new form of exercising ideological
power as it creates conditions in which individuals
feel responsible for themselves in the name of free-
dom. This way, modern knowledge imposes the cost
of management on individuals, and diminished po-
litical control is replaced by self-control.
The situation presented here matches how the coun-
seling and therapeutic culture operates,15 which can
be conventionally divided into three stages: illness/
dysfunction, diagnosis (via the application of mea-
sures indicated in an expert opinion), and healing
(see: Jacyno 2007; Illouz 2010). In this context, nor-
malization occurs via self-knowledge (auto-thera-
py) produced by referring to an expert knowledge
system—popular Stoicism and popular psychology
(a trivialized version of academic psychology) that
function as the institutional support of neoliberal-
15 In the opinion of Eva Illouz (2010), the therapeutic discourse
is well-adapted to how modern humans experience socio-cul-
tural reality. It provides instructions on how to conduct oneself
when faced with uncertainty or in situations where individ-
uals may struggle for control, is characterized by a great de-
gree of institutionalization, enjoys the praise and support of
the social elite, and its messaging is popularized via various
social networks. That causes individuals to believe in its eec-
tiveness, leading them to combine the oering of the culture of
counseling and therapy with their lives and experiences with
the help of a special ‘emotional language,’ which is a tool of in-
trospection and understanding oneself, determining avenues
for personal development, and presenting oneself to others. In
return, the discourse generates certain emotional practices and
species how internal and macrostructural problems should
be perceived, dening their hierarchy and shaping aitudes
towards them.
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 163
ism. Its purpose is to transform those who are “ill”
into healthy individuals or restore them to a social-
ly-functional state. These ideologies inuence what
is perceived as a “normal” subject and treat society
as a set of individuals responsible for themselves,
including their health.
The exercises are related to the term “technologies
of the self,” coined by Michel Foucault, who ana-
lyzed how knowledge is organized concerning the
self (examples include “caring for oneself,” “taking
care of oneself,” and “looking after oneself”) by de-
scribing it within the context of selected ancient and
early Christian philosophical schools. Currently,
technologies of the self are not so regulated philo-
sophically or religiously as they are capitalistical-
ly (see: Rydlewski 2020).16 According to Foucault
(2000:249 [trans. RD]), they “permit individuals to
eect by their own means or with the help of others
a certain number of operations on their own bodies
and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so
as to transform themselves in order to aain a cer-
tain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection,
or immortality.” The components listed by Fou-
cault—means (dispositions), operations (training),
and transformation (goal)—can be found in the
analyzed texts. In this context, Pop Stoicism is an
16 An example of this is coaching, which is a quasi-therapeu-
tical practice aimed at adapting an individual to the neolib-
eral, exible model of labor, about which the individual feels
alienated and thus unhappy. Happiness and success, wheth-
er in one’s private life or career, are always within reach, it
can be achieved (bought) if one works on oneself—spends
time on self-realization, and remains suciently commied.
This “training strategy, which sets specic goals and ways of
achieving them, is a disciplining practice that produces a sub-
ject who pursues values promoted by the neoliberal ideology,
an important part of which is constantly expanding consum-
erism, hyper-individualism, and a culture of narcissism and
aention-seeking. It does not question the paerns themselves,
instead teaching how to follow them; this is functional insofar
as the subject undergoing adaptation feels truly happy” (Ry-
dlewski 2020:128 [trans. RD]).
instrument of cognitive, emotional, and behavior-
al transformations, the goal of which is not only to
change the individual but also their value systems
and, consequently, their lifestyle. By employing
“modes of training and modication of individuals,
not only in the obvious sense of acquiring certain
skills but also in the sense of acquiring certain ai-
tudes” (Foucault 2000:249 [trans. RD]), individuals
inuence themselves, constituting self-controlling
elements of the social order that reproduce the logic
of functioning of late-stage capitalism. Thus, pop-
ular Stoicism oers a new type of social competen-
cies, which can be acquired via a set of practices,
although one which has been processed and with
the market as an intermediary.
Eective “self-management” was of key importance
in this context—managing that which is within the
power of the individual (their beliefs, thoughts, feel-
ings, behaviors, etc.). A contemporary popularizer of
Stoicism describes it thus: “Stoics are happy because
they know how to live well, they have the right at-
titude towards themselves, others, and the world.
To put it in managerial terms: Stoics are people
who have mastered the art of managing their souls,
minds, and bodies, which is why they can deal with
any issue with calm in their hearts” (Stankiewicz
2014:494 [trans. RD]). It is no coincidence that Pop
Stoicism makes references to the science of manage-
ment—its terminology is used by the culture of cap-
italism to dene individual lives and delineate their
obligations based on a culturally-dened ideal. Bol-
tanski and Chiapello (2007) remark that the mod-
ern culture of entrepreneurship oers opportunities
for personal development, rewards those who are
active and creative, promotes exibility, and gives
opportunities for innovative projects. A new spirit
of capitalism “sanctions ways of keeping people on
the straight and narrow—individuals are supposed
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4164
to develop their inner potential and communicate
eectively to master that which is desired, and not
that which constitutes their material surroundings”
(Stachowiak 2014:20 [trans. RD]). Managing oneself
and one’s emotions is also common for the type of
pragmatic counseling promoted by popular psy-
chology. While it does use therapeutic practices em-
ployed by professional psychologists, it does so in
ways that lead to the privatization of mental health
problems (Rydlewski 2020). As a consequence of
this, individuals focus on privatized survival strate-
gies, withdraw into their worlds, devote themselves
to ‘spiritual’ and physical perfection, introduce var-
ious regimens into their lives, and become alienated
from the outside world (see also Lasch 1979).
The Dichotomy of Control
The Stoics recommend several such practices in-
dispensable to being able to work on oneself (see:
Hadot 200317). The most popular of which include
examination of conscience or introspection to as-
certain one’s condition and situation and planning
actions (see: Seneca 2017); mentally separating that
which is and is not within one’s power, and focus-
ing on that which is under one’s control; a xed
daily schedule based on discipline and regulari-
ty, including spiritual exercises (e.g., morning and
evening meditations, see: Fabjański 2020); adopting
17 Pierre Hadot describes several types of “spiritual exercis-
es,” including the more well-known morning and evening
meditations, in which an individual looks ahead at the day
to come or reects on the day that has passed and considers
how the individual either will or did follow Stoic teachings
and pursue a sage-like path. He also discusses premeditatio
malorum, in which an individual can imagine misfortunes
that could befall and think about how one will meet them
with strength and grace, as they are “indierent,” are not up
to us, and are, therefore, not evil. Hadot goes on to briey
mention “active” Stoic exercises, including self-mastery, the
accomplishment of duties, and indierence to indierent
things (Hadot 2003:45).
a cosmic perspective (concerning space and time);
skepticism—self-detachment combined with trust
in oneself and one’s abilities (Mazur 2014); “taming”
the situation (see: Fabjański 2021); voluntarily expe-
riencing discomfort and visualizing potential trou-
bles (premeditatio malorum) as a way of counteract-
ing the negative emotions resulting from adversity
(Irvine 2009; 2020b); building the inner citadel (see:
Hadot 2004; Paczkowski 2017). I focus on division
into that which is and is not within the power of the
individual and the emotion work in Stoicism.
The distinction between that which is within one’s
power and that which is beyond it, although appears
unconvincing from a modern perspective, is viewed
by Stoics as distinct, unambiguous, and complete.
The Stoics rejected degrees; things do not depend
on us to a larger or smaller degree, they can only be
contingent upon us in their entirety or be complete-
ly independent of us. Things that are independent of
us include the body, health, wealth, status, and rep-
utation, which are currently viewed dierently—as
dependent “goods” and “one’s achievements.” These
are listed as the main objects of concern via which
individuals self-identify in the consumerist culture
of capitalism. They form the basis for a hierarchy of
consumerist and materialist values, although certain
axiological reorientations do occur here to reect the
distinction between happiness and welfare (see, e.g..
Zawadzka 2014). As Paulina Seidler (2022:35) men-
tioned, distinguishing between that which is within
the power of the individual and that which is not
changes how reality is perceived, which, in turn, af-
fects one’s mood and sense of happiness, and when
followed consistently, also increases self-condence.
According to Piotr Stankiewicz (2014:91 [trans. RD]),
the tenet of not striving for external things stems
from “avoiding the woe that is a lack of fulllment”
and is thus a form of preventing negative feelings,
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 165
particularly disappointment and a sense of fail-
ure. From this perspective, a beer—according to
the Stoics—stance is to abandon certain goals (that
potentially lead to suering) rather than risk not
achieving them.
Even though external things are outside of the power
of individuals, their relationship with them is not and
may (and should) be modied. When analyzing this
tenet concerning materialist and consumerist values,
the conclusions that follow contradict the actual state
of aairs. According to the Stoics, control over wealth
and nances is illusory as material goods are beyond
the control of individuals (they can be lost, decrease
in value due to ination, etc.). One may strive to ac-
quire and keep them (these actions are within the
power of the individual), but it is not possible to have
complete control over what happens to them as this
is determined by external factors (e.g., economic cri-
ses, political instability). In line with the absoluteness
requirement (as the dening criterion), the individu-
al lacks this control. The approach recommended by
the Stoics thus focuses not on achieving wealth and
social status but on becoming independent of them;
disconnecting happiness from external factors, in-
cluding wealth, is in line with psychological research
results on what inuences well-being. Although ma-
terial wealth no longer correlates with happiness af-
ter a certain point, Piotr Stankiewicz’s (2014:77) state-
ment that happiness and the good life are possible
regardless of income is unfounded and unrealistic.
While it may suit an ancient sage, contemporary indi-
viduals, such as those suering from precarity, may
nd it less applicable.
Stoic Emotion Work
One of the elements of working on oneself—nec-
essary for an internal transformation—is working
on one’s emotions. This approach to emotions does
not involve (contrary to popular belief) achieving
a “Stoic demeanor,” understood to mean insensi-
tivity, rmness, and indierence, and neither does
it recommend suppressing, denying, disregarding,
or rejecting emotions (especially the negative ones),
and the same applies to succumbing to or escalating
them. The goal is to develop the ability to acknowl-
edge emotions—to identify and analyze them (think
about what causes them) and then react appropri-
ately (learn how to eectively redirect them). Us-
ing Arlie Hochschild’s (1979; 2003) words, one must
transform how they are felt and expressed; from
this perspective, various levels of emotion work
exist—surface or deep acting. One of the authors
describes that as follows: “we choose how we feel,
we acquiesce to emotions, decide how we will ex-
perience them. We are capable of eectively making
ourselves happy...The Stoics, by placing the sense of
meaning within ourselves (within that which is in
our power), demonstrate the power present in hu-
manity, they give us a sense of agency and hope,
while also presenting us with a dicult challenge.
They task us with ‘inventing ourselves,’ giving
life meaning by nding value in it, by seing and
achieving new goals...This requires a great deal of
mindfulness and self-reection” (Seidler 2022:232-
234 [trans. RD]). What emerges here is an image of
the individual who acts in a socio-cultural vacuum,
who self-referentially places the sense of meaning
and signicance within oneself. This individual-
ly-designed work of creating oneself is only made
possible with the help of instructions provided by
various systems of knowledge.
Emotions are related to the opinions, assessments,
and judgments that we formulate with regard to
reality, others, and ourselves. As these are states
that we can change, it is also possible to alter our
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4166
emotional responses to what happens to us (if and
to what degree we allow our emotions to take con-
trol). Emotional exibility concerning interpreting
everyday challenges helps in viewing instances of
adversity as tests of character (remaining calm in
the face of serious issues), endurance, and creativ-
ity in overcoming diculties. Lowering emotional
involvement also helps to nd rational and eective
solutions to problems, which, in eect, contributes
to an increased sense of trust in oneself. If a situa-
tion is assessed as good, benecial, and appropriate,
positive emotions are felt, and if a situation is cate-
gorized as negative, unfavorable, or inappropriate,
negative emotions are experienced (Mazur 2013).
Therefore, one should strive to limit negative emo-
tions in favor of positive emotions, which translate
into an elevated sense of the quality of life.
As remarked by Eva Illouz, the individual is estab-
lished and institutionalized in modernity by such
means as psychological knowledge related to in-
dividuals. This knowledge is applied, more or less
intentionally, as part of the language of self-de-
scription of individuals and their ways of formu-
lating their goals. In addition, the transformation
of the “I” also involves commodity ow networks.
In a capitalist culture, psychological knowledge is
used to develop and oer services that sell emo-
tional transformations. In a way, emotions are thus
manufactured with the use of knowledge and mar-
ket institutions. “Psychology acts as an intermedi-
ary between knowledge, institutions, the market,
and the ‘I’; it is one of how culture mediates between
the ‘I’ and commodities” (Illouz 2012:13 [trans. RD]).
Psychology manifests in individuals turning to-
wards themselves in a bid to explain why their lives
are not what they want them to be, without includ-
ing social or political institutions in their delibera-
tions. It lends an ontological nature to emotions and
personalities, causing individuals to perceive and
develop themselves and others as xed bundles of
properties and features awaiting discovery. A new
form of subjectivity is thus constructed, one which
has more control over oneself, and is also more
focused on one’s emotions. This view aligns with
neoliberal thinking, which appoints the individual
as the only person responsible for their fulllment,
thus making them fully responsible for their life,
successful or not. Moreover, this self-determina-
tion consists in “managing” experiences and one’s
mood, that is, controlling emotions, which “apart
from the negative requirements (proscriptions) also
entails positive requirements—certain emotions
and aitudes are valued highly, and the individual
is required to express and experience them to a cer-
tain extent” (Dembek 2012:44 [trans. RD]).
Conclusions
In the analyzed publications, Stoicism is referred
to as a project that corresponds with the process of
self-management. This illustrates that individual
lives and biographies are perceived as (self-reex-
ive) projects,18 which have nearly become a contem-
porary form of cultural codes—“recipes” or “formu-
lae” for life, a kind of “cipher” that separates those
who can wield them from those who are not famil-
18 Barbara Skarga (2009:121 [trans. RD]) notes that a project, to
avoid being a copy of a cultural code (given and self-evident)
or a fantasy, requires collective labor—convincing others that
it is feasible. This requires social competency—a project “not
only sketches, draws, and plans something but also proclaims,
evokes emotions, and very often resorts to demagoguery.”
Projects are created especially when hopes are aroused, when
the horizon of imagination is not limited to that which can be
experienced, and in extreme cases, when the world begins to
crumble, break, and collapse. Projects are impermanent and
they often capitalize on desires or imprecise and unarticulat-
ed dreams, and their role is to potentially lead to change and
development. “A project is a product of social imagination, but
one which has not been fossilized in the form of rules, obliga-
tions, and prohibitions, that is, various codes, but one which
has become a medium for ideas” (Skarga 2009:120 [trans. RD]).
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 167
iar with a given behavioral paern (Rapior 2017:25).
Implementing a project requires dening its subse-
quent stages and completing them one after another
(consistently) until one achieves their goal, that is,
happiness and the good life. Various resources are
necessary for this purpose—in this case, Pop Sto-
icism, which William Irvine refers to “as a tool that,
although requires sharpening, not only is useful
but can also have a very positive impact on the lives
of modern people” (Irvine 2020b:21). Stoicism pos-
its that happiness can be achieved by anyone, from
which follows that eective “self-management” is
also available to anyone. Although it is assumed
that we all are equally able to consciously work on
ourselves, it is debatable whether everyone is in-
deed capable of doing so.19 Individualism as a val-
ue, subjectivity, and sense of agency was unknown
to the ancients. Similarly, Athenian democracy was
based on exclusion, whereas modern-day Western
democracies are, on principle, inclusive. The goal
of moral development in classical Stoicism was not
happiness, but eudaimonia (the full meaning of this
term is dicult to explicate). Today, happiness is
a subjective feeling (often a euphoric experience),
while for the ancients, eudaimonia was close to being
objectively measurable (it could be achieved despite
physical or mental suering). Stoic life advice inter-
prets happiness in a more modern way, as an expe-
rience or a type of “self-actualization.” The culture
of individualism disciplines and oppresses in that
it requires self-control and self-actualization, the
dening characteristics of the lifestyle of the new
middle class.
19 William Irvine proves that not everyone has a temperament
compatible with Stoic techniques, and would instead benet
more from Epicureanism or Cynicism. Stoicism may thus be
universally compatible due to its rationalism, but may not ap-
peal to everyone. Martha Nussbaum believes that Stoicism (in
its basic sense) is an indispensable element of modern global
citizenship and should be promoted as the best philosophy of
life (Mazur 2010).
The nature of the popular Stoic project is practical,
selective, and, at times, eclectic. Noticeable is the in-
terweaving of traditional Stoic practices with East-
ern religious elements (e.g., Buddhism)20 or mind-
fulness,21 which leads to the diusion of ideas, and
thus the loss of their originality and detachment
from the context in which they emerged and rst
operated. For the proponents of Stoic practices, the
most important aspect appears to be their utility—
the use of these concepts as a set of hints and tools
for achieving the overarching goal, which is the idea
of the good and happy life. What emerges here is
applying selected Stoic principles and exercises to
a specic aspect of life or individual needs and ex-
pectations, which aligns with the processes of per-
sonalization and customization of consumer goods
as part of capitalist culture. What is striking is that
nearly all analyzed publications emphasize the
pragmatic and functional applications of Stoic ideas
to achieving a narrowly-dened goal, for example,
mental hygiene, stress reduction (Irvine 2020b:81),
emotional intelligence, and psychological resilience
(Seidler 2022:17). As Nancy Sherman notes: “Sto-
icism is not so much a philosophy as a collection of
life hacks for overcoming anxiety, meditations for
curbing anger, exercises for nding stillness and
calm through discourse that chastens a mind: ‘The
pain isn’t due to the thing itself…but to your esti-
mate of it.’ In this mindset, the impact of the out-
er world can fade away as the inner self becomes
a sanctuary. The focus narrows to that self—me, iso-
lated from the social structures that support me or
bring me down” (Sherman 2021).
20 It may be valid to claim that Stoicism is the Western meth-
od of achieving the state experienced by Buddhist monks. For
a comparison of similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism,
see: Stankiewicz 2012.
21 Mindfulness has a special status in Stoicism—it is the essen-
tial spiritual aitude manifested by constant vigilance, pres-
ence of mind, and self-awareness (Hadot 2003).
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4168
The market provides the tools and means necessary
to transform the identity, as well as comprehensive
projects that can be implemented by those looking
for meaning and happiness in life to achieve a partic-
ular eect. That is aimed at individuals who expect
to aain the good life and a high quality of it. Ideas of
dierent provenance are used for that purpose and
diverse sources of inspiration are sought in oriental
religious, spiritual and philosophical systems. One
such source is Stoicism, which assumes the form of
Pop Stoicism when adapted to modern conditions.
Popular Stoicism primarily focuses on proper con-
duct and the meaning of the good life, which is why
it is primarily psychological and not philosophical
in nature. The belief that well-being is contingent
upon that which we can control—judgments and
actions, as well as upon detaching oneself from
that which cannot be controlled (other people, their
opinions, events), is important from the perspective
of individuals in postmodern societies character-
ized by uncertainty and unpredictability. If one of
the measures of postmodern uncertainty is the loss
of material security due to economic crises and the
unpredictability of international relations, the belief
that happiness is independent of external material
factors—prestige or wealth—seems aractive. That,
of course, is an illusion—such expectations are not
completely eliminated, but simply reformulated to
provide a greater subjective sense of agency and
control.
Anderson, Kare. 2012. “Five Reason Why Stoicism Maers
Today.” Forbes, September 28. Retrieved July 05, 2022 (h ps://
www.forbes.com/sites/kareanderson/2012/09/28/ve-reasons-
why-stoicism-maers-today/).
Blokker, Paul and Ulrike Vieten. 2022. “Fear and Uncertainty
in Late Modern Society.” European Journal of Cultural and Politi-
cal Sociology 9/2022:1-6.
Boltanski, Luc and Ève Chiapello. 2007. The New Spirit of Capi-
talism. London, New York: Verso.
Czapiński, Janusz. 2004a. “Psychologiczne teorie szczęścia [Psycho-
logical Theories of Happiness].” Pp. 51-102 in Psychologia pozytywna.
Nauka o szczęściu, zdrowiu, sile i cnotach człowieka [Positive Psychology.
Learning about Happiness, Health, Strength, and Human Virtues], edited
by J. Czapiński. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Czapiński, Janusz. 2004b. “Spotkanie dwóch tradycji: he-
donizmu i eudajmonizmu [When Two Traditions Meet: Hedo-
nism and Eudaimonism].” Pp. 13-17 in Psychologia pozytywna.
Nauka o szczęściu, zdrowiu, sile i cnotach człowieka [Positive Psycholo-
gy. Learning about Happiness, Health, Strength, and Human Virtues],
edited by J. Czapiński. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Dembek, Agata. 2012. “Profesjonali zacja emocji w domu i w pra-
cy – wybrane przejawy problematyzacji emocji w późnym ka-
pitalizmie [Professionalization of Emotions at Home and at
Work—Selected Symptoms of Problematization of Emotions in
Late Capitalism].” Kultura Współczesna 3/2012:42-53.
Diener, Ed. 1984. “Subjective Well-Being.” Psychological Bulletin
3/1984:542-575.
Drozdowski, Rafał et al. 2020. Życie codzienne w czasach pan-
demii. Raport z pierwszego etapu badań [Everyday Life in the Times
of Pandemic. Report from the First Stage of Research]. Poznan: Uni-
wersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Epiktet [Epictetus]. 1961. Diatryby. Encheiridion z dodaniem Frag-
mentów oraz Gnomologium Epiktetowego [Diatribes]. Warsaw: PWN.
Evans, Jules. 2019. “Why Stoicism Has Become So Popular Over
the Last Decade.” Retrieved July 07, 2022 (hps://www.stoicin-
sights.com/philosopher-jules-evans-on-why-stoicism-has-be-
come-so-popular-over-the-last-decade/).
Fabjański, Marcin. 2020. “Medytacja w praktyce lozocznej jako
‘żywa metazyka’ (praktyki medytacyjne w szkole stoickiej) [Med-
References
Renata Dopierała
Qualitative Sociology Review • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org 169
itation in Philosophical Practice as ‘Living Metaphysics’ (Medita-
tion Practices in the Stoic School)].” Folia Philosophica 44/2020:1-9.
Fabjański, Marcin. 2021. Stoicyzm uliczny. Jak oswajać trudne sytuacje
[Street Stoicism. How to Tame Dicult Situations]. Cracow: Znak.
Flood, Alison. 2020. “Dress Rehearsal for Catastrophe: How Stoics
Are Speaking to Locked-Down Readers.” The Guardian, Apr il 16.
Retrieved June 30, 2022. (hps://www.theguardian.com/books/
booksblog/2020/apr/16/how-stoics-are-speaking-to-locked-down-
readers).
Foucault, Michel. 2000. “Techniki siebie [Technlogies of the
Self].” Pp. 247-275 in Filozoa, historia, polityka. Wybór pism [Phi-
losophy, History, Politics. Writings], edited by M. Foucault. War-
saw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Foucault, Michel. 2018. Rządzenie sobą i innymi. Wykłady z Collège
de France 1982–1983 [The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at
the Collège de France, 1982-1983]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and So-
ciety in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hadot, Pierre. 2003. Filozoa jako ćwiczenie duchowe [Philosophy
as a Spiritual Exercise]. Warsaw: Aletheia.
Hadot, Pierre. 2004. Twierdza wewnętrzna. Wprowadzenie do
‘Rozmyślań’ Marka Aureliusza [The Inner Citadel: The ‘Meditations’
of Marcus Aurelius]. Kety: Wydawnictwo Antyk.
Hayborn, Daniel. 2003. “What Do We Want from a Theory of
Happiness?” Metaphilosophy 3/2003:305-329.
Hochschild, Arlie R. 1979. “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and
Social Structure.” The American Journal of Sociology 3/1979:551-575.
Hochschild, Arlie R. 2003. The Managed Heart. Commercialisation
of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Illouz, Eva. 2010. Uczucia w dobie kapitalizmu [Cold Intimacies: The
Making of Emotional Capitalism]. Warsaw: Ocyna Naukowa.
Illouz, Eva. 2012. “Praca ‘Ja’. Z Evą Illouz rozmawiają Agata
Dembek i Mateusz Halawa [The Work of the ‘I.’ Agata Dembek
and Mateusz Halawa Talk to Eva Illouz].” Kultura Współczesna
3/2012:11-17.
Irvine, William B. 2009. A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art
of Stoic Joy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Irvine, William B. 2020a. “Stoicyzm nie ma czynić naszego
życia wygodnym. Ma nam pomóc, by było znośne [Stoicism
Is Not Meant to Make Our Life Comfortable. It Is to Help
Us Make It Bearable].” Wysokie Obcasy, August 08. Retrieved
July 05, 2022 (hps://www.wysokieobcasy.pl/wysokie-obca-
sy/7,157211,26182685,william-b-irvine-stoicyzm-czyni-zycie-
znacznie-znosniejszym.html).
Irvine, William B. 2020b. Wyzwanie stoika. Jak dzięki lozoi
odnaleźć w sobie siłę, spokój i odporność psychiczną [The Stoic Chal-
lenge: A Philosopher’s Guide to Becoming Tougher, Calmer, and More
Resilient]. Cracow: Insignis Media.
Jacyno, Małgorzata. 2007. Kultura indywidualizmu [Culture of In-
dividualism]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Krajewski, Marek and Małgorzata Kubacka. 2020. “Pandemiczne
emocje i radzenie sobie z nimi [Pandemic Emotions and Deal-
ing with Them].” Pp. 58-74 in Życie codzienne w czasach pandemii.
Raport z trzeciego etapu badań [Everyday Life in the Times of Pandem-
ic. Report from the Third Stage of Research], edited by R. Drozdows-
ki et al. Poznan: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Lasch, Christopher. 1979. Culture of Narcissism: American Life in
an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: Norton.
Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna, de. 2021. Godny pożądania stan świado-
mości. O przyjemności jako wartości ostatecznej [A Desirable State of
Consciousness. Pleasure as the Ultimate Value]. Lodz: Wydawnic-
two Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Mazur, Tomasz. 2010. “Współczesna praktyka stoicka [Con-
temporary Stoic Practice].” Przegląd Filozoczny. Nowa Seria
2/2010:235-250.
Mazur, Tomasz. 2013. “‘Stoisz prosty albo cię prostują’. Psycho-
somatyczne podstawy racjonalistycznych praktyk stoickich
[‘You Stand Straight or They Straighten You.’ Psychosomatic
Foundations of Rationalist Stoic Practices].” Filozoa Publiczna i
Edukacja Demokratyczna 1/2013:166-185.
Mazur, Tomasz. 2014. O stawaniu się stoikiem. Czy jesteście gotowi
na sukces? [Becoming a Stoic. Are You Ready for Success?]. Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Paczkowski, Przemysław. 2017. “Stoicka koncepcja ‘wewnętrznej
warowni’ [Stoic Concept of ‘Inner Stronghold’].” Kultura i Wartości
23/2017:49-60.
Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty
©2022 QSR Volume XVIII Issue 4170
Rapior, Waldemar. 2017. Życie w projekcie. Projekt jako narzędzie
przekształcania świata i rama instytucjonalna rzeczywistości społec-
znej [Living in the Project. Project as a Tool for Transforming the
World and the Institutional Framework of Social Reality]. Poznan:
UAM.
Rie, Philip. 1966. The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith
after Freud. New York: Harper & Row.
Rokicka, Ewa. 2013. “Jakość życia – konteksty, koncepcje, in-
terpretacje [Quality of Life—Contexts, Concepts, Interpreta-
tions].” Pp. 159-177 in Nowy ład? Dynamika struktur społecznych
we współczesnych społeczeństwach [New Order? Dynamics of So-
cial Structures in Contemporary Societies], edited by J. Grotows-
ka-Leder. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Rosa, Hartmut. 2013. Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Moder-
nity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rosa, Hartmut. 2020. Przyspieszenie, wyobcowanie, rezonans. Pro-
jekt krytycznej teorii późnonowoczesnej czasowości [Alienation and
Acceleration—Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporali-
ty]. Gdansk: Europejskie Centrum Solidarności.
Rydlewski, Michał. 2020. “Praktyki terapeutyczne jako kapi-
talistyczne techniki siebie. Psychologizacja jako prywatyzacja
problemów psychicznych [Therapeutic Practices as Capitalist
Techniques of Self. Psychologization as the Privatization of
Mental Problems].” Dyskurs & Dialog 2/2020:121-142.
Ry, Carol D. 1989. “Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explo-
rations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 57/1989:1069-1081.
Seidler, Paulina F. 2022. Po prostu spokój. Jak dobrze żyć po stoicku
[Plain Peace. How to Live in a Stoic Way]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo
Zwierciadło.
Sellars, John. 2021. Lekcje stoicyzmu [Lessons in Stoicism]. War-
saw: Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca.
Seneka [Seneca], Lucjusz Anneusz. 2017. Myśli [Reections].
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Aletheia.
Sherman, Nancy. 2021. “If You’re Reading Stoicism for Life
Hacks, You’re Missing the Point.” The New York Times, May 14.
Retrieved June 30, 2022 (hps://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/
opinion/stoics-self-help.html).
Skarga, Barbara. 2009. Tercet metazyczny [Metaphysical Trio].
Cracow: Znak.
Stachowiak, Jerzy. 2014. “O koncepcji nowego ducha kapital-
izmu w ujęciu Luca Boltanskiego i Ève Chiapello [On the New
Spirit of Capitalism as Approached by Luc Boltanski and Ève
Chiapello].” Przegląd Socjologiczny 4/2014:9-43.
Stankiewicz, Piotr. 2012. “Stoicyzm i buddyzm zen. Sześć podo-
bieństw i sześć różnic [Stoicism and Zen Buddhism. Six Similar-
ities and Six Dierences].” Edukacja Filozoczna 54/2012:135-148.
Stankiewicz, Piotr. 2014. Sztuka życia według stoików [The Art of
Living according to the Stoics]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo WAB.
Stefaniuk, Tomasz. 2017. “Popular Stoicism. A New Ch ance for Prac-
tical Philosophy or Mere Illusion?” Kultura i Wartości 24/2017:45 -69.
Tatarkiewicz, Władysław. 1962. O szczęściu [On Happiness].
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Tatarkiewicz, Władysław. 1966. “Happiness and Time.” Philos -
ophy and Phenomenological Research 1/1966:1-10.
Tatarkiewicz, Władysław. 2002. Historia lozoi. Tom 1 [The Histo -
ry of Philosophy, vol. 1]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Zawadzka, Anna M. 2014. “Wartości, cele i dobrostan w kultu-
rze konsumpcji [Values, Goals, and Well-Being in the Culture
of Consumption].” Pp. 15-37 in Kultura konsumpcji – wartości,
cele, dobrostan. Psychologiczne aspekty zjawiska [Culture of Con-
sumption—Values, Goals, Well-Being. Psychological Aspects of the
Phenomenon], edited by A. M. Zawadzka, M. Niesobędzka, and
D. Godlewska-Werner. Warsaw: Liberi Libri.
Zubo, Shoshana. 2020. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The
Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York:
Ingram Publisher Services.
Citation
Dopierała, Renata. 2022. “Popular Stoicism in the Face of Social Uncertainty.” Qualitative Sociology Review 18(4):154-170. R etr ieved
Month, Year (hp://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/archive_eng.php). DOI: hps://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.18.4.08
Renata Dopierała
