Danish psychologist Sven Brinkman that the constant attempts to "think believes positively" and "become the best version of yourself" led people to an epidemic of depression. In his opinion, it is high time to fire coaches and start reading good fiction novels instead of literature on self-development.
The tyranny of the positive
Barbara Held, an eminent American professor of psychology, has long criticized what she calls the "tyranny of the positive." According to her, the idea of positive thinking is especially widespread in the United States, but in many other Western countries in homegrown psychology there is an opinion that one should "think positively", "focus on internal resources" and consider problems as interesting "challenges." Even seriously ill people are expected to "learn" from their illness and, ideally, become stronger. In countless books on self-development and “stories of suffering”, people with physical and mental disabilities say that they would not want to avoid a crisis, because they learned a lot from it. I think a lot of those who are seriously ill or are going through another life crisis feel the pressure to be positive about the situation. But very few say out loud that actually being sick is terrible and it would be better if this never happened to them. Usually the title of such books looks like this: "How I Survived Stress and What I Learned", and you are unlikely to find the book "How I Was Stressed And Nothing Good Came Out Of It." We not only experience stress, get sick and die, but also have to think that all this teaches and enriches us a lot. and you are unlikely to find the book "How I Was Stressed And Nothing Good Came Out Of It." We not only experience stress, get sick and die, but also have to think that all this teaches and enriches us a lot. and you are unlikely to find the book "
If, like me, it seems to you that something is clearly wrong here, then you should learn to pay more attention to the negative and thus fight the tyranny of the positive. This will give you additional support to stand firmly on your feet. We need to regain our right to think that sometimes things are just bad, period. Fortunately, many psychologists have come to realize this, such as the critical psychologist Bruce Levin. In his opinion, the first way that health professionals exacerbate people's problems is by advising victims to change their attitude towards the situation. "Just look at it positively!" Is one of the worst phrases you can say to someone in need. By the way, the tenth place in Levin's list is "depoliticizing human suffering."
Positive psychology
As stated, Barbara Held is one of the most vocal critics of positive psychology. This area of research began to develop rapidly in the late nineties. Positive psychology can be seen as a scientific reflection of the obsession with the positive in modern culture. It flourished in 1998 when Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association. Prior to that, he was best known for his theory of learned helplessness as a factor in depression. Learned helplessness is a state of apathy or, at any rate, a lack of will to change the painful experience, even when the pain can be avoided. This theory was based on experiments in which dogs were electrocuted.
Positive psychology no longer focuses on human problems and suffering, which was characteristic of this science in the past (Seligman sometimes calls conventional psychology "negative"). Rather, it is a scientific study of the good aspects of life and human nature. In particular, it examines the question of what happiness is, how to achieve it, and what positive character traits exist. As president of the association, Seligman took advantage of his position to promote positive psychology. He succeeded so well that now there are even separate educational programs, centers and scientific journals devoted to this topic. Few, if any, concepts in psychology have spread so rapidly and widely to the masses. That,
Of course, it's perfectly okay to study the factors that make our lives better and increase productivity. However, in the hands of coaches and coaches - or enthusiastic leaders who have completed short courses in "positive leadership" - positive psychology is quickly becoming a convenient tool for suppressing criticism. Sociologist Rasmus Willig even talks about positive fascism, which, in his opinion, manifests itself both in positive thinking and in the concept of a positive approach to change. This concept describes a form of mind control that occurs when a person is allowed to think about life only in a positive way.
From my own experience, I can add that the most negative experience of conducting scientific discussions, undoubtedly, is connected with me precisely with positive psychology. A couple of years ago, I criticized positive psychology in a women's magazine and newspaper, and the reaction was very violent and unexpected. Three Danish professionals who are professionally engaged in positive psychology (and whose names I will not name here), accused me of "scientific bad faith" and sent a complaint to the management of my university. Scientific malpractice is the most serious charge in the scientific system. The complaint stated that I was putting positive psychology in an unambiguously bad light and that I was deliberately confusing field of study with practical application. Fortunately, the university flatly rejected the complaint, but I was greatly disturbed by this reaction. Instead of writing a letter to the editor and entering into an open discussion, positive psychologists decided to denigrate me as a professional in front of the university leadership. I mentioned this incident because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave in this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here.
Positive, constructive, receptive leader
If you have ever encountered positive psychology (for example, while studying, at work, at staff development events) and you were asked to talk about successes, when you wanted to discuss an annoying problem, then you may have felt uncomfortable, although did not understand why. Who doesn't want to be a productive and competent specialist and develop further? In any case, today's leaders willingly evaluate and reward their subordinates. […]
The modern leader no longer acts as a tough and strong authority who gives orders and makes decisions. He practices a form of soft power, "inviting" employees to talk about "success" in order to "maximize their job satisfaction." Forget that there is still a clear asymmetry of power between management and subordinates, and some goals are much more real than others. For example, recently, at my (otherwise wonderful) work, they proposed to formulate a "vision" of the development of our institute. When I said that we need to strive to become an average institution, there was no enthusiasm. I meant that this is a realistic and achievable goal for a small university in a Danish province. But now everything should be "world-class" or be included in the "top-5", and the way there, undoubtedly, is available only to those who is focused on opportunities and successes. This can be called a forced positive. Only the best is good, and in order to achieve it, you just need to not be afraid to dream and think positively.
Victim blame
As critics of the positive positive, including the aforementioned Barbara Held, argue, over-focusing on the positive can lead to the phenomenon of "blaming the victim." This means that all kinds of human suffering or troubles are explained by the fact that a person is not optimistic and positive about life or that he does not have enough "positive illusions" that some psychologists, including Seligman, advocate. Positive illusions are a person's inner ideas about himself, slightly distorted for the better. That is, a person considers himself a little smarter, more capable and more efficient than he really is. The results of the study (although they are not entirely unambiguous) suggest that people who suffer from depression actually see themselves more realistically than those who do not suffer from depression. However, there are fears that, due to a positive approach, society requires people to be positive and happy, and this paradoxically creates suffering, as many feel guilty if they are not always happy and successful. […]
Another reason for criticism, which is nevertheless related to the previous one, is the underestimation of the role of context, which is characteristic of some aspects of a positive approach. If it is argued that a person's happiness does not depend on external factors (socio-economic situation, and so on), which supposedly play a very insignificant role, but on internal factors, then you yourself are to blame if you are unhappy. As Seligman writes in his bestseller In Search of Happiness, the level of happiness is only 8-15% determined by external circumstances - for example, a person lives in a democracy or dictatorship, rich or poor, healthy or sick, educated or not. The most important source of happiness, Seligman argues, lies in "internal factors" that are amenable to "conscious control." For example, you can create positive feelings, gratitude, forgive offenders, be optimistic, and, of course, rely on your key strengths that each person has. It turns out that in order to become happy, you need to find your strengths, realize them and develop positive feelings in yourself. The emphasized meaning of "inner", which supposedly lends itself to conscious control, leads to the emergence of a problematic ideology, according to which you just need to keep up with others and develop - in particular, develop the ability to positive thinking in order to survive in a culture of acceleration.
Grumbling
Barbara Held offers an alternative to forced positivity - complaints. She even wrote a book on how to learn to grumble. This is a kind of self-development literature for the complainer. The book is called Stop Smiling, Start Kvetching. "Kvetch" is a Yiddish word, and most accurately translated as "grumbling." I am not an expert on Jewish culture (almost all of my knowledge about it I got from the films of Woody Allen), but it seems to me that the tradition of complaining about everything and everything contributes to happiness and satisfaction. How nice to get together and frolic! This provides extensive topics of conversation and a certain sense of solidarity.
The main idea of Held's book is that in life everything is never absolutely good. Sometimes things just aren't that bad. This means that there will always be reasons for complaints. Real estate prices are falling - you can complain about the depreciation of capital. If real estate prices are rising, you can complain about how everyone around you superficially discusses growing capital. Life is hard, but according to Held, that in itself is not a problem. The problem is that we are made to think that life is not difficult. When asked how you are doing, we are expected to say, "Everything is great!" Although in reality everything is very bad, because your husband cheated on you. Learning to focus on the negative - and complain about it - can develop a mechanism within yourself that helps make life more bearable. However, grumbling is not only a way to deal with difficult situations. The freedom to complain is tied to the ability to face reality and accept it for what it is. This gives us human dignity, in contrast to the behavior of the eternally positive person who vehemently insists that there is no bad weather (only bad clothes). It happens, it happens, Mr. Lucky. And how nice it is to complain about the weather while sitting at home with a mug of hot tea!
We need to regain our right to grumble, even if it doesn't lead to positive change. But if it can lead to them, then all the more important. And notice that grumbling is always outward. We complain about the weather, the politicians, the football team. We are not to blame, but they are! A positive approach, on the contrary, is directed inward - if something is wrong, you need to work on yourself and your motivation. We ourselves are to blame for everything. Unemployed people should not complain about the welfare system - otherwise they can be considered lazy - after all, you can simply pull yourself together, start thinking positively and find a job. You just have to "believe in yourself" - but this is a one-sided approach that reduces the most important social, political and economic problems to the question of the motivation and positivity of the individual. […]
The tyranny of the positive
Barbara Held, an eminent American professor of psychology, has long criticized what she calls the "tyranny of the positive." According to her, the idea of positive thinking is especially widespread in the United States, but in many other Western countries in homegrown psychology there is an opinion that one should "think positively", "focus on internal resources" and consider problems as interesting "challenges." Even seriously ill people are expected to "learn" from their illness and, ideally, become stronger. In countless books on self-development and “stories of suffering”, people with physical and mental disabilities say that they would not want to avoid a crisis, because they learned a lot from it. I think a lot of those who are seriously ill or are going through another life crisis feel the pressure to be positive about the situation. But very few say out loud that actually being sick is terrible and it would be better if this never happened to them. Usually the title of such books looks like this: "How I Survived Stress and What I Learned", and you are unlikely to find the book "How I Was Stressed And Nothing Good Came Out Of It." We not only experience stress, get sick and die, but also have to think that all this teaches and enriches us a lot. and you are unlikely to find the book "How I Was Stressed And Nothing Good Came Out Of It." We not only experience stress, get sick and die, but also have to think that all this teaches and enriches us a lot. and you are unlikely to find the book "
If, like me, it seems to you that something is clearly wrong here, then you should learn to pay more attention to the negative and thus fight the tyranny of the positive. This will give you additional support to stand firmly on your feet. We need to regain our right to think that sometimes things are just bad, period. Fortunately, many psychologists have come to realize this, such as the critical psychologist Bruce Levin. In his opinion, the first way that health professionals exacerbate people's problems is by advising victims to change their attitude towards the situation. "Just look at it positively!" Is one of the worst phrases you can say to someone in need. By the way, the tenth place in Levin's list is "depoliticizing human suffering."
Positive psychology
As stated, Barbara Held is one of the most vocal critics of positive psychology. This area of research began to develop rapidly in the late nineties. Positive psychology can be seen as a scientific reflection of the obsession with the positive in modern culture. It flourished in 1998 when Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association. Prior to that, he was best known for his theory of learned helplessness as a factor in depression. Learned helplessness is a state of apathy or, at any rate, a lack of will to change the painful experience, even when the pain can be avoided. This theory was based on experiments in which dogs were electrocuted.
Positive psychology no longer focuses on human problems and suffering, which was characteristic of this science in the past (Seligman sometimes calls conventional psychology "negative"). Rather, it is a scientific study of the good aspects of life and human nature. In particular, it examines the question of what happiness is, how to achieve it, and what positive character traits exist. As president of the association, Seligman took advantage of his position to promote positive psychology. He succeeded so well that now there are even separate educational programs, centers and scientific journals devoted to this topic. Few, if any, concepts in psychology have spread so rapidly and widely to the masses. That,
Of course, it's perfectly okay to study the factors that make our lives better and increase productivity. However, in the hands of coaches and coaches - or enthusiastic leaders who have completed short courses in "positive leadership" - positive psychology is quickly becoming a convenient tool for suppressing criticism. Sociologist Rasmus Willig even talks about positive fascism, which, in his opinion, manifests itself both in positive thinking and in the concept of a positive approach to change. This concept describes a form of mind control that occurs when a person is allowed to think about life only in a positive way.
From my own experience, I can add that the most negative experience of conducting scientific discussions, undoubtedly, is connected with me precisely with positive psychology. A couple of years ago, I criticized positive psychology in a women's magazine and newspaper, and the reaction was very violent and unexpected. Three Danish professionals who are professionally engaged in positive psychology (and whose names I will not name here), accused me of "scientific bad faith" and sent a complaint to the management of my university. Scientific malpractice is the most serious charge in the scientific system. The complaint stated that I was putting positive psychology in an unambiguously bad light and that I was deliberately confusing field of study with practical application. Fortunately, the university flatly rejected the complaint, but I was greatly disturbed by this reaction. Instead of writing a letter to the editor and entering into an open discussion, positive psychologists decided to denigrate me as a professional in front of the university leadership. I mentioned this incident because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave in this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. because I see a certain irony in the fact that positive psychologists so actively avoid open scientific discussion. Apparently, there are still limits to openness and a positive approach! (Fortunately, I hasten to add, not all representatives of positive psychology behave this way.) Paradoxically, this incident confirmed my idea of the tyranny of the positive. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here. Negativity and criticism (especially of the most positive psychology!) Must be eradicated. Obviously, any means are good here.
Positive, constructive, receptive leader
If you have ever encountered positive psychology (for example, while studying, at work, at staff development events) and you were asked to talk about successes, when you wanted to discuss an annoying problem, then you may have felt uncomfortable, although did not understand why. Who doesn't want to be a productive and competent specialist and develop further? In any case, today's leaders willingly evaluate and reward their subordinates. […]
The modern leader no longer acts as a tough and strong authority who gives orders and makes decisions. He practices a form of soft power, "inviting" employees to talk about "success" in order to "maximize their job satisfaction." Forget that there is still a clear asymmetry of power between management and subordinates, and some goals are much more real than others. For example, recently, at my (otherwise wonderful) work, they proposed to formulate a "vision" of the development of our institute. When I said that we need to strive to become an average institution, there was no enthusiasm. I meant that this is a realistic and achievable goal for a small university in a Danish province. But now everything should be "world-class" or be included in the "top-5", and the way there, undoubtedly, is available only to those who is focused on opportunities and successes. This can be called a forced positive. Only the best is good, and in order to achieve it, you just need to not be afraid to dream and think positively.
Victim blame
As critics of the positive positive, including the aforementioned Barbara Held, argue, over-focusing on the positive can lead to the phenomenon of "blaming the victim." This means that all kinds of human suffering or troubles are explained by the fact that a person is not optimistic and positive about life or that he does not have enough "positive illusions" that some psychologists, including Seligman, advocate. Positive illusions are a person's inner ideas about himself, slightly distorted for the better. That is, a person considers himself a little smarter, more capable and more efficient than he really is. The results of the study (although they are not entirely unambiguous) suggest that people who suffer from depression actually see themselves more realistically than those who do not suffer from depression. However, there are fears that, due to a positive approach, society requires people to be positive and happy, and this paradoxically creates suffering, as many feel guilty if they are not always happy and successful. […]
Another reason for criticism, which is nevertheless related to the previous one, is the underestimation of the role of context, which is characteristic of some aspects of a positive approach. If it is argued that a person's happiness does not depend on external factors (socio-economic situation, and so on), which supposedly play a very insignificant role, but on internal factors, then you yourself are to blame if you are unhappy. As Seligman writes in his bestseller In Search of Happiness, the level of happiness is only 8-15% determined by external circumstances - for example, a person lives in a democracy or dictatorship, rich or poor, healthy or sick, educated or not. The most important source of happiness, Seligman argues, lies in "internal factors" that are amenable to "conscious control." For example, you can create positive feelings, gratitude, forgive offenders, be optimistic, and, of course, rely on your key strengths that each person has. It turns out that in order to become happy, you need to find your strengths, realize them and develop positive feelings in yourself. The emphasized meaning of "inner", which supposedly lends itself to conscious control, leads to the emergence of a problematic ideology, according to which you just need to keep up with others and develop - in particular, develop the ability to positive thinking in order to survive in a culture of acceleration.
Grumbling
Barbara Held offers an alternative to forced positivity - complaints. She even wrote a book on how to learn to grumble. This is a kind of self-development literature for the complainer. The book is called Stop Smiling, Start Kvetching. "Kvetch" is a Yiddish word, and most accurately translated as "grumbling." I am not an expert on Jewish culture (almost all of my knowledge about it I got from the films of Woody Allen), but it seems to me that the tradition of complaining about everything and everything contributes to happiness and satisfaction. How nice to get together and frolic! This provides extensive topics of conversation and a certain sense of solidarity.
The main idea of Held's book is that in life everything is never absolutely good. Sometimes things just aren't that bad. This means that there will always be reasons for complaints. Real estate prices are falling - you can complain about the depreciation of capital. If real estate prices are rising, you can complain about how everyone around you superficially discusses growing capital. Life is hard, but according to Held, that in itself is not a problem. The problem is that we are made to think that life is not difficult. When asked how you are doing, we are expected to say, "Everything is great!" Although in reality everything is very bad, because your husband cheated on you. Learning to focus on the negative - and complain about it - can develop a mechanism within yourself that helps make life more bearable. However, grumbling is not only a way to deal with difficult situations. The freedom to complain is tied to the ability to face reality and accept it for what it is. This gives us human dignity, in contrast to the behavior of the eternally positive person who vehemently insists that there is no bad weather (only bad clothes). It happens, it happens, Mr. Lucky. And how nice it is to complain about the weather while sitting at home with a mug of hot tea!
We need to regain our right to grumble, even if it doesn't lead to positive change. But if it can lead to them, then all the more important. And notice that grumbling is always outward. We complain about the weather, the politicians, the football team. We are not to blame, but they are! A positive approach, on the contrary, is directed inward - if something is wrong, you need to work on yourself and your motivation. We ourselves are to blame for everything. Unemployed people should not complain about the welfare system - otherwise they can be considered lazy - after all, you can simply pull yourself together, start thinking positively and find a job. You just have to "believe in yourself" - but this is a one-sided approach that reduces the most important social, political and economic problems to the question of the motivation and positivity of the individual. […]
