Thinking through Positive Psychology - SAGE Journals

INTRODUCTION

Thinking through Positive Psychology John Chambers Christopher MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY

Frank C. Richardson UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Brent D. Slife BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT. Positive psychology offers a needed corrective to deficiencies in mainstream psychology. However, there have been relatively few attempts to systematically analyze and assess this movement. This special issue examines the conceptual underpinnings and guiding ideals of positive psychology. Generally, these articles conclude that positive psychologists have not dealt adequately with the challenge of rendering credible and illuminating accounts of human flourishing in a post-positivist era and in a pluralistic society. The authors suggest ways we might better meet this challenge, allowing us to discuss questions of human agency, character, and the good life despite quite different views of them across historical eras and cultures. We hope this will help fulfill some of the aims of positive psychology. KEY WORDS: critical psychology, cultural psychology, flourishing, good life, happiness, individualism, ontology, philosophy of social science, positive psychology, well-being

During his tenure as President of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman (1998a) challenged psychologists to create a ‘science of strength and virtue’ that would ‘nurture what is best within ourselves’ (p. 1). To accomplish such a goal, Seligman, along with Mihály Csikszentmihályi, proposed that we cultivate a new field of positive psychology that can ‘articulate a vision of the good life that is empirically sound while being understandable and attractive,’ one that would appeal both to social scientists and to the general public (Seligman & Csikszentmihályi, 2000, p. 5). Positive

THEORY & PSYCHOLOGY Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications. VOL. 18(5): 555–561 DOI: 10.1177/0959354308093395 http://tap.sagepub.com

556

THEORY

& PSYCHOLOGY 18(5)

psychology is potentially a very influential movement. It has attracted a great deal of interest and received a lot of positive press, but has scarcely been critically assessed by psychologists or others. The main purpose of the articles in this special issue, ‘Thinking Through Positive Psychology,’ is to uncover, articulate, and critically assess the key conceptual and moral underpinnings of this movement. As envisioned by Seligman (1998b, 1998c), positive psychology has three primary goals. The first is to delineate and measure positive traits ‘that transcend particular cultures and politics and approach universality’ (Seligman, 1998c, p. 1), thus putting us in a position to begin ‘building’ human strengths, civic virtues, and the ‘good life.’ The second goal is to promote positive experiences and emotions. The third is to create more positive communities and institutions that will embody and promote these strengths and experiences. There is a strong case to be made that positive psychology does not escape many of the problems and shortcomings that afflict the sort of conventional psychology it seeks to transform. For example, preliminary critiques suggest that it tends to neglect the cultural embeddedness of all human activities (Christopher, 1999; Guignon, 2002; Held, 2002; Woolfolk, 2002) and that it reflects the sort of one-sided individualism that many critics have argued significantly distorted much of psychology in the 20th century (e.g., Cushman, 1995; Richardson, Fowers, & Guignon, 1999; Sampson, 1977, 1988; Spence, 1985, Taylor, 1985). Surely, it is important to examine more closely the philosophical foundations and ethical thrust of this influential new movement. As editors of this volume, we are sympathetic with many of the goals of positive psychology. But we are concerned that as it is currently conceived it may not be adequate to foster even its own best aims. The primary intent of this special issue is to raise challenging questions about the current program of positive psychology and to suggest modified conceptual underpinnings for any such enterprise. We will explore key issues concerning what it means to render accounts of human behavior and experience in a post-positivist era, how we can speak to questions of human character and the good life in a pluralistic society, and how we can clarify the nature of human agency and responsibility despite quite different views of them across cultures. Thus far, positive psychology gives only limited attention to these issues. We argue, however, that only by addressing them in depth can positive psychology truly serve psychology and society and avoid becoming another passing fad with few lasting beneficial consequences. Many of the articles in this issue present critiques of the positive psychology movement and its key ideas. Because of the rapid growth of this movement and the rush of psychologists to repackage their work under the rubric of positive psychology, it would be impossible to address the entire body of research associated with it. Instead, these articles provide an analysis of influential and representative strands within the larger field of positive

CHRISTOPHER ET AL.: THINKING THROUGH POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

557

psychology. One main theme that runs through these critiques is that positive psychology fails to take into account fully its own cultural context. It tends to argue for and recommend ethical values and mental health ideals that reflect the one-sided individualism of American society with its stress on personal autonomy and individually-defined fulfillment. Even when it incorporates values and virtues from other moral or spiritual outlooks, it tends to present them as valuable mainly because they serve as means to such individual ends, an instrumental rationale that itself reflects the biases— some would say unduly calculating and individualistic ones—of our culture. Positive psychology overly hastily and somewhat naïvely universalizes its particular cultural preferences and ideals as good for or applicable to all human communities. One result of this approach, as the first two articles in this special issue argue (Becker & Marecek, 2008; Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008), is that positive psychology may inadvertently collude with some of the less desirable or even psychologically problematic aspects of our current way of life. The sort of individualism and instrumentalism it sometimes uncritically assumes and perpetuates has been linked by many psychologists and others to emotional isolation, elevated stress, higher rates of depression, various personality disorders, and other emotional ills in Western society (e.g., Becker, 2005; Frank & Frank, 1991; Gergen, 1991; Hillman & Ventura, 1992; Schumacher, 2001; Smith, 1990). Moreover, unlike mainstream positive psychology, many cultural and moral traditions, both non-Western and Western (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, communitarian social thought, transpersonal psychology), define their sense of identity in terms of belonging to wider communal and/or spiritual realities and place a greater emphasis on learning from and finding meaning in suffering rather than seeking at all costs to eliminate it. They suggest that the way to broaden and deepen our psychology (and indeed our way of life itself) is not by pronouncing one’s theory universal and ‘scientifically’ grounded, but through careful, sustained, mutually respectful dialogue with other cultures and points of view. Social science theory and research no doubt have a lot to contribute to such an interchange, but they must engage in it in a full and searching manner. A second cluster of articles in this special issue explores alternative theoretical or philosophical frameworks within which we might fruitfully rethink positive psychology’s goals and methods (Christopher & Campbell, 2008; Fowers, 2008; Richardson & Guignon, 2008; Slife & Richardson, 2008; Sundararajan, 2008). These articles draw on what we take to be cutting-edge perspectives in philosophy and social theory to develop a more adequate theoretical foundation for inquiry into the questions positive psychologists have raised about psychology and the good life. They try to address the need identified by positive psychologists to put forward an approach to scientific and professional psychology that is more affirmative, health-oriented, and ethically substantive, and that speaks to current cultural dilemmas and needs.

558

THEORY

& PSYCHOLOGY 18(5)

However, this second cluster of articles seeks to do this in a way that is more sensitive to cultural context, that might help correct the one-sided individualism and instrumentalism that seem to imbue positive psychology, and that might allow us to theorize about basic human needs and capacities in a way that avoids the interpretation and hasty over-generalization of research findings based on current cultural ideals. Positive psychology, under the prompting of Seligman, maintains that it is possible to pursue psychology as a kind of descriptive or objective science that avoids prescriptive recommendations. All of the articles in the special issue challenge this contention. Several argue that despite Seligman’s efforts to be solely descriptive, he clearly endorses and promotes a number of substantive moral and cultural values and outlooks. Richardson and Guignon (2008) propose an interpretive or hermeneutic approach to social theory and psychology that acknowledges our inescapable commitment to some set of cultural and moral values. The article then proceeds to explore how, in the face of the ineluctable presence of cultural influences in the human sciences, a more culturally sensitive and critically incisive psychology might still achieve gains in understanding and wisdom, albeit never final or certain ones. The remaining articles elaborate a general approach of this sort. Fowers (2008) draws on a variety of new resources in the humanities and moral philosophy, especially recent renovations of virtue ethics, to consider how Aristotelian notions of virtue could be more adroitly applied to issue of human flourishing. Sundararajan (2008) explores the relevance of Asian conceptions of the good life to positive psychology. Summarizing several Chinese and Indian philosophies and related contemplative practices, this article discusses non-Western conceptions of indigenous positive psychologies that rely on quite different understandings of the self. Christopher and Campbell (2008) integrate the philosophical hermeneutics of Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Charles Taylor with the interactivist perspective of Mark Bickhard to outline a plausible metatheory for the investigation of positive psychology topics. This metatheory contends that the development of goals, values, and the self involves ascension through levels of knowing. Consequently, positive psychological inquiry will have to do more than just account for conscious and unconscious functioning; it will need to acknowledge multiple levels of human functioning and it will need to produce or adopt methods adequate to assess what is going on at each level. Finally, Slife and Richardson (2008) consider insights into the fundamentally relational nature of the human mind and human action that have emerged in recent years in a number of scholarly arenas, including the humanities, psychoanalysis, theology, physics, and theoretical psychology. These authors outline a fundamentally relational ontology and suggest ways it might helpfully guide research and theory in pursuit of the aims of a more positive psychology.


559

We hope this special issue will foster a genuine thinking through of positive psychology. References Becker, D. (2005). The myth of empowerment: Women and the therapeutic culture in America. New York: New York University Press. Becker, D., & Marecek, J. (2008). Positive psychology: History in the remaking? Theory & Psychology, 18, 591–604. Christopher, J.C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 141–152. Christopher, J.C., & Campbell, R.L. (2008). An interactivist-hermeneutic metatheory for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 675–697. Christopher, J.C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & Psychology, 18, 563–589. Cushman, P. (1995). Constructing the self, constructing America: A cultural history of psychotherapy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fowers, B.J. (2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity, and character types for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18, 629–653. Frank, J.D., & Frank, J.B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. Guignon, C. (2002). Hermeneutics, authenticity and the aims of psychology. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 22, 83–102. Held, B.S. (2002). The tyranny of the positive attitude in America: Observation and speculation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 965–992. Hillman, J., & Ventura, M. (1992). We’ve had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world’s getting worse. San Francisco: Harper. Richardson, F.C., Fowers, B.J., & Guignon, C.B. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richardson, F.C., & Guignon, C.B. (2008). Positive psychology and philosophy of social science. Theory & Psychology, 18, 605–627. Sampson, E.E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35, 767–782. Sampson, E.E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15–22. Schumaker, J. (2001). The age of insanity: Modernity and mental health. Westport, CT: Praeger. Seligman, M.E.P. (1998a). President’s column: Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA Monitor, 29(1), 1. Seligman, M.E.P. (1998b). President’s column: Positive social science. APA Monitor, 29(4), 1.

560

THEORY

& PSYCHOLOGY 18(5)

Seligman, M.E.P. (1998c). President’s column: What is the ‘good life’? APA Monitor, 29(10), 1. Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihályi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. Slife, B.D., & Richardson, F.C. (2008). Problematic ontological underpinnings of positive psychology: A strong relational alternative. Theory & Psychology, 18, 699–723. Smith, M.B. (1990). Psychology in the public interest: What have we done? What can we do? American Psychologist, 45, 530–536. Spence, J.T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of individualism. American Psychologist, 40, 1285–1295. Sundararajan, L. (2008). Toward a reflexive positive psychology: Insights from the Chinese Buddhist notion of emptiness. Theory & Psychology, 18, 655–674. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers: Vol. 2. Philosophy and the human sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press. Woolfolk, R.L. (2002). The power of negative thinking: Truth, melancholia, and the tragic sense of life. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 19–27. JOHN CHAMBERS CHRISTOPHER is a Professor of Counseling Psychology in the Department of Health and Human Development at Montana State University and a senior staff psychologist at MSU’s Counseling Center. He is the recipient of the 2003 Sigmund Koch Early Career Award by the Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology of the American Psychological Association. John also received the 2007 Wiley Research Award from Montana State University. He also maintains a private psychotherapy and consultation practice, Habits of the Heart. ADDRESS: Health and Human Development, 220 Herrick Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA. [email: [email protected]] FRANK C. RICHARDSON is Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas. He is co-author of Re-envisioning Psychology (JosseyBass, 1999) and Stress, Sanity and Survival (Sovereign Books, 1978) and co-editor of Critical Thinking about Psychology (APA Books, 2005). He is a recent Past-President of Division 24 (Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. ADDRESS: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA. [email: [email protected]] BRENT D. SLIFE is currently Professor of Psychology at Brigham Young University, where he chairs the doctoral program in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology and is a member of the doctoral program in Clinical Psychology. Recently honored with the Eliza R. Snow and Karl G. Maeser awards for Outstanding Scholarship, he was also distinguished as ‘Teacher of the Year’ by the university and ‘Most Outstanding Professor’ by the Psychology Honorary, Psi Chi. As a Fellow of several professional organizations, he has served as the President of the Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology and on the editorial boards of six journals. He has authored over 120 articles and books, including Critical Thinking about Psychology (APA Books, 2005), Taking Sides (McGraw-Hill, 2007), Critical Issues in


561

Psychotherapy (SAGE, 2001), What’s behind the Research? (SAGE, 1995), and Time and Psychological Explanation (SUNY Press, 1993). ADDRESS: Department of Psychology, 1072 SWKT, Brigham Young University, Provo UT 84602–5378, USA. [email: [email protected]]