This article explores three ways in which the positive psychology movement’s construction and presentation of itself are negative. First, the negative side is construed as the negative side effects of positive psychology’s dominant, separatist message. Second, the negative side is construed as the negativity that can be found within the positive psychology movement. Here the author elaborates on the negative or dismissive reactions of some spokespersons for the movement to ideas or views that run counter to the movement’s dominant message: (a) negativity about negativity itself, which is explored by way of research in health psychology and coping styles; and (b) negativity about the wrong kind of positivity, namely, allegedly unscientific positivity, especially that which Seligman purports to find within humanistic psychology. This constitutes an epistemological position that contributes to “reality problems” for positive psychologists. The author concludes with the implications of positive psychology’s “Declaration of Independence” for psychology’s much discussed fragmentation woes. She appeals to the wisdom of William James for guidance in finding a third, more positive meaning of positive psychology’s negative side. This third meaning can be gleaned from a not-yet-dominant but more integrative message emerging within the movement, one compatible with the reactions of some humanistic psychologists to positive psychology.

A primary target of Indigenous psychologists and critical psychologists is the epistemic violence found in mainstream research. The epistemic violence derives from two alleged mainstream tendencies: (a) omitting concepts/conceptions of othered peoples and (b) interpreting observed group differences to be caused by inherent inferiorities of othered peoples. In seeking remedial research practice, some theoretical psychologists distinguish (a) psychological knowledge from and for the folk, which they advocate and (b) psychological “knowledge” about the folk, the alleged source of objectification of othered peoples. Though seemingly self-evident, this for/about prepositional divide may not be clear. First, mainstream epistemic violence often depends on folk notions. Second, the use in science of folk concepts/conceptions has advanced oppressive purposes, whereas some mainstream findings may serve progressive goals. I exemplify with race concepts, especially racialized essentialism and dehumanization, and I demonstrate how mainstream science sometimes reveals mechanisms of othering that may inform progressive social reform efforts.

According to both popular and professional indicators, the push for the positive attitude in America is on the rise. After considering the popular culture zeitgeist, I compare and contrast two recent professional psychology movements-those of positive psychology and postmodern therapy-both of which rest on a foundation of optimism and positive thinking despite their opposing views about a proper philosophy of science. I then present cross-cultural empirical research that calls into question the typical (North American) assumption that a positive attitude is necessary for (a sense of) well-being. I also consider findings in health psychology, clinical/counseling psychology, and organizational behavioral science, findings which call into question the assumption that accentuating the positive (and eliminating the negative) is necessarily beneficial in terms of physical and mental health. The clinical/therapeutic implications of this analysis are addressed, as I put forth my conjecture about the existence of what I call the "tyranny of the positive attitude" in the form of a question: If there indeed now exists unprecedented pressure to accentuate the positive, could it then be that the pressure itself to be happy and optimistic contributes to at least some forms of unhappiness?

No abstract

How have spokespersons for the positive psychology movement presented the movement to the public and to the profession of psychology? Moreover, what are the consequences for psychology of that presentation? These questions inform my assessment of the "virtues" of positive psychology, which I interpret in two ways. First, there are the ways in which the movement implicitly presents itself as virtuous, not least by constituting itself as a corrective to "negative psychology." Second, there are the ways in which Martin Seligman, in calling for a new and discrete scientific enterprise, promotes building "signature strengths" as routes to virtue and thus "authentic happiness." Alternative ways to conceptualize virtue and authenticity are considered, as are the epistemic problems that inhere in movements in general, and the positive psychology movement in particular.In his books Authentic Happiness (Seligman, 2002a) and Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), Martin Seligman, founder and leader of the positive psychology movement, enumerates six "ubiquitous" virtues. He finds these six virtues "endorsed by almost all religious and philosophical traditions" (Seligman, 2002a, p. 133), "valued in almost every culture" (p. 139). These ubiquitous six consist in "wisdom and knowledge," "courage," "love and humanity," "justice," "temperance," and "spirituality and transcendence" (2002a, p. 133). He also delineates the 24 "signature strengths" which are said to constitute the "several distinct routes to each of [the] six [virtues]" (2002a, p. 137)."Judgment/critical thinking/open-mindedness" are one of six routes to the virtue of "wisdom and knowledge." About this route Seligman wrote, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.