Smile or Die - A Critique of Positive Thinking

In 2010 Barbara Ehrenrich wrote a book called 'Smile or Die', how  positive thinking fooled the world'. The book highlighted some important defects of the 'Positive Thinking' and Self Help industries. These are my thoughts about her book and the industries that she  criticises. 

Drifting off into fantasy

An important part of Ehrenreich’s argument rests on the observation that positive thinking is often both unscientific and the criticisms levelled at it by scientific studies are simply brushed aside by those who practice it. The author uses a case study of the American Psychological Association (APA) and its election of Martin Seligman in 1997. Seligman introduced the new ‘science’ of positive psychology which is defined as, ‘the study of “positive” emotions and mind-sets like optimism, happiness, fulfilment and “flow”’. It called itself ‘the science of happiness’. 

The author claims that positive psychology emerged in response to the decline of the various disciplines in psychology that had a ‘pathological’ tendency, particularly in relation to mental illness. In her view, the introduction of anti-depressants during the late 1980s meant that psychologists had run out of things to do and needed to claim new territory.

According to Ehrenreich, the emergence of positive psychology had three effects. First, it provided a bridge between the scientific and business worlds. It gave an opportunity to the non-academic coach, motivational speaker or self help entrepreneur to claim scientific grounding for their business, instead of having to rely on mysticism. Second, the barrier between the business of self-help and the academic positive psychology began to break down. Third, as academic and scientific psychologists began to merge with their cousins in the self help genre, positive psychology became more hostile to being exposed to the rigours of scientific enquiry. The efficacy of the new psychology was to be judged on whether the individual either ‘felt’ that it was working for them or that the process had made them happier. Highly instrumental but also highly subjective. Any view or claim that ran counter to the ‘happiness is all’ argument was dismissed as the perpetrator not ‘getting it’.

As well as the genesis of positive thinking, Ehrenreich attacks the content, in particular the idea that our thoughts are electronic waves or energy.  Ehrenreich is correct in pointing out this is simply mystical thinking with no basis in reality. The tendency to reduce our thoughts to the complexity of quantum mechanics actually obscures the fact that we are far more ‘Newtonian’ in our thoughts and feelings.

The idea that 'we are our thoughts and that it is our thoughts that shape each individual’s reality' comes in for real biting criticism from Ehrenreich. This, according to the author, is charlatanism at worst. The consequences of following this particular path of positive thinking are twofold. First, one is told that one can think oneself rich and second that all negativity is to be avoided, including ‘negative people’ and bad news.

In the final chapter of the book ‘How Positive thinking Destroyed the Economy’, the author offers us a unique insight into the nonchalant stance adopted towards the precarious position of the financial system and the role positive thinking played. 

There is no Dissent

According to Ehrenreich, an essential part of the new positive thinking movement is to renegotiate the relationship between individuals. In this case, the purging of negativity is a priority. To avoid upsets or destroying the possibility of consensus, anger, aggression and disagreement are seen as pathological.  In this scenario there is little hope for civilised discussion, debate or argument.

Under this regime, the only response to external events is to say how you feel about them and gain something more positive from the appearance. Disagreeing with someone else risks lowering self esteem or emotional well being - and in the world of positive thinking, that is not acceptable.

The Problem of Procrastination & Motivation

From my perspective, 'Smile or  Die' sheds light on two phenomena that I frequently experience as a professional tennis coach. With the inward turn that positive thinking brings, comes the problem of procrastination. When teaching tennis players, a common problem is the decision to avoid competiting until a particular stroke is working properly. I call this the ‘perfect forehand syndrome’. Such players rarely compete at a level that will challenge them to improve, the forehand is never quite right and is always a few hours of practice away from being ready to compete. 

This tendency to  delay action until optimum happiness occurs, appears to be mirrored in the positive thinking and self help industries. In my experience, there is never a point at which one is either at optimum motivation or optimum happiness to go out and act in the world. In fact, most ‘motivational psychology’ seems to fall prey to the ‘myth of motivation’. If one requires motivation to complete a specific task, as many people feel they do, it is very unlikely to become motivated in isolation, in this instance, one gets ‘motivated’ and then writes the book. Motivation comes from action, action and motivation are simultaneous. Almost anything productive worth doing will require effort and will, at minimum, be uncomfortable and not a ‘happy’ experience. By taking the existing state of mind as the precursor to action one runs the risk of not doing anything.   

An Inward turn

From my point of view, the most important objection Ehrenreich raises to positive thinking is its relationship to a demise in political action and changes in the  aims of  those  seeking social justice. Ehrenreich argues that the rise of the positive thinking industry has contributed to an erosion of  collective political action.  This, in part,  explains why positive thinking is  so popular.

Positive thinking and new self-help developed when the possibilities for meaningful social and political action appeared to be shrinking. To her credit, the author points out that once established, positive thinking quickly becomes a break on social and political action.

Positive thinking is by no means solely responsible for the hiatus in politics, which is recognised by Ehrenreich. It is perhaps more accurate to say that positive thinking can distort the drive towards political action and that this drive takes an inward turn. This often narcissistic inward turn is typified by obsessive self- reflection as well as the appearance of individuated protest movements such as Not in my Name and the adoption of ‘ethical consumerism’ such as Fair Trade. 

Positive thinking, however, has an advantage over other trends when it comes to keeping the individual away from taking in action in the world. Ehrenreich describes it in the following way:

‘If one of the best things you can say about positive thinking is that it ended up preserving some of Calvinism’s more toxic features - a harsh judgementalism and an insistence on the constant interior labour of self-examination…….To the positive thinker, emotions remain suspect and one’s inner life must be subjected to relentless monitoring’.

It is no accident that when passionate belief or anger towards social injustice are expressed by an individual, they are often met with incredulity or a patronising attempt to demote such beliefs to childish fantasy.  For those that practice positive thinking, the utterances of those who fight social injustice are seen as the equivalent to the ranting of a child who is yet to ‘accept’ themselves and their circumstances prior to becoming a ‘better person’. 

For Ehrenreich,  by keeping themselves wrapped up in an inward -looking 'womb of emotion' and by adopting a  prescriptive approach to dealing with negativity, it is the self-help seeker and not  the who is likely to remain initialised. The author sums this up in the final paragraph of the book.

‘The threats we face are real and can be vanquished only by shaking off self-absorption and taking action in the world.  Build up the levees , get food to the hungry, find the cure, strengthen the “first responders”!  We will not succeed at all these things, certainly not all at once, but - if I may end with my own personal secret of happiness - we can have a good time trying.’  (p.206)

Thinking, not positive thinking

The real victory for Smile or Die is Ehrenreich’s assertion that we need to face the world and its problems squarely and without self-deception.  Creating happiness for its own sake will get us nowhere and tends to infantalise us.  This is augmented by the implicit claim that it is by increasing intellectual capital that the individual can deal with the world.  Thinking, as opposed to the partial and degenerative tendency in positive thinking is what is required. 

Overall, the argument of the book is hampered by not developing some important cultural influences on the creation of contemporaryy positive thinking, such as that offered by sport.  The example given in ‘How Positive thinking Destroyed the Economy’ is actually quite chilling, and acts as a warning for those who place attitude above analysis.

 If you have enjoyed  reading this post,  please look at others in the series:

• In Defence of Cosmetic Surgery
• Business Survival - Competing in an Ant-Heap
•  Compete or Fail?
•  Are Children Born Naughty?
• Lift the limits on Productivity
• Why are we Risk Averse?
• My thanks to Tesco
• Why I hate 'Emotional Intelligence'
• Where have all the writers gone?
• How did everyone become a marathon runner?
• How to keep your clients