Who is this hot mama? Not my grandmother, I can assure you. She sort of has that lawyer look, right? Or that Best-Selling Author face you might find on the back of some hardcover thriller.
How about here? Oh, she doesn’t look too happy. Who is this woman? For those of you who don’t know already, it’s Barbara Ehrenreich! I wasn’t very fond of the woman when we first started approaching her work, but after reading both Chapter Six and Chapter Seven from her book, my dislike has most definitely turned into adoration. This witty, blunt woman tells it like it is, and often gets labeled as being a “pessimist”, when in fact, she’s being a hardcore realist.
So, when I printed out the pages to Chapter Six, I had cringed and whined and tried to delay the process of reading it because I thought I already knew what this woman had to offer: more negativity. But, from the first page of that chapter, she already had me chuckling. So, let’s try and dissect this to see what it’s all about:
So, we’re introduced to a Mr. Martin Seligman, who seems to be quite the “grouch.” And, after securing the title of President for the APA in 1997, he does a complete 360 and devotes himself to the idea of positive psychology. All of the sudden, positive thinking is all the rage…the new drug that can have great outcomes like “health and career success.” I remember subconsciously nodding when I read, “they could fall back on that touchstone phrase of rational, secular discourse–‘studies show…'” because people get hooked on that phrase, “studies show.”
Most importantly, I wanted to write about my reaction to Martin Seligman. He seemed to be quite the “grouch” he had called himself in 1997 when she went to go interview him in 2007. I guess 10 years of trying to sell this idea of “positive thinking” didn’t do him much good. Yes, that’s him on the right. He proves to be elusive during her interview..almost as if he’s afraid she’ll call him out for being quite a bit delusional. Ehrenreich took one of his happiness assessment tests and scored a 3.67 out of 5. I took the same test and received a 2.46 out of 5. I don’t know if I received such a low score because in the back of my mind, I was thinking about this guy, or just because I really am “miserable.” I don’t think I’m a miserable person. I just think the whole test is stupid. It asks questions that I feel I don’t even know the answer to yet. I don’t know how to rate my life on the basis of good or bad. I’m neutral about it. Actually, I answered “neutral” for most of the questions, and I guess being “neutral” about my life sort of leans to the “unhappy” side. I would’ve been happy with a 3.67 or whatever. But, I do not judge myself as a 2.46. So, you see, I’m already starting to hate this guy and I’m a bit angry as I type this. The questions on the test weren’t even psychologically thought-provoking ones…no fancy images to tune into your inner psyche and get to know the real you..just questions such as, “Are you happy?” Well, gee, I don’t know..it’s 1:19 AM, I’m tired as hell..so I guess I’ll put I’m not happy. How can you judge someone’s actual happiness by asking test questions that will make them reflect on their immediate feelings as oppose to their past and future? Just because I’m tired right now and I hate Seligman doesn’t mean I’m not an overall, happy person. It just means I’m unhappy at this present moment. I guess that’s where the hook is then, right? Someone who would take this “Happiness Assessment Test” would probably take it in the middle of the night, at a time when they’re trying to reevaluate their life and are starting to realize they’re miserable. So, of course, their answers to the questions would reflect some sort of negativity. He even gets snarky when Ehrenreich points out that his questions seem somewhat arbitrary, to which he says is a “cheap shot” and delivers himself a cheap shot by trying to insult her ability to comprehend test development. Insults are a defense mechanism against fear, ya know.
Okay, let’s skip past the “happiness” equation because I don’t even understand it, and no I don’t want to understand it, because at this point my head hurts from furrowing my eyebrows so much in anger. Let’s get to the meat and bones of this..the parts of the text that I so furiously highlighted and wrote “WTF?!” in the margins as a response.
So, there’s the Templeton Connection. The Templeton Foundation donated 2.2 million dollars to Seligman’s Positive Psychology Center. That’s a lot of money, and I mean, if someone donated that much money to your organization, wouldn’t you try to make sure they’re happy with how their money is being used (as in, to make sure they agree with whatever you’re trying to get across)? So, I figured religion would be tied in, and it was. And then, Templeton himself wrote books on Happiness..yet what I don’t understand is this:
You’re trying to sell the idea of what you believe leads to “Real Happiness”…yet, you donate to a campaign that wants to abolish the happiness of a set of individuals because of your own (which are probably religious) reasons. What am I talking about? Oh yeah, he was the second-largest individual donor to the campaign for Cali’s Prop. 8. I don’t know, I’m scratching my head right now..doesn’t that make you a hypocrite? You want to sell happiness, you want to sell the idea of positive thinking..yet, you want to destroy something that makes others happy. Also, it should be noted that your ideas of happiness aren’t even related that much to psychology as they are to religion. So, wait, you’re not even selling the idea of positive thinking anymore..you’re selling the idea of being happy through faith. Interesting. I’m not against people who find happiness through their religious beliefs, but I don’t like the idea of someone trying to tag on “psychology” to try and sell the idea of happiness through faith. It’s not wrong to be happy because you believe in God, but it’s wrong to try and tell and sell the idea of religion as the key to happiness. Does that make sense? There are many ways to be happy and religion isn’t the only one. And when I first googled him, I thought he looked like a nice, ol’ dude. I don’t think I want to meet him.
So, let’s get back on Seligman. This is the point where I almost made a hole in the paper from holding it so tightly. I highlighted the following:
He is famously impatient with “victims” and “victimology” saying, for example, in a 2000 interview: “In general when things go wrong we now have a culture which supports the belief that this was done to you by some larger force, as opposed to, you brought it on yourself by your character or your decisions.”
Oh wait…I’m not done…
As for social action against societal injustice, the American Psychological Association’s Monitor reported in 1998: “Seligman asserts that..those who reproach others and side with the underdog may feel better in the short term,…but such good feelings are transient.”
Oh..hold on please, it gets better
Seligman himself explicitly rejects social change, writing of the role of “circumstances” in determining human happiness: “The good news about circumstances is that some do change happiness for the better. The bad news is that changing these circumstances is usually impractical and expensive.”
WHAT a prick!! So basically, his little, conservative mind is against the idea of helping “the underdog” aka poor people, the homeless, the hungry and the hopeless! How dare he! And how dare he assert that helping them out only delivers “fleeting” happiness. I don’t know about you, but I feel like those brownie points add up everytime I give a dollar to a bum on the train. Yes, I don’t know if they’re going to use it for drugs or actual food..but just knowing that I made a difference in their day makes a difference in my day..and those good feelings add up. I feel great after giving my seat up to an elderly man or woman. I feel great helping someone up the stairs. I feel great helping my neighbor with her groceries. And those feelings follow me for a long time because they remind me that I am a great person and the smallest of actions are impacting those who are less fortunate. A big middle finger in the air to Seligman right now.
Oh, and then he goes on to say that changing the circumstances around you are usually impractical and expensive. So wait, if hypothetically, I were living in a small apartment with ten siblings, I shouldn’t try to get a job…get an education..move forward..to try and change my circumstances? So wait, in 1955, should the African-American community kept their mouth shut about the injustice they were facing and turned a blind eye instead of fighting for the equal rights that they so rightly deserved? Was the happiness felt by those who helped them out “transient?” I’m appalled by the fact that Seligman would say such a thing..especially when “changing our circumstances” has been part of our history..our wonderful history. It is what abolished slavery, it was created Child Labor laws and Civil Rights…our enthusiasm towards change is not a bad thing. And no, we should never conform to just how things are, especially if there is injustice. Ugh, my eyes hurt at this point from the anger.
Okay, so let’s end this before I break my mac. Ehrenreich ends her chapter by writing on how she saw Seligman in late 2007, and how he had a whole new outlook. She goes on to write about science and it’s correlation with positive psychology, and I agree with the New York Times Magazine article she quoted, which states that, “the publicity about the field [positive psychology] has gotten ahead of the science, which may be no good anyway.” You can’t put the word psychology in something that does not have a strong link with the science itself…and a lot of people went crazy with the idea of positive psychology, so much so that they became delusional and Ehrenreich tied this in with the economy in Chapter 7.
So..again…back to Seligman. He was at some summit in which he declared he would no longer talk about positive psychology, but about a “plural theory”..embracing anthropology, political science and economics. He ended it with saying he would be moving on to, “positive social science.” I kid you not..as I read all those different subjects relief washed over me in an awesome wave. He broke out of his conservative, delusional shell and is actually trying to focus on social sciences that may hold the key to understanding happiness. I take anthropology and political science right now, and those two subjects alone have made me question the way I view society. So, I can only imagine how much good can come out of Seligman’s focus on these two, core subjects.
I was so happy when I finished reading this. Mainly because Seligman changed his outlook on positive psychology. I also want to kiss Barbara Ehrenreich for being so brilliant. Oh, you witty woman, you.
Overall, I would just like to point out that I’m not against the idea of positive psychology. I love Daniel Gilbert, or what we have read from him so far. I feel that he has successfully tied in psychology and the idea of happiness into his work.
Time to get some sleep, maybe I’ll be happy later in the morning and Improve from my “2.46” rating.
