See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290315285
Psychology of Happiness and Flourishing, and the Problem of Evil
Chapter · December 2012
CITATIONS
READS
0
1,308
1 author:
Alexander Poddiakov
National Research University Higher School of Economics
68 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Non-transitive chess arrangements View project
Evolution of creating difficulties for others View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Poddiakov on 28 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Poddiakov, Alexander. Psychology of Happiness and Flourishing, and the Problem of Evil
Translated from Russian. Original text: Poddiakov, A. (2012). [Psikhologiya schast'ya i
protsvetaniya i problema zla]. In A.L.Zhuravlev, A.V.Yurevich (Eds.), [Nravstvennost'
sovremennogo rossiiskogo obshchestva: psikhologicheskii analiz]. Moscow: Institut psikhologii
RAN. Pp. 109-136.
The past 20-30 years have seen an intensive development of psychological approaches to the
study of happiness, well-being, flourishing and practical recommendations on how to become
happier. These are worthy tasks.
Depending on the degree of well-being/conflict-generating relations that prevail in society
and the surrounding world, there arises the problem of organizing well-being and happiness in a
way that would secure them against negative and hostile actors (robbers, international terrorists,
invaders, etc.) who effectively impede flourishing.
The aim of this article is to analyze the attitude to deliberate evil and its agents on the part of
psychologists who study happiness and flourishing, and identify the features and dynamics of this
attitude.
General ideas of benevolence/malevolence of the world in psychological approaches to the
study of happiness and well-being
Beginning at least from the studies of Benedict Ruth in the first third of the 20th century
psychology has been elaborating perceptions of two types of people’s attitude to the world. These
types were succinctly described in “The Doctrine of Three Worlds” articulated by a character in
Stanislaw Lem (Lem, 1990, p. 207):
“In a benevolent world:
It is easier to create than to destroy;
It is easier to make happy than to torment;
It is easier to save than to ruin;
It is easier to revive than to kill.
In a malevolent world:
It is easier to destroy than to create;
It is easier to torment than to make happy;
It is easier to ruin than to save;
It is easier to kill than to revive.
In a neutral world it is equally easy (difficult) to do both.”
Similarly, the works of psychologists examine and compare:
- the perception of the world as largely a harmonious, low-conflict place where crimes and
even serious conflicts are a deviation from the norm;
- the perception of the world as riddled with contradictions and conflicts and unfriendliness
which, even if it is not predominant, cannot be ignored (Druzhinin, 2000; Enikolopov, 2011;
Poddiakov, 2007; Lee, 1995; Werner, 2004; Zabielski, 2007).
Thus, Enikolopov analyzes Epstein’s concept of implicit theory of reality people
automatically construct (Epstein, 1991). It comprises the following main blocks: sub-theories about
the self, others, the inanimate world, and beliefs regarding their interactions. The personality-based
2
theory of reality treats the world as friendly or hostile; as meaningful, predictable, controllable,
stable and just or the opposite; the attitude to other people as friendly, not threatening or as
potentially threatening (Enikolopov, 2011).
By no means all the works on the psychology of happiness and flourishing explicitly
formulate the attitude to the problem of good and evil. I have picked the works whose authors are
engaged with the problem and seek to get their opinion across to the reader.
In terms of the two above-mentioned types of attitude to the world, the views of the
psychologists who reflect on these matters can be divided into several groups depending on how
they assess:
•
the present-day world;
•
the need and possibility of changing it;
•
ways of changing it (if it needs to be changed).
1. “The world is ideal, so there is no need to improve it, all your efforts are wasted.”
That position is most clearly formulated by N.Linde, author of the book Basic Principles of
Modern Psychotherapy (2002). In his Sutra on Happiness, he writes:
“As my guru used to say: ‘The Gates of Hell are locked from within’. If they are
locked from within, how can God lead people out of there? They want to be there and
they fiercely resist being taken to Paradise. How can an angry person get into Paradise?
How can a depressed person get there? How can a person afflicted by fears and
anxieties get there? How can an ever fighting person get there? There are no nuclear
warheads in Paradise. But there are people who cling to warheads so hard that they
cannot make their way into Paradise. The best way to get rid of war and warheads is to
learn to live in Paradise and to teach your enemies to do the same. If everyone lives in
Paradise, there will be no need for warheads and there will be no enemies. But if the
enemies are so foolish that they do not want to live in Paradise, so much the worse for
them, though it’s a pity” (Linde, 2009).
Linde does not say anything about criminals, terrorists and the like, but logically speaking
the position should be the same. If they do not want to live in Paradise let them rape, rob, kill and
do whatever they see fit, though it’s regrettable.
2. “The world is not ideal, but is logically becoming better.”
By seeking happiness and improving ourselves we are working not simply for the future
well-being of people, but also for his omnipotence, omniscience and righteousness. This position is
embraced by Seligman, one of the founders of positive psychology. He writes that as humanity
develops the number and significance of win-win situations, and not of win-loss situations
increases. This echoes the ideas of A.Nazaretyan who argues that physical violence is resorted to
less and less as civilization develops (Nazaretyan, 2006), and of C.Benson to the effect that the idea
of abhorrence of intentionally caused suffering is gaining ground, if only slowly and gradually
(Benson, 2001).
In approvingly rendering the ideas of B. Wright, Seligman writes:
“Progress in history is not like an unstoppable locomotive, but more like a balky horse
that often refuses to budge and even walks backward occasionally: But the broad
movement of human history, not ignoring such backward walks as the holocaust,
anthrax terrorism, and the genocide against the Tasmanian aborigines, is, when viewed
over centuries, in the direction of more win-win” (Seligman, 2013, p. 255)1.
1
In this translation references to the edition of 2013 are given (and not to the Russian edition of 2006).
3
“A process that continually selects for more complexity is ultimately aimed at nothing
less than omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. This is not, of course, a fulfillment
that will be achieved in our lifetimes, or even in the lifetime of our species. The best we
can do as individuals is to choose to be a small part of furthering this progress. This is
the door through which meaning that transcends us can enter our lives. A meaningful
life is one that joins with something larger than we are—and the larger that something
is, the more meaning our lives have. Partaking in a process that has the bringing of a
God who is endowed with omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness as its ultimate end
joins our lives to an enormously large something. <…> The good life consists in
deriving happiness by using your signature strengths every day in the main realms of
living. The meaningful life adds one more component: using these same strengths to
forward knowledge, power, or goodness. A life that does this is pregnant with meaning,
and if God comes at the end, such a life is sacred.” (Ibid., p. 260).
3. The third position is as follows:
“The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it friendly. It is simply indifferent” (J. H. Holmes,
cited by: Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 23)2. “The flow experience, like everything else, is
not ‘good’ in an absolute sense… Optimal experience is a form of energy, and energy
can be used either to help or to destroy. Fire warms or burns; atomic energy can
generate electricity or it can obliterate the world. Energy is power, but power is only a
means. The goals to which it is applied can make life either richer or more painful…
The task is to learn how to enjoy everyday life without diminishing other people’s
chances to enjoy theirs” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 83-84).
This is the position of another founder of positive psychology, M.Csikszentmihalyi. Positive
psychologists refer to him very selectively and cautiously stressing some aspects of his approach
(for example, considering a flow as a source of positive sensations) and studiously side-stepping
other elements of this approach, as will be shown later, including the obvious attention to the
negative aspects of human being and the problem of intentional evil which few positive
psychologists share.
He writes that the state of a flow of positive emotions and happiness was probably
characteristic of Marquis de Sade, a humble Chinaman hacking cattle carcasses, the spectators of
gladiatorial battles, the Golden Horde warriors notorious for their brutality and of modern soldiers
killing their enemies; criminals stealing a car, those who take part in mass acts of vandalism, etc.
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Csikszentmihalyi believes it is necessary to take into account the overall
balance of order and chaos created by different people and social groups pursuing their opposite
goals. Society must maximize the chances of all its members achieving their goals and minimize
chaos. М. Csikszentmihalyi stresses, however, that even that does not guarantee that what is
happening is ethical because it can be achieved at the expense of other societies (e.g., in Nazism).
4. Finally, the last position:
“You can’t be healthy on a sick planet” (Servan-Schreiber, 2009; p. 81; cited by: Wong,
2011, p. 77). “You cannot live a healthy and fulfilling life in a sick world contaminated
by crime, corruption, injustice, oppression, and poverty. Such evils can destroy
individuals and societies like cancer cells” (Wong, 2011, p. 77).
This is the position of P.Wong who promotes the projects “Radical Positive Psychology for
Radical Times” (Wong, 2007) and “Positive Psychology 2.0” (Wong, 2011). He stresses the need to
2
In this translation references to the edition of 2013 are given (and not to the Russian edition of 2011).
4
contribute to the development of good and worthy people, and of the civil society as a whole, and to
overcome and transform negative phenomena. To understand life in all its complexity, it is
necessary to study the paradoxical effects of the interaction of the negative and the positive. The
Positive psychology 2.0 project enlarges the American branch of Positive psychology as
represented by Seligman providing the basis for the development of good, kindly people and
psychologically healthy institutions, development that challenges negatives and the finiteness of
human existence (Wong, 2011, p. 77-78).
It has to be stressed that the above-quoted propositions belong to the level of basic
philosophical ideas of the world (which give rise to various specific practices). The researchers of
positive psychology are making a serious mistake when they insist that it is simultaneously
positivist-scientific in the traditional sense, that is, is concerned only with facts and methods and
does not purport to philosophize and build a certain picture of the world. The above-quoted ideas
are, if anything, philosophical reflections on Good (“Partaking in a process that has the bringing of
a God who is endowed with omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness as its ultimate end joins our
lives to an enormously large something”, “if God comes at the end, such a life is sacred”, etc.) and
Evil (genocide, terrorism, crime, etc.) and on the dynamics of these phenomena. A critique of
ungrounded claims of positive psychology to be a positivist science is found in Friedman and
Robbins (2012).
The books on positive psychology nowhere suggest that the methods of coping with
situations caused by the premeditated actions of others (murder, arson, treachery) can (and often
must) be special. In the concluding part of this article it will be shown that coping with intentionally
created difficulties differs in substantial ways from coping with the difficulties that arise due to
natural causes beyond anyone’s control.
Positive psychology can probably recommend a rape victim how to cope with what
happened and to go on living happily, but it does not offer any recommendations on what to do if
gangsters raid your village regularly and beatings, burglaries and violence continue with the
connivance of those whose duty it is to protect you. The possible advice “go to the police” assumes
the existence of institutions working towards positive goals. These are the kinds of institutions
positive psychologists are interested in. Deviations in the work of these institutions (of which
gangster raids are evidence) do not interest positive psychologists and indeed some of them
consider excessive and lamentable the very fact that these deviations engage the minds of “ordinary
psychologists”.
Interestingly, in the rare cases when positive psychologists write not about the slings and
arrows that stand in the way of happiness in general, but about a clash with active evil, the instances
of coping they describe all share one feature. In these examples people do not confront evil, but do
something about themselves, i.e., find a distraction.
“Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes how one of his fellow prisoners in the Lefortovo
jail mapped the world on the floor of the cell, and then imagined himself traveling
across Asia and Europe to America, covering a few kilometers each day. <…> An
acquaintance who worked in United States Air Force intelligence tells the story of a
pilot who was imprisoned in North Vietnam for many years, and lost eighty pounds
and much of his health in a jungle camp. When he was released, one of the first things
he asked for was to play a game of golf. To the great astonishment of his fellow
officers he played a superb game, despite his emaciated condition. To their inquiries
he replied that every day of his imprisonment he imagined himself playing eighteen
holes, carefully choosing his clubs and approach and systematically varying the
course. This discipline not only helped preserve his sanity, but apparently also kept his
physical skills well honed”. <…> “Solzhenitsyn describes very well how even the
most degrading situation can be transformed into a flow experience: ‘Sometimes,
when standing in a column of dejected prisoners, amidst the shouts of guards with
5
machine guns, I felt such a rush of rhymes and images that I seemed to be wafted
overhead. . . . At such moments I was both free and happy. . . . Some prisoners tried to
escape by smashing through the barbed wire. For me there was no barbed wire. The
head count of prisoners remained unchanged but I was actually away on a distant
flight’.” (Ibid, p. 104-106).
After these descriptions, Csikszentmihalyi writes a very interesting conclusion to them.
“Richard Logan proposes an answer based on the writings of many survivors,
including those of Viktor Frankl and Bruno Bettelheim, who have reflected on the
sources of strength under extreme adversity. He concludes that the most important trait
of survivors is a ‘nonself-conscious individualism’, or a strongly directed purpose that
is not self-seeking. People who have that quality are bent on doing their best in all
circumstances, yet they are not concerned primarily with advancing their own
interests. Because they are intrinsically motivated in their actions, they are not easily
disturbed by external threats. With enough psychic energy free to observe and analyze
their surroundings objectively, they have a better chance of discovering in them new
opportunities for action” (Ibid.).
So, objective analysis and finding opportunities for action. But where are the actions that are
supposed to be preceded by cerebration and flights of fantasy? We do not find any such examples or
descriptions. To give a polemical edge to my argument, let me mention Air Force pilot Mikhail
Devyatayev. He spent more than half a year in a Nazi prison camp during the Second World War
and led a group of prison mates in seizing a German plane, found out how it worked within minutes
(he too was going over it in his mind in advance, but it was not a game of golf but his actions in the
unknown plane), managed to break away from pursuing planes and reach the friendly side with the
mates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Devyatayev). Are people like Devyatayev much less
interesting for M.Csikszentmihalyi than the airman who spent all the time he was in prison playing
golf in his mind, was liberated by somebody and continued to play golf after he was freed? Perhaps
М. Csikszentmihalyi has not heard about Devyatayev, but what is really surprising is that he seems
to be unaware of any other similar cases that involved something more than flights of intellect.
Similarly, Seligman does not cite any examples of mutual help that involves real resistance
to violence.
P.Wong takes the most balanced position. One of the provisions of his manifesto of radical
positive psychology is bringing freedom to those who are in captivity and justice to those whose
rights are infringed upon. Yet he too does not write anything about how this demand is likely to be
perceived by the opposite side, those who bully and oppress and how they should be treated if they
refuse to be persuaded and do not want to change.
On the whole over the years there has been a sense that while positive psychologists know
about resilience, they do not know about resistance or know about it so little that it is not worth
writing about.
However, as the international situation was changing (the early works that staked the claim
for positive psychology as a trend in its own right appeared at the beginning of 2000s when the
world was living through a favorable period) the approach of positive psychology also changed.
From positive psychology of flourishing to positive military psychology
The case for positive psychology at the early stages
In his early texts laying down the groundwork for positive psychology Seligman posited it
as a counterweight to what he called negative psychology. In a 2000 article he wrote: “I am first
6
going to discuss the notions of negative psychology and negative social science and contrast them
to the notions of positive psychology and positive social science” (Seligman, 2000, p. 415). He
argued that, for example, the political leaders of Florence in the 15th century, the richest country in
Europe, decided to invest their profits not in building up military muscle, but in creating beauty.
According to Seligman, the USA is living through a similar world historic period: it can either
commit itself to defense or to creation, but not of art monuments, but a monument of a different
kind, “humane scientific monument: positive psychology” (Ibid., p. 417).
“Negative” psychology, Seligman argues, has a “medical”, “clinical” approach: it is overly
concerned with depressions, schizophrenia, alcoholism and other deviations. Accordingly, people
need a positive science which studies positive phenomena (Ibid., p. 342).
“Sociology, political science, anthropology and economics are the proper home of such
investigations, but these disciplines (like psychology) are also pervaded by the study of
the disabling institutions, such as racism, sexism, Machiavellianism, monopolies and
the like. These social sciences have been muckraking, discovering a good deal about the
institutions that make life difficult and even insufferable. At their best, these social
sciences tell us how to minimize these disabling conditions” (Seligman, 2002, p. 266).
Thus, at the turn of the millennia Seligman was critical of the social sciences that studied
various manifestations of deliberately perpetrated evil (racism, Machiavellianism, etc.) and methods
of countering them as sciences engaged in “muckraking”, though today a positive attitude to the
world is more relevant.
However, over time the rhetoric and practice of positive psychology changed substantially.
Current situation: flexible adaptation of positive psychology to war
According to publicly available official information on the Martin Seligman Positive
Psychology Center website (https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/learn/soldiers), in recent
years the Center has been running a Comprehensive Soldier Fitness и Resilience Training program
for US soldiers and officers in active military service. This is the most ambitious program in the
history of psychology: since 2009 the Department of Defense allocated $120 million for it, about a
million soldiers have taken the course and eventually every service man and woman will go through
it (Friedman, Robbins, 2012).
An entire issue of the journal American Psychologist published in 2011 was devoted to the
program. Seligman is an invited editor and co-author of several articles, including the summing up
article under the tell-tale title “Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and the Future of Psychology”
(Seligman, Fowler, 2011). Let us look at its content.
The article is very important. It provides a brief history of military psychology in the USA,
sets immediate tasks and makes longer-term forecasts.
To begin with, it has to be stressed that Seligman casts aside his former critical attitude to
preoccupation with sickness and, together with his co-author writes that the project has been
prompted by battle fatigue afflicting many soldiers, the high rate of post-traumatic syndrome cases
and other pathologies. It is worth recalling that here he reproduces the “medical” logic for which he
criticized “negative” psychologists in his capacity of a progressive “positive” psychologist.
The article also sets some basic value benchmarks. The authors write that American soldiers
carry our government missions implementing the will of the nation. It would be wrong to deny
scientific and professional support to the military who defend the nation. The American
Psychological Association has never denied them such support.
Seligman and Fowler write that the methods of psychological training they propose for the
army are based on the principles of positive psychology.
They catalog the objections of critics to the program and respond to criticisms.
7
One of the main critical objections goes like this: “Psychology should do no harm: Aiding
the military will make people who kill for a living feel better about killing and help them do a better
job of it” (Ibid., p. 86).
The answer is the following.
“If we had discovered a way of preventing malaria—mosquito netting, draining
swamps, quinine—and our soldiers were fighting in a malaria-infested theater, would
these voices also counsel withholding our discoveries? We would not withhold our
help: The balance of good done by building the physical and mental fitness of our
soldiers far outweighs any harm that might be done… Three ideologies have arisen in
the past century that have sought to overthrow democracy by force: fascism,
communism, and jihadist Islam. It should be noted that without a strong military and the
will to use force responsibly in self-defense, our victories would not have happened, and
defense against current and future threats would be impossible. Psychology materially
aided in the defeat of the first two threats, and in doing so it carved out its identity. We
are proud to aid our military in defending and protecting our nation right now, and we
will be proud to help our soldiers and their families into the peace that will follow”
(Ibid., p. 86).
Let us now pass on to analysis.
In the passages quoted Seligman in fact reveals to what extent he believes in the
benevolence of the world and in win-win games for all the participants at the current stage:
protection from current and future threats is impossible without practical use of weapons and the
military.
This is perfectly true. But the surprising thing about Seligman’s earlier texts is precisely the
clever way in which he sidesteps the topic of self-protection of the happy and prosperous from
negatively-minded actors. The reality is that if you are attacked by murderers you often have to kill
the murderers. If thugs regularly raid your village, something has to be done about it.
What is interesting, though, is not just military psychology, but the military psychology
which preens itself on being positive.
When reading Seligman one gets a (certainly false) impression that he, the author of texts on
positive military psychology, seems to be only dimly aware of the fact that the decision-making
logic in the battlefield is different from the ordinary logic and that the price even of absolutely
correct decisions is totally different. There people kill people. Even if there is positive thinking it is
of a very different, peculiar kind.
Let us start explaining the special conditions of decision making in the battle-field with
examples of a type which for some reason is not encountered in positive military psychology.
Physiologist O.G.Gazenko, who served as chief of an army sick bay during the Second World War
described the following problem.
“What should a doctor on the frontline do about the wounded if the situation on that
section of the front is very hard? If I retire all the wounded and send then to the rear, the
enemy will break the front and both the wounded and all the rest will die. So, if a guy is
wounded in the arm I’ll treat the wound and send him to hospital. If a guy is wounded in
the leg I’ll leave him to man the machine-gun. I cannot relieve him. It’s a huge risk: he
may develop a sepsis and die. … (Besides, a soldier with a leg wound cannot maneuver
during the battle, which increases the risks – A.P.) This is the price of preventing the
worst from happening, in other words, we are dealing with a problem with an indefinite
question, and the answer is as follows: if I act in one way I win this and that at such and
such a price. The doctor must each time consider the price.” (quoted from Feigenberg,
2009).
8
It has to be stressed that a military psychologist who conducts all-round psychological
training of servicemen must prepare the commanders and doctors for taking decisions like the one
described above and the soldiers for obeying the orders in such situations.
Likewise, in military confrontations the commander may decide to sacrifice part of the unit
(for example, the group covering retreat) to fulfill the mission and save the other part of the unit.
(This situation underlies one of L. Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas that diagnose the level of moral
development.) Servicemen must be psychologically trained to handle such situations.
Finally, the most general problem is described by V.Druzhinin: “Most of those who saw
action admit that it is extremely difficult to kill an enemy face-to-face. Whatever ethologists, the
followers of K.Lorenz, may say, there is the notorious psychological barrier that holds back an
individual from killing a representative of his own species. It is another question that this barrier
may be broken” (Druzhinin, 2002, p. 118).
It is still unclear how these and similar problems can solved in military psychology which is
positive. And they have to be solved because even refusing to address them is a conscious solution.
Is positive military psychology possible? This is an existential question. As far as I know
Seligman himself tactfully avoids using the collocation “positive military psychology” which is
uncomfortably reminiscent of Lem’s phrase “association of forces of public good-heartedness”
(Lem, 1990). Lem emphasized grotesque of such collocations which hide realities very far from
good-heartedness. But I see no other way of referring to military psychology based on positive
principles than “positive military psychology”.
One can well imagine separately positive psychology (psychology of happiness and
flourishing) and military psychology. One can imagine an article titled “Military Psychology in the
Terrorist Attack at … (follows the place name)” and “Genocide and Military Thinking”, but it is
hard to imagine articles titled “Psychology of Happiness and Flourishing in the Terrorist Act at…”
or “Genocide and Positive Thinking.”
Whereas a number of texts on positive psychology avoid mentioning unpleasant things
positive military psychology studiously avoids mentioning the attitude to the enemy. Even when
articles on positive military psychology are devoted to the attitude to another person they consider
relationship within an in-group, the attitudes of acceptance, empathy, respect, trust, openness,
tolerance etc., etc. within the unit, but not the attitude to the members of an out-group, the
adversary, the concrete enemies with regard to whom the authors have formed a conspiracy of
silence (see, for example, Cacioppo et al., 2011). But then the question arises, why have all the
soldiers gathered in the battle zone? To demonstrate empathy for each other?
All these are existential questions. Murder corresponds to an extreme negative attitude (with
the exception of very few cases of euphanasia). Can the attitude to the enemy be positive in the
context of military actions and during the course of the actual battle? How can one have a positive
attitude to someone seen through the gunsight just before firing, to someone observed on the screen
before launching a missile, etc.?
It bears repeating that even if there is something positive about these situations, it is positive
in a very special way. It can safely be said that victory in war is achieved to a large extent due to the
blend, on the one hand, of a positive optimistic attitude to the world, and on the other hand, of a
sharply negative attitude (not stopping short of physically destroying ) the enemies, the murderers
who are destroying the world. Such positive psychology of happiness for the oppressed is a
psychology of unhappiness for the enemies. It would not be irrelevant to quote S.Lem once more:
“Of course, making it impossible to cause harm is itself evil for many people, those who are very
unhappy unless others are unhappy. But let them be unhappy” (Lem, 1990, p. 247).
However, do we find analysis and tips on how to form this kind of attitude to the other in
Seligman’s positive military psychology? The attitude need not necessarily take the shape of “I love
bloody battles” or “the science of hatred.” The position may be more detached emotionally. But in
any case it is not entirely positive with regard to the enemy.
Perhaps the closest approximation to a real positive military psychology is exemplified by
Anka the Machine Gunner in the Soviet film “Chapayev” (by Vasilyev brothers, 1934)
9
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapaev_(film) ). In one of the key episodes this positive character
mows down with bursts of machine-gun fire the rows of advancing White Guard troops – she does
it with skill and concentration and is in the state of flow – described by Csikszentmihalyi but, for
some reason, not by Seligman.
Let me elaborate. I respect positive science which helps to make the positive feelings of a
happy and prosperous individual still more positive. I respect military psychology and consider that
military psychologists are necessary. Moreover, reading extracts from the reactions of the sergeants
Seligman and his co-authors (Reivich, Seligman, McBride, 2011) quote I am prepared to believe
that resilience training is a very relevant program of military psychological training.
However, Friedman and Robbins do not believe in its relevance and argue that the
consequences of the program could be quite amoral notwithstanding all the declarations because it
ignores the ethical element and besides, has no scientific grounding. They analyze its fundamental
flaws of the ethical and scientific character (Friedman, Robbins, 2012).
They focus in particular on the very concept of resilience. In the opinion of Friedman and
Robbins, Seligman wrongly elevates it to the rank of a virtue out of context and without any
connection to other qualities. A vivid example is the resilience of Hitler that he displayed over
much of his life. The authors stress that this is an extreme example, but it has to be understood that
the concept of resilience of a soldier (they cite an army field manual) carries a different meaning
than the concept of resilience used in most psychological writings (on the study of childhood
traumas that need to be healed, etc.). The key meaning of a soldier’s resilience in accordance with
the quoted US Army Field Manual is fulfilling the combat mission in spite of any difficulties and
obstacles. The authors point out that training resilience in this way – without a clearly formulated
ethical element – may lead to disaster. For all that, Friedman and Robbins express their respect for
the US Army and believe that an open dialogue on critically important issues is necessary if
optimum results are to be achieved (Ibid.)
A detailed historical analysis of the conceptualization of the phenomenon of resilience in
psychology and analysis of the various ways in which it is used is also provided by P.Kessman et al.
(2012a). These authors subscribe to the opinion of Friedman and Robbins that decontextualization
of the concept is extremely dangerous from the moral point of view.
In general, the question is about how to sit on two stools – positive psychology of happiness
and military psychology.
Let us sum up the interim results. With the change of the social and political situation the
branch of positive psychology headed by Seligman has managed to:
•
flexibly and almost imperceptibly revert to the main thrust of the “clinical model”
which relies on too many cases of deviation;
•
turn to the work (war) which according to Seligman should be considered dirty work;
it will be recalled that he criticized the former “pre-positive” social sciences which “have been
muckraking, discovering a good deal about the institutions that make life difficult and even
insufferable» (Seligman, 2002, p. 266);
•
quietly introduce into the study of a happy and flourishing individual the study of an
individual engaged in physical elimination of enemies and calling for special psychological
preparation, support and subsequent rehabilitation.
Conclusion
Seligman writes: “Lying awake at night, you probably ponder, as I have, how to go from
plus two to plus seven in your life, not just how to go from minus five to minus three and feel a
little less miserable day by day” (Seligman, 2013, p. 9).
Granted, going from +2 to +7 is a worthy task. But how easy, if at all possible, is it to go
from +2 to +7 without analyzing the situation of transition from 0 до -50 (an estimated number of
girls, established from the number of bodies found, killed by a Russian gang for refusing to become
10
prostitutes), or transition from 0 до -937 000 (official number of victims of genocide in Rwanda)
etc.?
As S.Lem writes, “he who studies human being cannot exclude from the train of being mass
homicide without renouncing his calling.” (Lem, 1990, p. 448). K.Benson argues that the
psychological and the moral are inseparably bound up and that the key feature of the human Self is
the ability of purposive and conscious work to expand and develop human worlds as well as their
purposeful amoral constriction and destruction. Human psychology cannot be explained without
that capacity (Benson, 2001).
If one goes along with that, one has to admit that the psychology of happiness and
flourishing, if it claims to cognize the full reality, and to help all the needy and the miserable,
should inevitably engage and perhaps directly deal with those who bring suffering and death and
represent malignant aggression--according to Erich Fromm or “actively attacking evil” (Prokofiev,
2008, 2009), and those who live in accordance with the “life against life” principle, according to
V.N.Druzhinin. It is worth repeating P.Wong to the effect that “evil may destroy individuals and
societies like cancer cells” (Wong, 2011, p. 77).
Speaking about the positions of P.Wong, I.Boniwell and some other scholars, one should
emphasize the following. Back in 2005 B.Held noted the emergence of “the second wave” of
positive psychologists who are more oriented towards integration than division of psychology into
positive and negative (Held, 2005). Apparently, I.Boniwell belongs to this second wave because she
quotes the vehement criticism of the opponents of positive psychology (Lazarus, 2003a, 2003b),
(Tennen, Affleck, 2003) and agrees with them on the need to synthesize and integrate positive and
negative psychology and what they know about people (Boniwell, 2009). Some scholars also draw
attention to the fact that modern positive psychology is increasingly differentiating into various subareas of study. Some of these sub-areas are increasingly concerned with suffering, resilience and
positive coping under difficult conditions (Leontiev, 2012; Hart, Sasso, 2011). The polemic with
positive psychology started by R.Lazarus and B.Held in the early and mid-2000s, continues.
Reports are delivered at conferences (Kessman et al., 2012b), methodological articles of external
critics are published (Friedman and Robbins) which see positive psychology as a simplified but
successfully marketed version of the humanist psychology, as well as articles by internal (Wong)
critics. Friedman, Robbins and Wong agree on several key points: positive psychology ignores the
holistic approach, simplifies reality and the virtues it identifies may have a destructive character.
However, as P.Wong briefly notes, the problem of positive psychology is that if it takes up
the problems of suffering (and the problem of “negative individuals” who bring suffering), it would
lose its identity. One must give due to P.Wong as a positive psychologist: he tries not to turn to his
theme of “negative traits” that lead to “negative outcomes,” more than he can help, merely pointing
out that this is not the subject area of positive psychology.
On the whole, the attitudes of the representatives of the psychology of happiness and
flourishing to premeditated evil and those who are committed to it can be divided into several types
(the list may be incomplete, but it gives an idea of the issue)
1. Re-educating the enemies and ignoring those of them who refuse to be re-educated (“The
best way to get rid of war and warheads is to learn to live in paradise and to teach your enemies to
do the same… If the enemies are so foolish that they do not want to live in paradise, so much the
worse for them, though it’s a pity” (Linde, 2009). One can be quite happy in spite of them.
2. The understanding that “you cannot live a healthy and fulfilling life in a sick world
contaminated by crime, corruption, injustice, oppression, and poverty” (Wong, 2011, p. 77). The
theme of studying these negative phenomena which make complete well-being impossible, is not
discussed because it is beyond the realm of positive psychology and may dilute its identity.
3. A pragmatic attitude to formulating and discussing the problem of evil based on the
flexibility of practical intellect. To wit: in conditions of well-being the value is declared of win-win
games and no interest is shown in the dynamics in the non-positive numbers zone (only transitions
from positive to still more positive numbers are considered). Whenever the socio-political and
economic situation takes a turn for the worse the rhetoric quickly switches to global threats, a
11
reversal to the clinical model and work with professional fighters against evil who physically
destroy the carriers of threats – but in the framework of advanced positive psychology, the
monument of the psychology of the future.
No psychological analysis of the structure of the activity to destroy the enemy or analysis of
its central relationship – the attitude to the enemy – seems to be conducted. Equally, no analysis is
offered of the goals, relations and strategies of the subjects opposing “our” fighters. Yet such
analysis is necessary if the struggle is to be effective. More precisely, such problems are unlikely to
be ignored during the course of actual training, but they are not discussed in publications on
positive psychology because such discussion would unpleasantly dilute the identity of the positive
psychology. Meanwhile coping with the difficulties deliberately created by the enemy (most of
which in a war are of this kind) differs dramatically from cooping with the difficulties that arise due
to natural causes beyond people’s control. Even if we work only with people who are coping with
difficulties, in order to understand the features of coping and behavior as a whole, one has to
understand the features of the difficulties created for these people, and understand the behavior of
the one who creates them – to understand even if this was not the initial task of positive work
(Poddiakov, 2008, 2011).
It would therefore be interesting to trace how the studies in positive psychology which are,
to use Wong’s expression, spreading like a bush fire, will raise, discuss and solve (or otherwise) the
problems of interaction with the proponents of aggressive evil.
In his book Variants of Life: Essays in Existential Psychology V.N. Druzhinin wrote: “There
are three roles worthy of a human: the role of savior, protector and creator. The creator, constructor,
worker, artist, scientist, pupil and teacher, mother and father, a friend reproduce and renew life. The
protector, policeman, solider, fireman and watchman protect life from external threats. The savior,
doctor, psychologist and the priest prolong physical and spiritual life. In the duel with destructive
aggression and meaningless existence, the sole meaning of individual being is not illusory: it is
extending the life of humanity” (Druzhinin, 2000, pp. 133-134).
But the role of defender against destructive aggression often implies alternative altruism
(Poddiakov, 2007): humaneness with regard to some (the protected) at the expense of inhumanity
with regard to others (the aggressors), inhumanity because killing a human being is inhumane with
regard to that human (and in extreme cases we are talking about killing). Alternative altruism may
also include inhumanity with regard to oneself and other members of an in-group. The fight against
terror, crime, selfless defense of another person against non-physical and physical violence, etc. are
examples of such activities. The question is, will the psychology of happiness and well-being be
able to forego these manifestations of humanity in order not to dilute its identity or will it preserve
and even develop them?
References
Benson, C. (2001). The cultural psychology of self: place, morality and art in human worlds.
London; NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Boniwell I. (2009). [Keys for well-being: what positive psychology can do.] Moscow:
Vremya. (Russian).
Cacioppo, J.T., Reis, H.T., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Social resilience: the value of social
fitness with an application to the military. American Psychologist. Vol. 66(1), 43-51.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Flow: The Psychology of Happiness. Random House eBooks.
Druzhinin, V. N. (2000). [Variants of Life: Essays on Existential Psychology.] Moscow: Per
Se. (Russian).
Enikolopov, S.N. Psychology of evil. In A.L. Zhuravlev & A.V. Jurevich (Eds.),
Psihologicheskie issledovanija duhovno-nravstvennyh problem. Moscow: Institut psihologii RAN.
Pp. 308-335. (Russian).
12
Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality.
In R. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology. NY:
Guilford Press. Pp. 111-137.
Fejgenberg, I. (2009). [Memoires]. Nezavisimyj psihiatricheskij zhurnal. No. 2.
http://www.npar.ru/journal/2009/2/feinverg.htm. (Russian).
Friedman, H.L., & Robbins, B.D. (2012). The negative shadow cast by positive psychology:
Contrasting views and implications of humanistic and positive psychology on resilience. The
Humanistic Psychologist. Vol. 40(1), 87-102.
Hart, K.E., & Sasso, T. (2011). Mapping the contours of contemporary positive psychology.
Canadian Psychology. Vol. 52(2), 82–92.
Held, B.S. (2004). The negative side of positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology. Vol. 44(1), 9-46. http://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/b/bheld/pdf/JHP-held-2004.pdf.
Held, B.S. (2005). The “virtues” of positive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology. Vol. 25(1), 1-34.
Kessman, P., Howe, K., Arcangeli, B., & Goodman, D. (2012a). “Resilient” terminology: a
genealogy of the wellness literature. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Humanistic Psychology
Conference of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, Division 32 of the American Psychological
Association. March 29 - April 1, 2012. Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Kessman, P., Howe, K., & Goodman, D.M. (2012b). Sifting through the “Good Life”: The
Downside of Positive Psychology. Paper presented at the Third Biennial Midwinter Meeting Society
for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. March 1–3, 2012. Austin, Texas, USA.
Lazarus, R.S. (2003a). Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological
Inquiry. Vol. 14(2), 93-109.
Lazarus, R.S. (2003b). The Lazarus Manifesto for positive psychology and psychology in
general. Psychological Inquiry. Vol. 14(2), 173-189.
Linde, N. (2009). [Sutra on Happiness]. http://www.voppsy.ru/Linde.htm. (Russian).
Lee, R.M. (1995). Dangerous fieldwork. London: Sage.
Lem, S. (1990). [Inspection at the Scene of the Crime.] In: Lem, S. [Iz vospominaniy Iyona
Tihogo]. Moscow: Knizhnaya palata. (Russian).
Leontiev, D.A. [Remarks during the course of the debate “The Problem of Evil and Positive
Psychology: Alexander Poddiakov vs Dmitry Leontiev”]. Moscow, NRU HSE. 18 May 2012. URL:
http://video.hse.ru/video/925. (Russian).
Nazaretyan, A. (2006). Violence and non-violence at different stages of world history: A
view from the hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance. In Leonid Grinin, Victor C. de Munck &
Andrey Korotayev (Eds.), History & Mathematics: Analyzing and Modeling Global Development.
Moscow: URSS. Pp. 127–148.
http://cliodynamics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=70.
Poddiakov, A. (2007). [Alter-altruism]. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of
Economics. Vol. 4(3), 98–107. http://psy-journal.hse.ru/en/2007-4-3/26978281.html. (Russian,
abstr. in English).
Poddiakov, A. (2008). Deliberate creation of difficulties and their coping. Psikhologicheskie
Issledovaniya, 1(1). http://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/2008n1-1e/95-poddiakov1e.html (Russian,
abstr. in English).
Poddiakov, A. (2011). [Complicology—study of creating difficulties: from biological
mechanisms to moral reasoning]. In A.L. Zhuravlev & A.V. Jurevich (Eds.), Psihologicheskie
issledovanija duhovno-nravstvennyh problem. Moscow: Institut psihologii RAN. Pp. 435-479.
http://www.hse.ru/data/2011/11/21/1272684575/complicology.doc. (Russian).
Prokofiev, A.V. (2008). Kant, lie, and violence… Logos, 5, 60-90. (Russian).
Prokofiev, A.V. (2009). [Choosing the Lesser Evil and the Problem of the Limits of the
Morally Admissible]. Eticheskaya mysl: Yearbook. Moscow. RAS Institute of Philosophy. Vol. 9,
pp. 122-145. (Russian)
13
Reivich, K.J., Seligman, M.E.P., & McBride, S. (2011). Master Resilience Training in the
U.S. Army. American Psychologist. Vol. 66(1), 25-34.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2000). Positive psychology. In J.E. Gillham (Ed.), The Science of
Optimism and Hope: Research Essays in Honor of Martin E.P. Seligman. Radnor, PA: Templeton
Foundation Press. Pp. 415-430.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness. NY: Free Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2013). Authentic happiness. NY: Atria Paperback.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist. Vol. 55 (1), 5-14.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Fowler, R.D. (2011). Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and the Future of
Psychology. American Psychologist. Vol. 66(1), 82-86.
Servan-Schreiber, D. (2009). Anti-cancer: A new way of life. New York: Viking.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2003).While accentuating the positive, don't eliminate the
negative or Mr. In-Between. Psychological Inquiry. Vol. 14 (2), 163-169.
Werner, H. (2004). Comparative psychology of mental development. NY: Percheron Press.
Wong, P.T.P. (2007). Radical positive psychology for radical times. Кeynote address at the
International Council of Psychologists. San Diego, August 13, 2007.
http://www.meaning.ca/archives/archive/art_radicalPP2_P_Wong.htm.
Wong, P.T.P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: towards a balanced interactive model of the
good life. Canadian Psychology. Vol 52 (2), 69–81.
Zabielski, S. (2007). Deception and self-deception in qualitative research. Paper presented
at the conference “Psychology of the coping behavior”. May 16-18, 2007. Kostroma, Russia.
View publication stats