Some argued that its conceptualizations of wellbeing were culturally specific-influenced by the North American context in which the field emerged-and yet the field tended to presume that these concepts were universally and perennially applicable ( Becker and Marecek, 2008 Lomas, 2015a). However, the field was not without its critics. Thus, as a new field of enquiry focused specifically on “the science and practice of improving wellbeing” ( Lomas et al., 2015: 1347), positive psychology found an enthusiastic response among students and scholars within psychology, and indeed in other fields, from education to social work ( Lomas, 2015b). However, part of the attraction and power of the new field was that it created a conceptual space where these diverse topics-all of which shared the “family resemblance” ( Wittgenstein, 1953) of pertaining in some way to wellbeing-could be brought together and considered collectively. Moreover, its central concerns-the nature of wellbeing and the good life-had been debated by scholars for centuries, millennia even ( McMahon, 2006). Before positive psychology strode boldly onto the scene, many of these topics had already been studied empirically by scholars in disparate fields, from humanistic to clinical psychology. As the field grew, it began to encompass research-much of which pre-dated the field itself-around diverse processes and qualities that could be deemed “positive”, from overarching constructs such as flourishing, to more specific concepts like optimism and hope.Īs intimated above, it was not the case that this research was necessarily new. It swiftly became a fertile new paradigm, offering a “collective identity” for researchers interested in “the brighter sides of human nature” as Linley and Joseph (2004: 4) put it. And so, Seligman used his influence and prominence to propose the notion of positive psychology as a way of redressing this lacuna. Nevertheless, on the whole, Seligman argued that concepts like happiness and flourishing were largely absent in mainstream psychology, removed from serious consideration, and regarded disparagingly by gatekeepers such as grant-awarding bodies. Certain fields had resisted this trend of course, focusing instead on human potential and excellence, such as humanistic psychology ( Waterman, 2013). The rationale for its creation was Seligman’s perceptive-if not universally endorsed-contention that mainstream psychology had hitherto tended to mainly concern itself with disorder and dysfunction. Just before the dawn of the new millennium, Martin Seligman used his ascension to the presidency of the American Psychological Association to inaugurate a bold new initiative: positive psychology ( Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This article is published as part of a collection entitled “On balance: lifestyle, mental health and wellbeing”. Finally, the principle of evolution allows us to understand second-wave positive psychology as itself being an example of a dialectical process. Third, the principle of complementarity posits that not only are such phenomena co-valenced, but that their dichotomous elements are in fact co-creating, two intertwined sides of the same coin. Second, the principle of co-valence holds that many states and qualities at the heart of flourishing, such as love, are actually a complex blend of light and dark elements. First, the principle of appraisal states that it is difficult to categorically identify phenomena as either positive or negative, since such appraisals are fundamentally contextually dependent. This article introduces this emergent second wave, arguing that it is characterized by four dialectical principles. Responding to these criticisms, over recent years a more nuanced “second wave” of positive psychology has been developing, in which wellbeing is recognized as involving a dialectical balance of light and dark aspects of life. For example, apparently positive qualities can be harmful to wellbeing in certain circumstances, while ostensibly dysphoric emotional states may on occasion promote flourishing. However, critics soon pointed out that this binary logic-classifying phenomena as either positive or negative, and valorising the former while disparaging the latter-could be problematic. Positive psychology, an emergent branch of scholarship concerned with wellbeing and flourishing, initially defined itself by a focus on “positive” emotions and qualities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |