Welcoming Happiness Criticism?
The last few years have seen the emergence of an increasing number of books and articles criticizing happiness research and even questioning the worthiness of happiness itself. What does it mean and how should those of us who believe deeply in the value of happiness interpret criticism?
Included among the critics is the popular writer and social commentator, Barbara Ehrenreich. She developed breast cancer and became angered at the medical caregivers who pressured her to practice positivity insisting that it was necessary if she hoped to recover. This experience led her to write “Bright Sided,” a book in which she attacked positive psychology as pseudoscience as well as damning what she called the “happiness industry.”
Wake Forest professor, Eric Wilson, distressed at what he saw as bullying by the happiness advocates, wrote his book, “Against Happiness: In Praise of Meloncholy.” An admittedly somber type, he lamented that happiness proponents were discounting the value of sadness in their insistence that there was something wrong with those who resisted becoming happy.
In January of 2010, Amy Blair wrote in a New York Times article (“The Rap on Happiness”) claiming that happiness is, by nature, fleeting and that those promising lasting happiness are off base.
These are just a few examples from the rising tide of happiness critics. So how should those of us, who believe deeply in the value and truth of happiness, react and respond? What I’ve observed are mostly negative reactions: anger, hurt, and outrage. While understandable, these negative reactions are misplaced.
When a new movement like happiness science is small, the critics tend to ignore it as being inconsequential. However, as it grows, gaining strength and influence, it will begin attracting critical attention. Thus, the appearance of happiness critics is a actually a welcome sign that our movement has become stronger, more significant.
In addition, as happiness enthusiasts, it can be difficult for us to exercise the critical judgment necessary for separating the wheat from the chaff. Certainly, we needn’t fear that the critics are going to show that happiness is a fraud. Also, they are actually helping us spot any flaws in our reasoning, thereby highlighting for us those areas where we need to do a better job in solidifying our concepts.
For example, Barbara Ehrenreich, in addition to shining a light on areas where happiness research needs to be stronger, demonstrates that we cannot assume that everyone will respond well to positivity as a hard sell. Eric Wilson reminds us that there is value in negative emotion and we should never insist that happiness is all there is of value for us. And Amy Blair’s critique points out that we need to be very clear in differentiating between brief, bursts of hedonic happiness from deep, enduring contentment.
So as the field of happiness research and practice continues to expand, we should welcome the critics for the valuable help they provide us. Of course, we’ll need to differentiate serious criticism from the trivial and cynical. The former can assist us in making happiness science and practice become even better. And we should have no great difficulty in refuting the latter.
