A Commentary on “Positive Psychology and Indian Psychology: In Need of Mutual Reinforcement”

For those who consider Indian Psychology (IP) a cause worthy of support, comparing IP with Positive Psychology (PP) is a compelling, but at first sight rather embarrassing exercise. Though these two approaches to psychology started roughly at the same time with similar-looking intentions, PP has made by now a major impact in terms of published papers, books and “name recognition”, while IP is still no more than a fringe phenomenon that is hardly on the map, even in India. K. Ramakrishna Rao’s analysis of the situation is as always impressive, but alternative perspectives are possible. To start, I agree of course with Prof. Ramakrishna Rao that these two new schools of psychology are similar in their intent of bringing some more “goodness” into mainstream psychology, but in my humble opinion, their similarity ends there. PP is a simple attempt at correcting mainstream psychology’s tendency to focus primarily on difficulties and negative emotional states. Beyond that, it doesn’t challenge the mainstream in any way. In spite of a not very successful attempt at internationalising itself (for an excellent critique see Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008), it is still solidly American, and as a whole it fits perfectly and noiselessly within the existing discipline and its supporting culture.     

Putting “Positive” and “Psychology” In Perspective: The Role of Indian Psychology

Rao (this issue) offers a trenchant critique of the field of positive psychology. He clearly shows the way positive psychology, as it has been thus far considered, is clearly a product of a Westernized psychology. He goes further though and proposes that some of the limitations of positive psychology might be addressed by considering the insights of Indian indigenous psychology. In this commentary I suggest that these limitations of positive psychology can be fruitfully framed by considering the nature of the self and the nature of the positive or good that any understanding of positive psychology must presuppose.     

What is the Good Life? Positive Psychology and the Renaissance of Humanistic Psychology

Positive and humanistic psychology overlap in thematic content and theoretical presuppositions, yet positive psychology explicitly distances itself as a new movement, despite the fact that its literature implicitly references its extensive historical grounding within humanistic psychology. Consequently, humanistic psychologists both celebrate diffusion of humanistic ideas furthered by positive psychology, and resent its disavowal of the humanistic tradition. The undeniably close alignment of these two schools of thought is demonstrated in the embracing of eudaimonic, in contrast to hedonic, conceptions of happiness by positive psychology. Eudaimonic happiness cannot be purely value-free, nor can it be completely studied without using both nomethetic and idiographic (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) methods in addressing problems of value, which identifies positive psychology clearly as a humanistic approach, despite its protestations.     

Do Positive Psychology Interventions Impact on the Subjective Wellbeing and Depression of Clients? A Systematic Methodological Review

Mental health services are placing a greater emphasis on wellbeing and recovery. The current research investigated if positive psychology interventions (PPIs) increase peoples’ subjective wellbeing and reduce clinical depression. A systematic methodological review was conducted on randomized-control-trials with people attending clinical services. Five databases were searched. A hand search was then completed on the reference lists of the identified articles and the associated journals. Eleven research interventions were reviewed. PPIs were found to significantly increase wellbeing, relative to controls and there were fewer studies indicating a difference in decreasing depression. However, subsequent analysis revealed that the interventions were heterogeneous which limits the drawing of definitive systematic conclusions. A methodological evaluation also found that there were recurring issues: in delivering the interventions, measuring subjective wellbeing, and applying the design. Thus, the methodological quality of the research interventions, as measured by the current review was low. There is emerging evidence that PPIs improve peoples’ mental health. However, there is scope to standardize and to improve the quality of the research interventions.

     

Psychology—Tensions between Objectivity and Subjectivity

The self is often defined in terms of its presentational appearances. This may easily end up in a denial of the internal aspects of the self, which is very often related to a tendency to avoid the tension between the internal and the external, but also between subjectivity and objectivity. In this paper this ambition is regarded in a historical perspective, in which Fichte and Hegel both represent attempts at abolishing the tension, whereas Kant and Kierkegaard represent the opposite. History shows that an eradication of the tension between subjectivity and objectivity implies a deterioration of psychology as well. Thus the conclusion is that psychology is primarily to be defined in terms of the tension between subjectivity and objectivity, which requires an accurate understanding and the inclusion of both of them.     

Positive Psychology: What Impact has it had on Sex Research Publication Trends?

Throughout history, Americans have been bitterly divided as to whether passionate love and sexual desire are positive experiences (that give meaning to life), whether they constitute a political, social, and spiritual danger, or whether sex in itself is not inherently bad, but certain sexual behaviors are wrong or dangerous. As previously noted by H. L. Horowitz, R. L. Rapson, and L. Stone, political and religious authorities—preaching the virtues of social control, chastity, and circumspection—have prevailed over reformers advocating “free love,” gender equality, birth control, the elimination of the double standard, sex education, and the like. In this paper we ask: Do we see any bias in the publication of modern-day sexuality research—specifically, do published studies tend to focus primarily on the positive or the negative aspects of sexuality? We attempted to answer this question by conducting a content analysis of articles appearing in four prestigious journals: The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual Behavior, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, from 1960 to the present. As expected, only a slim minority of articles investigated the delights of love, sex, and intimacy; the vast majority focused on the problems associated with sexual behavior. The positive psychology movement does not appear to have altered this time-tested bias.     

A secular age? Reflections on Taylor and Panikkar

During the last few years two major volumes have been published, both greatly revised versions of earlier Gifford Lectures: Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age (2007) and Raimon Panikkar’s The Rhythm of Being (2010). The two volumes are similar in some respects and very dissimilar in others. Both thinkers complain about the glaring blemishes of the modern, especially the contemporary age; both deplore above all a certain deficit of religiosity. The two authors differ, however, both in the details of their diagnosis and in their proposed remedies. Taylor views the modern age—styled as “secular age”—as marked by a slide into secular agnosticism, into “exclusive humanism”, and above all into an “immanent frame” excluding theistic “transcendence”. Although sharing the concern about “loss of meaning”, Panikkar does not find its source in the abandonment of (mono)theistic transcendence; on the contrary, both radical transcendence and agnostic immanence are responsible for the deficit of genuine faith. For him, recovery of faith requires an acknowledgment of our being in the world, as part of the “rhythm of being” happening in a holistic or “cosmotheandric” mode. In classical Indian terminology, while Taylor’s emphasis on the transcendence-immanence tension reflects ultimately a dualistic perspective (dvaita), Panikkar’s holistic notion of the rhythm of being captures the core of Advaita Vendanta.     

Is Psychology Based on a Methodological Error?

It is believed a proven fact that variables in social and personality psychology match to normal distribution with its single peak. Multiple peaks are explained by independent variables. However, after a comprehensive data analysis of more than 8.000 patients and on the basis of a bio-psycho-social model with 27 scales, we arrived at the conclusion that normal distribution and the psychometric error theory cannot withstand critical analysis in large samples. Beyond the “truth” that is proved by distribution-dependent statistical inferences, there exists another “truth” that is denied by the empirical doctrine. This “truth” is influenced by compensatory belief systems and explains paradoxes in quality of life research. We hypothesize that items, referred to life risks are micro-stressors, triggering self-regulatory processes as a humanly inherent response, deeply anchored in human evolution. Especially when exposed to threatening experiences, self-focused attention generates amplified multimodal distributions and subverts the methodological premises by an ambivalence-bias between thrill and threat, hopes and fears, pleasure and pain, success and failure, etc. In this article we want to focus attention to the incommensurability between test theoretical axioms and the way people usually respond to self-focused items. We discuss basic distribution patterns and approach to an evolutionary theory of fluctuation of validity.

Philosophy,psychology and the moral crisis: Reflections on compassion “between tradition and another beginning”

Abstract

The author presents, and his thinking passes through, the work of Werner Marx who seeks a non‐metaphysical ethical mooring via compassion, grounded in emotional dimensions of existential‐phenomenology. Through Marx's re‐centered compassion the author inquires if reason and faith cannot be resurrected in intrinsic and holistic form. Marx's ethics is introduced as one of the directions humanistic thinking is taking, suggesting this latter's considerable prospective role as a human vision in the ethical debate in transition between failed modern and ethically vulnerable postmodern paradigms.