Barbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-Sided Explores the Dark Side of Positive Thinking

"A new book reveals the historical roots and conservative uses of the positive thinking movement, showing how it encourages victim-blaming, political complacency, and a culture-wide flight from realism." (Michelle Goldberg, Religion Dispatches)

Bright-Sided: How The Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America is a recently published book by Barbara Ehrenreich that traces the origins, development, and ethically dubious uses of the so-called positive thinking movement. She largely speaks against this movement, arguing that this message has been used to blame completely innocent victims of disasters and diseases, inhibit social and political activism, and, in some instances, exploit people for profit. She takes a hard-nosed look at the darker facet of this movement of positivity that exists in circles from conservative Christians (e.g. Joel Osteen and prosperity gospelers) to New Agers (e.g. The Secret) and corporate America.

The Christian denomination with which I'm affiliated, Unity, finds its historical roots in the New Thought movement, which combined a healthy dose of American Pragmatism with Transcendentalism's spiritual tenor. New Thought is centered firmly in the positive thinking movement, and is in fact where the current movement finds its beginnings. All in all, Ehrenreich does make valid points about the ethical difficulties with some aspects of the positive thinking movement. I don't believe that everyone who gets cancer is solely responsible for contracting that disease due to their "victim" mentality or negative attitude. I don't believe that those who are killed or harmed by tsunamis or hurricanes had it coming to them because of the mental atmosphere that they harbor. I don't think reality is that simple; I believe cause and effect is not just linear but multi-faceted and multi-layered. Of course, in order to enact any real social change it must not stay confined to our inner attitude but become an engaged activity cultivated in relationships and society.

Sure, Ehrenreich makes some good points about the pitfalls of positive thinking. However, I'd argue that any personal or social change that is to be enacted must have its conception and origin in some feeling of optimism or "positivity" of sorts. As reviewer, Michelle Goldberg, states, "How else could Gandhi believe that he could get the British to leave India, or Martin Luther King convince himself and his followers in the possibility of winning racial equality? Barack Obama became president in part by imbuing millions of individuals with the wild hope that they could change the world." (Religion Dispatches) This all requires a seed of optimism and positivity, which is what all good religion has at its heart - a very real and acute sense of hope.

Read Goldberg's review essay at Religion Dispatches.