This volume contains twenty-five papers
presented in a 1998 symposium by thirty-five ‘eminent and developing scholars’
(as the editor Jane E. Gillham specifies in her introduction). Owing much to
the work of Professor Seligman and his colleagues over the past three decades,
this body of work expressly constitutes a relatively new field of psychological
research, coined as ‘positive psychology’, and aspiring to precipitate a whole
movement that poses fundamental questions about the way in which psychology is
scientifically practiced.

The contributions to the volume vary in content,
ranging from impressive data of neurological and pharmacological interest (e.g. Drugan) to impelling personal confessions of the
researchers themselves (e.g. Miller), and from the citation of interview
material (Nolen–Hoeksema) to the discussion of religious faith (e.g. Myers) and
wellness of life (Snyder; Peterson), in the context of optimism and hope. Not only
does this collection of articles appeal to both the specialized scholar and the
educated reader, but also its great virtue is that it manages to incorporate
diverse attitudes, theoretical presuppositions, and methodological proposals.
This being the case, even the negatively predisposed reader will find that many
of his or her possible queries are dealt with, and a lot of crucially critical
points are already made by some of the researchers.

What
does it mean then for psychology to be positive? As almost all of the
contributors point out, psychological method and practice in the past century
or so has been employed as a means for studying the pathology of human
behaviour and treating psychological illness. In the seventies, Seligman
himself started exploring the reasons why animals learn to be helpless and lose
their ability to cope with the demands of their environment, simply because
their initial efforts meet with failure. But soon, out of this negative,
‘learned helplessness’ model, it became clear for the new positive
psychologists that the same methodology could be employed in actually teaching
humans how to be optimistic, in defiance of negative or traumatic experiences
(e.g. Seligman, 418). There are cases of people who manage to overcome even the
most adverse circumstances, to be happy, and flourish. Examining and promoting
this constructive rather than destructive virtue in individuals is precisely
the focal point for positive psychology (e.g. Abramson et al., 92–93).

Research
data presented in this volume seems in effect to be supporting our
folk-psychological convictions: being always optimistic, ‘looking at the bright
side’ of things becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and yields health and
happiness for the hopeful individual, who thus becomes stronger through
hardship. In this way, even in its non-experimental instances (Joiner, 99),
psychology provides a scientific alibi for our common sense. This fact could
not have been very significant in itself; but the importance of the ongoing
research in positive psychology as presented in this volume lies in the
questions it poses (in some cases more urgently than in others) concerning its
own presuppositions: 1) Is optimism a strictly definable state of mind? 2) Are
optimism and pessimism mutually exclusive? 3) What is optimism in the face of
reality? 4) What is it to be a happy individual? In addition—provided that we
encourage a happiness which is akin to goodness—5) Are optimism and hope
sufficient for morality?

The Science of Optimism and Hope
gives a clearly negative answer to the first two questions: to put it briefly,
there are degrees of optimism and of hopefulness about future events (Stark
& Boswell; DeRubeis); furthermore, optimism and pessimism do not form the
two poles of an alleged continuum (Fincham), but they constitute
multi-dimensional, chaotic concepts (Garber; Worthington). As for the relation
to reality, biased and unrealistic optimism could actually prove harmful and
maladaptive: moderate pessimism is often more realistic (e.g. Maier &
Watkins, 43; Satterfield, 351; Schwartz, 404).

Finally (in response to the remaining two
questions), Seligman regards the overcoming of psychological depression in the
United States as the highest service science has to offer to the nation,
consummating ‘the blessings that have fallen on it and that it has created’
(Seligman, 415), and creating—in the manner of ancient Athens, mediaeval
Florence, and Victorian England—a ‘humane scientific monument: positive
psychology’ (417). If optimism and hope constitute such ultimate blessings to
crown all the existing ones, they are nonetheless not to be measured on the
grounds of usefulness and productivity (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 393–94). And
they are not to be sanctified, because they are only legitimate means to
multifarious ends: if politicians rule and wars are fought merely because some
leaders manage to appear as more optimistic than their opponents (Peterson
& Bishop; Schwartz, 406–10), then clearly optimism and hope ought not to be
explored, taught, and pursued with no further qualifications regarding their
hidden implications.

On the whole, The Science of Optimism and
Hope offers a significant indication about the future development of our
psycho-social sciences, precisely because the recent work in positive
psychology presented in this volume carries a great humanistic potential, being
less positivistic and more self-critical.

©
2002 Nikolaos A. N. Gkogkas

Nikolaos
A. N. Gkogkas, BA, MA, PhD student, sponsored by the ‘Alexander S. Onassis’ Public Benefit
Foundation.

Categories: General

Tags: Social Psychology and Sociology, Psychology