Smile Or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America And The World

Interesting extract on postive thinking and cancer from a new book by Barbara Ehrenreich (author of 'Nickel and Dimed').

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/02/cancer-positive-thinking-barbara-ehrenreich

I'm a fan of her work and I like this article.  She really has a point.  My mother is one of these who thinks you can positive think yourself out of, well, diseases (she's one of those who believes the chief problem with infertile couples is that they aren't relaxed enough  , depression is someone with a negative attitude, etc.)

I got her this book, by John Diamond, who ultimately passed away from cancer:
:-\\\

TBH, it's one of the things I like about British culture, is that you don't feel so much pressure to be Pollyanna Sunshine 24/7.

I wonder if gender plays a role here. Breast cancer is primarily a woman's disease, and traditionally, women are taught to internalise their anger - "If I'm not getting better, it's my own fault because I don't have the right attitude."

In comparison, I remember when AIDS first appeared on the public scene. Lots of loud, angry protests by gay men demanding more research and better medical care.

I think her attitude is sh*t, tbh.  I read about half of the article before closing it in disgust.  Whilst I personally do not believe positive thinking is going to ultimately change the outcome of a horrible disease such as cancer, I do believe it will go a long way towards making the time one has left more enjoyable. The author of the article says that it suppresses natural feelings of anger and fear, but I believe the positive thinking can only come after you've moved through those stages (7 stages of acceptance). 

No one should be led to believe that they will be cured via positive thinking, but for Christ's sake... let them at least have a little positive outlook in their last bit of time! 

TBH, it's one of the things I like about British culture, is that you don't feel so much pressure to be Pollyanna Sunshine 24/7.

No, but it would be nice to get it at all as opposed to the Negative Nancys walking around.

I saw an interview with the author a while back (I think it was either on Daily Show or Colbert Report, or in Newsweek), and beyond the cancer treatment issue, she mentioned the effect this insistence on positivity has had in corporate America.  That was something that really resonated with me.

The basic point was that the virtual taboo over ever mentioning, or even noticing, the down-side of anything has lead to the sort of corporate culture that makes things like the banking crisis possible.  Anyone who simply tries to insert a bit of common sense, logic or balance into plans gets pegged as a 'Negative Nancy.'  Then, at best, people simply dismiss their ideas.  At worst, they end up being dismissed from the team.

Having worked for a very large software company, I saw this sort of thing all the time.  Releasing a product 'on schedule' (nevermind that the the deadline had been pushed back three times) was a win.  It didn't matter if the product was seriously flawed.  Just  getting it out there was reason to run around patting each other on the back, handing out little award plaques commemorating the event, and generally behaving as though we'd just changed the world of computing in some hugely significant way.  Whereas, personally, I thought that if we'd really wanted something to be proud of, we ought to have taken the time to test & troubleshoot before inflicting it on the public. 

The moral of the story, from my perspective:  Whenever you find yourself annoyed at endless software updates....this is what causes them.

When my cousin had luekemia as a kid (this was about 20 years ago), they used to have her draw pictures of the white cells eating "the bad guys" and try to positively visualise the war that was going on inside her body and imagine the "good guys" winning. There are some studies that seem to show that this sort of positive thinking can make a difference in recovery times or whatnot, but overall, I think it just helped my very young cousin have a sort of explanation for what was going on inside her body, and helped keep her going when she was very sick. It gave her something to focus on. So I don't suppose it can be bad.

There is a difference between being positive - "I can fight this disease; we can solve this problem" and not facing reality - "I'm not sick; there isn't any problem."

There's also a difference between being positive and being forced to be positive.

Additionally it's got far, far broader implications. The positiveness in corporate America for example, this sense that if you want it bad enough you'll get it. The logical flip of this is that the people who don't get it just didn't want it enough, so it's their own fault. It's a really poisonous attitude because it over-empowers them in their own mind. Many, many Americans have this attitude and it really becomes a problem for them and the society. It shifts responsibility away from other people and onto you, making people shoulder the burdens for things which are way beyond their control. It isn't your fault, for example, that your boss has cut your wages or outsourced your job - it's his.

It is, essentially, the keystone of American social pacification. That may seem a little ridiculous at first glance, but just consider that the presence or absence of this attitude is one of the only two major differences between Europe and the USA - otherwise, we are shockingly similar in attitudes and culture. The other is the increased religiosity of the US, but arguably that's very tied to this same optimist-individualist dogma of American society. That aside, this optimist-individualist outlook leads people to personalise the social - witness the idea of recession-as-opportunity or unemployment-as-failure when in reality they're just insignificant people caught in the tide of events.

I think in Europe this attitude is rejected, though perhaps rejected isn't the best word because it doesn't convey the sense that there is no option of believing this without seeming a little ridiculous. This acceptance, though, this sense that you are insignificant actually almost empowers people. I think it's very interesting to note that outside of the black community in the US (who similarly tend to reject the optimist-individualist outlook) American politics occurs in a remarkable bubble where public outrage is only considered through the lens of what impact it will have in the coming elections.

Public outrage this side of the pond, however, has a tendency to turn into strikes, protests and riots.

I think that by accepting the social nature of many things we can keep ourselves for ourselves, that everything isn't a test or a judgement passed on ourselves but rather that things just happen to us. I'd hate to live in this world where everything that happens is a reflection of me or my attitude.

Bravo, peterm!  I couldn't agree more.  You put it so well.

Woad, you, too.

. It shifts responsibility away from other people and onto you, making people shoulder the burdens for things which are way beyond their control. It isn't your fault, for example, that your boss has cut your wages or outsourced your job - it's his.

Because, according to popular American wisdom, an alternative viewpoint would be [shudder] socialism[/shudder].

There's also a difference between being positive and being forced to be positive.

Additionally it's got far, far broader implications. The positiveness in corporate America for example, this sense that if you want it bad enough you'll get it. The logical flip of this is that the people who don't get it just didn't want it enough, so it's their own fault. It's a really poisonous attitude because it over-empowers them in their own mind. Many, many Americans have this attitude and it really becomes a problem for them and the society. It shifts responsibility away from other people and onto you, making people shoulder the burdens for things which are way beyond their control. It isn't your fault, for example, that your boss has cut your wages or outsourced your job - it's his.

It is, essentially, the keystone of American social pacification. That may seem a little ridiculous at first glance, but just consider that the presence or absence of this attitude is one of the only two major differences between Europe and the USA - otherwise, we are shockingly similar in attitudes and culture. The other is the increased religiosity of the US, but arguably that's very tied to this same optimist-individualist dogma of American society. That aside, this optimist-individualist outlook leads people to personalise the social - witness the idea of recession-as-opportunity or unemployment-as-failure when in reality they're just insignificant people caught in the tide of events.

I think in Europe this attitude is rejected, though perhaps rejected isn't the best word because it doesn't convey the sense that there is no option of believing this without seeming a little ridiculous. This acceptance, though, this sense that you are insignificant actually almost empowers people. I think it's very interesting to note that outside of the black community in the US (who similarly tend to reject the optimist-individualist outlook) American politics occurs in a remarkable bubble where public outrage is only considered through the lens of what impact it will have in the coming elections.

Public outrage this side of the pond, however, has a tendency to turn into strikes, protests and riots.

I think that by accepting the social nature of many things we can keep ourselves for ourselves, that everything isn't a test or a judgement passed on ourselves but rather that things just happen to us. I'd hate to live in this world where everything that happens is a reflection of me or my attitude.

Yeah, American labor never has strikes. You know all about America, obviously. Please enlighten us some more with your fascinating observations.

The strikes in the US are a lot less frequent and labour is a lot less of a musclely political force in the States.  I say this as the daughter of a former shop steward.  They are involved in politics, but it's nothing compared to here.  I'd say that some countries on the continent go even further than the UK.

Yeah, American labor never has strikes. You know all about America, obviously. Please enlighten us some more with your fascinating observations.

That's just rude.

Yeah, American labor never has strikes. You know all about America, obviously. Please enlighten us some more with your fascinating observations.

Well, I've spent most of my life in the US, and got my degree in political science there, and I think that peterm's observations are pretty on target.

I will add, however, that  the belief that failure is always due to external forces is just as bad as the belief that failure is always due to lack of motivation.

ETA: This is a forum for American expats in the UK. The vast majority of posters here are American, and therefore know a lot about America.

Topic is temporarily locked as I've had a 'bellyful'.