In my Group Counseling class, I’ve experienced predictable questioning of or resistance to evidence-based happiness ideas from positive psychology. . . and so I wrote out some of my thoughts . . . which went on and on and ended with a video clip.

Hello Group Class,

I’m writing my group takeaway to your all this week. Feel free to read at your leisure . . . or not at all . . . because I’m a writer and obviously, sometimes I get carried away and write too much.

When I responded to a question last week expressing reservations about the use of positive psychology—perhaps generally and perhaps more specifically with oppressed populations—I launched into a psychoeducational lecture. Upon reflection, I wish I had been more receptive to the concerns and encouraged the class as a group chew on the pros and cons of positive psychology in general and positive psychology with oppressed populations, in particular. I suspect this would have been an excellent discussion.

Given that we have limited time for discussion in class, I’ll share more reflections on this topic here.

1.       The concerns that were expressed (and others have expressed in your takeaways) are absolutely legitimate. I’m glad you all spoke up. Some people have used positive psychology as a bludgeon (claiming things like “happiness is a choice”) in ways that make people feel worse about themselves. Never do that!

2.       Positive psychology is poorly named (even the great positive psych researcher, Sonja Lyubomirsky, hates the name). Among its many naming problems, the word positive implies that it’s better, preferable, and the opposite of negative—which must then be the correct descriptor for all other psychology. None of this is true; positive psychology is not “better” and, in fact, it’s not even exclusively positive.

3.       The point of positive psychology is not to “take over” psychology, but to balance our focus from being nearly always on psychopathology, to being equally about strengths, joy, happiness, etc., and psychopathology. If you think of it as an effort to balance how we work with individuals, it makes more sense. The point isn’t, and never has been, that we should only focus on positive mental health regardless of how our clients and students are feeling. That would be silly and insensitive.

4.       As someone reminded me in the takeaways, the sort of happiness we focus on in positive psych is called eudaimonic happiness. This term comes from Aristotle. It refers to a longer form of happiness that emphasizes meaning, interpersonal connection, and finding the sweet spot where our own virtues intersect with the needs of the community. The other side of happiness is referred to as “hedonic” happiness. Hedonic happiness is more about hedonism, which involves immediate pleasure and material acquisitions. Nearly everyone in positive psychology advocates primarily for eudaimonic happiness, but also recognizes that we all usually need some pleasure as well.

5.       Individuals and groups who have been historically (and currently) oppressed are naturally sensitive to coercion, judgment, and possibility of repeated oppression. What this means for counselors (among many things) is that we need to careful, sensitive, and responsive to their needs and not our assumptions of their needs. They may appreciate us being positive and supportive. Or they may appreciate us explicitly acknowledging their pain and affirming the legitimacy of the reasons for their pain. There’s substantial research indicating that certain ethnic group expect counselors to be experts and offer guidance. If that’s the case, should we avoid offering guidance because a particular theorist (or supervisor) said not to offer guidance? I think not. Many clients benefit from going deep and processing their disturbing emotions and sensations. There are probably just as many who don’t really want to go deep and would prefer a surface-focused problem-solving approach. Either way, my point is that we respond to them, rather than forcing them to try to benefit from a narrow approach we learned in grad school.

6.       Good counselors . . . and you will all become good counselors . . . can use virtually any approach to make connection, begin collaborating, remain sensitive to what clients and students are saying (verbally and non-verbally), and work constructively with them on their emotions, thoughts, sensations/somatics, behaviors, and the current and/or historical conditions contributing to their distress.

7.       We should not blame clients for their symptoms or distress, because often their symptoms and distress are a product of an oppressive, traumatic, or invalidating environment. This is why reflections of feeling can fall flat or be resisted. Feeling reflections are tools for having clients sit with and own their feelings. While that can be incredibly important, if you do a feeling reflection and you don’t have rapport or a rationale, feeling reflections will often create defensiveness. Instead, it can be important to do what the narrative and behavioral folks do, and externalize the problem. When it comes to issues like historical trauma, often clients or students have internalized negative messages from a historically oppressive society, and so it makes perfect sense to NOT contribute to their further internalization of limits, judgments, discrimination, and trauma that has already unjustly taken hold in their psyche. The problem is often not in the person.     

8.       I know I said this in class, but it bears repeating that many people practice simple, superficial, and educational positive psychology using bludgeon-like strategies. Obviously, I’m not in support of that. That said, many people practice simplistic implementation of technical interventions in counseling (think: syncretism from theories class), and many counselors do bad CBT, bad ACT, bad DBT, bad behaviorism, bad existentialist therapy, and bad versions of every form of counseling out there. No matter which approach you embrace, you should do so using your excellent fundamental listening skills . . . so that if your client or student doesn’t like or isn’t benefiting from your approach, you can change it!

I want to end this little 1K word writing project with a video. In the linked clip, I’m doing about a 3 1/2 minute opening demonstrating a “Strengths-based approach” to suicide assessment and treatment planning with a 15-year-old. As you watch, ask yourself, “Is this strengths-based?” Can you identify anything that makes this approach strengths-based or as including even a whiff of positive psychology. [Again, you’re not required to watch this, I’m just rambling.]

Okay. That’s all for this Sunday evening!

John