The Happiness Industry and Positive Psychology
Many of the criticisms of Positive Psychology could be based on a false dichotomy.
To my surprise, in recent times I have been finding in numerous media channels, television, radio and written press, many allusions to a supposed "industry" based on the irrational and unconditional search for happiness. an alleged "industry" based on the irrational and unconditional pursuit of happiness..
Like any argument or current that is reduced to absurdity, it loses its foundation when we forget the true essence or raison d'être of Positive Psychology, to establish derogatory analogies such as, for example, the fact of making certain publications in social networks of the Mr. Wonderful type or mocking the "need" of having to go to a "Motivational Coach" to solve some kind of trivial question.
After the numerous episodes of this kind of "attack" on a sector of psychotherapy or mental health care (let's not forget that the etymological origin of the word therapy is related to the concept of care). (since let us not forget that the etymological origin of the word therapy is related to the concept of attention), coming even from "colleague" sectors, which did not learn from the old paradigmatic battles between behaviorists and cognitivists or between innatists and environmentalists, among others (paradoxically, both confrontations led to the emergence of integrative paradigms).
Unjust criticisms against Positive Psychology
I can understand that from ignorance or lack of knowledge, an endless number of disqualifications can be made and criticisms, more or less destructive, can be made from ignorance or lack of knowledge.. But what I cannot understand is that there are psychology professionals who cling to their old paradigms and methodological currents, like castaways to the wreckage, to defend their model or way of practicing the profession, as if this were the only one possible.
On the other hand, they are not so reluctant to embrace concepts such as "Learned Helplessness", developed by Professor Martin E.P. Seligman, to justify the development of depression or other psychological maladjustments, this being one of the standards of positive psychology.
I understand that the medical model of psychodiagnosis continues to exert a notable influence on the way we understand influence on the way psychology is understood by some. But, dear colleagues and curious people of various kinds, the clinical psychopathological model does not explain the complete diversity of human behavior, and that is why, without the need to intervene in the prevention or rehabilitation of psychiatric pathologies, there is a field of psychological action that does not obey its rules.
A person who feels bad or is dissatisfied with the life he leads is obviously not ill.is obviously not ill. In fact, there are many people labeled as sick or disturbed who raise many doubts in my mind about the reliability of the diagnostic system. If they knew the damage that can cause a person to feel labeled for life, being part of a "sack" or collective of pejorative connotations for their own health and consequent social adaptation, they would be more careful when making such classifications.
The problem of overdiagnosis
Recently, I have had the opportunity to know in greater detail the opinion of Dr. Javier Alvarez. This head of psychiatry at the Hospital de León is a standard bearer of a movement called "New Psychiatry", which postulates the inconsistencies and suspicions of a medical model probably influenced by another type of industry, but in this case a real industry. The pharmaceutical industry. It is curious the vertiginous growth experienced by the main instrument of psychiatric classification and diagnosis (better known as DSM). (better known as DSM).
From its inception to date, the number of mental disorders has increased exponentially and their treatment has been entrusted primarily to the use and administration of psychopharmaceuticals. use and administration of psychotropic drugs.. Psychopharmaceuticals whose mission is mainly to act on the brain neurotransmitters "involved" in the development of the disorder in question. The problem lies in the conviction and confidence that they give off on the minimal knowledge that exists on the functioning of the mentioned neurotransmitters as a sufficient guarantee to experiment with these chemical drugs.
I do not want any misinterpretations on my part, I am not anti psychotropic drugs, nor anti any other type of treatment, but I do consider that we have developed a remarkable confidence in something that is still in its infancy and we have neglected and even ridiculed other ways of understanding the world of psychology and psychiatry, without finding so many daily examples of criticism with this. The smoke of the "charlatans" versus the "magic pills" ..... And it is not about this, but neither is it about the other.
Each person is a world and each world requires one type of intervention or another.
My problem is no bigger or smaller than yours.
It may not even be a problem.
But it is mine and I decide how I want or need to address it.
(Updated at Apr 14 / 2024)