This detailed examination of Positive Psychology explores its definitions, historical roots, differences with humanistic psychology, and its implications in the context of therapy, particularly for young adults seeking mental well-being.
To begin, let’s define Positive Psychology (PP). Richard Gross (2009) succinctly describes PP as “the scientific study of the positive aspects of human subjective experience, of positive individual traits, and of positive institutions.” At its core, PP shifts the focus of psychology from merely addressing mental illness to enhancing mental health and well-being.
A philosophical dilemma presents itself with Gross’s definition: can we genuinely utilize scientific methods to study subjective experiences or qualia—personal experiences of happiness and suffering? Science typically examines the objective world, so there’s an inherent tension between the methods suited for natural sciences and the subjective nature of human experiences addressed in PP. To navigate this, we can view psychology as a human science, akin to the arts, especially in clinical applications, rather than strictly as a life science which runs the risk of reducing human experience to biological terms.
Entering the scene in 1998, PP was largely acknowledged to be founded by Martin Seligman during his presidential address at the American Psychological Association. He pointed out that psychology had become overly focused on mental illness, neglecting broader aspects of human experience. Therefore, he proposed that psychology should also emphasize helping people lead productive and fulfilling lives while nurturing talent and giftedness. These ideas, which were core to early psychological practices, laid the groundwork for the establishment of PP.
Psychology’s recorded history can be traced back to 1879 with Wilhelm Wundt's establishment of the first psychological laboratory. However, the roots of psychological inquiry can delve even deeper into history, pointing back to ancient philosophical texts, such as the Edwin Smith Papyrus from around 1500 BCE. This history encourages us to recognize how the development of PP has historical links to humanistic psychology, notably emphasizing healthy individuals and the 'fully functioning person' as stressed by figures like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.
Although PP shares some foundational beliefs with humanistic psychology, there are stark differences in methodology and ideology. Some humanistic psychologists view the emergence of PP as a misunderstanding or misapplication of their original goals, noting a growing trend towards 'medicalizing' human experiences, which sits contrary to the humanistic approach that advocates for understanding individuals in a more holistic manner.
A critical term within PP is happiness, historically discussed since Ancient Greek times by philosophers like Aristotle. He differentiated between eudaimonic happiness—focused on cognitive aspects of well-being—and hedonic happiness, relating to affective experiences. Yet, as Gross (2009) mentions, measuring eudaimonia presents significant challenges, indicating a bias toward quantitative research methods that may not fully capture the richness of subjective well-being.
In therapy, evaluating PP involves reflecting on these definitions and historical contexts, starting with the medical model which often emphasizes diagnosis and treatment of mental health conditions. The shift to PP highlights a more comprehensive perspective that focuses on both problems and potential strengths, viewing human experiences through a continuum rather than categorical distinctions.
Understanding PP and its implications in therapy is vital for fostering mental health and well-being, particularly for young adults who are navigating life's challenges. By emphasizing positive qualities and the nuances of happiness, PP provides a rich context for therapy that aims not only at alleviating suffering but also at promoting a flourishing life.