Being Positive and Avoiding Negativity: Management challenge of positive vs negative

-

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

For western cultures, the term "positive" derives from a Latin word signifying "settled by arbitrary agreement" or imposed, rather than a natural expression. The term "negative" derives from a Latin word signifying negation or denial. The formal mathematical and scientific senses of both terms originated in the 18th century. Philosophical use of both "positivism" and "negativism" originated in the 19th centuries. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that "positive" was used in the psychological sense of "concentrating on what is constructive and good" -- as with the corresponding sense of "negative". The hard sciences have frequently deplored the tendency of other disciplines to mistakenly endeavour to mimic their formalism in the psycho-social domain.

The relation between such moral and ethical implications can therefore be understood as relying, questionably, for some of their significance on the binary formalism introduced by science, notably though the work of mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. His work was however strongly influenced by the ancient notation used by the Chinese for the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching, which he claimed demonstrated the universality of the binary system. The I Ching however encodes a philosophy that is at the heart of Chinese cultural beliefs and based on the dynamic balance of opposites such as positive and negative. It provides a richer articulation between opposites by exploring 64 possible combinations with which moral and ethical connotations are associated -- thus extending connotations of "positive" and "negative" (cf Discovering richer patterns of comprehension to reframe polarization, 1998).

Exhortations and injunctions to "be positive" are a common feature of some religious groups, in the development of selling techniques, in self-help therapies, in work group development, and in living with potentially fatal illnesses. These are seen as a means of avoiding or defeating negativity in those different contexts [more]. Misguided justifications of negativity are a particular concern [more | more]. Recommendations may even be made to avoid negative people, especially those framed as "losers" -- to reduce the possibility of being entrained by their mindset.

Whilst there are numerous web references in support of being positive or avoiding negativity, there are very few resources that challenge the uncritical judgemental attitudes which evoke such injunctions. This is curious because the consequences of "being judgemental" have long been a concern in many of the above contexts. The implication is then that "being positive" is an absolute good, and "being negative" is an absolute negative -- to the point of being recognized as sinful by some religious groups.

The issue is explored here from a variety of perspectives. It is effectively the introduction to an associated paper (Cardioid Attractor Fundamental to Sustainability: 8 transactional games forming the heart of sustainable relationship, 2005) that highlights the existence of a set of games, rather than a single game, that potentially are all aspects of a sustainable cyclic system that merits further attention.

Transactional analysis was founded on the recognition by psychiatrist Eric Berne (Games People Play: the psychology of human relationships, 1964) that individuals frequently engage in psychological games with one another -- psychological theatricals that are played over and over again. For Berne:

A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively, it is a recurring set of transactions... with a concealed motivation... or gimmick.

A game can then be understood as a series of interactions (words, body language, facial expressions, etc.) between two or more people that follow a predictable pattern. The interactions ultimately progress to an outcome in which one individual obtains a "payoff" or "goal." In most cases, the participants in the games are unaware that they are "playing." One of the players, the "loser" tends to end up feeling used and hopeless.

The question explored here is whether the exhortation to "Be Positive", addressed by one person to another, constitutes the first move in such a game -- in which the enjoiner seeks for themselves the "positive" outcome of being the "winner" under the guise of promising positive outcome. It is also possible that a second game, in Berne's terms, might be associated with a reversal of the earlier title of this paper to read: Games People Play: Being Negative and Avoiding the Positive. This would indeed be rated as a more appropriate and significant challenge by some.

There is an increasing social orthodoxy of positive thinking that Karen Armstrong (Look on the dark side of life, Guardian, 21 February 2004), as author of Buddha (2001), sees as a route to spiritual and political disaster. Recognizing the Buddha's isolation from the realities of life in his childhood palace, as an extreme example of denial by his father, she argues that:

It is increasingly unacceptable to voice legitimate distress. If you lose your job, become chronically ill, or fall prey to loneliness or depression, you are likely to be told -- often abrasively -- to look on the bright side. With unseemly haste, people rush to put an optimistic gloss on a disaster or to suggest a solution that is patently unworkable. We seem to be cultivating an intolerance of pain -- even our own....In our global world we can no longer afford to edit out the uncomfortable spectacle of human misery....The pain that we ignored in some parts has hardened to murderous rage.

Elsewhere (Spontaneous Initiation of Armageddon: a heartfelt response to systemic negligence, 2004) it is argued that within psycho-social systems as a whole -- which are the preoccupation of future global governance -- certain functions are inadequately expressed to a degree that is forcing their spontaneous and dangerous emergence under certain circumstances.

Another example of an exploration of the moves in a transactional "game" of enjoining others to be positive is that of Robert Treborlang (The Totally Positive Mate, 2002). With respect to Australian society he argues:

In this country, a nation not given to great political credos, the unanswerable damning accusation from people invariably is: "You're being negative." Being accused of negativity is like being denounced for selling your soul to the devil in the Middle Ages. The fires of hell are sure to get you if society doesn't grill you first. On the other hand, just like being on the side of the angels, the highest social accolade anyone can receive is to be considered "positive".

Treborlang asserts that when people accuse others of being negative, it should be understood as a hint to "back off from whatever it is they don't want to hear". The qualification "negative" is a designation applied when their worldview is threatened, whereas "positive" is usually applied to themselves to "disguise the fantasy they have of a given situation". The accusation of "being negative" effectively indicates "do not bring facts into my preferred understanding of reality". The injunction "be positive" is an appeal to subscribe to a particular worldview -- or be considered highly negative and retrograde for failing to do so.

The extent to which an exclusive focus on the positive should be considered irresponsible has been explored elsewhere (The Quest for the Socio-Economics of Non-Action, 1993) as a commentary on the arguments of Willis Harman (Rethinking the central institutions of modern society: science and business In: Futures, 25, 10, December 1993).

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]