My name is Taylor and I was elected to be the spokesperson for Group 1. Our group discussion on Tuesday mainly focused on the negative attitude that Barbara Ehrenreich seems to have toward a society that tries nearly everything to soften the blow of the real world in general, and breast cancer in particular: from teddy bears to positive thinking Charlatans and their get-happy-quick schemes and seminars. We agreed that there is a certain sense of goofiness in these examples, and realized that Ehrenreich just seems to be so negative after having battled breast cancer, which led us to ask our first question (Note: Barbara Ehrenreich seems very negative, but we did not decide if it is a warranted negativity, or a correct negativity):
(1) Is there a positive side to negative thinking?
This is a question that we discussed for several minutes. I believe the four of us in Group 1 interpreted the question four different ways, perhaps, and answered it four different ways. We decided that it is a question worth asking. Perhaps it is a sort of paradox, or confusion of terms, but that does not mean it's not an interesting question.
Our second question - the factual question is this:
(2) Was it Calvinism that scared earlier Americans into the New Thought movement?
Good! Comments, please, group members.
ReplyDeleteOne point of clarification: your factual question is factual in the sense that Ehrenreich clearly does blame Calvinism, in part, for some of the excesses of positive thinking. On the other hand, historians and other informed observers may differ as to whether New Thought can be "explained" so simply. In that light it would be a good question for discussion.
While I do understand your question that was asked asked, I don't think that Ehrenreich is advocating "negative thinking" at all, but a conspicuous realism that people are failing to make use of.
ReplyDeleteI think, that the positive side of realism that Ehrenreich means to discuss, is that by using logic instead of half-hearted positive-thinking and repression of "negative emotion", we can then understand realistic limitations imposed on us (situational, financial, etc) and better educate ourselves on how to legitimately fix the problems at hand. In the introduction, yes, Ehrenreich could be (and I think, does proclaim herself as feeling) negative, but that is not to be interpreted as the point of the book itself. Ehrenreich even states in several interviews she is not promoting negativity, so much as she is promoting the use of common sense, logic and reason.
This is Jonathan from Group one. Sorry for the late post concerning the group discussion. I just really wanted to elaborate on the first question and my personal understanding of it, and some recent insight:
ReplyDelete"Is there a positive side to negative thinking?"
was honestly just a reaction to her constant negative approach to this movement. Another way I thought of this question was, is this whole thing really so negative? So what if it doesn't work? So what if it isn't all that rational? So what if it hurts her feelings (she could just “avoid” the “negative” people, free speech and all...) or gives people some since of...less empathy towards each other (which I personally find it a little hard to agree with it)? Maybe it is intrinsically selfish, materialistic, shallow,arrogant, and silly. But Americans weren't like this before? Did this new movement really shape American culture and transform it? Or did it simply fit in so well because it is American culture? It's obviously popular, works well with religion, capitalism, people, and blue and white collar workers. I don't think that was all just accidental or by chance. It fit in well as if it was a puzzle piece missing to the American culture.Though I personally don't agree with the movement's philosophy, I can't see the immense damage she claims positive thinking causing in the workplace, church, economy, God, science, ect. I'm not saying the damage isn't there, I'm just doubting the culprit, or doubting it's the only culprit. I don't believe positive thinking can attract positive things anymore than it can cause negative things, especially on the scale at which Ehrenreich describes it. Couldn't this all be simply by products of being an American?
Ehrenriech also seems to claim the movement isn't all that rational, well most people aren't according to my philosophy teacher. Does the movement make them any less rational than they began? And is a little less rational thought really all that harmful? It's not like they deny medical care, quit their jobs, or refuse to take care of their children because they believe “positive thinking” does it all for them. So just how much damage is Ehrenriech talking about here?How much is she taking out of context? Human beings are emotional creatures, we simply don't act based on logic or rational thought 100% of the time. If we did deterrence would work. It's not like this is the only movement/belief where rational thought takes a back seat to emotion and feel good messages. So why does she pick on the New Thought Movement so much? Did it just come at a bad time? It can't be any more harmful than those other beliefs out there.