I don't know a lot about this subject, but it seems to keep popping up. I know from personal experience being involved in the yoga that “positive psychology” prevails--this has often made me very uncomfortable (it sometimes feels fake). Maybe people prefer to think of themselves as "beings of light" or some such term related to ideas of transcending human nature. My current teacher talks about this sometimes; about how she used to be afraid of any feeling that wasn't positive and now she just "sits" with it. Sometimes you get off your yoga mat angerier than before you started (not something most are willing to admit, always hoping for an enlightening experience). Sure you're "allowed" to cry but I don't have the sense that you're supposed to go deep into it (certainly not like Thomas Moore writes) and it seems like you're expected to get over it and move on.

As always, I'd like to apply the principle of "going with the symptom" to the emphasis on the positive in psychology. If it's a symptom, and I certainly think it is, then what is it looking for, where is it going? It could be that we have trouble trusting life and feeling deeply positive in light of experience. Therefore, we settle for a sentimental version (the typical tactic). A more substantive positive attitude might look more like an attachment to life in the thick of challenges and in the face of failure. A strong philosophy of life is often lacking, one that would allow trust and hope during dark times. Many live by guilt, sometimes a profound guilt based on a too-demanding moral weight. In Writing in the Sand I tried to unveil a positive psychology that is deeply set in the Gospels, to replace the guilt-inducing one that invaded the churches 2000 years ago.

In These Times interviews Barbara Ehrenreich about her new book. She offers more observations about the current state of American optimism:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5024/the_dark_side_of_the_brigh...