Bright-Sided: Smart Analysis Or Missing Something?

Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, Bright-Sided, has been the source of a great book review debate recently. Following eye-opening accounts such as Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch, her new effort, released last week, takes on the philosophy of positive thinking, from the mantra of bestsellers like The Secret to the practice of giving presents to cancer patients.

Some reviewers have given the book nothing but praise. Nora Ephron, writing for the Daily Beast, said, "I hesitate to say anything so positive as that this book will change the way you see absolutely everything." The San Francisco Chronicle calls the book a "provocative look at the happiness industry." These reviews and others praise Ehrenreich for calling attention to something no one wants to face up to: that positivity won't solve the world's problems.

Other reviews are more critical, some, like Janet Maslin's piece in the New York Times, scathingly so. Says Maslin:

Her argument has the makings of a tight, incisive essay. And each chapter eventually delivers a succinct reiteration of the central point. But this short book is also padded with cheap shots, easy examples, research recycled from her earlier books and caustic reportorial stalking. Ms. Ehrenreich starts out with her ideas firmly in place, then goes out hunting for crass, benighted individuals whose perniciousness helps her accentuate the negative.

Other reviewers have similarly felt that, while the central idea of the book is interesting, Ehrenreich's supporting arguments are lacking and unconvincing. The Denver Post called Bright-Sided "her least persuasive book," pointing out the generalizations that Ehrenreich relies on too heavily.

Who's read it and what do you think? Ehrenreich told Jon Stewart that when people said to think positively when she had breast cancer, it made her angry. When one editor on our staff lost a job, people said, "You'll see. It'll be the best thing that ever happened to you." She was shell shocked by the news and couldn't believe people could be so insensitive. And whether or not it was the best thing remains to be seen.

Some of us like that kind of constant positivity, some of us don't. We'd like to know how you feel. Do you want to hear the platitudes about difficulties being a blessing? Or does that make you want to deck somebody? What's the best way to approach people in tough situations? And if you've read the book, does Ehrenreich do a good job of convincing you that positivity isn't everything?

Quick Poll

How do you feel about the affirmations of optimism?

They give me hope in a tough situation.

They bring out my inner curmudgeon.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Get HuffPost Books On Facebook and Twitter!

Filed by: Jessie Kunhardt

Comments

[bardsandsages]

I think the point is that there is a difference between being proactive and being positive. A proactive person can effectively judge the pros and cons of an issue and make informed decisions. Too often, "being positive" means ignoring the cons and only focusing on the good. This mentality cripples a person's ability to make effective decisions. My personal outlook has always been "Plan for the worst. That way if it doesn't happen you can be happy, and when it does you can smugly say 'see, I told you so.'" As an active member of several writing communities, this 'positive' outlook is magnified. It is considered 'negative' to point out spelling errors or grammar issues, for example, because then you are just being a 'grammar nazi' and not supporting other writers. Requests for criticism are 90% of the time requests for praise only, and any real constructive feedback is viewed as detrimental to the writer.

[saami]

As a nurse, I have been amazed at people who do not understand that when you tell people that they must have a positive attitude about their illness (for example cancer) you are blaming them for being ill or if the don't do well it was their bad attitude. Being sick with a devistating illness is awful. It is the pits. You don't need a smiley face. Elizabeth Kubbler Ross was right about the 5 stages of grieving that the patient must do and there were no smiley faces. Hospitals have a "quiet room" for families going through the ordeal of supporting their family members in ICU. I always thought it should be called the screaming room, to be more accurate. It is bad enough to be mortally ill and to be suffering without having to put on a smiling face and stiff upper lip. This is not withdrawing hope it is about the fact that this terrible thing has happened and you need to grieve.

[pennywhite]

I voted in favor of positive thinking - and I am a true pollyanna. However - I think concepts such as "we create our own reality" or "our thoughts create the conditions of our lives" or "positive thinking can prevent or cure disease" are brutal and destructive. They are convenient self-assurances for economically and/or physically privileged (healthy) people. Has anyone else noticed that approximately one year after The Secret became a bestseller our economy tanked? If you remember, The Secret promised us we could all get rich by imagining ourselves driving expensive cars and by taping magazine photos of mansions to our walls. Oops - I guess not. As individuals, we do not create our own reality. History, culture, genetics, politics, and Wall Street create our reality. But how we respond to all of that - by smiling at ourselves in the mirror and chanting "I am rich and healthy, I am rich and healthy" - or by accepting ourselves as a tiny part of a vast collective of influences, and doing our part, however small - that is one thing in our lives over which we do have absolute control.

[saami]

Despite "your own reality".....reality actually exists!! There is a difference between learning that all the negative "thoughts" are in your head and is your depression talking when you have depression and being told that having breast cancer will make you a better person. I would rather be a bitch than have breast cancer. I think people have a difficult time admitting that something like having cancer stinks and that you just need to listen to their feelings and hopes and fears. They don't really expect you to solve anything, just be my friend and by listening to me you are supporting me and that is a really good and loving thing. It is better than a million pink ribbons or pink teddy bears.

[mediamarv]

Did she by chance have a contract with a publisher that required her to get a book out quickly? Something about her (heard her on KQED) rings false, as if she needed a subject and just grabbed this one.
Too many examples of "positive thinking" have existed for decades for them to be so easily dismissed. Pollyannaish behaviour has never been exalted as far as I can recall, but it is also not the problem Ms Ehrenreich seems to accentuate.

[jimmy19]

Its a slippery slope. There is a point between positive thinking and discernment. If people can't find that point then they may fall into habitual patterns that run like loops into self denial.

[brettrobbins]

It all depends on how genuine (or not) a person is. We all know people who are miserable inside but who put up a constant front of false contentment. To be reassured by phonies like this is often annoying, if not painful. On the other hand, there are authentically happy people in the world, who may usually be smiling, yes, but it's because they possess an inner glow that shines on everything and everybody they look at. For such a person, NOT to be optimistic (I like uh huh's reframing of the salient issue) would be false.

[uh huh]

Positivity is a noun, but isn't the more common noun optimism more appropriate? I mean after all isn't that what is being discussed? Why did the author chose the word positivity? I think it's easier to argue against than optimism. That's an American value after all. I thought the author made a good point that there is a lack of empathy when you wash over someone's hardship with a simple plea for optimism, or in her words positivity. But I don't know, when I saw her interview on The Daily Show, she struck me as an unhappy person and perhaps still angry about her cancer and the way she was treated. I wonder how much she looked into the research of The Institute of Noetic Sciences and similar organizations. People are affected by how they think and how others think of them in very interesting ways. I think our over reliance on empiricism is myopic. I also think this author's life is a manifestation of her negativity, and it pains me to see her suffer so.

[OtayPanky]

uh huh: I also think this author's life is a manifestation of her negativity, and it pains me to see her suffer so.

===

How true.

And how about that James Arthur Ray fellow. He must have been thinking some really big negative thoughts, in order to manifest 3 dead people and a possible homicide charge at his sweat lodge last week.

Am I right...or am I right?

[uh huh]

I don't know anything about James Arthur Ray, nor do I know too much about the sweat lodge. Do you think that guy intentionally killed 3 people?

Do you think that I was saying all good things that happen people are the result of someone's optimism? Do you think it is reasonable to think that good things happen to people for a number of different reasons (optimism being one of them) just as bad things happen to people for a number of reasons (negativity being one of them)? Wouldn't be foolish to say that if something bad happens to someone it's the result of someone thinking negatively?

My point was "people are affected by how they think and how others think of them in very interesting ways." That doesn't mean that the sole cause of any event is the result of how people think. I'm just saying it's one possible cause among many.

So I don't know, are you right? Does it matter? Is being right the goal here?

I appreciate your response you got me thinking about new things. Thank you.

[thnk4selfagain]

I like what Ehrenreich said on Daily Show, none of the reviewers above mentioned it, that platitudes of positive thinking are a cover for an inability to show or feel appropriate empathy.

[SpunkyFerret]

Golly, folks, it might be a bit more complicated.

Take compliments: For some, a compliment is a pleasant experience. Others are forced to repeat to themselves all the reasons that the compliment cannot possibly be true, driving them into a deep bleak space. Still others suspect the motives of the complimenter, and fly into a scurry of paranoia.

It reminds me of the religion jokes: "I'd pray more, and worship God, and all, but He might be thinking that I'm spreading it on a little thick, doncha think??? And we wouldn't want that".

It all depends on the situation, and those in it. That said, the Ehrenreich book sounds like a needed polemic against the relentless forces of "All's for the best in this best of all possible worlds".

[Jane]

How can you make generalizations about such a thing? Barbara Ehrenreich is in the business of telling bad news. That's how she sees the world and that's what she makes money at. Fortunately for her, there's plenty of bad news to be told, and lots of times she's on the money. But I think she should stick to socioeconomic issues, and stay out of psychological ones. My own policy on this question is to be guided by my perception of what would be most helpful to the person talking to me. Sometimes that's positive, sometimes that's neutral, very very rarely, it's negative (as in, "If you ever threaten me again, I will kick you in the b****"). In general, I think you should be honest if someone asks you a question, but not offer your opinion if is isn't asked for.

[OtayPanky]

Jane: But I think she should stick to socioeconomic issues, and stay out of psychological ones.

===

Exactly. Let's leave the psychological issues to Oprah, James Earl Ray and those other luminaries from THE SECRET.

[ESerafina42]

I haven't read the book, more from lack of time than lack of desire, but I would say it depends on the situation. Like anything, "positive thinking" is all right in moderation, and probably helps in a lot of situations. Right after you lost the job is probably not the best time for anyone to tell you it could be the best thing that ever happened to you, but you're not going to get far if you go home and go to bed for a month rather than deciding that this *could* be the opening to a better job or even a new career.

What I particularly hate are the "you create your own reality" philosophies that blame the victim just as much as any fire and brimstone fundamentalist. Telling someone that they "chose" to get cancer or that they got it because they kept their feelings bottled up isn't much different to me than telling them they got it because they're being punished for their sins. It may even be worse. It's also very middle-class American. I would *never* have the gall to tell some teenager in Africa who's been gang-raped and seen her whole family slaughtered that "oh, well, this is a lesson that you chose to learn before you were born."

[HacunaMatata101]

This book looked like an interesting premise. Just like the "multitasking" fad has shown it's age, so this "positivity" thing has. And just like multitasking, the truth is it works for some, but not all. And if you're bashing it, it must not work for you. There are no panaceas in a world of individuals.

I would think anyone, especially cancer patients, should be allowed to feel how they do in the moment,. If Pollyana definitely isn't helping, a more empathetic, listening caregiver should be made available. So should a punching bag.

It's a definite "negative" for the patient to be told how to feel, whether those commands are positive or negative.

[saami]

Multitasking definition: how to do more than one thing at a time poorly.