Bright-Sided, by Barbara Ehrenreich: Rationalism Vs. Positive Thinking

Even though I completely disagree with most of this book, I'm glad it was written. It brings to the surface a cultural and philosophical debate that is seldom discussed, at least not in the direct and articulate manner that Barbara Ehrenreich brings to the issue. Bright-Sided is a very ambitious work -it's basically an attempt to refute the entire metaphysical basis of things like positive thinking, the law of attraction and the new age interpretation of quantum physics (as portrayed in movies like What the Bleep Do We Know).

Bright-Sided, of course, is not an objective look at this subject. It's an extremely biased tirade written by an old school, liberal secular humanist. One thing that Ehrenreich's arguments really illustrate is how difficult it is to either prove or disprove ideas like the law of attraction -the belief that our minds attract circumstances that match our thoughts. Ehrenreich starts out with a topic of personal concern to her -the alleged influence of positive thinking on the body, specifically breast cancer, something she has experienced. There are conflicting studies on this. Apparently, early studies suggested that people who were optimistic were more likely to recover from cancer, but later studies showed that attitude makes no difference when it comes to cancer survival rates.

In this area, as with the whole book, Ehrenreich is ready to pick apart anything that might suggest that positive thinking is effective. For example, she sites a study done in Mexico that apparently proves that people with positive outlooks live longer. She "debunks" this study by suggesting that maybe these positive people exercised more, which is the real reason for their longevity. It seems to me that even if this dubious point were true, it would still be a good argument for positive thinking --i.e. if being positive leads you to a healthier lifestyle, it becomes at least an indirect cause of a longer life. But I think the real point is that these things are extremely hard to prove. For one thing, qualities like optimism and positivity are not easily quantified, unless you are dealing with something like brain waves that can be measured.

What's really important to remember is that if you study "hard core" law of attraction material, like the Abraham books of Esther and Jerry Hicks, they stress that what really matters is not using positive words, but your actual emotional vibration. Of course, someone like Barbara Ehrenreich would deny the validity of this very concept. This brings us to what amounts to a stand-off when it comes to a basic philosophical issue. To rationalists, the fact that you can't prove or disprove a concept is itself a discrediting of that concept. But this is just a modern bias that we are not obliged to accept. Who is to say that one's subjective experiences are not "valid" just because they can't be reproduced in a laboratory?

Ehrenreich approaches the quantum physics question with a similar one-sided dogmatism in favor of old-fashioned scientific skepticism. Quantum physics is a wide open field, with brilliant scientists holding dozens, probably hundreds of interpretations of what it all means. It's certainly true that only a minority of quantum physicists would endorse the philosophy behind What the Bleep Do We Know. However, some do. Ehrenreich, of course, hand picks quotes from physicists who are hostile to this point of view. The argument that we can't take the behavior of quantum particles as evidence of how the world of humans operates sounds logical in a certain way -but then, so does the ancient Hermetic maxim, As Above, so Below. Again, we can't prove it one way or the other, but people of many traditions have believed something similar to what the movie What the Bleep teaches for many thousands of years -that everything in the universe is connected and that humans are part of this mystical web of being.

Much of Bright-Sided applies the kind of snide intellectual elitism typical of mainstream journalists and academics. This is more a case of tone than specific arguments. For example, when Ehrenreich discusses the movie What the Bleep, she associates it with the controversial J.Z. Knight, who channels Ramtha, identified as an ancient Atlantian. The way this and other material is presented is meant to convince the typical reader of Ehrenreich's book that sophisticated, educated people like us would never take stuff like this (The Secret, Ramtha, What the Bleep, etc.) seriously. The underlying message is that it's ignorant and superstitious to even consider it.

If Ehrenreich had been a little more honest, she could have put all of religion and spirituality in the same category as positive thinking. But she avoids doing this; in fact, in one section of the book she, rather disingenuously, invokes the authority of established religion to discredit the new, prosperity based churches. She implies that these new, positive thinking-oriented churches are less than authentic because they've dispensed with traditional Christian notions like sin. It's fairly obvious (from the postscript, if not the whole book) that Ehrenreich is a rationalist and therefore someone who rejects any kind of supernatural, mystical or religious approach to life. Furthermore, it's not very likely a liberal like Ehrenreich would normally align herself with an outlook (i.e. orthodox religion and sin) that has so negatively impacted human rights over the centuries. She is, however, apparently willing to at least temporarily align herself with anyone who supports her anti-positive thinking argument.

The subtitle of this book is "How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has diminished America." This is a reference to the recent financial crisis, with Ehrenreich conveniently, if unconvincingly, uses as the primary evidence of her case. If there is one area where I actually come close to agreeing with Ehrenreich, it's in her disapproval of how institutions like corporations and governments use positive thinking as a form of mind control and propaganda.

The fact is, if you really read the literature of positive thinking, it's extremely individualistic. Now a left-leaning thinker like Ehrenreich may not approve of radical individualism, but this is still very different from the modern corporate mindset. Someone who really understands the law of attraction would not mindlessly put their faith in a leader or corporation. Nor would they attempt to use these principles to create a company or nation of obedient zombies. So someone like George Bush may sound like a positive thinker when trying to justify the Iraq war, but this is very superficial. The rhetoric used to justify this (or any) war was hardly positive. Ehrenreich even points out how Stalin and other communists used "positive thinking" to create an atmosphere of conformity. Again, this is a far cry from the intentions of the genuine principles, which teach personal responsibility, not blind obedience.

Nor does the law of attraction teach being oblivious to the real world, as Ehrenreich seems to think. Of course, it does teach that we create the "real world." However, this, again, has to do with taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions. A great deal of the financial crisis can be attributed to many people not taking responsibility. For example, she talks about how CEOs of top financial companies surrounded themselves with subservient "yes men" who were afraid to say anything negative for fear of losing their jobs. This is not at all the kind of mindset taught by people like Napolen Hill (author of Think and Grow Rich, another hated entry in Barbara's blacklist of positive thinking books). The fact is, you can't explain widespread events in terms of principles like positive thinking, which can only be engaged in by individuals.

One of Ehrenreich's fundamental assertions, implicit in the very subtitle, that positive thinking is a dominant force in America, does not withstand scrutiny. Overall, positive thinking remains a minority (if growing) influence. For example, in several places she mentions and ridicules the notion, advocated by many positive thinking gurus, that people should stop watching the news because of its negativity. This very point is evidence that positive thinking is not at all mainstream, or the mass media would not be broadcasting so much negative news that positive thinkers must avoid.

Bright-Sided is as persuasive a book as is likely to be written from this point of view, but it's not likely to persuade many people who aren't already inclined in that direction. As I see it (and I will admit to being biased in the opposite direction), Ehrenreich is representative of an intelligent but very limited, limiting and dogmatic point of view. Historically, people have universally believed that the universe operates according to magical, spiritual, shamanistic or mystical principles.

For a relatively brief period, from the time of the so-called Enlightenment (around the 18th Century) to the mid-20th Century, secular rationalism attempted to subvert this belief in the mystical and replace it with a new, mechanistic world view. Thinkers like Ehrenreich, Richard Dawkins and many others cling tenaciously to this rationalism, but in general it has failed to motivate the majority of people. At the same time as rationalism was settling in as the new religion for the intelligentsia, it was already being challenged by the kind of New Thought movement Ehrenreich discusses (including Mary Baker Eddy and Ernest Holmes).

Traditional religion has also alienated many modern people, who don't find the narrow, dogmatic and often judgmental qualities of religion very appealing. People who are drawn to modern positive thinking material often feel that it takes the best of traditional spirituality and dispenses with what it superfluous, dogmatic and cultural-specific. Books and movies like The Secret are easy for intellectuals to dismiss, as they are made for the masses rather than elites, are more interested in inspiration than science, and often contain hype for marketing purposes. However, they give people something that is obviously of real value to many -a sense of purpose, empowerment and a belief that reality is not "objective" but something we help to create.

Barbara Ehrenreich would like you to believe that this is a false promise, and that we'd be better off "facing reality." Abraham, the energy channeled by Esther Hicks, frequently tells people not to face reality, but to focus on creating the reality you prefer. It's an interesting and important choice, and it's one everyone has to make for themselves. If you aren't sure, I'd recommend studying as much as you can about the question. Bright-Sided is a worthy contribution to the discussion, even though I disagree with its conclusions.

Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Diminished America, by Barbara Ehrenreich, (Metropolitan Books, 2009)