Problematic Ontological Underpinnings of Positive Psychology
Authors:
- 1 October 2008
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Theory & Psychology
- Vol. 18 (5) , 699-723
Abstract
In this article, we contend that many of the problems delineated in this special issue on positive psychology stem from an unexamined philosophical premise—its ontology. The world of `ontology' is vast and somewhat ill defined, but here we mean simply assumptions of what is ultimately real and fundamental, especially regarding the self. We first clarify and compare two major ontologies of the self, one that we argue underlies and spawns problems for positive psychology and one that we will describe as a promising alternative for the project of positive psychology. We focus on three important features of this project: (1) commitment to an ideal of the `disinterested observer'; (2) emotional satisfaction as a key conception; and (3) the tendency to view human phenomena as decontextualized from culture, history, and even physical situations. These features will display both how one set of ontological premises has underlain mainstream positive psychology and how the alternative offers a fresh perspective that addresses many issues within the field.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Positive PsychologyTheory & Psychology, 2008
- Positive Psychology and Philosophy of Social ScienceTheory & Psychology, 2008
- Positive Psychology, Ethnocentrism, and the Disguised Ideology of IndividualismTheory & Psychology, 2008
- Virtue Ethics, Dialogue, and “Reverence”American Behavioral Scientist, 2003
- Making Social Science Matter2001
- If we are so rich, why aren't we happy?American Psychologist, 1999
- Interpretive Social ScienceAmerican Behavioral Scientist, 1998
- Social theory as practice: Metatheoretical options for social inquiry.Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 1993
- Why the self is empty: Toward a historically situated psychology.American Psychologist, 1990
- Psychology and the status quo.American Psychologist, 1989