I love what you bring up here because it was related to the topic we were discussing in my senior seminar on Tuesday. The senior seminar is on positive psychology, examined as a 'new area of psychology' critically examining its validity and examining its historical context. Our reading for this past Tuesday was an article by Barbara Held in which she criticizes the claims of virtuousness of positive psychology. One of her major points (that she borrows from another critic of Positive Psychology, Charles Scott) is about the choice of the word 'authentic' to describe the happiness the positive psychologists appear to treat as an ideal (the phrase "Authentic Happiness" is part of the title of a book by Martin Seligman, arguably the leader of this movement in psychology). They call it 'ethical colonialism'. Quoting Scott in Held's 2005 paper: **** There is, I believe a danger in attaching success, whether cultural or biological to the presence of some virtues distinct to others. Such danger includes the creation of a class of authentic individuals as distinct to the improper individuals, an uncritical inclination to convert people to our happy virtues as distinct to their unhappy ones, and an uncritical inclination to elevate one way of life over most other ways of life. It one thing to say, “If you would like to be happy in this way here’s what you might consider doing.” It’s another to say, “it’s best to be happy this way.”... “Authentic” carries those dangers. If "authentic" is used to mean "distinctly one's own," [Michael's and Capote's meaning, presumably] I find no objections. But if "authentic" is universalized, I see considerable danger in a kind of ethical colonialism that none of us, I expect, wants. ****
My students loved kicking around some of these issues with what some persons in the positive psychology movement have pushed. By the way, I read the book and loved the movie (though Mickey Rooney's characterization increasingly rubs the wrong way as the years pass). Curious how the movie leaves more of an impression for me. I remember its ending more than I remember the book's ending. Paul On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Michael Palij wrote: > Over on the NY Times website, there's the "Big City Book Club" which > this week focuses on Truman Capote's novel "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (BaT). > The page can be accessed here: > http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/big-city-book-club-breakfast-at-tiffanys/ > > Now, if one's familiarity with "Bat" is through the Blake Edward's movie > (which I didn't particularly care for, especially Mickey Rooney's "Japanese" > character), then one is likely to be somewhat surprised at how different > Capote's novel is, especially the ending (similar to the difference in endings > in Malamud's "The Natural" -- both "The Natural" and "Bat" have the classic > Hollywood ending that is the antithesis of the novels). The novel "Bat" > turns out to be part of a genre of post-WWII writing where questions about > authenticity and phoniness were critical, that is, "phonies" submerged > their "real character" or personality in order to fit in which meant that > they had to become inauthentic to survive and succeed -- hypocrisy > was a winning strategy, so to speak. Interest in this topic has been > primarily in the area of literature, and is represented by the work of Abigail > Cheever; see: > http://www.ugapress.org/index.php/books/real_phonies/ > > The main character of "Bat", Holly Golightly, is unique given the time > and place in which she appears, that is, she's a "real phoney". She > has either buried or eliminated her original character or personality, > that of Lulamae Barnes, to become "reinvented" as Holly. But that > makes her different from other phonies because those people still > hold onto their original character/personality and one can see the > original character and the phoney characters co-exist even though > it is a thorough hypocrisy (consider how some politicians act, often > shamelessly when engaging in overt hypocrisy). Holly has given > up on who she was and is now pure persona -- her phoniness is > her real character. One wonders how many people today have taken > this view to heart, that is, have become pure persona, real phonies, > with no real character at all. And the irony, after all, with Capote > as the author. > > I raise these issues because I remember that in psychology, back in > the 1960s and 1970s, the human potential movement and humanistic > psychology put great emphasis on "being authentic" and being true to oneself. > It seems to me that much of this has disappeared or relegated to the > fringes of psychology. Being authentic is not what it used to be. > > Perhaps something to talk about when one is doing the self-reference > experiment. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=14533 > or send a blank email to > leave-14533-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14544 or send a blank email to leave-14544-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
