For the past six years, Oliver Burkeman has been writing a column in The Guardian on the culture of self-help and the science of happiness. In his latest book "The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking," he argues that a focus on the seemingly negative aspects of life — uncertainty, failure, even death — is a surer route to happiness than the positive thinking so often emphasized in our society. The trailer for his book provides a great overview of his ideas.
Earlier this month, Burkeman spoke at Town Hall about his adventures on the “negative path” to happiness, which he called “a very Seattle idea.” The following morning, as a depressing gray fog blanketed the city, I spoke to him over coffee.
In your talk, you mentioned that the focus on positivity is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of thought. Can you tell me a little bit about its origins?
One of the big strands is the evolution of American Christianity, and the way that the growth of the consumer society starts to change the Calvinist work ethic that was so big in America in the nineteenth century. This is partly from Barbara Ehrenreich — she talks about the way that the duty to work, as a Protestant religious idea, starts to colonize the self in America. It becomes a duty to work on your self. It becomes your duty to be upbeat and positive, bright and hopeful.
How much do you think a focus on relentless optimism is an American thing, compared to, say, a British phenomenon?
It’s definitely more American than it is native to anywhere else, but it is everywhere. It does have something to do with national myths, I think. Even if you take the politics out of the equation, that idea of being able to make it to amazing wealth and power, but also being at constant risk of falling right back down to the worst makes for a more anxious way of being. That is going to make you very interested in whatever tools you can find to ensure your upward trajectory.
How challenging did you find confronting some of those ideas about becoming more comfortable with death?
It was difficult primarily because I was really aware of the risk of doing it superficially. I do make it clear in the epilogue of the book that one is on dangerous territory writing about how important it is to confront negativity. Especially if, in your own life, you’ve been fairly fortunate in not having enormous personal tragedy happen to you — or even normal tragedy. I was really concerned about how easy it was to be glib about it. As I say in the epilogue, the test for me of these ideas is almost certainly in my future.
But the ideas in the book can have value whether or not they are born of personal experience, right?
Right, but the tone is key. If you spend a lot of time, as I have, critiquing the output of the self-help industry, you often try to figure out the experience that the book is born of. In some cases it’s very valid, but like Anthony Robbins . . he talks in one of his books about how he hit rock-bottom, then turned his life around by becoming a motivational speaker. That always just sums up the wrongness of it for me. Pick your life up, live for a couple of decades in a tranquil and wise way, then tell us all how to do it.
Being appalled by that sort of thing is another reason I wanted to try as hard as I could to keep this as an account of a reporter going and meeting people and trying things. I do really hope that it basically comes as an adventure in which I am proxy for the reader, instead of telling the reader what’s what.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!