Fifteen years ago, Barbara Ehrenreich, a prominent American activist and author, took a stand against what she termed as toxic positivity. She argued that the relentless pursuit of optimism and self-improvement can be destructive, as it shifts our focus inward instead of advocating for social change. This approach also tends to overlook the systemic causes of suffering and can lead to blaming individuals for their own misfortunes.
Ehrenreich’s perspective on toxic positivity was shaped by her personal experience with breast cancer. She described her battle with the disease as a painful encounter with an ideological force in American culture that encourages denial of reality, cheerful submission to misfortune, and self-blame for one’s fate.
In a similar vein, Soraya Chemaly, a feminist writer and author of „Rage Becomes Her,“ delves into the concept of resilience in her book „The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma.“ Chemaly argues that resilience, often portrayed as a virtue, can be problematic as it places undue emphasis on individual strength over community support. This, she believes, can lead to victim-blaming.
While Chemaly’s critique of mainstream notions of resilience raises valid points, her argument is not without flaws. She portrays resilience as a masculine, capitalist, and individualistic concept, overlooking its more nuanced psychological aspects. The book suggests that resilience should be viewed through a social and political lens, emphasizing collective narratives and social change.
One of the key criticisms Chemaly raises is the gendered and militaristic nature of resilience initiatives, particularly in workplace settings. She questions the effectiveness of programs like the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program in the US Army, suggesting that they may do more harm than good.
Despite its critical stance on resilience, Chemaly’s book fails to acknowledge the psychological aspects of resilience and its role in individual well-being. While societal factors are undoubtedly important, dismissing the psychological dimension of resilience overlooks its potential to enhance coping mechanisms and overall resilience.
In conclusion, while the critique of toxic positivity and resilience myths is important, it is essential to consider the multi-level nature of resilience, encompassing both psychological and societal factors. A balanced approach that acknowledges the complexities of resilience can lead to a more nuanced understanding of how individuals and societies navigate challenges and adversity.