The "good vibes only" fallacy
Discomfort is a fundamental part of the human condition, yet its benefits are the least explored and thus, the least advocated. Consider the writer, the software engineer, the architect – what do they all have in common? A nemesis in the form of a blank canvas. The dreaded blank canvas, in which procrastination implodes upon first sight. We’re quickly saturated by an intense urge to pace; to brew coffee after coffee; to polish out that die-hard stain from the kitchen surface. Anything but the nauseating blank canvas. It’s hardly pretty, the process of fleshing out a blank canvas. I might even argue that it’s an ugly process. It certainly isn’t romantic – despite our romanticisation of fruitful endings. But it is necessary: every pained brush stroke, every returned error code. If it weren’t for human struggle, we wouldn’t see individual or societal progress – we wouldn’t have galleries filled with art.
Needless to say, the blank canvas is only a ripple in an ocean of unease that humans experience. We all know sadness, anxiety, anger and insecurity – but what we don’t tend to query are the evolutionary purposes of these emotions, or why incessantly avoiding discomfort could lead to more harm than good.
The commercialisation of happiness is a lucrative market, which is why there’s a surplus of self-regarded life coaches and platforms serving infographics on how to, ‘Channel a positive mindset’, ‘The 5 steps to self-love’, or ‘Removing negativity from your life’ a.k.a the “good vibes only” fallacy. It’s irrational to believe you can positive think your way out of ill-health, debt or bad relationships. Nor can you positive think your way into self-refinement, a new job, or a healthy relationship. Negative emotions such as guilt and shame enable us to recognise when we have done something wrong. Hurt or anger when someone has done something wrong to us. What many negative phobes don’t realise, is that negative emotion provides the foundational structure of empathy. Incessantly trying to maintain that ‘inner peace’ could actually be stifling your capacity to become a better person.
Much like the dopamine reward system enables us to enjoy food and sex, negative emotions also have evolutionary advantages – and the psychological benefits are far more nuanced than a ‘fight or flight’ response. Negative affect does indeed function as an evolutionary warning signal, but studies have found that this signal triggers more vigilant and effortful information processing. The brain has effectively entered warrior mode. Something is not working. Something needs to be fixed. Something needs to change. It’s a search and re-invent mode. On the other hand, studies suggest that when a person is in a good mood, or experiencing positive affect, the mind employs strategies to preserve and augment that state. The mind is in holiday mode. Everything is fine. And I’ll have the same, but more please. Thus, if we want to take full advantage of human emotion, it’s self-serving to dabble in both positive and negative emotive states.
In Eastern culture, there's a diametric take on negative emotion compared to the hedonistic Western culture of, "good vibes only". For example, in Russia, emphasis is placed on negative emotion in culture and the arts, because it is considered a fundamental attribute to a meaningful and rewarding life experience. Chinese and Japanese cultures also emphasise the reward of negative affect. The Chinese term 'qing' binds a non-suppressive approach of both positive and negative emotion to the true condition of a situation i.e. self-analysis of one’s disquiet enables one to more accurately perceive external situations. Buddhists also believe that negative affect is an integral part of the human experience, and it is taught that one should mull on discomforting notions to better understand oneself, and the world.
The endorsement of negative emotion is not exclusive to Eastern ideology, nor is it to the collectivist mindset. There is a historic tradition in the West, from ancient Socrates who adopted a provocative style of teaching by 'stinging' the minds of Athens, in order to pry them open; to the 19th century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, with his infamous quote, 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger'; to the present day philosopher, Michael S. Brady, who argues in his book, Suffering and Virtue, that ‘suffering is vital for the development of virtue, and hence for us to live happy or flourishing lives’.
A growing trend of ‘toxic positivity’ has contributed to increased hypersensitivity when discomfort inevitably arises. Instead of being taught to manage discomfort, we’re being inculcated into banishing negativity from our lives entirely. Cancel culture, a trend in which people are being de-platformed for triggering mild forms of emotional discomfort, is the off-spring of this hypersensitive mindset. A reality without discomfort is not compatible with the volatility of human experience – it is a fantasy ideal, void of rationalism. Human experience is not a padded safety room, and the best debate comes from spaces where innovative thought and ideas aren’t suppressed for fear of causing discomfort. And should a genuinely malicious idea arise, wouldn't we rather confront it in broad daylight, rather than let it slip into the elusive backstreets of the hyper-real?
If we constantly run from, or suppress discomfort, then we deny ourselves half the spectrum of human emotion. We're growing intolerant of an integral part of individual and social development – a part that provides the foundational structure of empathy. And if empathy is eroding, and rational discourse is under increasing attack, then it becomes easier to discern how more people are capable of trolling and cancelling others online, without a guilty conscience. The sobering reality is that often what’s good for us, is what forces us outside our comfort zones.