ABSTRACT
Positive psychology has become increasingly amenable and open to critical perspectives, including with respect to the very notions of “positive” and “negative.” This problematising of the “positive” has been referred to as “second wave” positive psychology (Lomas & Ivtzan, 2015; Ivtzan, Lomas, Hefferon, & Worth, 2016) – and previously as positive psychology “2.0” (Wong, 2011) – as elucidated in the introduction to this section. The rationale for these labels is that the initial “first wave” of the field was essentially founded on a binary positive–negative construction. Certain phenomena were viewed as positive, and hence desirable, with others therefore being negative, and hence undesirable. However, it is increasingly clear that such categorical appraisals are far from straightforward: ostensibly positive phenomena can be detrimental to wellbeing, while seemingly negative phenomena may be conducive to it. To some extent, this critical appreciation was implicit within the field from the beginning (e.g., Seligman, 1990). However, this more nuanced appreciation tended to be missing from the overarching “message” of the field. Now, though, there is a growing recognition of the complex “dialectics” of flourishing, involving an intricate interplay between seemingly negative and positive phenomena (e.g., Kashdan & Biswas-Diener, 2015).
