Tragedy is a part of human existence, and no one completely escapes it. We may experience physical, mental, and psychological damage as a result of our own or others’ actions. We may develop diseases and illnesses that are short- or long-term, treatable or untreatable. Built in to our genetic code is the desire to seek out communal support and encouragement in our time of need.
As a young adult, I studied psychology and counseling and learned ways to use words and body language to convey empathy and support. This is explicitly taught to aspiring therapists! Training programs don’t presume that as part of our developmental experiences we learn how to demonstrate empathy. I also learned that understanding our emotions is quite challenging, and many people are cut off from and cannot label their own emotions. Learning to identify and label our emotions is often the first step toward recovery. So, why would we expect those without therapeutic training to know how to find the right words to communicate empathy to others? Why would we expect people to “be in tune” with their own negative emotions?
I was first exposed to the term “toxic positivity” while listening to a psychologist on YouTube. I was immediately struck by the juxtaposition of two opposites: “toxic” and “positive.” I wondered, how can something positive also be toxic? The term “toxic” seems to get over-used these days: terms such as “toxic masculinity,” “toxic relationship” and even “toxic people” are common on self-help websites. I associate “toxic” with toxic waste—something that is deadly. The American Heritage Dictionary definition of “toxic” is:
- Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or poison
- Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous
What is Toxic Positivity?
With the wealth of information online, I started with an internet search to discover how toxic positivity is defined. Unfortunately, the definitions tend to be variable and, sometimes, downright confusing. Here are a few examples:
The Positive Psychology website defines toxic positivity as: “the overgeneralization and encouragement of happy emotions across all areas.”[i]
Dictionary.com claims “toxic positivity is a critical term for the practice of promoting or attempting to maintain a positive mindset or attitude regardless of what circumstances and emotions are being experienced.” It further asserts that “the complete avoidance or suppression of negative emotions. . . and the notion being occasionally unhappy is shameful or abnormal” is the real problem.[ii]
From a review of scholarly literature, I found this succinct definition, from a senior thesis: “Toxic positivity is the belief that a person should always maintain a positive mindset, no matter what situation they are in, and invalidates negative emotions” (p. 3).[iii]
From these definitions, the common elements of “toxic positivity” include:
- Avoiding/suppressing/invalidating negative emotions
- Encouraging happy emotions at all times and in all situations
- Feeling shame if one ever feels unhappy
The term itself, as well as the above definitions, make it unclear whether toxic positivity is something we direct at ourselves or at others. Also, is this really a newly discovered phenomenon, or simply an age-old problem masquerading under a new title?
To help me answer these questions, I researched the origins of this construct. According to Dictionary.com, the origins of the term “toxic positivity” are unknown but there is at least one instance of its use in 2010. In the early 2020’s, it became more commonly used as a result, you guessed it (!), of the pandemic.
“Many writers and psychologists began using the term during the COVID-19 pandemic when discussing the negative mental health effects of being pressured or expected to maintain a positive attitude despite negative circumstances and emotions.”[iv]
Turns out, toxic positivity is not a diagnosis or a condition! You won’t find it in the DSM-5. You can’t be treated for toxic positivity (nor can your friends with their irritating “be happy!” or “think positive!” mantras). But that doesn’t stop us from judgmentally prescribing what others are allowed to say to us or to themselves.
A Case of Concept Creep?
New words are born every day, and sometimes existing words are put together to convey a completely new meaning. “Toxic positivity” was originally appropriated in mental health circles, but its use has now become mainstream, thanks to social media.
But, do we really need a new term to identify an existing problem? Or, is this about grabbing attention with an edgy new term? “Toxic positivity” has replaced two well-researched psychological constructs: denial and lack of empathy. And, it carries LESS meaning, and more opportunity for confusion, than those original constructs. Why is it LESS meaningful? Because toxic positivity explains an act against oneself OR against others. The original constructs more clearly conveyed the target. “Toxic positivity” conveyed from one person to another is essentially “lack of empathy.” “Toxic positivity” when applied to oneself is simply “denial.”
By expanding the definition of positivity to include its “dark side,” concept creep is evident. Haslam explains that “although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood” (p. 1).[v] To avoid using the historical labels of denial (as in denying one’s negative emotions) or lack of empathy (failing to show concern for others), a new concept was created (with it’s catchy “toxic” label) and with it, a new opportunity to blame others. But, what’s not to be gained by sensitizing people to their unhelpful (but not hurtful) comments on social media? Can’t the invention of a new label for an old practice bring needed attention to the victims and victimizers? Will it make people want to write “better” and more supportive comments on social media or be better at comforting significant others and co-workers?
My answer is—that’s unlikely. Those people who will be sensitized to write more empathic comments on social media probably are already self-aware. Individuals who aren’t organically empathic are unlikely to change.
Lack of Empathy or Toxic Positivity?
Unlike toxic positivity, “lack of empathy” is not a new construct nor a new phenomenon. It’s not catchy or edgy, nor does it seem deadly or poisonous. There are various definitions of empathy, but, essentially, it means walking in another person’s shoes or trying to see things from another person’s perspective. When someone “lacks empathy” they fail to acknowledge the reality of others’ suffering.
When we choose to disclose the details of our personal tragedies, we are seeking comfort and support from others. In doing this, we must acknowledge that some people may pretend to care, but really don’t care. They may respond with platitudes that we find unhelpful. Or, they may care but simply not know what to say. This is certainly true in the flat, two-dimensional world of social media where emotions are hard to convey. Other explanations include a communication breakdown (the other person may not understand the seriousness of the situation or we aren’t communicating clearly), or that positive self-talk has worked for them in the past and they think it may help us, too.
Wouldn’t it lead to a better world if everyone cultivated empathy and knew how to appropriately convey empathy in words? If you do a quick internet search, you will soon learn that even empathy has its downsides, not only for you but for the person you empathize with.
Another Label for Denial
According to Psychology Today, “toxic positivity” turned inward means that you are either ignoring the reality of a difficult situation or ignoring your own negative emotions.[vi] They propose that ignoring your challenging circumstances may lead you to stay in an abusive relationship by “looking on the bright side” rather than acknowledging reality.[vii] Toxic positivity may simultaneously prevent you from experiencing negative emotions by stuffing them down or engaging in compensatory coping behavior.
Toxic positivity turned inward is really just denial. Denying our emotions is psychologically and physically damaging and it can also hurt our relationships. Denial is one of the defense mechanisms, proposed by Freud, that helps to protect a fragile ego. We may use denial not only to protect our ego but also to ignore potentially painful realities, such as the symptoms of addiction or of a serious physical illness. Denying negative emotions may protect us in the short-term, but can prove damaging long-term as an ineffective means of coping with difficult circumstances. Our negative emotions tell us something useful and should not be ignored.
Labeling denial as “toxic positivity” puts the focus on the wrong problem: the positive affirmations are not the culprit. It is denying the reality of one’s situation or the impact of our negative emotions that can be harmful.
Using “the Right Words” on Social Media
Cyberbullying is a common and hurtful experience on social media, but now experts want us to believe that encountering too many positive messages is also harmful. “We can see toxic positivity on social media when people share content about life’s challenges and the only replies are overly positive and ignore that that person might be feeling upset, tired, worried and so on. It can be a feeling that creeps up on you over time, like when you’re only consuming content from people who share the best, most exciting moments of their lives.”[viii] (Note: feeling bad about your life because of the seemingly perfect lives of others is NOT toxic positivity, it is envy!)
What about social media’s role in fanning the flames of toxic positivity? When people share tragic events in their lives, how do their “friends” respond? How should their “friends” respond? To what extent is social media the appropriate place to share life’s tragedies, and how might the platform limit empathic communication? Should emojis be used, or only words?
When we pick apart these honest attempts to comfort, what we’re really saying is, “You should know what to say to me and what I really need to hear.” “You should instinctively know if I need positive affirmations or something else.” In weighing the legitimacy of comforting words, we judge others and denigrate their attempts to be helpful and supportive. Should we expect everyone to be armchair therapists who can read us and deliver perfectly-constructed messages in our hour of need? When others fail to deliver “just the right message” in the moment, we label them and their words as hurtful—toxic.
If positivity can be toxic, what is the right approach to bring about healing for ourselves and others? Should we abandon a positive mindset altogether?
Conclusion
The English language is constantly in flux, with hundreds of new words being added to the dictionary every month. Adding newer, catchier, but less descriptive terms to the vernacular does not advance our understanding of the human condition, nor how to alleviate human suffering.
Knee-jerk judgments condemning how others choose to respond to our disclosures only serves to inhibit future communication. We should acknowledge that social media provides a certain level of connectedness to others but certainly does not enhance communication nor replace the validity of face-to-face interaction. If you want and need empathy from others, choose carefully your communication medium.
Self-denial is a pretty common part of human experience. We should strive for acceptance of negative emotions. But, this doesn’t negate our ability to foster hope and develop plans to bring about positive change. For those who are especially challenged at identifying and understanding their negative emotions, therapy is recommended.
Discouraging a positive mindset can have potentially negative consequences. “If there are no longer voices of optimism because they have been silenced…then pathology and negativity by default become the exemplars” (p. 3).[ix]
©Jennie Dilworth, Ph.D
[i] https://positivepsychology.com/toxic-positivity-in-psychology
[ii] https://www.dictionary.com/e/tech-science/toxic-positivity
[iii] Feltner, M. E. (2023). Toxic positivity and perceptions of mental health. [Unpublished senior thesis]. University of South Carolina-Columbia.
[iv] https://www.dictionary.com/e/tech-science/toxic-positivity
[v] Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological inquiry, 27(1), 1-17.
[vi] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-high-functioning-hotspot/202107/what-is-toxic-positivity
[vii]Sinclair, E., Hart, R., & Lomas, T. (2020). Can positivity be counterproductive when suffering domestic abuse? A narrative review. International Journal of Wellbeing, 10(1), 26-53. doi:10.5502/ijw.v10i1.754
[viii] https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/toxic-positivity-on-social-media-and-how-to-avoid-it/12432790
[ix] Sokal, L., Eblie Trudel, L., & Babb, J. (2020). It’s okay to be okay too. Why calling out teachers’“toxic positivity” may backfire. EdCan 60(3), 1-4.