Rereading Pollyanna or positive psychology

We have all read the novel Pollyanna. We have felt good after reading it, too. We have drawn many lessons regarding life. Knowing how to be happy under any circumstances, no matter how dire the situation may be, to be happy. Seeing the good sides of life, trying to make life bearable by ignoring the bad sides, etc. 

When the poor little girl is expecting a doll, crutches come out of the aid box. She starts to cry, and her father teaches her that famous happiness game we all know and have often played ourselves. Would it have been better if she actually needed those crutches? The little girl learns that she should be grateful for her situation and happy because she is healthy and does not need those crutches. In fact, this could be called a type of positive psychology technique. Instead of being sad about the negativity you are in and trying to get out of it, knowing how to be happy by thinking about the possibility that something worse could have happened. As is frequently the case in popular political discourse, knowing how to be grateful, being content, and continuing instead of attempting to change the conditions. In a way, utilizing the possibilities of positive psychology and making life more bearable. But I think that what is called positive psychology should not be exactly this. 

Positive psychology has begun to be included as a course in the curricula of Western universities in recent years. Since its establishment in 2011, Üsküdar University has also included it in its curriculum as a mandatory course for all students under the name Positive Psychology and Communication Skills. Furthermore, Üsküdar University also hosts a very comprehensive international congress aimed at conducting a thorough scientific inquiry into this field. The congress, to which scientists from various countries around the world who work in or are interested in the field are invited, was held again this year in April. At the congress, the field of positive psychology was comprehensively examined. It was emphasized at the congress that positive psychology does not mean a mere positive outlook, but rather that it should be a field that is questioning, thought-provoking, and open to a critical approach. Positive psychology should not be evaluated as a camouflage as is often thought, but on the contrary, as approaching problems, events, and conditions with a realistic, sensible, and rational attitude. Instead of accepting problems or negativities as they are and leaving them that way, it is necessary to get to their source with a healthy, rational understanding and try to present solutions with a constructive approach. If crutches come out of the aid package sent to the little girl instead of a doll, instead of suggesting she be happy by thinking she doesn't need them, one should seek an answer to the question of why those who prepared the aid package were so careless. It is possible to diversify the examples. If certain powers are not giving the world any peace, if they are constantly exposing the world to a war agenda, shouldn't we ponder the possibility of a peaceful world instead of consoling ourselves by saying, 'what can we do, that's how it has always been and that's how it will go'? Or wouldn't it be more correct to raise awareness among people by analyzing the background details of the problem? If there is war in the destiny of humanity, why ignore the possibility that there could also be peace? Why should what is called destiny be managed only by the wicked and produce evil? For some reason, when we encounter negativities, problems, and evils, we shift the responsibility to destiny and get out of it. I have never actually encountered destiny being associated with goodness and positivity. When we look at the common daily discourse among the public, the situation is the same. If something bad happens to someone, they say, 'what can they do, it's destiny.' But when something good happens to someone, I have never heard anyone say, 'this was also in destiny, it was meant to see this beauty, this happiness.' 

Positive psychology should be constructed as a field that addresses exactly these issues. It is not about a person looking at life positively in every situation, but accepting that every situation is for humans, while at the same time not ignoring that humans have a mind, a will, and therefore the ability to direct their own lives. Most of the time, such fields and approaches are born and spread within popular science, and therefore they are based on the suggestion of integration into the system. However, the purpose of science is not only to adopt and approve the current situation, but also to change it. Therefore, when we talk about positive psychology, even if its starting point was not exactly this, it is not about greeting every situation positively, but about pondering the fact that the purpose of human existence is to create positivity. If there are problems in the world we live in, in the society we are members of, in the structure we are a part of, instead of a feeling of happiness wrapped in consolation by accepting them as they are, it is about being happy by thinking that we have the capacity to get to the source of the problems, find solutions, and change the situation. To put it more concretely, if a human has the capacity to develop war strategies, they have the same capacity to develop peace strategies. Since the source of the problems is human, the solution is also in the human. Then, instead of getting used to living with negativities, why not turn towards building a better life by changing them? Addressing positive psychology with this exact approach contributes to it becoming a more functional field of science.