Hater: How "positive psychology" prevents power structures from being held accountable
On the role and value of criticism
Ever since October 2023, I have watched White House administration press briefings obsessively, almost on a daily basis. Led by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, these briefings also regularly feature Spokesperson for the United States Department of State Matthew Miller, Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel, and National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby as they scramble for control of a narrative that has fully run away from them. Watching these regular briefings has been an alarming and frustrating experience. But watching them has also given me a fascinating look into the rhetoric and strategies that are regularly employed in order for the White House administration to deflect important questions.
There has been a noticeable tone shift in the briefing room from this time last year. While reporters previously asked questions in a way that was more collegial and relaxed, the urgency and frustration in their voices have obviously intensified as they are putting increased pressure on White House spokespeople. It is really no wonder why this is happening. The media has been on the receiving end of increased pressure themselves, as they struggle against accusations of bias and failure and represent an industry in crisis and decline. On top of this, whenever reporters inquire about war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza, they are forced to listen as they are told again and again by White House representatives that they either have no further information on copious reports of human rights violations, or that they are “waiting to hear the results from Israel’s internal investigations,” meaning the reporters should not expect to ever receive an answer on their questions.
As such, it’s completely understandable why reporters have become more frustrated after months of dealing with this. But because of this tone shift, White House representatives have also shifted, into a more defensive position. Something that I have observed from watching these daily briefings is that regardless of whether spokespeople are asked about why Russia and Israel are treated so differently regarding their respective wars, or whether President Biden is really fit cognitively to lead the most powerful country in the world, they all use a similar tactic in order to stop the question in its tracks and deflect criticism:
They pretend to be offended.
After months of being asked about the murder of Palestinian civilians, Matthew Miller is accused of smirking when talking about the high toll of deaths. He acts like this accusation itself is more offensive then the actions he is participating in and more offensive than the deaths themselves:
When reporters bring up the reasonable concern that a neurologist is visiting President Biden in the White House and that Karine Jean-Pierre has not provided them with accurate information when they asked about this previously, Jean-Pierre states that the urgent tone of the reporters is “aggressive” and scolds them for being “disrespectful:”
When John Kirby is asked (1:25 mark) how many more charred corpses the White House has to see to take actual measures to hold Israel accountable for civilian deaths, Kirby pretends to be offended by the question when he could instead work to prevent the deaths from happening:
It’s ridiculous to imply that any of these questions are themselves “rude” when the topics being discussed are massively important. These questions must be asked, regardless of the tone they are delivered in. It is frankly absurd to try and reframe the reporters as if they are somehow being bullies when it is actually appropriate for them to be intensifying their tone during an intensifying geopolitical environment. Despite this, the White House spokespeople act like it is okay to talk to the reporters as if they are kindergarteners, and need to be taught how to ask these questions “nicely.”
I am not sure why I have never noticed this before. But while I believe that liberal movements emphasizing kindness and respect for other people began with good intentions, it has now unfortunately been fully politically weaponized not to actually genuinely protect people, but as an excuse to deny accountability and dismiss valid criticism. Kindness and respect are of course important. But in this context, it feels so similar to the strategy that has been employed by Zionists for the past hundred years: if you ensure you are framed as the victim, then you can avoid any criticism because you cannot be seen as an aggressor.
When did this happen? How did it become regular practice for stupidly powerful people to feel enabled to act that they are personally offended when they are asked questions that are not even personal at all? Reporters are not meant to be best friends with government spokespeople. It is the role of the press to be adversarial. It is their role to be critical, and put pressure on governments in order to ensure transparency. This is their whole point of existence. So why should spokespeople act offended?
It is only on looking back at how our attitudes regarding criticism were shaped that we can come to understand how this became a part of our culture.
In the West, the seeds of anti-criticism were planted in popular culture when I was only a child. I cannot of course trace the origins back to a single variable, but it can perhaps best be explored with the emergence of the term “hater”, which entered our contemporary lexicon in the 1990’s. The 90’s were a golden age for hip-hop, and the term “hater” was first popularized through songs like 2Pac’s “Holler if Ya Hear Me” (1993) and Biggie Smalls’ posthumous album “Life After Death” (1997), where themes of dealing with jealous critics and negativity were often explored. Dave Chapelle frequently used the term in the Chappelle Show of 2003-2006, and the word also appeared in dance movies such as 8 Mile (2002) and You Got Served (2004), while it spread on blogs and social media platforms like Myspace and Tumblr and was utilized by Youtube stars like Miranda Sings. Within this culture, “haters” were cast as antagonists - jealous villains who expressed negativity with the express intention of tearing others down.
This term likely began with good intentions. At the time, the term “hater” existed to encourage people to dismiss those who were indeed being critical in unkind or unhelpful manners. The term “hater” was intended to free themselves from the perspectives of others and to pursue whatever path a negative person might dissuade you from pursuing. Some of the most popular musicians in the world, including Taylor Swift, often wrote regularly regarding this subject.
There were positive aspects of this anti-hater movement. But unfortunately, there were negative consequences as well.
Around the same time, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a movement known as “positive psychology” rose to prominence, which emphasized the study of positive aspects of the human experience, such as happiness, resilience, and well-being. It discouraged negativity, and while this alone was not a bad thing, positive psychology began to influence corporate training and development programs, which would later include aspects like motivational seminars and positive reinforcement. The problem with this was that by over-emphasizing the need for positivity, this inevitably meant that dissent was discouraged. Criticism began to be reframed as unhelpful and villainous in itself. I wrote about an example of this once before when it happened to me at my own workplace; we were forced to watch a “mental health webinar” that told us that if people in concentration camps were able to make it out with a positive attitude, we could also manage to practice positivity in the workplace.
These corporate practices were accompanied by other “pro-positivity” variables in our culture, such as the influence of the self-help industry had figures like Tony Robbins, and the rise of social media, where both companies and individuals were encouraged to only post positive things. Alongside the rise of liberalism, which was not necessarily negative in itself but also encouraged supportive “safe spaces” where criticism was not welcomed, our culture became a world where positive vibes only were accepted. If you were negative you were not a team player. If you criticized someone you were a hater. A culture of positivity was not just encouraged but mandated. Within corporate culture, negative emotions were dismissed instead of validated, meaning problems too were inevitably be minimized. Employees were expected to conform as they could not realistically express dissenting opinions without being accused of being poor “team players.”
I don’t write any of this to say that negativity is superior to positivity, or to imply we should always be negative instead. But from looking back at history it is clear that our culture was shaped to discourage criticism. The very existence of criticism can now be easily flipped to recast the “criticizer” as an evil person.
While it can be one thing to discourage criticism when it is regarding a person-to-person interaction, it should not become a practice where powerful organizations and governments feel enabled to self-victimize when they are asked about extremely important subjects. Criticizing Israeli foreign policy does not mean you are a villainous, anti Semite. Criticizing the Canadian liberal party does not mean you are a Trumper who wants to encourage division. Criticizing American imperialism doesn’t mean you hate your own country, or that you’re a pro-Russian commie. Saying Biden might have dementia isn’t bullying, it’s a valid safety concern.
One should never criticize for the sake of criticizing. But criticism has an important role in keeping power structures accountable. It is perhaps because of this stifling culture of false positivity, where individual opinions are discouraged if they ever veer into territory that can be seen as “mean,” that is contributing to backlash, and a worrying rise of negativity across the world.
Cruelty should not be encouraged. But criticism and negativity in itself should never have been suppressed like this. When things are quashed, they do not disappear. They only become bottled up. After decades of this culture of false positivity, perhaps that is why we are witnessing what we are witnessing now: an explosion of negativity after it was suppressed for too long.
Thank you for reading! I write these articles for free every week in addition to my full-time job. If you like my writing and want to support me, please consider subscribing to my free newsletter or sharing with others. Your support is much appreciated!
Articles and Writers I’ve been reading on Substack:
Oh, Looks Like Bombing Hospitals is Bad Again by Caitlin Johnstone
96% Palestinians In Gaza Face Extreme Levels Of Hunger, New Report by Tiara Sub
Biden resumes sending 500lb missiles to the people who bomb hospitals by Council Estate Media
Freeland in freefall: Trudeau's desperate attempt to save himself and clip the wings of his challengers by Michelle Rempel Garner