Upon first hearing R.E.M. ‘s song Shiny Happy People in what would become the context for this project, I had almost immediately realized toxic positivity is both a hidden force and a harmful one. If nothing actively appears wrong or “Isn’t that bad,” a good majority of people will simply write off the problem or even go out of their way to defend the problem–making it out to not be one. This is a blatant disregard for critical thinking (at least in my opinion) and is harmful since it censors the ability for one to think critically about whatever the topic may be. I think so long as the opinion is rationally thought out it shouldn’t be written off, yet toxic positivity allows this. The philosophy can be so overbearing that, even when used as a critique of censorship, the message can fail to get through (as seen with Shiny Happy People).
Consequently, I wanted to deal with toxic positivity and perhaps correct the faults where R.E.M. went wrong. In order to do so I would have to deal with the toxic positivity mindset, which was done in the physical portion of the book. Showing off the ‘good’ in the world,re-affirming that it is seemingly perfect, undermines the reality that the world is in fact far from perfect. However, one wouldn’t know that from my book and it may make one genuinely believe that concept (especially considering the didactic nature of a children’s book). There is no direct act of censorship; however, it certainly enables and even encourages others to participate in acts of censorship to keep their perfect and ideal delusion.
Fundamentally, that of course had to be shattered. This was done in the online portion of the project where I explain in detail the issues with the philosophy. This was done primarily to ensure the project didn’t fall short where R.E.M. did. Likewise, this portion is explained in more detail, as opposed to the almost ad hominem explanations within the book to allow the reader to reason on their own terms.
Overall, I do believe that while the argument is sound this will not change anybody’s mind who is actively enabling censorship. Much like the project says, many are self-interested and have a reason to firmly undertake the actions they do. I think of this as a call to action for those more rationally minded, those who are willing to understand the issue and address it through action. By doing so, we can better improve conversations and ourselves, leading to a better and truer world than what is illustrated in Friends In Arms.
To view the digital content of “Friends in Arms,” click on this hyperlink.