Flow: the Happy Academic
Written: Nov 13 '99 (Updated Mar 16 '00)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Important and original thesis; lucid articulation of difficult subject
Cons: Has "written by a social scientist" written all over it; poorly edited
|
|
|
| sylloge's Full Review: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi - Flow: The Psychology of ... |
I'd be meaning to read Milhaly Csikszentmihalyi's (1989) *Flow: the Psychology of Optimal Experience* for a few years when I heard it mentioned at least a dozen times in a few days at a usability conference this summer. Given the context in which I'd heard it mentioned (interaction design) and the subject (what it is to be happy, what it is to be fully engaged in what one is doing) I figured it would be an inspiring read and perhaps an interesting starting point for research.
So, what was wrong with it? Despite the common categorization in the "Self help" section at bookstores, *Flow* purports to be (and succeeds in being) a popular exposition of a peculiarly academic concept of happiness. "To take this step is somewhat dangerous," Csikszentmihalyi writes in the Preface, "because as soon as one strays from the stylized constraints of academic prose, it is easy to be become careless or overly enthusiastic about such a topic."
He then goes on to illustrate exactly how dangerous and what fine work it is to transfer a thesis from one domain of discourse to another; he shows how easy it is to arrive at a mediocre book about a fascinating topic.
I reckon there are two ways one can successfully popularize scientific writing: the first is by presenting an idea or theme in the context of current research and theorizing; the second is by tracing the evolution of an idea or theme through various stages of scientific and philosophical history. This book doesn't do a good job at either or these tasks.
The typical social scientist's 'physics envy' was apparent as appeal was made to *scientific studies* conducted by the author and others which "established", "indicated" and "showed" various hypotheses to be true. The context in which this hypothesis construction and testing is going on is hidden from the reader -- unless you happen to have specific knowledge of what goes on in the social psychology departments at North American research universities, you are left to imagine a framework in which such empirical research might be done.
And despite the references to and comparisons with members of the philosophical cannon, I can't imagine that Csikszentmihalyi's thesis is sufficiently cast against the relief of its historical context. To the lay reader it must appear that Flow is only tangentially related to its neighbors in the history of ideas and not part of any specific tradition.
A particular disappointment is the author's seemingly complete unfamiliarity with the last century of inquiry into cognitive science and philosophy of mind. Insofar as it is possible to make great strides in epistemology, great strides have been made in epistemology, especially in the last 20 years. Since all the reported empirical research was based on asking people how they are feeling, skipping over the vast body of research in phenomenological methods and first-person reports on mental processes is a real failing. Csikszentmihalyi offers a theory of happiness without even a hint of a theory of consciousness.
(As an aside, the editing was a little sloppy. As ideas were reintroduced from time to time, I'm sure I ended up reading the very same sentence a few times, and slight rephrasings of the same sentences uncomfortably often. There were at least three spots in the book where I was forced to scan ahead a few paragraphs as the very same explanation was rehashed *again*.)
Having made all these criticisms, I nevertheless recommend *Flow*. The first few chapters really do inspire. Csikszentmihalyi has a rare ability to describe what an experience is like, and I think he is right about what states of consciousness constitute happiness and enjoyment: achievable challenge, feedback, being completely absorbed, etc. (though the implied hydraulic model of the mind where certain amounts of "psychic energy" must be used up by positive activities or will tend to increase "psychic entropy" and cause unpleasant thoughts, is decidedly 19th century.)
But this highlights another respect in which *Flow* is a theory out of context. Csikszentmihalyi assumes that what he calls "flow" states (states of sublime concentration) are "optimal" states -- the most desirable states to be in. But there are no moral limits on the activities which might produce flow states; in other words, if I found capriciously torturing humans beings to produce in me a state of intense concentration, achievable challenge, adequate feedback on my progress, and enthusiasm for the activity, I should in all respects be happy -- to believe happiness to be entirely unrelated to moral imperative is naive at best.
All things considered, *Flow* is a mediocre book (though perhaps the perfect description of what it is like to be a happy academic). But it is nevertheless an important book and is worth reading since it has a unique topic and that topic is very well conveyed at points. In the future, a better book will probably be written by one of the students of one Csikszentmihalyi's many disciples; until then, I recommend *Flow*.
--
Postscript: A few months after writing this review, I have to say that it is a little bit more critical than it needs to be. I really do recommend that you read this book, and I really do think it is important; I think I was just frustrated because this book could have been *definitive* but it missed its potential. Go, read it.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
sylloge
|
|
Member: Stewart Butterfield
Location: Vancouver
Reviews written: 5
Trusted by: 6 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.