Reflecting on the conceptualisation of positive psychology considering Antonovsky’s theory of salutogenesis

(Written on 31/3/2020)

Notwithstanding that positive psychology and the salutogenic paradigm coined by Antonovsky both challenge the mainstream belief to reassess the resources of healthy functioning instead of focusing on the malfunctioning, they are distinct approaches (Joseph and Sagy, 2017). One prominent difference is that positive psychology implicitly condoned the dichotomy between the normal and abnormal (Joseph & Linley, 2006); whereas Antonovsky’s theory of salutogenesis dissolved the dichotomy between wellness and illness and endorsed the ease-dis-ease continuum in the medical field (Antonovsky, 1979). However, despite this exploration of both approaches, much less acknowledged in positive psychology is the heritage of the salutogenesis first proposed by Antonovsky. This lack of attention to the conceptualisation of salutogenesis might be due to the salutogenic paradigm being originated in a different discipline other than psychology, such as medical sociology (Joseph and Sagy, 2017).

The attention on salutogenic paradigm should be trace back to its significance and application in mental healthcare settings. Salutogenesis laid a philosophical foundation for the contemporary positive psychology movement, where positive psychology emerged and empahsised on human strengths, capacities, and wellbeing so as the Salutogenic theory does (Sagy, Eriksson, and Braun‐Lewensohn, 2015). Sense of coherence is a terminology proposed by Antonovsky, referring to how human beings perceive reality in terms of a combination of comprehensibility – understanding the whole pathologic situation, meaningfulness – finding meanings to move on in a health promoting direction and manageability – using the available resources (Lindström & Eriksson, 2005). It contributes to human’s coping, wellbeing and health (Joseph and Sagy, 2017). Not only the sense of coherence among the patient and practitioner makes an impact on the therapeutic outcomes, but also the practitioner’s capacity in empathic listening their patients’ difficulties and their strengths and resources should be considered.

Reference

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lindström, B., & Eriksson, M. (2005). Salutogenesis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(6), 440–442.

Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2006). Positive psychology versus the medical model?: Comment. American Psychologist, 61, 332–333.

Joseph, S., & Sagy, S. (2017). Positive psychology in the context of salutogenesis. In The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 83-88). Springer, Cham.

Sagy, S., Eriksson, M., & Braun-Lewensohn, O. (2015). The salutogenic paradigm. Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life, 2, 61.

---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.