Socio Today
JAKARTA — In the wake of natural disasters and humanitarian crises, public discourse often turns toward psychological resilience, self-care, and mindfulness. However, the well-intentioned dissemination of positivity narratives in public spaces has sparked critical debate among mental health professionals. Experts are increasingly warning that shallow calls to "stay positive" can inadvertently morph into toxic positivity, a phenomenon that invalidates trauma, silences grief, and inflicts secondary psychological wounds on disaster survivors.
The discussion gained national attention following critical evaluations of public messaging during recent emergency responses in Indonesia. Mental health specialists have stepped forward to clarify the boundaries between genuine psychological grounding techniques and dismissive positivity tropes that trivialize human suffering.
The Fine Line Between Resilience and Dismissal
Dr. Lahargo Kembaren, a prominent psychiatrist at Marzoeki Mahdi Mental Hospital in Bogor, West Java, emphasized that toxic positivity arises when societal pressure to maintain an optimistic outlook forces individuals to suppress, ignore, or outright deny legitimate negative emotions, severe distress, and the brutal realities faced by disaster victims.
"Toxic positivity occurs when the urge to always think positively makes negative emotions, suffering, or difficult realities ignored, belittled, or even denied," Dr. Lahargo explained.
Common iterations of this behavioral pattern include phrases such as, "Don’t be sad, just be grateful," "Don’t overthink it, just keep a positive mindset," or "Everything happens for a reason." According to Dr. Lahargo, while these statements are not inherently malicious or false in every context, their deployment during acute crises is deeply flawed.
"Those sentences are not always wrong, but timing and context are crucial," he noted.
In the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event—such as flash floods, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions—survivors experience shock, bereavement, financial ruin, and the loss of loved ones. During these vulnerable windows, empathy does not require didactic advice or forced optimism. When self-care slogans are broadcasted indiscriminately without sensitivity to the community’s collective grief, they are frequently perceived as cold, patronizing, and deeply painful.
True Mindfulness Versus Emotional Apathy
To address the growing confusion surrounding psychological terminology, mental health advocates have sought to untangle the true definition of mindfulness from misappropriated social media trends. Critics of contemporary wellness culture argue that "mindfulness" has occasionally been co-opted to promote spiritual bypassing—a defense mechanism where individuals use spiritual ideas to avoid dealing with painful feelings.
Dr. Lahargo firmly rejected the notion that mindfulness equates to willful ignorance or emotional detachment from tragedy. True mindfulness, he explained, is not about turning a blind eye to negative news, turning away from disaster zones, or forcing a smile through adversity. Rather, it is the deliberate, non-judgmental capacity to perceive reality with absolute clarity. This cognitive grounding enables individuals to regulate their emotional distress and respond with pragmatic, compassionate, and constructive actions.
"So mindfulness does not mean closing your eyes to bad news, suffering, or disasters. It is precisely about acknowledging that reality while ensuring our emotions do not completely hijack our ability to think and act," Dr. Lahargo stated.
The distinction between the two psychological states lies primarily in how one processes emotional triggers. While toxic positivity acts as an authoritarian censor demanding the immediate expulsion of negative feelings, mindfulness offers a sanctuary of acceptance.
"Perhaps the simplest differentiator between mindfulness and toxic positivity is that mindfulness gives space to emotions, while toxic positivity tells emotions to leave immediately. Mindfulness is not turning away from reality. Mindfulness helps us face reality without losing ourselves," he concluded.
The Broader Context of Disaster Psychology in Indonesia
Indonesia’s geographical positioning along the Pacific Ring of Fire and the equatorial convergence zone makes it one of the most disaster-prone nations in the world. From tectonic earthquakes and tsunamis to landslides and seasonal monsoonal floods, millions of citizens are routinely exposed to life-threatening emergencies.
In recent years, the intersection of digital connectivity and disaster response has introduced a new variable: psychological first aid (PFA) delivered through digital channels. While social media platforms facilitate rapid fundraising, logistical coordination, and emotional solidarity, they also serve as conduits for unfiltered, often tone-deaf commentary.
Disaster management experts and psychologists have long noted that psychological trauma following a catastrophic event manifests in distinct chronological phases. Understanding this timeline is essential for evaluating why blanket positivity narratives fail during emergency responses.
Phase 1: The Impact and Heroic Phase (Hours to Days)
During the immediate impact and the hours immediately following a disaster, survivors experience acute shock, survival instincts, and adrenaline surges. Communities often mobilize spontaneously to rescue trapped neighbors and secure basic necessities. In this phase, survivors do not require philosophical reflections or mindfulness lectures; they require immediate physical rescue, safe shelter, clean water, emergency medical care, and physical safety.
Phase 2: The Honeymoon Phase (Days to Weeks)
Shortly after the event, a collective sense of euphoria and solidarity often emerges. Government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), volunteers, and donors flood affected areas with aid. Public solidarity peaks, and media coverage is intense. While morale may appear high due to external support, underlying psychological trauma remains dormant or masked by adrenaline and communal bonding.
Phase 3: The Disillusionment Phase (Weeks to Months)
This is typically the most critical period for mental health interventions. As media attention wanes, emergency aid stabilizes or diminishes, and the harsh reality of long-term displacement, joblessness, and structural rebuilding sets in, survivors experience deep psychological exhaustion. Grief, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression surge. This is precisely the juncture where well-meaning but ill-timed messages of "positive thinking" inflict the most damage. Telling a survivor who has lost their home, livelihood, and family members to "stay positive" during the disillusionment phase invalidates their suffering and deepens feelings of isolation.
Phase 4: The Reconstruction Phase (Months to Years)
As communities transition toward permanent rebuilding and rehabilitation, psychological resilience programs become vital. True mindfulness and structured cognitive-behavioral therapies find their most effective application here, helping individuals process their trauma, reconstruct their identities, and adapt to their changed environments without erasing the memory of their loss.
Societal Implications and the Responsibility of Public Communicators
The warning issued by psychiatric professionals highlights a broader systemic need for cultural competency in crisis communication. Public figures, influencers, media practitioners, and community leaders carry significant responsibility when shaping public discourse during national emergencies.
Sociologists and public health analysts point out that the commodification of happiness and resilience in modern digital culture has created an aversion to negative affect. Society frequently discourages public displays of grief, anger, or despair, branding them as "pessimistic" or "toxic." However, psychological research consistently demonstrates that emotional suppression significantly increases the risk of chronic mental health disorders, including complicated grief, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.
When institutions and public commentators promote toxic positivity, they inadvertently foster an environment of emotional disenfranchisement. Victims feel pressured to put on a brave face not for their own healing, but to make observers and outsiders feel more comfortable. This dynamic shifts the burden of emotional labor entirely onto the shoulders of the traumatized.
Recommendations for Effective Crisis Support and Mental Health Advocacy
In light of these findings, mental health coalitions and disaster response organizations are advocating for a shift in how psychological support is communicated and deployed during emergencies. Key recommendations include:
- Prioritizing Active Listening Over Advising: Responders and volunteers should be trained to practice empathetic listening. Often, survivors do not need solutions or motivational quotes; they need validation of their pain and the space to express anger, fear, and sorrow without judgment.
- Contextualizing Wellness Narratives: Public health campaigns promoting mindfulness and self-care must be carefully curated. They should be presented as optional tools for emotional regulation rather than mandatory moral imperatives for survival.
- Integrating Professional Mental Health Services into Early-Stage Relief: Psychological First Aid (PFA) should be deployed alongside medical triage and logistical aid during the earliest phases of a disaster, ensuring that trained professionals are available to identify and treat acute stress reactions before they evolve into long-term trauma.
- Combating Emotional Stigmatization: Media outlets and digital creators must move away from sensationalized or superficial tropes of resilience. Reporting should respect the dignity of victims by portraying the multifaceted reality of recovery, which encompasses both sorrow and strength.
As Indonesia continues to confront environmental vulnerabilities, the discourse surrounding mental health in crisis zones serves as a crucial reminder. True resilience is not forged by denying darkness, but by possessing the courage to acknowledge it, sit with it, and navigate through it with genuine compassion and professional support.
