Writing on the acquisition of personality traits, psychoanalyst Erik Erikson identified hope as the first stage of human psycho-social development, contingent on whether the infant has basic “trust” or “mistrust” in its caregiver. A favorable outcome is the development of the psycho-social “virtues” of inner contentment and optimism, and the potential to trust both oneself and others. In other words, this is the development of a sense of hope. For Erikson, the opposite of hope is a lack of trust.
During the first presidential debate on Dec. 3, all three candidates pledged to bring a renewed sense of hope to Taiwan. The public’s current lack of trust in organizations — from economic to judicial and cultural, from cross-strait relations to politics — needs to be addressed. Hope can only exist when this trust has been rebuilt.
However, it will take more than talk to do so. When people are low, hard facts are not going to lift their spirits. Neither is it sufficient to encourage sacrifice to ensure future success. Studies in positive psychology suggest that happiness is an important factor. Happy people tend to be more positive and optimistic, and these feelings go a long way to producing success, arming people with the wisdom and resolve to overcome the challenges before them.
Research also shows a positive correlation between how happy the president of a company is and how pleasant employees find the work environment, which therefore impacts the quality and quantity of their output. It is not good enough for our leaders, with their mutual mistrust and hostility, to promise hope on the horizon, but neglect to create the right conditions for it. Making such assurances is like putting a wonderful menu in front of a starving man too weak to survive until the food arrives. If you offer promises you cannot immediately fulfill, you will only rub salt into the wound.
There are two meanings of the word “hope” in psychology, depending on whether it is a noun or a verb. The former refers to a desirable future construct, with the passive individual consigned to uncertainty in the present. The latter refers to the ability of an individual to envisage a positive future. In this way, the individual is able to construct itself psychologically, morally and in relation to others, and therefore to plan ahead. Transforming the idea of hope from the noun form to the verb has a multiplier effect on happiness.
There has been much talk of the fact that many people cannot perceive the effects of economic recovery, and I think the public mood and people’s need to retreat from perceived threats can largely account for this. When people are faced with difficult situations, the way they experience what is happening in their lives is colored by their mood and they retreat to a place far divorced from one in which they will be able to hope.
Emotions are complex. It is easy to talk of sadness, happiness or regret in reference to some “moral economy” of hope, but these are just convenient generalizations. This is why it is so hard for the public to buy into the optimistic atmosphere President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is trying to conjure up with his slogan: “Things will get better soon with Ma.” The public knows this as political posturing, and mistrusts it.
Elevating hope as some higher ideal is a romantic indulgence that risks consigning marginalized members of society further into confusion, chaos and silence.
In The Count of Monte Cristo, Alexandre Dumas has the count say that all human wisdom can be summed up in two words: “wait” and “hope.” Hope is both a social attribute and a form of power distribution and it will never become a reality for all until we can achieve trust in society.
Lin Yaw-sheng is a professor of psychology at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly
On Thursday last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a barnstorming speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future.” The speech set out in no uncertain terms the insoluble ideological divide between a totalitarian, communist China and the democratic, free-market values of the US. It was also a full-throated call to arms for all nations of the free world to rally behind the US and defeat China. Pompeo elaborated on a clear distinction between China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in an attempt to recalibrate the