Fight Academic Toxicity with Toxic Positivity

This is no secret that academia is extremely traditional, strongly hierarchical, and too often an ego-driven institute. It does not mean that if you ask scholars from academia, they will not lie to your face about this fact, especially the ones long in the system. As this is not the appropriate platform and as I have not done my homework, hence, I am not able to and will not make any statements about the roots of this undesirable dynamics. Let's just take it as a fact of life - the sun rises in the east, the sky is blue, and academics will be toxic. Now, after we take a deep breath and accept this reality, this is the time to address the elephant in the room - how to handle it.

I already shared some thoughts and tips about lessons I learned about confilicts in academic. Thus, in this blog post, I want to take one state to a more robust approach, moving from the tactic to the strategic. For the busy readers of this post, let me jump straight to the bottom line: the solution to toxic relationships in academia? Toxic Positivity.

What is "toxic positivity", I hear you say? Well, toxic positivity is the overgeneralization of a happy, optimistic state across all situations. It is the belief (or, in our case, the strategic decision to enforce a decision-making agenda) that no matter how dire or difficult a situation is, one should maintain a positive mindset. It is important to emphasize that while striving for positivity can be beneficial, toxic positivity dismisses or invalidates genuine human emotions and experiences.

"I am being attacked\used\ignored\abused and you suggest that I will be positive?" would probably be the most common question for this suggestion. Hear (well, read) me out. Imagine the following scenario - someone says your work is not good enough for something X that you want, while this is 100% not true. Naturally, we want to fight - "This is BS! You yourself do not know anything about the topic Y, how dare you even say something like that?". Now, you are in a fight, and you have already lost. Try the positive way - "Thank you XXX, I apropriate you for taking the time and energy to review my paper and would be happy to get a more spesific feedback to improve in the future". You just won - no questions asked. You are super polite, you are positive, you are respectful, and most of the time, the other side does not have any real claim, as they are not prepared for such a strategy. Your work is not good enough for something X? This is not the topic anymore - you move the subject to the other's side, need to prove a point.

Sometimes, the other party can pull the ranking card - this is a classic move you can actually use to your advantage. After all, this is 2025 (at the time of writting these lines) and ranks cannot be used explicitly. Someone pulling the rank card? Just say you do not care about ranks - you treat each person identically, from poor to the rich, from student to the rector. By saying that while you appropriate titles and ranks, professional discussions should be based on facts, logical arguments, and a positive attitude, what can the other side do with their ranks? If they try to use them again, this is pathetic. If they do not, you just took their main power move in a second.

Another important suggestion to further improve this strategy - have an audience. A one-vs-one argument is useless. After all, the other side is here to get something, and by losing, nothing really happens while you spend a lot of emotional energy. By having an audience, you raise the bar - losing now has a social follow-up. This is how you get a long-standing positive outcome from applying this strategy. Think about it, you observe a situation when one party is calmly, politely, and (most annoyingly) positively discussing a subject while the other is yelling, cursing, and making accusations - which side would you take?

For such who wish a more logical explanation for this strategy, let us consider a classic prisoner's dilemma. In game theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the tension between individual rationality and collective well-being. Two individuals must choose whether to cooperate with or betray each other, knowing that the best individual outcome arises from betrayal, but the best collective outcome arises from cooperation. In our settings, you and someone else are the prisoners, betray is fighting each other, and being positive is the other choice. The main difference between our case and the Prisoner's Dilemma is that you do not get a high penalty from being positive while the other side is fighting you. As such, being always positive (not nice, positive - this is important) is the optimal strategy.

Somewhat related, it is always to follow two additional tactics that support the toxic positivity strategy. If you can, try to write rather than talk. This will allow you to review the message multiple times and think about how you say stuff. It is too easy to get emotional in a conversation, but emails are a different platform - you have time, you have the opportunity to give your best (and most positive) answer each time. Another benefit of the writing medium, that it documents stuff, which will be useful later. This takes us to the second tactic - record everything. No "out of record" conversations - anything you say can and will be used against you. This is also true for the other parties, but only if you record everything. Otherwise, this is you against the other person's word, and this is a bad place to be in...

After all these points, it is also fair to mention the really beneficial outcome of this strategy. Studies show that if someone bullies you and you are nice (or positive) to them, they are more likely to stop. The ability to address aggression with kindness gives you a superpower, making you the bigger man (or woman) despite your title, position in the system, or any other attribute. So, when we just for a second avoid the cynical part of using positivity as toxic positivity, it is actually a really good philosophy, almost like "hakuna matata".

In order to slightly improve the mood at the end of this blog post, it is beneficial to remember that most individuals just want to do their work with minimal issues and get back to their homes and families. As such, while useful, the proposed strategy is here to save you from the small percentage of individuals who are anomalies. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility, do not abuse this strategy to harm others - it is your shield, not your sword.