What is it to be negative? Is it to hope that bad outcomes arise, is it to make bad outcomes arise, is it to deride achievement or to downgrade the now, the present, in language so as to represent it in a way that is overly miserable? Is negativity found in bitter resentments and nasty actions towards people, is it a perspective that narrows human understanding, alienates a potential friend? Is negativity a bad thing….is it?

I am going to argue that negativity is a positive force, and positivity is a negative force. that may seem paradoxical, but I would say that all the opening statements are in fact in error. Let’s look at what negativity is, how it arises, why it is felt, why it is used as an approach….

If I take a negative view of an object in the world, could be anything, then I am attracted toward thinking about that object. I am not interested in a grain of sand, and I am not interested in a beach full of sand, but I may be interested in a desert, what it means to the world, and what it means to me. The same could be said for a glass of water or an ocean. There is a reason why each of us is thinking about a thing at a certain time. It would be impossible to take a perspective on something that you are not thinking about or aware of. So where we are thinking negatively about something, we then must be concerned about that something in some way and for some reason. This concern is the important factor.

For me to be concerned with something, and to then to be negative about that something, I think I must have a hope, and a realisation, that that thing could be improved. The wish to improve something, or to have it improved, must then be understood to be a positive perspective. If I can improve the thing that I am negative in concern of, then I am doing something positive in being active in making that thing better. This is different to being positive, or indifferent toward something, or taking a dismissive perspective.

To analyse something and say that it could, it should, be better than it appears to be, is root of all progress. Dissatisfaction is what drives you to change something, to exit the bad relationship, to quit the shitty job, to knock the wall out between rooms to make the one you use bigger at the cost of the one you never occupy. Being less than satisfied is a very positive thing, so negative thinking is the driving force of positive action and the cultivation of a positive attitude toward an object is the opposite.

Positivity is a static position, it holds no progressive motivation, it is not the hope that a thing will change it is the perspective where it is in no need of that. If you are positive about your relationship you will not be looking for the exit, if you are positive concerning your workplace you will continue to turn up. Now I am not saying that positivity is a bad thing, I am just saying that it is the negation of change. A positive attitude towards change is a good thing, but it comes from an initial negativity.

I am an extraordinarily negative person, everything I see I make criticisms of, but this doesn’t mean I favour the destruction of those objects and structures that capture my concern. It’s just that I always imagine them bettered, that they have not yet realised their full potential, or maybe are being held back artificially by the limited perspectives or abilities of the people concerned with them. That’s the problem you see, that everything in the built environment is designed and realised by the endeavours of persons, those folks that make every decision from the cladding being used, to the cement blocks, to the speed of the hotel lift. And there must be reasons for their compromise, an explanation of why the object realised differs greatly from the object needed.

At each point in our lives the experience we receive is the product of somebody, or some group’s, thoughts. What taints these thoughts, in concern of provision, especially in government spending, is, in my estimation at least, a product of two motivating factors. The pressure of economic viability (cost effectiveness) defining what level of remuneration can be expected in a ratio to effort offered, and moral hazard, which is making decisions for other people where the outcome will not ever concern you personally.

We need functional public toilets, but there are very few, that is a decision made by some body or some body. A decision to not realise what is most needed, but to instead spend vital funds on what is apparently not. The roundabouts of Oswestry Shropshire have had millions spent on them over and over again in extensive public works in the last 10 years, and they’re still shit. Whereas the town itself is in desperate need of a solution to its dreary look and its flagging historic market. I suspect the town council could do with a bit more negativity…

Paul S Wilson