This book, published in 1990, has been influential in several areas of psychology including sports and leisure, game design and theories of creativity. The language of flow has taken hold in business psychology, and flow is coming into vogue as a metaphor of engaged living within the major religions as well as among more alternative thinkers. I am reviewing the 1990 book rather than its shorter 1997 sequel "Finding Flow".
The author was an academic psychologist at the University of Chicago. His approach is modern humanism, after Maslow, Rogers, Allport with some debt to Jung. His research is analysis of subjective reports and surveys, rather than standardized tests. His field of study was, generally, happiness. He gathered data on why some people take great pleasure in some leisure activities, and why some people can be happy in what might seem to be boring jobs and work situations. His answer is that people can become engaged in tasks, finding a pleasant flow in identifying challenges, meeting them, and being positively engaged in tasks to the point of losing self-consciousness and becoming engaged in the flow of life.
In some ways, the author does not seem to have gone beyond common knowledge. People who are busy with a meaningful tasks don't have time to be anxious and depressed. Some people don't like their work but they like challenging recreational activities like mountain climbing and organize their lives around fulfilling hobbies. He has gathered some evidence, albeit in the form of subjective reports, to support his argument and he presents it as a modern psychological theory. His theories about why complex and challenging activities are enjoyable and important in leading a healthy, happy life are interesting and useful, but the theory and book have significant limitations.
The book is reasonably clear, but is not particularly well-written. It sounds naive and romantic, and it is full of the jargon of humanistic psychology (for instance concepts of psychic energy, psychic entropy, autotelic personality) and one-dimensional. His basic claim is that people are happy in activities that generate flow. He recognizes that people are also happy when basic needs are met in a pleasant way - good food, erotic sex, but he distinguishes between mere pleasure and the enjoyment of a complex experience.
His effort to distinguish between ordinary pleasure and enjoyable flow is largely semantic and largely unconvincing, and this false dichotomy is probably the key flaw in his philosophy. Flow is simply a feeling of pleasure. It rewarding, and like the other pleasures, it can be addictive. It is not an absolute good.
Article comments
1 - Critic of the critic
Blog critic with an opinion that is essentially one person reading a book and stating their personal opinion. Who could give a rats ass as to what this writer thinks or has to say. There are a few generalizations in the critique that demonstrate a reading with a closed mind.
Lets read a blog where some random person gives their random subjective opinion without any credentials or statement of experience. What are the qualifications of this blog critic? Well he can read as well as type.
Ok well thanks for that opinion of 1 person who can actually read and type.
2 - Tony Dalmyn
I guess critic of the critic liked the book, maybe? Enough to complain about my review? Or just not happy with the concept of Blogcritics? There isn't much to discuss in that comment.
3 - Kevin K
This is honestly the worst review I have read in a long time. Nice job.
4 - Helen Rivas-Rose
You missed the meaning of FLOW. Only a person who hasn't experienced FLOW could write such a review as yours. It's much more than pleasure, it's sitting on the sleeve of eternity. Try again!