I wrote an email to someone yesterday stating that I was angry. I referred correctly to my state of mind. I was most definitely angry about the matter to which I referred. What that matter was is not the concern here. Instead I want to discuss anger itself.
Anger can be defined as ‘a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.' I am not sure I felt hostility, and am not sure I ever do, but I note the definitions are alternatives. I did definitely feel annoyance and displeasure, and felt I had the right to say so.
Doing so did, I am sure, upset some recipients of the mail. In fact I am sure I will be told that I have acted inappropriately for suffering a completely normal human emotion.
The last point is what I think is important. If we were to follow what seems to be current thinking, anger is unacceptable, however normal it is. Those suffering anger are told to control it. More so, they are told to undertake anger management courses. To be angry is unacceptable.
I find that very worrying. Why shouldn't I be angry by what I think to be missed opportunity? Why, more generally, should I accept the systemic abuse we now see in society? Why can't I express that, including to those who impose that abuse in my opinion? And how will change ever happen if those angered by an injustice cannot say so?
Currently it would seem that those in power think I should not be angry. They do not like ‘my tone'. They think I should change my behaviour. I should be respectful. Perhaps I should know my place. And they might hint I could be a bully, but then to every coward hiding behind privilege a person making complaint looks like a bully.
I have no time for bullying. But I also have no time for those who abuse, and I see too many who do.
My concern is that the current demand that anger be suppressed is part of the narrative of oppression of dissent of all sorts that I think is now a very obvious recurring neoconservative political theme.
My suggestion is this: you can only demand that anger be suppressed for so long, and then it does turn to hostility. And that really worries me. Anger without hostility is appropriate. But suppressing it makes hostility more likely. Those displaying self-righteousness need to listen to what is said in anger. It might suggest that change is most definitely needed.
Being angry without hostility about injustice is politically appropriate. Those saying otherwise are pursuing an agenda of oppression.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
A while ago in The Guardian Annalisa Barbieri wrote that anger is a useful emotion, but you need to know who to be angry with, how angry to be with them and when to stop.
I can certainly agree with that
I agree with all that
Quite agree. Stating that you are angry, in text or verbally, is honesty and a sensible frankness. It IS anger management. Shouting at a person or banging desks is a hostile expression of anger which needs control unless it in response to hostility.
I used to be angry, but moved past that years ago. Looking at what goes on in politics/industry, my attitude towards many of the protagonists veers between pity (that they are incapable of recognising that they are imbeciles) through to despising them.
Iain Dale (ex vile-tory adviser & now LBC) is one such. His pea-sized brain is incapable of imagining that, railway stations with staff might be a good thing……until he had a broken hip & dodgy knee. Then he changed his mind. & these are people with influence – how very amusing, village idiots in charge of the local council.
Contempt and small regard, coupled to a healthy dose of despising people who are incapable of original thought and lack curiosity.
Adding, the on-going slo-mo car crash that is the UK has been caused by a group of people with PPEs. The philosophy bit should have covered epistemology, it is clear from events that they have no understanding of this part of philosophy and have never applied it. Pearls, swine etc.
Please excuse my ignorance, what does the abbreviation PPE mean? I have seen it used in a few posts today and, must admit, canot fathom it out.
Politics, philosophy and economics
I should have said, acronym!
Peter Gabriel words in the ‘Wallflower’.
‘They teach you how to behave, How to be their guest.’
True
I am a fan of his music
Anger that is not processed can be destructive. Forgiveness is not just for the offender; it can be for ourselves. Living with hate is corrosive.
I am due to give a talk, next month, on the Conscientious Objectors of the First World War, Many of them experienced ‘righteous anger’ from people who thought they were betraying all the men fighting. Their courage and resolution established a limit on the demands of the state. These issues are never easy.
But anger can be channelled to give the energy for productive activity. Lord Shaftesbury found a purpose watching a pauper’s funeral. Millicent Fawcett reported a stolen purse and was told by the police sergeant that as she was a married woman, it was the property of her husband. She founded the Suffragists ( they were non-violent unlike the Suffragettes )and the Fawcett Society still endures.
Going further back Jesus chased the money changers from the Temple. I see a parallel with your work. Be mindful but carry on with your work.
Thanks
Richard,
Your definition spans a range of strong feelings (of annoyance, displeasure, hostility). And our language evolves …. Meanings vary by age, locality, etc.
It seems this ambiguity has allowed others (possibly cynically) to focus on criticising your emotions and not the subject matter.
That could make some people really really quite angry …. Or just righteously indignant!
I was talking generically rather than. perosnally on this occassion
Those same people who ask us to control our anger forget the experience and actions of an angry Jesus when he saw what was going on in the temple in Jerusalem. His was a just cause anger and no-one said his was wrong and ought to have been modified.
I get very angry most days, and quite often my only outlet is here or on Facebook.
Even on the Peace and Justice Facebook page I can get angry with some of the comments.
I also get angry at the idea of anger management courses. We are allowed to be angry at the way we have been treated by this government. We should be allowed to be angry at the way Starmer is treating the Labour Party as his own personal fiefdom.
I feel sorry for those who are still in the party and not allowed to express their anger for fear of being dismissed from the party.
Anyone involved in the women’s movement over the decades will know that anger has historically been frowned upon in women, who are labelled shrill, hysterical and unfeminine, inn attempt to put us back in our box. We learned to identify our anger, instead of suppressing it and to use it constructively, to speak our minds, to change the way we have been treated, and the way we behave.
It’s what you do with that anger that matters, and it’s a perfectly valid response to injustice.
I appreciate your anger, Richard. It’s one of the aspects of this bog that keeps me coming back.
Very well put
You get exactly what I was saying
Could that be why there were so many women speaking out against Johnson yesterday, they were given permission to do so?
Some of the best speeches came from women MPs. And yet those who speak out are routinely trashed for being unfeminine by the dinosaurs on both sides of the house.
True
Look at how Rees Mogg treated Harriet Harman.
The Value of Anger: 16 Reasons It’s Good to Get Angry
“The angry man is aiming at what he can attain, and the belief that you will attain your aim is pleasant.” —Aristotle
Anger has a negative reputation when compared to positive emotions such as happiness, enthusiasm, and hope. Perhaps the lack of respect for anger is rooted in social, cultural, and religious reasons, as well as the obvious manifestation of its often destructive outcomes, such as aggression and violence. In fact, many believe we would be better off without anger as an emotion. However, more and more social and evolutionary psychologists, brain scientists, and mental health professionals are suggesting anger has valuable qualities and can be beneficial to the human condition.
From an evolutionary perspective, all emotions are appropriate in certain circumstances when experienced at an optimal degree, providing the resources to effectively operate toward a desired goal. For example, certain levels of stress and anxiety push us to perform at a high level. Sadness can be cathartic, filling us with appreciation for what we have lost while signaling to others we need support to recover and heal. Similarly, mild to moderate anger can help us positively move forward—yet, of course, extreme or chronic anger can be detrimental to our well-being.
Anger is not just aggressive reaction. It often provides us with information that allows us to better engage with the world around us (as well as ourselves). If we see anger as something that makes us more informed, we can adapt our response accordingly to better our position. To this end, the following is a list of benefits anger can provide when the appropriate level of the emotion is attained.
View the 16 reasons here…
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/value-of-anger-16-reasons-its-good-to-get-angry-0313175
Thanks
Anger is an energy said John Lydon and I agree.
Lot’s of good stuff here – I like how anger can be linked to injustice.
But the worry is that we become used to injustice and anger fades. And that is a human problem – we are very adaptable and resilient already (neo-libs telling us that we are not are just liars).
This is why blogs like this are important – to keep us in touch with our humanity and make sure that the market does not ease us into indifference.
We are a successful species because we saw how we could benefit if we stuck together, that the weak could be carried because we too could at anytime become weak. That is the basis of kindness. Reciprocity. It’s logical.
Wealth and its extremes breaks the ‘kindness cycle’ and makes people believe they are not tied to social mores because money replaces the need to give and take. Money decouples too many from their human roots. Such behaviour is anti-social, and the ASB orders need revising.
BTW, I was pretty miffed already before I turned up here however many years ago. So it’s not Richard’s fault.
Just thought I’d clarify that folks.
🙂
Thanks
I always appreciate your replies, and what I like here particularly is your highlighting of truly antisocial effects that are often otherwise revered. I see a kind of paradox with money. As people accrue more they’re referred to as being “independent”, but actually the opposite is true. The more someone has the more they use others to do everything for them – from secretaries and PAs, to entire workforces, servants, housekeepers and on and on (not to mention rentier income). The least independent people are the wealthiest. In one of David Graeber’s books (Possibilities, I think), he noted that people viewed the king as a baby, dependent upon everyone else and incapable of doing anything for himself, as they recognised that others did virtually everything for him. Money can seriously distort mutuality in social relationships, whilst simultaneously hiding the distortion (why else, for instance, would any group of people seriously ever get together and build another person a super yacht, without seeing how frankly bizarre that is?)