Anger in all its complexities and nuances
Much has been written about the pros and cons of anger. There are many questions one can ask about anger including:
Anger is often both justified and understandable. Rape of a person, especially a young child, the killing of unarmed people, especially African American males, by police in this country, the genocide of a group of people, and a host of other destructive actions by a person in power against some person or persons who have little to no power.
Angry may temporarily be helpful as an alarm system within a person or group of people. It may symbolize that they have awaken and found their voice; a voice which proclaims enough injustice is enough injustice. Once the alarm has been sounded, however, the goal or purpose in regard to the injustice has to be clearly articulated. If the goal is revenge or punishment, while understandable, one has to then ask if one’s goal is the same as that of the person to whose injustice one is responding. If so, one has to further ask how injustice plus injustice will lead to justice. Despite revenge and punishment being the most common tools used by judicial systems at all levels in much of the world there is no evidence that either result is a reduction of the very offenses they are meant to deter. On a common-sense level neither make sense. If the intent of the leaders of the community is to show that there are more civilized or effective ways of resolving conflicts than verbal or physical violence it makes no sense to use verbal and physical violence as a primary tool. When a person(s) holds on to anger and resentment then it is very stressful and, thus, injurious to one’s physical and mental health.
Anger expressed in a verbal or physical manner certainly may stop that person from any further injustice or perceived injustice especially if one kills the person but is there any evidence that it will stop or even reduce the sum total of violence by others. I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case long term. Certainly, for a time, it may reduce the overt expression of verbal or physical violence but long term I see no evidence of such reduction. Generally anger plus anger equals anger x 2 equals more anger.
It is clear to me that once one has attended to the alarm of anger then one needs to attempt to articulate a goal. Is the goal revenge, punishment, attempt to be judgmental and a hurtful as one might be feeling, healing or to model humility and unconditional love? Does one want to blame or to accept some responsibility for one’s expectations that the other person(s) would be or would have been less human and, thus, more perfect? Does one want to believe that one’s own behavior is less human; less devoid of hurtful acts? Does one want to be the righteous victim? Is it helpful to take the behavior of the other personally or even if directed at one was the behavior of the other about his or her own issues/human frailty? Does one want to give power to others to act in a way which is not consistent with one’s core values? Does one want to lead or to follow?
When Jesus said to love your enemies was he only referring to the enemy as defined by one’s nation or did he also mean one’s neighbor, spouse, children, parents or boss? Are we ever really in a position to judge another? Do we see our humanness reflected in the “sins” of the other? Can we accept and/or forgive our own humanness?
There are many questions we can ask our anger or ask ourselves? It is much easier to just feed the anger and, perhaps, feel self-righteous? Yet, does holding on to the anger and putting it is charge of how we behave create a more just, safe and loving world for all the future adults – the children of the world?
Written August 12, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
Much has been written about the pros and cons of anger. There are many questions one can ask about anger including:
- Is it justified?
- Is it understandable?
- Is it helpful to the one who is angry?
- Is it helpful to the person or persons at whom the anger is directed?
- What is the purpose of the anger? To hurt? Inform? Punish? Heal?
Anger is often both justified and understandable. Rape of a person, especially a young child, the killing of unarmed people, especially African American males, by police in this country, the genocide of a group of people, and a host of other destructive actions by a person in power against some person or persons who have little to no power.
Angry may temporarily be helpful as an alarm system within a person or group of people. It may symbolize that they have awaken and found their voice; a voice which proclaims enough injustice is enough injustice. Once the alarm has been sounded, however, the goal or purpose in regard to the injustice has to be clearly articulated. If the goal is revenge or punishment, while understandable, one has to then ask if one’s goal is the same as that of the person to whose injustice one is responding. If so, one has to further ask how injustice plus injustice will lead to justice. Despite revenge and punishment being the most common tools used by judicial systems at all levels in much of the world there is no evidence that either result is a reduction of the very offenses they are meant to deter. On a common-sense level neither make sense. If the intent of the leaders of the community is to show that there are more civilized or effective ways of resolving conflicts than verbal or physical violence it makes no sense to use verbal and physical violence as a primary tool. When a person(s) holds on to anger and resentment then it is very stressful and, thus, injurious to one’s physical and mental health.
Anger expressed in a verbal or physical manner certainly may stop that person from any further injustice or perceived injustice especially if one kills the person but is there any evidence that it will stop or even reduce the sum total of violence by others. I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case long term. Certainly, for a time, it may reduce the overt expression of verbal or physical violence but long term I see no evidence of such reduction. Generally anger plus anger equals anger x 2 equals more anger.
It is clear to me that once one has attended to the alarm of anger then one needs to attempt to articulate a goal. Is the goal revenge, punishment, attempt to be judgmental and a hurtful as one might be feeling, healing or to model humility and unconditional love? Does one want to blame or to accept some responsibility for one’s expectations that the other person(s) would be or would have been less human and, thus, more perfect? Does one want to believe that one’s own behavior is less human; less devoid of hurtful acts? Does one want to be the righteous victim? Is it helpful to take the behavior of the other personally or even if directed at one was the behavior of the other about his or her own issues/human frailty? Does one want to give power to others to act in a way which is not consistent with one’s core values? Does one want to lead or to follow?
When Jesus said to love your enemies was he only referring to the enemy as defined by one’s nation or did he also mean one’s neighbor, spouse, children, parents or boss? Are we ever really in a position to judge another? Do we see our humanness reflected in the “sins” of the other? Can we accept and/or forgive our own humanness?
There are many questions we can ask our anger or ask ourselves? It is much easier to just feed the anger and, perhaps, feel self-righteous? Yet, does holding on to the anger and putting it is charge of how we behave create a more just, safe and loving world for all the future adults – the children of the world?
Written August 12, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
RSS Feed