Castlepollard,
Co. Westmeath,
Ireland.
1st September, 2010.
Dear Reader,
Anger has the potential to be a positive force in our lives, if we take the time and effort to follow three basic steps. The first is to understand how we experience anger; the second, to make reasonable choices in relation to that experience, and finally, to act according to these choices.
Anger runs from slight irritation on the lower scale, with annoyance, frustration, aggression, anger, and rage in the middle, and murderous rage at the top end. While I will vary the choice of words throughout, it is important to note that each word will simply indicate a particular intensity point on this continuum. It is interesting to consider what some reputable names have said about the positive aspects of anger.
The writer Anthony Storr in his book called Human Aggression makes some interesting points on the positive aspects of aggression. In response to the question ‘Is aggression an instinct?’ Storr suggests that in man as in other animals, there exists a physiological mechanism which, when stimulated, gives rise both to subjective feelings of anger and also to physical changes which prepare the body for fighting. However, the way in which human beings adapt to and control their feelings of rage differs widely according to training.
Under conditions of civilisation, it is perhaps easier to arouse aggression than to dispel it; and the man who works out his aggression in violent digging in the garden may seem psychologically naïve, but is displaying physiological wisdom, for he is both giving his rage time to subside and also making use of some of the physical effort for which his body is now keenly alerted. The existence of the physiological mechanism is not in doubt. Self-preservation demands that an animal should carry within it the potential for aggressive action, since the natural world is a place in which hostile threats must be overcome or evaded if life is to continue.
At the introspective level, it may be true to say that one deplores getting angry; but the physiological changes which accompany anger give rise to a subjective sense of well-being and of invigorating purpose which in itself is rewarding. Storr concludes that if the view is accepted that aggression is a basic part of human instinctive equipment, it must be possible to demonstrate that the aggressive drive serves a biological function in terms of preservation of the individual and of the human species. Aggression is not only a valuable part of individual human nature, but also an essential ingredient of the structure of society; and that it is only when the aggressive drive becomes blocked or frustrated that it becomes objectionable or dangerous. It must also be recognised that it is impossible and undesirable to try to rid ourselves of a part of our own nature which is not only innate, but also biologically valuable. The aggressive drive has a number of positive functions: in the creation of order in society. Winnicott agrees with this view, ‘If society is in danger, it is not because of man’s aggressiveness but because of the repression of personal aggressiveness in individuals.’
Elisabeth Kubler Ross an eminent psychiatrist and internationally renowned thanatologist, identified the five stages of grief as follows; denial; anger; bargaining; depression; and acceptance. Her research data was the dying patients she worked with. The problem she discovered with anger was that few people put themselves in the patient’s position to discover the reason behind the anger. She discovered that when a patient was listened to and understood, the need for rational angry outbursts diminished. Similar to a baby, she found that dying patients, who had lost control of some of their faculties, could only express their needs by the use of anger.
Being in the presence of an angry person can activate a persons own internal anger, and the response is often one of withdrawal as a way of denying the presence of internal discomfort. It follows therefore that we can only discover the message carried by our anger, by going towards it, in the spirit of enquiry and discovery, irrespective of whether the anger is in ourselves, or perceived in another.
Clarissa Pinkola Estes in the classic book Women who Run with the Wolves makes a convincing case for the positive use of rage. She argues that collective anger or rage is a natural function, and suggests there is such a phenomenon as group hurt and group grief. Those who become socially, politically, or culturally conscious often find they have to deal with a collective rage that seeps upwards through them, again and again. She holds that it is psychically sound, for them to feel this rage about injustice, and to use it to invent ways to elicit useful change. Collective anger can also be a teacher if we consult with it and question it, in solitude and with others. There is a difference between carrying around an old ingrown rage and stirring it with a new stick to see what constructive uses can come of it. On this basis it would appear reasonable to consider including the potential of anger as a positive force, in any ethical decision making process. By ethical, I mean that which supports human flourishing for self and others.
However I believe we are compelled to enquire into our personal bias and attitudes about anger arising both from our personal history and cultural heredity. There can be no doubt that in Ireland historically our relationship to anger is one of denial and avoidance. It is an aspect of our Be-ing, which I argue is not, in general, integrated into who we take ourselves to be. The result is that anger is not factored into how we make choices on how we “ought” to act. The potency of our anger is forced underground, into the depths of our unconscious, and tends to emerge in a range of destructive and disconnected dysfunctional acts at both the personal and collective level. However, if we are to choose between right and wrong we need to be able to distinguish between them.
As was outlined at the beginning, anger is one instinctual response of our innate wisdom. From the ethical perspective it behoves us to enquire into the cause of this biological response in order to obtain sufficient data to determine our moral intention.
It becomes necessary at some point to accept that anger in itself is neither good nor evil. It is simply a healthy, natural biological response to an outside event, that contains within it useful information for each person. The question, ‘What outer event has stimulated this biological response of anger’, will open the enquiry process. The result of the enquiry, combined with a persons capacity and willingness to take their part in being responsible to the greater good, by setting an appropriate ethical intention and acting accordingly, would deem the response of anger to be intrinsically a necessary and useful impulse towards ethical action.
Anger could also be seen as a subtle divine calling to notice something that needs our attention, which we might otherwise ignore were it not for the physicality that accompanies anger. Anger involves reason, to recognise the injury done, and to recognise what will count as satisfaction for it, but that doesn’t mean anger automatically submits to reason; it needs to be controlled by our free choice based on reason.
Any evil associated with anger ought to be fully attributed to the person who carries out the evil action. Refusing to accept the freedom which is ours is to show that we are afraid to accept responsibility. It follows that the defence of ‘I’m only human’, does not provide a satisfactory defence in the absence of employing reason to evaluate the instinctive response to anger, before taking action.
In conclusion, I decided to put my hypothesis to the test using a completely different perspective and looked to modern day Buddhist teachers. The work of Pema Chodron, on her CD called ‘Don’t Bite the Hook’ was particularly useful, in that she addresses this same issue albeit from a completely different perspective yet comes to the same conclusion. She is noted for her ability to ground complex abstract teachings in the everyday experience, and suggests that how you go towards happiness is by taming the mind and emotions. When faced with something you perceive unjust, getting enraged and righteously indignant serves only to create further injustice. Our challenge according to Chodron; is to acknowledge our anger, but not to act from it; to clearly see when harm is being done, yet speak and act in a way that is appropriate towards achieving the desired outcome. Chodron acknowledges the instinctual response, yet encourages us to act only from a reasoned place. We can want to strike out at someone yet refrain from acting on that impulse.
The case has herein been made that anger is neither good nor bad, but simply carries the innate potential to be a potent positive force in the moral arena. Patrick Hannon in his book Right or Wrong suggests that the responsibility for the moral future of Ireland lies in the conscience of every citizen of whatever religious persuasion.
If these thoughts and ideas inspire you to reflect on your experience of anger my purpose has been served. This is an ongoing process which can be challenging at times. Know that there is support available if you would like to explore any of these issues with the support of a skilled professional. You are also welcome to e-mail a question or comment in confidence to me via the contacts page of my website www.psyche.ie.
Yours faithfully,
Mary Stefanazzi
