History Of Anger: Part II
(This is an excerpt from a University Of Metaphysical Sciences course at www.umsonline.org,
please feel free to visit the school website)
Historically, anger has produced wars and generated peace. It has created both villains and heroes. The outcome of any anger related event is dependent on how or whether the anger is managed into positive expression or merely expressed in retaliation, revenge or self-justification.
Our earliest myths, fables and literature are surprisingly moralistic tales of personal anger conflicts (where anger is meant to include its extrapolated active forms, including, primarily, revenge and retaliation). Aesop immortalized stories of classic “anger management” successes where the wise, level heads and clear thinking win out over the emotionally reactive antagonist. The Brothers Grimm took an even “grimmer” tact by killing or imprisoning evil-doers. In mythology the gods were seemingly always angry at a slight or betrayal. Zeus kept Prometheus chained to a rock in eternal agony, and Hera was constantly exacting revenge on Zeus’ lovers. And the story of Oedipus is a classic tale that continues to be re-worked into modern plot lines, albeit with a little more psychological subtlety. Though Freud made Oedipus infamous through his psychoanalytical theories, it is the famously clear-cut tale of emotional anger and revenge that produced a tragedy of resonance with generations of audiences. Likewise, Shakespeare’s tragedies all hinge on anger and rage to incite the story of the drama: Richard III’s cynical anger, Titus’ rage, Iago’s malice and Lear’s affront. To cite just two specific examples: Iago’s anger inspires a lie to Othello who’s anger at Cassio inspires a wave of destructive action (including Othello’s own eventual suicide), and; King Lear’s angry rejection of his youngest daughter destroys his kingdom. Modern drama—reflecting the increased complexity of society—has less clear cut acts and consequences…instead taking the track of an often futile, seething anger against the modern gods, the faceless fates behind the desks of businesses and political office.
In societal conflict we see the smaller scale of nomadic herders or hunter-gatherers forming little families (then societies) for self-preservation and eventual dominance or domination. On a larger scale, supposedly the injury (to pride), by the abduction of Helen of Troy, started the massive Trojan War that raged for years and decimated both countries. In fact, supposed slights such as this were the impetus for numerous skirmishes and battles throughout history, probably most notable in the French and English conflicts that saw parts of Normandy and Burgundy change hands dozens of times over hundreds of years. The animosities formed persist to this day in small ethnic slurs and sentiment among many of both populations.
Decades fueled anger resulted in wars of ethnic cleansing for many African nations, Serbia, Croatia, Russia, Nazi Germany and many more. These cases are sociologically interesting in that a third party or outside event usually forced close living of different ethnic populations, and it is difficult to discern whether the resultant anger and ethnic cleansing is a true rage at another ethnic group, or if the opposing group merely assumes the “face” of an anger focus while both parties are impotent in their suppression by a dominant, third-party tyranny.
Although righteous anger can be a tool of either politics, hindsight or expedient justification of conscience (such as Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, the Crusades for the Holy Land, or the U.S. Wars on Terrorism), more often that anger is forged from an in-the-moment fear of a supposed future injury or mistreatment. This is the classic “fight or flight” link that can exist, be created or manipulated to inspire fear of that classical threat of danger of survival. The attack on Pearl Harbor created a fear that could be transformed or manipulated into righteous anger, or the threat of excommunication and damnation could impel the Crusaders to launch a “holy” war. Hitler’s resentment about the financial success of Jewish businessmen and desire to see the Aryan race dominate over inferior races came from perceived threats to survival.
In modern times we see the effect of such anger in acts of terrorism and its retaliatory responses. Though couched in various ideologies and/or religious doctrines, we can objectively look to our dictionary definition and see that what we really have is “a desire to fight back at the supposed cause” of feelings of “displeasure resulting from injury, mistreatment, opposition…” Again, perception is the key. Both sides of the conflicts will, by definition, experience anger. How that anger is managed will determine the expression it takes. In this case a fermenting displeasure and the resultant desire to fight needs only a target, a “supposed cause of that feeling” and a means to fight.
But what if inflammatory situations are actually anger managed? Can the result be positive? We can look at several examples to answer the affirmative.
First, we have Gandhi’s successful overthrow of British rule through non-violent means. Despite years of oppression, and numerous incidental attempts to throw off British rule, India was still securely within Great Britain’s power. However, Gandhi, an English educated Indian, well-off, privileged and comfortable by most of his countrymen’s standards, began to first, identify not with his “assumed identity” as a psuedo-Englishman, but as an Indian. Then, he began to experience a moralistic sense of anger, identifying this supposed cause of “…injury, mistreatment, opposition and etc...” But rather than impulsively and aggressively releasing the anger in action, Gandhi successfully managed his feelings and emotions into actions that were calculated, rational and effective. The result was, essentially, the overthrowing of an Empire.
Second, based upon and building on Gandhi’s success we have the U.S.A. civil rights movement of the 1960’s, where Dr. King and others followed Gandhi’s approach. Previously, the anger on both sides of the civil rights question had either stonewalled any constructive action, or led to violence or retaliatory measures. While there were undoubtedly strides made in individual venues, collectively the angry rhetoric and aggressive stances served only to further reinforce fears and polarize the issue. However passionate the words and rhetoric became, Dr. King overall maintained focus, managing his anger into channels of positive action like non-violent protest and rational debate. Though the final measure of success may be disputed, success itself must be noted in the legislative and eventual cultural shifts that began to take place.
These are the archetypal situations that could lead to armed conflict and despotic resolution; that is, a repressed class or a group of people rise in rebellion with a “winner-take-all” result. The victor usually exerts a despotic control over the loser in the form of punishment and retribution, often writing (or re-writing) the history as well. The fact that there was no “armed conflict,” despite violence, negated the need for necessary retaliatory measures and allowed an opening for discussion and movement.
Further, we can look at the Ireland dilemma, and similar situations where negotiations are actually a positive form of anger management; that is, anger leading to an expression and communication of feelings that results in a positive outcome. The Irish situation is dramatic in that it so aptly illustrates a modern metaphor on such a large scale. After decades of hostilities, emotional rage resulting in warlike and terroristic actions on both sides, a more peaceful and constructive action was taken: dialogue that honestly, sincerely addressed the injury, mistreatment, opposition and other oppressions perceived by both sides. Like any “anger management” discipline, there were trials and missteps in the practice of a constructive way to express anger. Though the peace may still rest uneasily, it has broken a cycle of perception and habitue that most certainly did not succeed.
And why not? Because unmanaged anger produces behaviors that inhibit positive growth interaction with self and others. In the case of many historical examples of war and armed conflict, we see fear, anger and rage provoked and manipulated on a very large scale, and we may be tempted to focus on the “faceless” oppressors at the expense of seeing the power of an individual effort to overcome the temptation of succumbing to anger. Certainly Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. became focal points for change. But it is also possible for an individual to be an instigator for change—even in the face of a huge, unyielding injustice.
The story of Nelson Mandela is well-chronicled and better told in detail elsewhere. But it is prudent to note that rather than being a mere figurehead or focal point, Mandela almost single handedly transformed an entire nation of fear and hate. Respected and revered as a terrorist/fighter/rebel figure, Mandela emerged from prison a changed person. His adamant forgiveness and his refusal to hate changed the political climate in South Africa almost overnight. Despite all the justification to hate his persecutors, Mandela’s attitude of love and forgiveness disarmed both sides of the conflict. Though he was not the only influence at play, his role was the pivotal center of change, for he had transformed his anger. While many looked to Mandela to rise up and lead in hate and anger, his healing and transcendence of the anger response led hundreds of thousands to a new perspective.
One final example on a more personal level, let’s look at the story of Candy Lightner. When her daughter was killed by a drunk driver, Ms. Lightner was shocked and outraged at the minuscule penalty imposed on the drunk driver. Anyone who has children could probably relate to her rage. Her subsequent inquiries revealed the startling fact that most drunk driving cases were treated as misdemeanors even when a death resulted. Rather than rage impotently against the system which wasn’t working, Lightner started an organization known as MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. This organization has become a nationwide organization for educating and informing schools and the public at large, as well as being a success in lobbying for legal and law enforcement reform.