Download Extended Definition of Anger

Anger
Modern psychology and psychoanalysts have to some measure
removed the onus that medieval Christianity attached to anger when
identifying it as one of the seven cardinal, or deadly, sins. It is now
viewed as a natural, reactive, even a mature emotion experienced by all
humans at some time in their lives, as unavoidable as other primary
emotions such as fear, sadness, and joy. Still, orthodox moral
philosophers knew that unabated anger, or wrath, could be destructive,
particularly in the guise of vengeful fury, and argued that in that form it
should be God’s prerogative alone. As the Greek theologian St. Basil
(330-379) proclaimed, in mortals it was viewed as a reprehensible,
“temporary madness.”
The primitive, physiological “humors” theory that persisted from
antiquity through the Renaissance and explained emotions as “passions”
should have called into question the idea that anger per se could be
deemed sinful. After all, if a person was disposed to choler because of an
imbalance in body chemistry, an excess, specifically, of yellow bile,
anger could arise without permission of the will, making sin a moot
concept. Morality must hinge on both the cognitive distinction between
good and evil and a voluntary choice between them—that is, free will.
The implications of the pseudo-scientific idea of the humors
simply remained as remote from moral philosophy as contemporary
physiological study is likely to remain. Knowing, for example, that
under stress, as in an angry condition, there is a decrease of lymphocytes
in the blood but an elevation of free fatty acid avails the moralist
nothing. Knowing that anger can contribute to destructive behavior,
however, provides some food for ethical thought. Moral principles based
on emotions must therefore focus on their effects rather than on the
emotions themselves.
Anger is engendered by some sort of stimulus, usually in the
present but possibly recalled from memory. It is normally a conscious
feeling accompanied by physical discomfort and tension, and may be
outwardly expressed by glaring, gritting of teeth, clenching of the fists,
or even quaking of the bodily frame, depending on its intensity. Most
psychologists believe that it is a realistic, healthy emotion, unlike
hostility, which is based in immature fear. It is, however, a delimited
emotion, and unless it subsides or finds outlet in expression, it can yield
to more destructive reactions such as anxiety, depression, and
aggression. When sublimated through creative energy, it can lead to
positive behavior, such as efforts to ameliorate social injustice.
Anger tends to become dangerous when it is suppressed, repressed,
or displaced. Both suppression and repression work to deny its
expression an outlet, while displacement, common in dreams, redirects
the expression of anger from the actual stimulus to a surrogate or
scapegoat. Repressed, seething anger may find sudden, explosive release
as it did the 1992 riot in Los Angeles, which was prompted by the
acquittal of the police officers in the Rodney King beating trial. The
violence erupted because the demands of a collective anger aroused by
the beating were not satisfied by the jury’s verdict. The anger was then
displaced as violence against persons and property that had no rational
link to the King affair.
The widespread deflection of anger away from its actual cause
toward a scapegoat has affected even whole nations. A prime example is
Nazi Germany, where Jews were blamed for the economic ills of the
nation, and displaced anger gradually gave way to hatred and
murderous, genocidal aggression. How that could have happened in such
a highly developed culture remains something of a mystery, but the
basic paradigm of hatred arising from anger joined to frustration is clear
enough.
The vestiges of the idea of anger as a sort of madness persist in
law, as, for example, in the “temporary insanity” defense, or as a
mitigating factor in sentencing in “crimes of passion.” Moreover, the
cumulative effect of long-suppressed anger has increasingly been used
as a defense in court when, for example, a battered wife has killed her
spouse under circumstances that would otherwise preclude a plea of selfdefense. For some theorists, that defense has opened a legal version of
Pandora’s box.
Furthermore, as the Rodney King case reveals, the legal process is
a potential hostage to collective anger. The video tape of King’s beating,
repeatedly aired by the media, aroused great public indignation, which
could have intimidated and suborned the jury. It did not, but the
lawlessness that followed in the wake of that jury’s verdict may weigh
heavily on some future jury.
Although modern psychologists can agree on the symptomatic
behavior and physiological phenomena accompanying anger, they can
provide no definitive conclusions regarding what it is or even where,
anatomically, it resides. Practical ethics must take anger and other
emotions into account, but using them as primary building blocks of
moral principles is at best subjective and very risky.
John Fiero