The Anger Factor
May 27, 2008
Ethics | Torah
(2 comments)
By William Berkson
Our society is now filled with anger, and with angry people who see their expressions of anger as positive, even courageous.
The most dramatic example has been the harsh anger of Reverend Wright, particularly at the National Press Club. But we also have the daily rage of some radio and television talk shows, where it is practically a communal ritual. Viewers join in an orgy of rage against those they view as misguided or wicked, adding daily to the list of grievances, of reasons to be angry.
The point of the comedy film Anger Management (2003) was to ridicule the notion of anger management. The problem of the lead character, Adam Sandler, is that he can't get angry and is too meek. 'Doctor' Jack Nicholson 'cures' him by provoking him mercilessly throughout the film until he loses his temper, gets enraged and stands up for himself. Again, rage is seen as a healthy step to courage and proper self-assertion. This 'pneumatic' theory of anger seems to have originated with Freud: repress anger and it will pop up another way and harm you; "get it out" and you will become healthier of mind.
Wisdom books of the Bible and the Sages have quite a different view, seeing anger as dangerous and foolish.
Ecclesiastes is blunt: "Anger rests in the bosom of fools." (7:9). And Proverbs does advocate suppressing anger: "A fool vents all his anger, but a wise man, holding back, calms it." (Proverbs 29:11) In fact controlling anger is seen as a heroic virtue: "He who is slow to anger is greater than the mighty, and he who rules over his spirit than he who conquers a city. "(Proverbs 16:32) Using this last passage as a proof text, the sage Ben Zomasays "Who is mighty? He who can conquer his impulses." (Avot 4:1) And Rabbi Eliezerechoes, "Do not be easy to anger." (Avot 2:15)
The irony is that current research in psychology tends to support the Bible and the sages. Venting anger seems to increase it, rather than getting rid of it. And angry attacks stir up strife, creating a vicious cycle of more reasons for anger on all sides.
My own view is that anger is best seen as a warning signal, a sign that we may be under threat. The question is how best to respond. Sometimes the best response is to attack or flee, but in normal civil life there are usually much better options. Sometimes, the smart thing is to gain allies against a real threat. Sometimes, it is best to just to "let it go" as the Buddhists say, and be calmed.
Discovering what is best in a particular situation requires reflection, and as cognitive psychologists have documented, the problem is that anger tends to block reflection. With powerful negative emotions we tend to go into a 'fight or flight' mode, and not think about goals, obstacles, and plans.
The remarkable thing about the Reverend Wright episode is first, it was unusually obvious in Wright's case that anger led to self destructive actions, actions that damaged his own reputation. Second was Sen. Obama's unusually wise observations in his Philadelphia speech on race. Yes, people both black and white have reasons to be angry, he said. But that anger is not wise. To improve the situation we have to find solutions, courses of action that we can unite on to cooperate and help all of us together. As David Gergen remarked, this speech was unusual in that Sen. Obama was talking to the electorate as if we were adults.
As Ecclesiastes wrote, "The words of the wise are like goads." (12:11). In fact because our tendency is to fall into primitive, self-destructive thinking we need constant reminder that there is a better way.
Here the news media have an important role and responsibility. They can cater to the worst in us by focusing on and magnifying any potential cause of anger. Or they can remind us to be clear sighted, not swayed by appeals to fear and anger, and instead focus on the real issues and characters of the candidates. I wish I could be more hopeful that the news media will play a constructive role in calming irrational anger and keeping us focused on what is important. To their credit they have played down the most egregious racist and sexist remarks. But unfortunately, many in broadcast journalism particularly, otherwise seem to seek out , magnify and constantly repeat any potential incitement to anger.
Comments
Post a comment
|
Print
Email
Comment
William,
You help put a little light into our psyche. It is good to bring anger out into the light, but not just to vent. A wise old psychologist taught me how to examine my anger and check out all the facts and hopefully discard the destructive and use the remainder for a more constructive path to a truer understanding. The importance of Reverend Wright's speech was that it came out of the shadow and into light for further analysis - a checking out of the facts and a determination of a constructive path. What made Senator Obama's speech so important was that it reflected the views of a segment of the American public that was kept under wraps for fear of public reaction or overreaction. We can now engage in an open discussion. Yes, Senator Obama's speech was wise, but I have to question why he didn't say something sooner. It says something of his character that he didn't speak to his pastor sooner. Would you William, belong to a church that espoused some of Rev. Wrights ideas or honor a man such a Louis Farrahan??