When your anger won’t play well with the anger of others—when it turns down invitations to surface, and persists despite the absence of company—you frequently find yourself on the receiving end of attempts at anger management. Sometimes these conversations can be settled by the introduction of new information or the correction of a misperception, but when those strategies fail, they often devolve into a pure emotional tug-of-war in which you hear that your anger is unproductive; that it’s time to move on; that we are ultimately on the same team. Or, alternatively—for this, too, is “anger management,” though it isn’t usually called that—you hear that if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention; that unless you’re with us, you’re against us.
[...]
There is something very puzzling in the impulse to resist both forms of anger management. Why don’t I hear the calm-downers as trying to dispel my bitter, vengeful fog; and why don’t I experience the call to anger as directing my moral sense to truths about injustice? How can the question of whether anger is a form of ethical insight—a moral sense—or a corruption of moral vision—a vengeful fog—depend on whether one is currently angry?! This is the puzzle of anger management.
I was about to share this article when I saw that you had done it already. It is very important, in my view, to understand the social aspect of anger. If you're among any kind of extremists,...
I was about to share this article when I saw that you had done it already.
It is very important, in my view, to understand the social aspect of anger. If you're among any kind of extremists, you'll soon realize that failing to display the correct amount of anger toward the correct target, even when you actually agree with the extremists' position, can quickly put you at odds with the group. Conversely, sometimes any show of irritation is condemned, ignoring that emotions are essential for humans to live and express themselves meaningfully. In any case, emotional conformity is absolutely required, and failing to display it in the "appropriate" manner often leads to serious consequences and misunderstandings.
I often find the requirement for emotional and rhetoric uniformity to be almost authoritarian and subjectively violent.
Not entirely related, but this reminds me of a story from Groo the wanderer comic. The King hates Groo very much. When Groo (apparently) dies, the King loses his purpose. He then orders for a Groo dummy to be made, so he can beat it up and jump all over him. A remarkable example of how anger can bend reality to achieve its release, as well as a perfect illustration of the ad-hominem fallacy!
From the article:
[...]
I was about to share this article when I saw that you had done it already.
It is very important, in my view, to understand the social aspect of anger. If you're among any kind of extremists, you'll soon realize that failing to display the correct amount of anger toward the correct target, even when you actually agree with the extremists' position, can quickly put you at odds with the group. Conversely, sometimes any show of irritation is condemned, ignoring that emotions are essential for humans to live and express themselves meaningfully. In any case, emotional conformity is absolutely required, and failing to display it in the "appropriate" manner often leads to serious consequences and misunderstandings.
I often find the requirement for emotional and rhetoric uniformity to be almost authoritarian and subjectively violent.
Not entirely related, but this reminds me of a story from Groo the wanderer comic. The King hates Groo very much. When Groo (apparently) dies, the King loses his purpose. He then orders for a Groo dummy to be made, so he can beat it up and jump all over him. A remarkable example of how anger can bend reality to achieve its release, as well as a perfect illustration of the ad-hominem fallacy!