I was driving to school this morning and heard a really interesting story on NPR about anger. Now, I am not generally an angry person, but as we all do sometimes, it creeps up on you about some issue or another (even Barack Obama recently said he was angry about the AIG bonus mess). As the NPR story reported,"In fact, the research very clearly shows the opposite is true: The more you get angry, the angrier you get. And, so, researchers across the nation are now on a campaign to recast our view of anger expression. Sadly, even screaming is now out of vogue because arousal just increases your arousal. So no more screaming at your family."Aside from how we as individuals relate to anger, I have been thinking about whether it has a role in a political sense. Here's what I mean. If we, as citizens, don't express our anger about what policy makers, or corporate America, or whoever in power is doing that is not in sync with our sense of justice, then how do we do it? Is there a place for anger in political discourse? Or, is it more how you express your anger that is the real issue? For example, we all know the phrase "agree to disagree," but how does that sentiment play out in clashes of deeply held beliefs and policy making? If I don't think the state should restrict women's access to abortions, but the Supreme Court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I am angry about the potential implications, what should I do if I am angry about it?
On the other hand, can expression of anger in a political sense rise to the level of threat? I am thinking of how anger expressed at Sarah Palin rallies during this last campaign for President sometimes came in the form of calling Barack Obama a "terrorist," or the infamous expressions calling "to kill him." Is this the kind of political climate we need? Or consider the rise of a new kind of populism recently, expressed most clearly in the aforementioned AIG mess.
In a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Jane Kim chastizes the press and others for not looking beneath this rising anger to see what is going on; otherwise, she claims those in power may just manipulate the anger in the press to achieve their own political goals. As she notes in response to how a New York Times story was covering this new populism,
"We hear that people are angry, but we’re letting the people who might ultimately capitalize on that anger characterize it and describe its reach, and that’s problematic. The story could have done a better job in getting down to what populist anger really means—in its practical, not rhetorical, impact."As Kim asserts, it is imporant to note that this anger has potential "political capital" for the Obama administration in seeking out grass roots support for his economic recovery plan.
Now maybe all of this is not a bad thing... anger is a strong motivator for change. But, as the story I listened to this morning, I considered the claim that it is one thing to be angry. It is another thing to express that anger in riled up ways that don't result in addressing the real source of the anger, only trade an immediate sense of feeling better for worse expressions of anger later on. Either way, let's get to the root cause! Why are so many people angry?
I would be curious what others think of this.
4 comments:
Your blog made me think about one of our discussions in class where it was brought into conversation "The Crying Room". The place where children were sent so they could get out what they needed to and others didn't have to listen to it. Would our society impose an "Anger Room", or a "Screaming Room" where we are allowed to vent and yet, not be heard? This is a slippery slope. Our human nature has many facets and quite frankly, all of these facets must be respected equally, even our anger and agression.
I just finished reading Start Where You Are by Pema Chodron. After reading this book i realized that i sincerely ascribe to what she says about anger. We get angry sometimes because we are rejecting characteristics in others that we are afraid of others attributing to ourselves, or we get angry because we alone have created storylines in our heads, the ways that we think it should be and how we think another person is wronging us. Just thinking about this and trying to practice the slogans that help you to work against this has been very helpful to me. It has helped me to drop my storylines and see what the other person is doing as a stress that is co created partially by myself and not solely by them. so moral of the story is....drop the damn storylines...wish for yourself and others to be free from suffering (dalai lama)...so quit helping create the stress....
I feel that it is a combination of both. 1. There is a significant affect on ourselves when we internalize important issues or thoughts that we as individuals consider to be significant. 2. Often, people who have internalized such "anger" have not learned how to healthily express their feelings often resulting in extreme reactions.
A lot of people fail to understand that expression of one's thoughts does not have to manifest itself in extreme, violent, combative, or other "militant" ways and I feel this is what often leads to counter-productiveness.
I think in today's society it is viewed as not socially acceptable behavior if one expresses anger whether it done with in the confines of Political rally or by using some form of violence. In the 60's I believe that people were just so damn tired of being used by government that it didn't matter to them whether or not it was acceptable to do anything about the anger many of them felt back then. In today's society we are pacifist(probably misspelled)than back in the 60's.We have allowed government leaders and pyschologist to dictate how we are suppose to feel and react to certain situations. I think it's okay for people to get angry it's healthy for the body and if more people were to get angry at what our current politicans are doing with our money, schools, education, health benefits maybe, just maybe we'd get fed-up enough to move them out of office where it would hurt them the most. I agree with President Obama--that he should've gotten angry at what AIG did with the assistance the Federal govt. gave them, and in regards to the issue at Sarah Pallins campaign--one could say it was an over zealoust campaign worker who just wanted to get Palin and McCain in the White House and used poor judgement in making that decision. I believe it was a ploy to discredit President Obama so that those Americans who were siding with Obama would then move over to the McCain/Palin ticket and they'd win and of course that didn't happen--THANKGOODNESS FOR THAT!!!!!!
Post a Comment