"Anger-Rage"

Brian Lynch

It was not too long ago that many thought that we all “learned” to be angry. That is it was supposed that it was theoretically possible for someone to develop without the capacity to get angry. Some people still believe this.

Intriguingly, it was Darwin that began to solidify the innate nature of anger and then was promptly ignored for some seventy years and, as I say, only recently has the notion taken hold. But then what can be said about anger?

I think many will agree that anger is problematic and maybe the most problematic of the specific emotions. Many think we should never express it while others think it should always be expressed. Many want us to “learn“ to control it.

Like so many things we seem to know so much less than we presume. Or at least if the knowledge is there it has not been widely disseminated.

It goes something like this: Anger can be triggered in essentially one of three ways. First, it is a survival mechanism that is triggered directly when the organism is threatened in such a way that it is in imminent danger. I would say “overwhelmed” but that is not necessarily accurate. That may be the case but it need not be the necessary condition in imminent danger to the point that a certain type of action need be taken.

It is thought that this is not based primarily on our cognition, that is our thinking but is “hardwired” and will take place on an individual basis based on our life experiences. The point is it is “automatic.” It is our body taking care of us.

A most important insight is that probably the great majority of anger comes secondary to the hurt after shame and humiliation or the hurt suffered after failing to reach a desired goal, not from being in imminent danger, a most important distinction.

These have been the most useful insights in helping people in understanding their relationships and their struggles with “anger” problems. It is my approach to “anger management.” I have said often elsewhere that “anger management” is wrongheaded in that it focuses on anger per se. The problem with this is that most anger is of this second type of being secondary to “hurt” and that it is like asking someone to hold a hot potato and “deal with it.” “Deal with your anger.” “Control your anger.” What is missed is any understanding of the origin of the anger that is that the person was “hurt” because they wanted something and did not get it. 

In labor and management problems, anger comes from desires being blocked. So too in marriage, and in friendship. The primary thing is a desire that is not achieved then ends in hurt and this ends in a type of confusion. Anger ensues. Simply telling the person or group to deal with the anger sets up a vicious cycle and deflects the issues and gets everyone off track. Those in power can easily use it to their advantage and hammer away at “anger control” issues and make it the “the” issue. “We will not discuss anything until you get your anger under control.” 

For example, in a relationship, the person getting angry quickly can get caught in a dependent position. The more controlled person can browbeat the other to no end and obscure and legitimate desire the partner started with that produced the anger. The more the desire is ignored the greater the anger because the more the anger is focused on the more it becomes the issue and the more the conversation is co-opted and the angry party becomes more confused and more shamed and humiliated and maybe now guilt-ridden because they now start to become convinced that they are wrong about everything and maybe start to doubt the worth of what they wanted in the first place. In the end, it will only lead to more anger because, of course, they are not wrong. Ok, the wish for desire might be unreasonable but it has to be respected and negotiated.

And yet none of this has to be “on purpose” by any party involved it is that we simply do not understand anger and we do not listen to each other. We are not listening to what the other person wants and are not trying to accommodate.

Much of this explains why in interpersonal relationships when anger flares we so rarely remember what the whole thing was about. Why is that, again, it is because there is going on a great confusion. Nothing is “pure.” We have “wanted” something and have not gotten it so we are in a state of at least momentary “shock”, cogitative shock, and confusion if you will. Due to earlier learning, we have “learned” that anger is an appropriate response in these situations. “I don’t get what I want so I throw a tantrum.” Or at least show my displeasure but in that state, I do not do my thinking neurons much good. I prolong the state of confusion and shock. The ability to store short-term memory is hindered and fragmented. The feeling/affect of “surprise” is involved which further hinders my later recall.                                  

Then there is a type of anger or any emotion that is in effect fairly purely “cognitive.” That anger that follows being “hurt”, is important to understand, but is not important for survival. It is “cognitive”, it is a “learned” response, a defense against a perceived “danger”. Remember where we started when we said that at one point most experts felt we all “learned” or did not learn to be angry? We can all “act” “as if” we are angry, a “third” type of anger.

None of this is to say that anger does not get out of control and is not often difficult to control.