Anger: A Tool For Memory

[snousle]

The subject of anger is of enduring interest. I've come to accept that I've got a lot of it and that this is not going to change. There are excellent reasons for this, which I'm not going to elaborate on right now. It's not actually a bad thing, but it is easy to destroy yourself with it. The key has been to understand that common provocations are not actually what generates anger; the source is generally something deeper and not necessarily tied to a specific thing.

Anyway, one perspective on anger that I've never encountered elsewhere is the idea that it is a tool of memory; expressions of anger are a very effective way of implanting strong ideas and associations in other people's minds. So when someone carelessly knocks over an expensive antique and you're angry at that person for breaking it, your anger is a means of ensuring that the association "expensive + broken = bad" is fixed in their mind, making it (hopefully) less likely that this will happen again.

If you're the kind of person for whom antiques are truly important, this is not a bad thing at all. The idea that anger should always be "managed" or "controlled" (which is really a euphemism for "eliminated") is, IMHO, quite wrong. People who encourage you to to suppress anger outright are trying to dis-empower you. It's a natural, genuine source of power that is there for your use, and I think it should be used (i.e. expressed), but it has some notable limitations.

It is useful to imagine anger as a squirt gun filled with ink. Use it a few times and you'll leave an enduring mark. But use it often and it will run out, so you'll be furiously pumping at the trigger while nothing comes out. Instead of leaving a mark, people will laugh at you for being an idiot.

The obvious conclusion about anger, then, is not to express it freely or stamp it out entirely, but to use it wisely. If you waste anger on foolish targets, it is no longer effective on more significant ones. What do you want people to remember about you? What principles are most important to enforce? That small number of things are what it should be used for.

Comments

[oscarlikesbugsy.livejournal.com]

That's a bit of a sharp contrast between 'suffering in silence' and 'revenge'. Most religions have steps to trying to right wrongs - it's not all shrinking violet stuff. And, 'righteous anger' isn't everyday kind of matters, it's often keyed to key injustices, etc.

It's funny how you talk about something, then suddenly it's right in front of you. Here's a silly pic that I saw today that made me laugh:

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

lol I like it.

I tend to use what I call my righteous anger for political things - like copyright laws, gay executions, Peter Mandelson, etc.

Also who decides what a 'key injustice' is? Some of the smallest things are sharply political, and worth getting angry about. And some will just make you unhappy and in a foul mood even if you're right. It's a judgement call really. You cannot fight every battle, nor become the monster through fighting other monsters.

[fingertrouble.livejournal.com]

And yes I know the religion comment was a harsh jump but partly for reasons of space and also IMO it's true at this point of time.

Yes historically there have been great religions calls to defend the rights of others, to protect the weak, charity etc. But I see very little sign of say, the moderate Xtians and Muslims reaching out to their extremist brethren to quell their dangers, not fight the homophobia or racism in their churches.

Even the traditional charity seems a little lacking in these 'me me me' times, where people become unpersons and disappear without a whimper. Yes some, like the churches that sent kids that were in immigrant 'camps' imprisoned for little reason presents this Xmas (and were turned away by the private security guards, really it did look like the modern version of a concentration camp). Those give me hope, but it seems a very small minority.