On anger.
From the Stoics to Buddah, to Martin Luther King Jr., the consensus seems to be that anger is not a good thing; it should be avoided, it will damage the anger bearer, not what caused the anger, and will certainly not solve the situation, as it is toxic and will slowly erode you.
As much as I can agree with these ideas, I can't help but worry that the message can be misconstrued. Only anecdotally, I can say that I see many people around me accepting abuse, exploitation and mistreatment on the basis that "it is as it is".
Of a relationship: "He/she is not perfect, but nobody is. I don't want to end up bitter and alone."
Of work: "I want to enjoy my family and free time, and I need the money so I'll do what I'm told."
And... "No, I won't contact the union: I don't want to be marked as difficult. I'll just keep calm and maintain a low profile."
Of politics: "Rallies don't change anything. Anyway, all politicians are awful so one is as bad as the other... There's no point in getting your knickers in a twist about it."
If the opposite of anger is acceptance, the issue might be that the removal of anger from our emotional and sensational options can end up perpetuating an unsuitable situation.
Anger is a signal, an alert that something isn't right. It does not have to manifest in violence or abusive language, but it should not be ignored, repressed.
It is important information about the society we live in, the environment we work in, the dynamics of our relationships.
Perhaps, walking away from anger, ignoring it, or judging oneself for being "an angry (bitter) person" (as if it was a "bad" thing) is a narrative that is perpetrated by those in power in society in order to maintain the status quo.
Perhaps every narrative should be challenged. Why not this one?
Perhaps it's ok to be angry.
The matter might be more to do with what we do with that anger.
As much as I can agree with these ideas, I can't help but worry that the message can be misconstrued. Only anecdotally, I can say that I see many people around me accepting abuse, exploitation and mistreatment on the basis that "it is as it is".
Of a relationship: "He/she is not perfect, but nobody is. I don't want to end up bitter and alone."
Of work: "I want to enjoy my family and free time, and I need the money so I'll do what I'm told."
And... "No, I won't contact the union: I don't want to be marked as difficult. I'll just keep calm and maintain a low profile."
Of politics: "Rallies don't change anything. Anyway, all politicians are awful so one is as bad as the other... There's no point in getting your knickers in a twist about it."
If the opposite of anger is acceptance, the issue might be that the removal of anger from our emotional and sensational options can end up perpetuating an unsuitable situation.
Anger is a signal, an alert that something isn't right. It does not have to manifest in violence or abusive language, but it should not be ignored, repressed.
It is important information about the society we live in, the environment we work in, the dynamics of our relationships.
Perhaps, walking away from anger, ignoring it, or judging oneself for being "an angry (bitter) person" (as if it was a "bad" thing) is a narrative that is perpetrated by those in power in society in order to maintain the status quo.
Perhaps every narrative should be challenged. Why not this one?
Perhaps it's ok to be angry.
The matter might be more to do with what we do with that anger.
Comments
Post a Comment