Terence Blacker

 

 

Look back in anger management

It is said that sooner or later the small volcano that is John McCain will blow. The presidential candidate has a famously short temper. At some point, during a long and rough electoral campaign, the wrong question will be asked at the wrong time, and the real McCain, red-faced and intemperate, will blast off.

It is perhaps encouraging that anger, in the context of politics, is now seen as a vote-loser. Once it was fine for our leaders to have a short fuse – no one worried when Churchill lost his temper – but today it is a short cut to the political scrapheap. What fools they look, these men who take a swing at a voter or who storm huffily out of a TV studio; how unworthy of our trust or respect.

Yet, as Griff Rhys Jones suggests in Losing It, a documentary to be shown on BBC2 tonight, that we have a muddled view of the subject. Personally, he rather enjoys becoming enraged, and likes angry people. People get angry because they like to be in control, he says. “They have a strong sense of what’s right, and some things knock their in-built sense of rectitude out of kilter.”

Yet, Rhys Jones argues, anger is one of our last taboos. In California, an anger management course stirs him in up in quite the wrong way. Some of those present – a mother who had shouted at a policeman preventing her from taking a disabled child to hospital, a sarcastic head teacher, a niggly bailiff – seemed to him more victims than perpetrators. The fact that a court had sent them on the course was uncomfortably Orwellian, “the blanding of society”.

Here is where the muddle starts. On the whole, modern culture is fervently in favour of expressing emotion. Why should open grief be seen as psychologically healthy, and not open rage? Perhaps, in a sneaky and indirect way, it is. In the world of entertainment, we laugh at Basil Fawlty or Victor Meldrew but their famous counterparts in real life are positively admired. Gordon Ramsay has built a profitable TV career out of losing his temper; the irascibility of Alan Sugar is his main – perhaps his only – selling point. Footballers and their managers add to their reputations by becoming angry.

In fact, anger deserves to be taboo; it would be healthier for us all if we recognised the link between verbal violence, condoned and encouraged on-screen, and the physical violence from which civilised society recoils. Who can look back on a moment in their past when they have lost their temper with anything but embarrassment and shame? Who has not, having witnessed rage in others, had a lower opinion of their character as result?

It is odd and wrong that, in the alternative world of celebrities, having a short fuse is rewarded with fame rather than ridicule. Almost always, the tantrum is a self-indulgent expression of ego. Often those who lose their temper are in a position of power, and are using it.

It is a convenient alibi for those who like to let their rage off the leash that they somehow care more about the state of the world than other people, that they are more engaged with injustice or prejudice. Any sensible person feels anger. Giving way to it in the form of verbal violence is the behaviour of a bully.


Post a comment



Article Comments

  1. Kyoko

    I might buy it if it was expanded a bit. The resaon I say this is that my job involves failed marriages, and there are certain patterns and behaviors I see over and over and over. I need to know the why behind various stimuli and responses. One of the resaons I come to this site is because I’m looking for answers about the behavior I see. Your post about BPD was very enlightening, for example. What I want to know is why are some people unable to stand up to PA folks, and what it would take for them to deal with such people so that their lives aren’t so miserable. I see people spending decades with people who make them miserable (in more ways than just PA behavior), and I keep thinking life is too short for that crap. If your book focuses on recognizing these people and their behavior and strategies for dealing with them–and by dealing with I mean neutralizing them–or avoiding them, I would want to read it. Here is what I have noticed: a lot of those on the receiving end of unjustified anger (not just here, in the cases at work, too) react by giving in. And they seem to think that bending backwards for that person will make them magically become nicer. That’s what I don’t get: why do people think this? It never works (or maybe it does, I only see the failed marriages after all). I didn’t realize PA behavior was a woman’s thing, because the first time I learned of it a man was being diagnosed with it. I simply classified it as being a jerk. If this truly is disproportionately a woman’s defect, then you definitely have something there. I think I’m a little wary about a book from that perspective (as opposed to a strategy perspective), because it seems that these days, spelling out a given defect is used as an excuse for bad behavior as in, “Oh, sorry, I’m PA! Can’t help myself,” and then it’s like the latest victim-fad rather than a jumping off point for self-reform. I’m not sure how you can avoid that side effect, though. –Tyrian Purple

    Reply