14 DAY TRIAL // Anger is usually seen as a destructive emotion, one that is also hard to control and which makes people do irrational things. Moreover, anger seems to spring more from our biology than from our education. Although, as we shall see, this isn't entirely correct, the biological side of the story is in need of an explanation. If anger really is so "irrational" and such a self-defeating strategy why did natural selection favor it?
"Physiologically speaking, anger enacts the fight or flight response in our brain, which increases our blood pressure and releases adrenaline into our bloodstream, thereby increasing our strength and pain threshold. Anger makes us think of only two things: (1) Defend, or (2) Attack," explained Tristan J. Loo, a negotiator specialized in conflict resolution. "Neither of these options facilitates a good negotiation," he added.
It seems that anger makes people disregard the consequences of their actions. Somebody pisses you off so much that you disregard he's twice your size and you hit him. It doesn't sound very rational of you. Or you're so pissed off by being stuck in traffic that you start pushing the horn although that doesn't help you getting anywhere faster; or you rap the driver in front of you although he's just as stuck as you.
Such actions are side-effects of how our brains work. Natural selection designed them to disregard the consequences in certain contexts but this doesn't always serve us well. But how can ever be good to disregard the consequences? That in itself isn't helpful. What can be helpful is disregarding the negative consequences and assuring others that you will surely do it. And this is precisely what anger does - it doesn't just make you act in a certain way, but it also gives a very clear signal to others. This is the ingredient that can turn its supposed irrationality into rationality.
The psychologist Paul Ekman has famously demonstrated that there are certain facial expressions which are universally understood by all people regardless of their culture. They include anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise, and maybe also contempt. These are emotions and expressions of emotion that are "hard wired" in our brains.
The strategy behind anger is the "burn your bridges" strategy. James Miller explains it in his book on game theory with the help of the following example taken from history:
"Shortly after landing in Mexico, Cortez destroyed his ships, thus showing his potential enemies and allies that he would not be quickly driven back to Europe. Consider the effect this tactic had on local tribes that were considering allying with Cortez against the powerful Aztecs. No tribe would want to ally with Cortez if it thought that he might someday abandon his fight against the Aztecs and return to Europe, for then the tribe would be left to the mercy of their mighty human-sacrificing neighbors. Cortez would likely have promised local tribes that regardless of how poorly he did in his fight against the Aztecs he would not leave until they were vanquished. Such a promise, by itself, was not believable. If Cortez had not burned his ships, his potential allies would have thought that Cortez would run away if he suffered an early defeat. By burning his ships and eliminating the option of quickly retreating to Europe, Cortez guaranteed that he wouldn't leave his allies. As we shall see, eliminating options can be a useful strategy."
So, an action that might have seemed totally mad, burning the ships, was actually quite rational. In fact, it was virtually the only way Cortez could have defeated the Aztecs because he couldn't do it all by himself, he needed help. But he could have gained the trust and thus support of the other tribes only by doing that kind of "irrational" act.
The same kind of strategy has been incorporated into our beings by natural selection. The external signs of anger, which are so visible not just by accident, give others assurance that we mean business. This deters them from various actions they would otherwise find worth pursuing. For example if you are facing a more powerful opponent and everybody is assured that you are "rational", you could just surrender because you don't stand a chance. But if the opponent thought you might be "mad" he might not risk getting some damage - although he will defeat you, that will also weaken him, and he might decide it's not worth it (after all others might take advantage of his weakness later, and they might be more important). Anger assures the opponent that you won't back off - because you can't, it's "instinctive behavior". So, anger is a way to artificially boost your power by appealing to "irrational" means and relying on the rationality of the more powerful opponent.
"Anger is one of our most primitive defense mechanisms that protects and motivates us from being dominated or manipulated by others," Loo noted. "It gives us the added strength, courage, and motivation needed to combat injustice done against us or to others that we love. However, if anger is left uncontrolled and free to take over the mind and body at any time, then anger becomes destructive."
From what I've just said it should be clear that even the biological side of anger, that spontaneous reaction designed by natural selection, is social. But that reaction can develop into a more complex social attitude. This attitude might have a valid justification, for example as a political force, or it might be just a psychological disorder.
"It is possible that the angry adult was a verbal or physical bully as a child or adolescent. Such behavior often intimidates others and may bring short-term psychological payoffs. If so, the behavior is reinforced and tends to become a trait of personality," wrote Frank J. Bruno a professor of psychology at San Bernardino Valley College in California.
He also notes that such angry individuals can be the product of their faulty education. Parents tolerating their child's aggressiveness, or acting angrily around the child can imply that being angry and aggressive is ok, and turn him or her into an angry adult.
In such a situation however the adult is not powerless, the education of a child in not like the programming of a robot that just does what it was designed to do. In the end, one chooses what to be, and one is responsible not only for what one does but also for what one is. This is a scary thought for many people - the fact that they cannot get away by saying "that's just how I am, what can I do about it?".
William Glasser, who developed reality therapy, a type of therapy that focuses on the present and on what one wants rather than worrying too much about the past, has even argued that anger is, to a large extent, self-induced. In other words, anger isn't just a reflex reaction to a stimulus, but a choice. One decides to get angry when faced by certain situations. One decides that that is the best course of actions.
What is the type of situation that most readily makes people angry? And especially what fuels their long term anger?
"A basic way to understand [long term] anger is to refer to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which states that aggression is a natural response to frustration," Bruno wrote. "Frustration is a state that occurs when the motivated individual is unable to (1) attain a desirable goal or (2) to escape from, or avoid, an unpleasant situation. If you intensely desire a promotion and it goes to someone else, you will be frustrated and in turn angry. If you feel trapped in an unhappy relationship, again you will be frustrated and, in turn, angry. Chronic anger may result when an individual believes, correctly or incorrectly, that life presents a constant stream of frustrating events."
Besides the psychological disorder (which it's hard to tell how serious one should take - after all, psychologists do have a way of inventing imaginary disorders) there is the good anger. This happens when the frustration is justified. In that case "anger is a gift", as Rage Against the Machine has put it, it is the "fuel" given to us by nature in order to facilitate action. It is the thing that increases the probability of revolt when "reason" would tell you it's safer to be a nice puppy.
Now the question of whether some frustration is justified or just the outcome of a paranoid take on reality is not always easy to answer. Moreover, it is difficult to guess the degree to which anger is justified, as well as the correct target. I think that the reason why it is usually agreed that anger in not a good thing is that anger seems to miss the correct target much too often. One is angry at something or somebody but lashes out at somebody else - the way drivers do when they are stuck in traffic. Such questions of justification, of degree and of target are of course outside the realm of psychology itself and have more to do with ethics or political theory.
It is interesting though that anger has not always been seen as negatively as it is seen today. For example Aristotle talks less about the psychology of anger or its supposed irrationality and more about the external contexts that justify it. He even says that sometimes "one would be a fool not to get angry".
Finally, it is worth noting that anger doesn't always lead to violence. For example Picasso's Guernica is a raw expression of anger. And nonetheless, it is beautiful. Much of today's music is also like that. The philosopher Robert Solomon also remarked the importance attached to anger by the feminist movement in the 1970s - it was important for women to realize that they were angry and to accept that feeling as a good thing. This hasn't always lead to violence either (although some churches were burned down as symbols of male power!). "Anger was the right response to a kind of oppression," he said. "We may assume that anger tends to lead to violence, or at least to aggressive behavior. In fact, more than three-quarters of angry [facial] expressions are not aggressive. Anger in the feminist movement, for example, resulted in good conversations between couples about duties, rights, obligations, positions, and employment. Anger can lead to positive encounters. It is not just about violence."