Possible nemesis

[Jasper]

This is not new, but it was recently brought to my attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301589.html

During the divisive War of 1812, a livid woman famous for her long hair rode to the White House, stood in her carriage, let down her tresses and proclaimed that she would gladly be shorn of them if they would be used to hang President James Madison. That anecdote, from Catherine Allgor's biography of Dolley Madison, shows that today's theatrical anger is not without precedent. But now there is a new style in anger -- fury as a fashion accessory, indignation as evidence of good character.

Under the headline "San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol," the New York Times recently described the verbal abuse and physical violence -- there were 28 attacks in 2006 -- inflicted on parking enforcement officers in a city that has a surplus of liberalism and a shortage of parking places. Parking is so difficult that George Anderson, a mental health expert, has stopped holding lectures there because his audiences arrive seething about their parking frustrations. Anderson represents the American Association of Anger Management Providers.

Of course. San Francisco, a showcase for expressive individualism, is full of people bristling with rights and eager to rebel against oppressive authority, but having a hard time finding any. The only rules concern parking.

No wonder Americans are infatuated with anger: It is democratic. Anyone can express it, and it is one of the seven deadly sins, which means it is a universal susceptibility. So in this age that is proud of having achieved "the repeal of reticence," anger exhibitionism is pandemic.

ad_icon

There are the tantrums -- sometimes both theatrical and perfunctory -- of talking heads on television or commentators writing in vitriol (Paul Krugman's incessant contempt, Ann Coulter's equally constant loathing). There is road rage (and parking lot rage when the Whole Foods Market parking lot is congested with expressive individualists driving Volvos and Priuses). The blogosphere often is, as one blogger joyfully says, "an electronic primal scream." And everywhere there is the histrionic fury of ordinary people venting in everyday conversations.

Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."

Wood, an anthropologist and author of "A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now," says the new anger "often has the look-at-me character of performance art." His book is a convincing, hence depressing, explanation of "anger chic" -- of why anger has become an all-purpose emotional stance. It has achieved prestige and become "a credential for group membership." As a result, "Americans have been flattening their emotional range into an angry monotone."

Wood notes that there is a "vagueness and elasticity of the grievances" that supposedly justify today's almost exuberant anger. And anger is more pervasive than merely political grievances would explain. Today's anger is a coping device for everyday life. It also is the defining attribute of an increasingly common personality type: the person who "unless he is angry, feels he is nothing at all."

That type, infatuated with anger, uses it to express identity. Anger as an expression of selfhood is its own vindication. Wood argues, however, that as anger becomes a gas polluting the social atmosphere, it becomes not a sign of personal uniqueness but of a herd impulse.

Once upon a time, Americans admired models of self-control, people such as George Washington and Jackie Robinson, who mastered their anger rather than relishing being mastered by it. America's fictional heroes could be angry, but theirs was a reluctant anger -- Alan Ladd as the gunfighter in "Shane," Gary Cooper as the marshal in "High Noon." Today, however, proclaimed anger -- the more vituperative the better -- is regarded as a sign of good character and emotional vitality.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, now that Americans are inclined to elect presidents who advertise their emotions -- "I feel your pain." As the late Mary McGrory wrote, Bill Clinton "is a child of his age; he believes more in the thrust-out lower lip than the stiff upper one."

The politics of disdain -- e.g., Howard Dean's judgment that Republicans are "brain dead" and "a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives" -- derails politics by defining opponents as beyond the reach of reason. The anger directed at Bush today, like that directed at Clinton during his presidency, luxuriates in its own vehemence.

Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl, therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil.

What are your thoughts?  I personally enjoy the medium of apoplexy and polemic, but reading this makes it seem impotent and cheap.

[Captain Utopia]

With 1000 words and an agenda, you can make anything look impotent and cheap. Blowing shit up is easy.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people exercising their anger. Certainly beats watching civilisation circle the drain while wearing a mask of detached indifference.

Put it this way, no other generation before us came close to our ability to so minutely dissect and disseminate information. No other generation has had our ability to quickly spread information amongst like-minded people all over the world. I mean, the technology we have now is great - sure - but the conclusion that is rapidly being drawn is that we can no longer just ignore the elephant in the room like generations past.

We either recognise our own innate stupidity and construct a civilisation around that, or die.

So lots of people are exercising their anger? I say bring it on, and when they've gotten warmed up spitting illiterate self-righteous venom all over the Huffington Post comment pages, the professionals will show them something to really get angry about.


EDIT: Uh, not really sure what my point is, I just felt like ranting..

[Jasper]

But has over the top public anger become a mere affectation that people who are mostly content with life have adopted as a means of venting?

It bears consideration.

[Captain Utopia]

I think that it has, possibly.  I think more people are feeling a sense of urgency, and joining the local Tea Party or whatever, seems like one way to self-soothe and pacify troubling thoughts. I wonder if the ineffectiveness of misdirected anger creates a feedback loop of unresolved anger?

Or are you asking if it's just a popular meme or fashion to be potentially replaced by new TV season and the spiritual successor to American Idol?

[Jasper]

I'm just concerned that public outrage is becoming fashionable, as opposed to effective.  I do not want to be angry in a nation where being angry is how you get attention and look cool.

[Bu🤠ns]

The spirit of the age is a toddler.

I wonder, though, if 'anger' is the new chic, what was the old chic?

[Jasper]

I dunno, I wasn't there for it.

[Cain]

I love how the article goes on for several dozen paragraphs to imply that this is some sort of fashionable pose, then, for the last few, finally points out what anyone with half a brain knows - that politicians have been emotionally manipulating people for generations, and when you constantly manipulate people and let them down, one particular emotion is going to be evident.

But no, this arose in a vacuum, there are absolutely no historical, political or social precedents which might explain this behaviour.  Ever.  At all.

[Darth Cupcake]

That was a really interesting article.

First off, I can't stop giggling about

Parking is so difficult that George Anderson, a mental health expert, has stopped holding lectures there because his audiences arrive seething about their parking frustrations. Anderson represents the American Association of Anger Management Providers.

That said...

I agree within reason. I mean, it's definitely TRUE that anger has become fashionable. There's always been a part of me that agrees with that bumper sticker/tee shirt/fridge magnet/whatevs "If you aren't outraged, then you aren't paying attention." Because YES, there's a lot of things in the world that, if you are paying attention, should be bothering you.

But I think there's shades and types of anger.

There's anger because you can't find a parking space, versus anger because your city keeps cutting the education budget and kids are getting shafted. There's anger because they are sold out of your size of vegan hemp sloganized tee shirts, versus anger because people are too busy worrying about buying vegan hemp sloganized tee shirts to act on the healthcare debate or immigration reform or whatever.

My contemporaries--IE mid-20s, educated, Northeast urban dwellers--are super-concerned with the kind of anger that you can ADVERTISE. You know, vegan hemp sloganized tee shirt anger. Driving a Prius. Shopping at Whole Foods, and doing it with a reusable Whole Foods^TM shopping bag.

I'm not saying driving a Prius is WRONG, and I definitely like seeing people using reusable bags and buying organic or local or whatever. But when you're it for the sake of doing it--not because you have an understanding of WHY you should do it--that's dumb. Doing it for the sake of doing it is usually the same as doing it so that you can look down on those who don't.

Anger has become a superiority complex, it seems. "If you aren't angry, you aren't smart enough to be angry." "If you aren't angry, you aren't special enough to be angry." I mean, what makes MY hunt for a parking space all that special? Why should I be angry that someone else happened to get there before me? I'm not the center of the universe.

It doesn't take EFFORT to be angry. Babies get angry when they are uncomfortable, and then they cry. Now adults are doing the same thing, because it's EASY. It's easier to just get pissed off than it is to try to find a solution. It's easier to be ANGRY than to educate yourself about what you're angry about (IE "I'm really angry that my health care is so expensive and/or that we don't have nationalized health care!" but can you form a coherent argument for WHY this should change, beyond "because I said so"?).

Anger can be a tool, when deployed well. It can also be a fashion statement. It is up to the individual user how they want to utilize it. The major problem I see with it becoming a fashion statement is that the more common and standardized it becomes, the more impressive yours must be for it to make any sort of blip on the radar.

[Cain]

Driving a Prius is wrong, though.

[Darth Cupcake]

Driving a Prius is wrong, though.

I personally think they're pretty dumb and I'm not really a fan of them. But if someone can drive one just because that's the car they want, not because they want to feel super high and mighty, that's fine. I find them infinitely less offensive than many of the SUVs that drive around here.

But my favorite vehicular troll is the Smart that made it across the pond to the US. That shit is crazy expensive and doesn't even that good of mileage because of all the restrictions and changes that had to be made when it entered this market. Every time I see someone driving one, I get the warm fuzzy glow of laughing at idiocy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Fuck this guy.  Anger is the only thing keeping me going.  I mean, besides coffee.

[hooplala]

I think there's a very good argument to be made about how much better the world is steadily becoming, but having said that there is still a hell of a lot to be angry about.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think there's a very good argument to be made about how much better the world is steadily becoming, but having said that there is still a hell of a lot to be angry about.

Things are FAR better than they were 100 years ago, at least in the Western world, but that only gives us TIME and a frame of reference to be mad at the rest of the stuff that isn't right, yet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But has over the top public anger become a mere affectation that people who are mostly content with life have adopted as a means of venting?

It bears consideration.

Short answer:  Who cares?  It may be habit-forming (it is with me), and that can only be a good thing.  From my point of view.  Anger is better than apathy, even if you have a screwed up belief system and a head full of incorrect data.

This is why I love the teabaggers.  They're rage monkeys who may be mad at all the wrong things, but at least they're mad.