The Many Dimensions of Anger

Abstract

Often when we hear the word “anger,” it is followed by “management” and the connotation is negative; maybe because anger frequently is associated with violence. Several stories in the news that I heard recently got me thinking about anger differently and wondering about its various dimensions (Aizenman, Feb 9, 2019; Doucleef, Jan 28, 2019; Greenfieldboyce, Feb. 2, 2019; Hamilton, Jan 29, 2019). These stories were part of an NPR series: The other side of anger. Aizenman (2019) recalls the origin and activism of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) fueled by the anger of the gay community over how little the government and medical establishment had done to address a crisis that, at the time, mostly afflicted gay men. Greenfieldboyce (2019) reports on the symptoms that are recognized to accompany depression—feelings of hopelessness, sadness, and a lack of motivation or concentration, but do not include anger. She recounts that some researchers say that’s a problem, given that there appears to be a strong link between irritability and depression. Other stories in the NPR series involve school shooters, the animal roots of anger (Hamilton, 2019), and the way culture and experience shape how we feel and express anger (Doucleef, 2019). The intent of this column is to address the beneficial (or harmful) effects of anger, on a societal and individual level; its various definitions, languages, and cultural variation in expression; and its cultural specificity or universality. Aizenman (2019) is not the first to notice the association of anger with social activism. It can spur an entire culture to change for the better, as witnessed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the earlier women’s suffrage movement (DeAngelis, 2003). Demonstrations, protests and marches were all part of the social activism of the suffragette movement and the civil rights movement. The dissatisfaction and anger with the political process that had so far produced no changes in women’s franchise or racial equality led to civil disobedience, sit-ins, picketing, arrests and imprisonment (DeAngelis, 2003). This kind of pressure on legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government led eventually to major changes in the constitution and the laws, which also changed the culture of the US. In the case of ACT UP, rage against the government and medical establishment for failure to address the AIDS crisis drove thousands of gay men and their supporters to form one of the most influential patient advocacy groups in history (Aizenman, 2019). The gay community’s mounting frustration over the failure of government and the medical community to act finally boiled over in an explosive and confrontational show of anger that at first seemed purposeless. Their anger helped them express themselves and fight fear and a sense of hopelessness. But soon they realized that their anger could be better channeled into figuring out the specific roadblocks in government policy and clinical trials that stood in the way of what ACT UP wanted most: a cure. With that, they unleashed their rage to force the decision makers to hear ACT UP’s solutions (Aizenman, 2019). There were two prongs to their strategy: their aggressive protests got them a foot in the door, but it wouldn’t have made a difference if they hadn’t done the homework needed to offer insightful and viable proposals once they did get a meeting. ACT UP wanted the Food and Drug Administration to give people with AIDS access to experimental drugs. They wanted to get rid of the prevailing practice of testing drugs on a small number of people over a long period of time in favor of testing a huge sample of people over a much shorter period—significantly speeding up the time it took to conduct drug trials. In addition to searching for a treatment for AIDS, they insisted that researchers and pharmaceutical companies also investigate treatments for the opportunistic infections that were killing people with AIDS while they waited for a cure. They deployed their strategy over and over again—with the National Institutes of Health, and then with pharmaceutical companies, eventually becoming full partners with key scientists (Aizenman, 2019). ACT UP created a model for patient advocacy within the research system that never existed before. Today it seems natural that a person suffering from a disease—whether that’s cancer or chronic illness—should have a voice in how it is studied and treated. AIDS activists