Anger as a Political Emotion
When conversing with our friends, partners, advisors or educators, we go forward with respectful communication and praise civil discourse. I mean, duh. Kindness in this world is a superpower! But at what cost does our tendency to remain subservient to a politeness standard impede the progress we make as a society? In fact, when we choose a pathway of civility in the face of oppression and patterns of dehumanization, we allow history to repeat itself and the status quo or complacency to be upheld. I compete on my High School’s Speech and Debate Team, and my argument over the past six months has been around the power of anger as a crucial political and social emotion. I will be discussing the research and evidence I have come across on the value of justified agitators in society.
The idea of anger or aggression at the forefront of solving social woes’ has been a historically stigmatized process of getting things done. Take, for instance, AOC and her advocacy for BIPOC community members at a national level. She approaches such nuanced issues with a tone of assertiveness and rejects a submissive approach to challenging existing institutions. Two years ago, then-Florida Representative Ted Yoho verbally attacked AOC on the U.S Capitol Hill Steps after a political debate, calling her “disgusting.. crazy” and even a “fucking bitch.” AOC is no stranger to being described as angry and being written off as such, and this is representative of a much broader issue in American culture. Peter Lyman, an information science professor at U.C Berkeley, explains how “Anger is seen as an emotion that endangers both social order and constructive political dialogue. And yet, anger is an indispensable political emotion – for without angry speech the body politic would lack the voice of the powerless questioning the justice of the dominant order.“ In the United States we are so obsessed with civility that we lose sight of what is truly important in creating social change: making people mad! And our society has the tendency to blame individuals for their anger at inequities, as opposed to treating the injustices themselves.
Why Civility?
Our civic responsibility as American citizens is a democratic criterion. A lot of us choose nicety - speaking in that of a respectful tone, helping others when applicable, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and simply having a courtesy in your behavior and speech. So why is this such a weakness? Sometimes we have to adhere to standards we do not agree with! When it comes to displaying anger, marginalized communities are expected to conform to white culture and its institutionalized censorship. Aysa Gray of Queens College, describes how the American workplace privileges white civility and discriminates against non-Western professionalism standards. Gender and background make a difference! In 2018 the American Bar Association found that 56% of white men feel free to express anger at work, and only 39% of women and people of color feel they can do so without dismantling their credibility. Another cause of our preference for civility is the stigma around fighting back. This is captured in the famous quote by former first lady, Michelle Obama, “when they go low, we go high.” After events like the January 6th insurrection, Democrats feel compelled to take the high road. But Georgetown University history professor, Micheal Kazin, argues that, “throughout American history, political elites have never started fundamental policy changes on their own; they need a force of discontented and determined citizens to make them do it." So when taking the high road means suppressing valuable emotions, we risk losing momentum for our nation’s improvement.
How is anger treated?
A lot of the times, when direct speech or frustration is evoked, these community members are undermined as overreacting - or even labeled as a threat - to our built democracy. In our country, our anger becomes the focus of the problem. In September of 2019, Greta Thunberg delivered a speech to the United Nations that challenged world leaders to take action toward the climate crisis. President Donald Trump tweeted in response, “So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!” Her overall purpose became obsolete, because as opposed to blaming the problem, we blame the people for reacting to it. Amidst the summer 2020 uprising, the problem in Minnesota was deemed the protests and the looting, not the police violence and systemic racism that caused this movement in the first place. And this wasn’t just on Fox News and in my extended family’s Facebook group. According to Derrick Taylor of the New York Times, even Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, expressed how the situation in Minneapolis was no longer about the murder of George Floyd, but instead about disrupting our great cities. This is another example of criminalizing the methods and erasing the intentions. This can lead to another grave impact of a cycle of all talk and no action. Civility fosters gradualism, leaving little room for radical change. For example, our country has faced devastating mass shootings, yet there has been little gun legislation passed in response. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut pointed out in June 2022, “by agreeing to modest changes now, Republicans can tell voters they have done something to address gun violence - and use that political cover to help block more substantial reforms.” In fact, after the recent school shooting in Nashville, the GOP remains apathetic to the cries of gun reform advocates. Instead, they are focused on vilifying these protestors. In April (as discussed in my recent post) two Black legislators were expelled from the Tennessee house after an impassioned protest in favor of gun reform. Their anger towards a loss of three elementary school children led to further censorship of the minority populations they sought to represent. Although both representative have since been readmitted, this this expulsion has diverted politicians’ and the public’s attention away from their intended cause of stricter gun laws. When we dismiss angry voices, we ignore the most important issues in America.
And it is not just those in the media that are criminalized for their strong voices. A few months ago, my literature class was analyzing a poem. This was a piece that resonated with my experience as a young Mexican-American. I shared with the class my interpretation of the writing, as well as my own experience with assimilation. When I walked out of the room, I overheard an all-white group of my peers describe my contribution that day as aggressive and unneeded. I rethought everything. Did I yell, did I blame? No, I didn’t. My emotion, my experience, was interpreted as aggression because it challenged their limited perspective. And as a woman, anything I say with the least bit of assertion, will be written off. So instead of coping with modern society, why don’t we revolutionize it?
Destigmatizing Anger
How can we begin to redefine anger and the use of it? I am not about to tell you to get angry at every hidden insult or be like the Philadelphia Eagles fans. Because constant anger isn’t productive. However, we are capable of altering our understanding of anger. First, establish criteria for when anger is justified. Elizabeth Heilman of Wichita State University emphasizes how anger has sparked almost every social movement in America: from MLK and Malcolm X, to the Stonewall riots, the women’s liberation movement, the 504 sit-in for disability rights, and the Native American occupation of Wounded Knee! If an underrepresented community is being subjugated or if there has been minimal change to oppressive systems and structures, anger can be the driving force for civil transformation. But we must also recognize where upheaval is used inappropriately. As seen in the January 6th insurrection, their cause led to the deaths of law enforcement and the further diffusion of hateful rhetoric. Anger is a natural and adaptive response to threats, but violence in support of authoritarianism and oppression should not be condoned. We should use our voices in a positive way. Next, support school curricula that allows for feelings of discontent to be mobilized - not erased. In February, the AP African American Studies course was stripped of the Black Lives Matter movement and black queer studies. This was after Florida Governor Ron Desantis expressed how their inclusion “lacked educational value.” Compare this to HF1502, a bill being debated at the Minnesota State capitol (my home state!) that would make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement. Real history can be uncomfortable, but we must ensure our education highlights how anger has motivated social unrest, and led to meaningful change in the United States.
Today we learned why we endorse a norm of civility and a lack of action on issues we care about. So I urge you to be angry in times of injustice!
Nothing will change and history will remain cyclical if we don’t make people mad.
