In Defense of Anger

♦ October 13, 2011 ♦ 5 Comments

How often do you suppose that someone with a broad smile on his face is told that they need to learn to “control” their emotions? Do you think people who smile at everyone are ever told that the world is full of bad things happening to good people, and that a constant smile may be encroaching on those who are unhappy for a justifiable reason today? How many times have you encountered someone who started laughing to himself and thought, “if he can be laughing at nothing now, he is bound to laugh at me and my pain” ?

As with almost every human based scenario that can be imagined, this one has probably happened to someone, somewhere on the earth. Yet I will be bold enough to assume that most of you would find the situation described above as silly at best, ridiculous at worst.

Now let’s change things up a bit, while keeping the same premise in tact.

How often do you suppose that someone who yells out loud at something which bothers them is told that they need to “control” their emotions? Do you think people who scowl and seethe at everyone are ever told that the world is full of kind, wonderful things, and that their anger is likely encroaching on someone’s ability to maintain a positive outlook on their day? How many times have you encountered someone who in frustration kicked a piece of debris across the street, or maybe slammed his fist down onto a table and thought, “my god, if he can get angry enough to pound his fist onto furniture, he can certainly get angry enough to pound his fists into me” ?

You may or may not identify with the second scenario either. But I bet it sounds less “out there” to you. Not as contrived. More socially acceptable. And I imagine quite a bit of you would agree with the second set of statements, despite the fact that they are in most ways the same as the first set of statements. With one difference that should be obvious by now; in the first scenario, the subject is happy and in the second the subject is angry. In both cases, an emotion is involved, though according to most, only one needs to be “controlled”.

We live in a society which is conditioned to believe that anger is a negative emotion. That it serves no purpose, is destructive, and makes us want to be further away from the angered. We even threaten those that are angry with, “if you don’t stop being angry, I am going to leave”. We don’t tell people they are too happy to be worth our time. (Though in the interest of full disclosure, I have come close with a few people.)

It is ironic that in such an angry society we find it not only acceptable, but perhaps expected that we “fight” against anger. Flatten it. Avoid those who dare express the trait, and measure our maturity in terms of how often we get angry. As though the very definition of immaturity is to feel anger.

Over the years I have been the target over and over again of people who do not approve of my getting angry at something.  I do not express or even feel anger now as much as I did ten years ago, but if you are to believe the sanctimonious among us, I still get angry way more often than I should by virtue of the fact that I ever do so to a degree that people are able to detect it.

Why do we do this? Years of hearing it have led me to a few conclusions, and probably all of them apply to a degree, though it depends on the person eschewing anger at any given moment. At any rate, three big ones come to mind.

The first is simple fear. Somebody is angry…are they gonna kill me?

Then I think anger is a buzz-kill to many people. Somehow they have over the course of their lives brainwashed themselves into thinking that life is so grand, there need never be a reason to express anger about anything. It’s either part of “God’s Plan”, or “That’s Life”. Either way, they have established a personal psychology which, like a house of cards can collapse in short order if they have to interact with someone who is angry, even if they are not the target of said anger. This to me is a better example of immaturity.

Then we have the “anger as destruction” crowd. To them, anger destroys the spirit. It lowers the level of energy in the room to darker levels. Brings bad karma, signifies attachment, or whatever term you wish to use. By not being angry, such people argue, you are pushing yourself towards an evolution of the spirit. This denial of baser reactions strengthens you for some kind of enlightenment. (This one tends to ignore the many examples of spiritual leaders becoming angry at some point over their life stories.) For such people anger is an excluding force that replaces all emotion or thought patterns within consciousness. Anger, even if it does not start out so, will, by necessity, grow into an all consuming fire that will suck the air out of the person and all of their relationships. As though one who is angry is incapable of also feeling love at the same time. As if anger and self-control are mutually exclusive.

To an extent all of these reasons for hating anger assume that the default state of our existence should be happiness. That anything which deviates from happiness and contentment in unnatural. And while it makes perfect sense to want to spend most of one’s time being content, does it make as much sense to conclude that the infinite experience of being human has one fixed point to which we all are to pin our existence? That there can be but one fulcrum for the pendulum of our lives, and that fulcrum is calm happiness?

Many have argued with me that it is not anger per se, but the manner in which people express anger that is unacceptable. That it is the yelling, the cursing, the throwing of objects that brands someone as “immature”, “out of control” or “dangerous”. And yes, if you go around beating people up when they make you angry, you need help. However, too often people leap to that conclusion with no evidence to support the charge. Such as the table pounding situation.

I know women who have broken up with men simply because they slap a table in anger. Because the next time, “it could be my head“. Really? Someone passionate who vents by banging a table, or tossing the blender that has broken down for the 15th time out into the backyard is de facto guilty of being a future abusive boyfriend? There is no difference at all between grabbing you during an argument, and grabbing, say, a pillow? You want to talk immaturity?

Yet anger remains an easy tool for instant indictment. Neighbors hear a man yelling in the next apartment, it has to be domestic abuse. Not that perhaps he is weary of being cheated on, or trying to get through to his wife that her drug problem is ruining their marriage. The voice was loud, he was angry, and so, it was the wrong thing to do. Just the very nature of being aware that someone was angry negates any and all justifications for actually being angry, because justified anger can only ever be quiet, hidden anger. Only when we bottle it up and keep it to ourselves are we even approaching the so called “correct” way to handle an emotion that ideally we shouldn’t be feeling at all.

It works in so many cases, because you can point directly to the things that the babies inside of us squirm about…loud noises, passion, the possibility that the world may not be fairy land, and that we may at some point have actually done something to hurt someone else. We assume the loudest and angriest is probably the guiltiest in any confrontation, because it takes extra work and depth to look into the actual details of a situation, and we don’t want to go there.

Even those who feel anger is destructive don’t go there. How often does someone like that ask, “why are you angry” instead of telling someone to not be angry? If you feel that anger is destroying someone, do you attempt to save them somehow, or do you say, “Dude, you harsh my mellow, I would really prefer we not hang out anymore.” Helpful.

Then there is the great hypocrisy among many “anti-angry” folks. Many have that one subject, or that one situation wherein not only will they allow themselves to get very angry, but actually pride themselves on it. As though they had the sole definition in the universe for “acceptable anger”. (Many mothers posses this quality; to them, anger pertaining to the treatment of their children is acceptable, and even commendable.)

A person can be too angry, too often, and express it in ways that are too extreme. But you know what? One can be too happy, too often as well. One can be calm to the point of extreme. The way people express their contentment with their lives can also be disruptive to other people, and destructive to themselves. Yet excess of those emotions carry a far smaller stigma than excess of the so called “negative” ones. And to be frank, that makes me a little angry.

Holiday Presence

♦ October 6, 2011 ♦ 3 Comments

We are now entering the final three months of the year. A time weighed down in richer foods, soaked in beer and other spirits, kissed with cooler, crisper temperatures and moved along nicely by many a get-together, soirees and informal gatherings to celebrate the several holidays.

Actually those holidays are the catalyst for all of the above. Except the weather of course.
This time of year can go so quickly. It is made worse by the fact that immediately following this festive quarter, is the most boring, darkest, coldest, bleakest time in the year in this part of the world-the frigid malaise that is January through early March.
You are savoring your first pumpkin spice latte of the year one day* and you turn around and realize it’s January 15th all of the sudden, your knee deep in snow, and nothing anywhere means anything.
It blows.
Which is why I plan to engage in all of the holidays more this year. Don’t get me wrong, I have always been a huge fan of Christmas, and a pretty big one of Thanksgiving. Even Halloween, when I am around people who enjoy it. But for years I have let the holidays go buy and paid just lip service to being fully engaged in them.
Yes, I have enjoyed the time of year, as usual, but I have not reinvented my absorption of the sights, sounds, smells, and emotions of the holiday season in many a year. And I think this year is a good time to begin such a re-calibration once again.
It’s not just about going more places or doing more things, (though in the right context that can help.) But being more present at each of the things I do. And choosing those things to do and places to go not simply because that is what everyone does, or because tradition demands it, but because it can offer meaning and spiritual value to me on the moment, and not just overall.
My picture tends to be too broad sometimes. I spend a lot of time planning the so called “long-game.” I hope to use the holidays coming up this year as a way to remember the close up. The tight shot. The short yardage running play. And in so doing, grab more of the essence of festivities around me.
How do you celebrate holidays? Or anything at all?

No Comment

♦ September 29, 2011 ♦ 2 Comments

I do it several times a day. Or perhaps the more accurate thing to say would be, several times a day I don’t do it.

I will find a blog post or article somewhere, and get something out of it. Sometimes a lot, sometimes just a tiny bit. I will scroll down to the comments section, ready to respond with a question or praise for the piece. I’ll look at the little box for three, four, sometimes more minutes. I will type two words then stop. I’ll erase those, think another minute, and then in one effortless flow type off about a paragraph in response to the piece in question.

When finished I’ll read it over. I’ll let my cursor hover over the “Comment” button for a moment…and then I will erase the comment, and leave the website totally.

This is enhanced when there are anymore than say 20 comments on a post. Beyond that, I feel there is even less of a reason for me to say anything.

Comment block?

I try to be a frequent commentator on my friends’ blogs. I grow weary of getting almost no comments after year and years (and years) of blogging, so I try to help out those I know when I can with some comment love. Yet if I barely know the person, or do not know them at all, the bar is much higher. I often have to be quite inspired or quite irritated by what has been posted in order for me to get passed this little mental force field I have described.

Truth be told I am not 100% certain what the deal is with my opting so often to abandon comments. Yet I have a theory; I want to say something profound, unique, or exquisite every single time.

This feeling of, “who cares” creeps in once I form my comments in most cases. Without that added fuel of amazement and delight, (not frequent) or disgust and indignation, (more frequent), my comments feel like unflavored rice cakes to me. Sure they are there, but are they really actually anything at all? You can see, feel touch, and on some rudimentary level taste them, but once consumed do they have the slightest impact?

I’m an intelligent, witty guy and a good writer. Yet if all of that is not in evidence with every little two sentence comment I leave on a blog post with which I agree, I feel I am wasting my time, and the time of other readers as well as the author of the post.

Of course even geniuses are not on all the time, I realize that. I also realize that a comment section is not exclusive for most people. That many writers appreciate just a simple sentence expressing agreement, or at least enjoyment of said post or article. That is certainly the case for me. (Hint.) Yet when I am the one doing the commenting, I suddenly feel there is a higher standard.

Is it my usual quasi-perfectionism? Is it my subconscious belief that if I have nothing new to offer a conversation, it is better to offer nothing? Is my being an introvert somehow tied into this? Would I rather not be seen at all than be seen as being like everyone else? I hate talking to the wind, so perhaps having a comment that sounds like many of the other comments on a thread feels like I am talking to nobody because I am being drowned out by all the identical mediocrity. Or perhaps if I don’t feel the comment is ever going to be read, I am likely to not even post it. I just don’t know.

Perhaps all, or perhaps none of the above. I’m just Too XYZ to leave comments as often as I should.

How often do you leave comments on articles or blog posts you enjoy? Do you have a criteria, or do you just go for it as the proverbial spirit moves you?

What Interruption?

♦ September 26, 2011 ♦ 3 Comments

I am an introvert, but I have my extroverted moments.  Remember that there is in everyone a bit of their opposite temperament. I am no exception.
Sometimes my extroverted moments do come naturally, I swear.  At other times I need to manufacture such moments. There is a limit of course, because despite what anybody tells you, true introverts cannot become extroverts. Yet there are certain extroverted actions I can opt to take if the need arises. (And provided I have a few days to recover afterwards.)
In order to initiate such extroverted moments however, I have to remind myself that not everyone is an introvert. This may be the hardest part about me being extroverted at times, even when it is acceptable and possible for me.
You see, in most situations I would prefer not to be approached by a stranger on the street. And as I go about my day I let myself assume that nobody else wants to be approached either. As a matter of fairness I say to myself, “Now if you were sitting on that park bench you would not want a stranger to come up to you and ask you a question. And even if you wouldn’t mind, you owe it to a stranger to be extra careful about taking up their time. You therefore have no right to walk up to a stranger yourself and ask a question, even during the rare occasions when you find the need.“
The truth is even I do not always hate being asked something. But I give an even greater bubble to other people than I expect of myself, because my immediate thought is to leave everyone alone at all times. After all, I usually want to be left alone too.
As an introvert, I believe that everyone deserves to be left alone. And for the most part I do leave everyone alone. But there have been times where it would have been in my best interest to engage someone, but I didn’t, out of a heightened sense of propriety.
Just as extroverts tend to assume that anybody sitting alone would welcome their company and conversation, we introverts tend to assume that they would not. Sometimes we are correct, and sometimes we are mistaken.
So the key to me is to prioritize. If as an introvert you have determined your reasons for doing an extroverted thing are legitimate and likely to be of benefit to you, go on and do the thing you are considering, (assuming of course you are comfortable with it.) If the person wants to be left alone, you of all people can understand that. And if they do not mind engaging you, than you can be surprised, and receive whatever benefit you were hoping for in the first place.

A Market for Stability: Lessons from Facebook, Netflix and the like.

♦ September 22, 2011 ♦ Leave a comment

I am convinced that despite all of the talk and action to the contrary these days, there is a market for stability. As in, a large portion of consumers who are content with the status quo of their product or service for now. Any changes are best made slowly and with as much explanation as possible to such a demographic.

Not only am I convinced that such a type of consumer exists, but I feel bold enough to state that for at least some services and products they represent the largest group, and companies often ignore them, if not to their peril, than at least to their regret for a while.

There are plenty of examples lately. Netflix/Quikster. Facebook. Brazen Careerist. All had a great idea to begin with, and for a while made gradual adjustments to improve the execution of said unique mission. Then this disease of innovation for the sake of innovation crept in, and the very people who made these entities what they are, (as in, the current majority of consumers) are left out in the cold to either adjust to the whimsical desire to “jump out of our comfort zone”, or leave the service.

This wholesale abandonment of the masses that have quite simply, made such places is not random. It is driven by a stupefying and discouraging desire to cater not to the 95% of users who are happy for now, but to the maybe 5% of users called “trend setters”.

These are the people that always want the “next” thing whether it works or not. The people who geek out at every small possibility that a phone could have next year, and are not satisfied unless their phone, and every other damn phone in the world shifts to have that very thing, whether the vast majority of humanity needed it or not. The people who see it as their responsibility to somehow insist that their own personal “edgy” preferences are always implemented. This, so that they can can singlehandedly pull the dissatisfied and ignored consumer majority into their version of the “future.” And of course by the time the inertia of so many customers being forced towards the New Jerusalem is complete, the 5% is again calling for a new trend, service, policy, procedure or some other “it” thing. And the process begins anew.

It is allowed to do so all of the time, because companies like the ones I mention above, along with countless others, always cater to that 5% who says it is possible to change something, ergo it must be changed. The prescient elite have determined that a popular feature is redundant, so the 100 million other people who still make regular, comfortable use of same will have to go without, their ire be damned. Then it all gets wrapped up into the concept of “leaving the comfort zone” or “pushing the envelope”, to which more and more trend setters, business people, and especially social media gurus feel the need to genuflect before taking their morning piss.

There is an irony to all of this. The very act of changing the fundamental nature of one’s brand, mission, product, service, or demographic, in order to “stay fresh” (that term always sounded vaguely foul to me), in fact makes a company just another run of the mill, boring bottom line oriented fad chaser left shaking in their boots. In other words, they “go corporate” and in so doing, lose any real distinction to which they could lay previous claim. It’s almost to the point where remaining a solid, constant brand which is open with its thoughts about change, and gradual in the implementation is in fact the most unconventional way to do business. In a world where a brand is considered outdated if it hasn’t changed its logo today, being committed to a mission is being edgy.

I have said it before and I will again. You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. But you know what? You can catch even more flies with a big steaming pile of shit. In other words, yes, a company may continue to see success by the numbers, (Facebook’s atrocious changes aside, they still have 750 million users), but those numbers will likely be people who try everything ones. Or people that have no discernment. Or people that just follow the crowd because they don’t know any better. Such a crowd will keep you afloat for a while. But beware; they know no loyalty. As soon as the flavor of the month changes, those flies will be all over the other shit.

Change is sometimes needed. Nobody makes a living building covered wagons anymore. But evolution and innovation are not always the same thing. Especially when a move as radical as Facebook makes every month leaves almost everyone confused, annoyed, and less likely to use the service.

Instead of the reinvention, focus changes, divestitures, mergers, consolidations, pushing of envelopes and shocking of the system, show me a company that knows it offers something that could be changed in a radical way every few weeks, (based on that whiny and vocal 5% needles them about all the time), but opts instead to be content to let true brand loyalty build overtime based on a consistent, stable presence.