All the Rage

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Wood, in A Bee in the Mouth, argues that one of the most telling signs of a national problem with anger is the hostile tone of our political discourse. He calls it a new style of anger. “For the first time in our political history,” Wood writes, “declaring absolute hatred for one’s opponent has become a sign not of sad excess, but of good character.” As an example of political discourse that delights in its own vitriol, he cites Jonathan Chait’s 2003 essay in the New Republic, which begins, “I hate President George W. Bush.” Such language is typical of what Wood calls our “angri-culture.” It’s not just that people have such fury, Wood argues, it’s that they are so proud of their rage, so eager to broadcast it, so determined to assert their rage as a badge of their identity. I’m pissed off, therefore I matter.

Wood recognizes the vein of anger that has always run through American history, but he may not do full justice to the venom and the power of historical fury. Contemporary wrathmongers like Ann Coulter are loud and all too visible. But compare her to self-appointed avenger Preston Brooks, the South Carolinian who took a cane to Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor in 1856. Clearly, extreme fury is nothing new in American politics.

Often it changed our world for the better. American history owes a great deal to the motivational power of wrath. The abolition movement was largely fueled by rage, and so was the women’s suffrage movement.

The abortion clinic bombers and schoolhouse shooters of recent decades may be the most violent examples of contemporary American rage. But don’t forget strident bloggers, finger-pointing cable-news hosts, brawling professional athletes, bullying grade schoolers, and those Little League parents who go after umpires, veins bulging. It’s likely that more often than not, anger plays itself out on the home front. The wife-beaters and screamers-at-kids are probably doing more damage with their anger than any of the more visibly angry people. Once you start looking for anger, you see it everywhere.

Then again, maybe we’re not angry enough. Given war, environmental crisis, and economic injustice, maybe we should be out in the streets in force, demanding change. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently declared that the “anger quotient is much too low.”

Too angry? Not angry enough? Not one of the sources I consulted suggested that we, as a society, have arrived at precisely the appropriate level of anger for our circumstances. Like perfect happiness, this “anger quotient” must be an elusive target.

So is there any hope for you and your anger? Is there any reason to believe that someday you will be able to survive the afternoon commute without screaming or tailgating or displaying choice fingers?

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print