Anger is defined in the Encarta Dictionary as, "a strong feeling of grievance and displeasure."  It is suggested that the sensation of anger is the result of a persistent feeling of fear and intimidation.  As stated in A Natural History of Human Emotions, by Stuart Walton, "...'anger...' like a 'fear', [is] perceived as a phenomenon in the external world that impact[s] on the hapless human subject."  Furthermore, from the same source, "The moral status of anger as an emotion insists that to be angry is also somehow to be ill, to have sickened from an excess of vexation."  In other words, the feeling of anger is the direct effect of some antagonizing external stimulus.

This risk of defining anger as such rests in the externalization of its etiology.  When we identify outside influences as the causal factors for emotional experiences like anger, we are displacing  our responsibility for those emotions.  The human proclivity for assigning blame, thought by some to be a sort of ego-defense mechanism, fits well with this definition.  We often use phrases such as, "He/She is making me mad" or "They are ticking me off" to describe both our emotional experience and its source.

Theories regarding the most effective ways to address chronic or intense anger have evolved in parallel with societal development.  In prehistoric times, it is postulated that those determined to be 'afflicted' with unyielding anger were suffering from an invasion of evil spirits.  The cure?  Cranial trephination, or the surgical opening of the skull (typically with blunt instruments such as flint or stone) in order to give the spirits a way to escape.  Needless to say, not many of these patients survived the procedure.  Later, Jesus is said to have administered an analogous cure to the problem of anger during Biblical times.  In the Gospel of Matthew (8:28-34), the following intervention is described:  "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him.  They were so violent that no one could pass that way [italics mine]."  The story goes on to describe how Jesus drives the angry demons out of the men and into a herd of pigs, which then proceed to commit mass suicide by leaping into a lake and drowning.  The owners of the pigs were not happy about this and ran Jesus off, thus suggesting that the externalization of anger leads to the transmission of anger, but not its resolution.

More recent developments in anger management therapies, while certainly less brutal (and less detrimental to the livestock industry!), were nonetheless similar in their foundations.  The idea has persisted that anger is an emotion that is 'better-out-than-in.'  As such, cathartic therapies, which were immensely popular in the 1970's, were ultimately determined to be ineffective.  Common-sense may seem to dictate that primal screams and extravagant visitations of violence on inanimate objects will serve to diminish rage, however, the empirical findings are that these interventions do not work.  In fact, they often serve to increase or, at the very least, perpetuate the experience of anger, as well as produce the added sensation of anxiety.  As the social psychologist Carol Tarvis states, "Letting off steam is a wonderful metaphor and seems to capture exactly how angry outbursts work, but people are not teapots."

So, what are we to do with our anger?  After all, it is probably inevitable that we will feel more or less angry at times.  As Walton affirms, "Pent-up fury at the way nothing works as it is intended to is hardly new, but the situations that give rise to it continue to proliferate."  As the global population continues to rise alongside an increased demand for finite resources, and as technological advancements continue alongside the development of new viruses and bugs that seem to be inherent parts of electronic media, potential sources for our ire become more and more commonplace.   To continue to blame these external influences and entities is no solution.  We cannot change the circumstances that surround us with the kind of sufficiency to ensure the prevention of angry feelings.

This writer wishes to again suggest that adopting an attitude of acceptance is a likely solution.  As the English poet Edmund Spenser wrote, "What cannot be cured must be endured."  Sustaining this sort of 'blind acceptance' or faith can be a challenge to be sure, and there may be times when this suggested course of action seems a virtual impossibility.  Perhaps some of the efficacy of mental health therapy lies in its ability to facilitate understanding.  Dr. Tarvis concluded through an experiment on anger in children that "anger must be directed at its cause."  Responding in kind to an anger-inducing situation or person (i.e. cathartic release) nor the receipt of sympathy and/or pity from a compassionate listener do anything to change how we feel.  We must achieve some understanding regarding the reason for the imposition.  When we receive a rationale that makes some sort of sense, we can start the process of diffusion.  The truth, however, is that sometimes that there is no verifiable reason for the infraction.  Our ego may demand that we continue to try and assign blame.  However, this is ultimately futile.  A traditional understanding of acceptance suggests that the universal response to what are often considered infuriating circumstances is simply 'it is so.'  Maybe a little faith can go a long way.