rage, anger, shame

anger is the life force expressed in its most raw, direct, primal way.

Rage is when we've been stepped on. Outrage. You can see it in the red, angry face of a squalling newborn howling its lungs out for whatever it needs - food, diaper changed, attention.

Anger is merely an energy. It is neither good nor bad. It is like a tiger's claws and teeth: It can be used to rend and tear; or, it can be used to protect.

So we have to choose an image that suits the way we want our anger to be. And sometimes it may be one way, sometimes another. Sometimes it may be 'anger red in tooth and claw'. And sometimes that's exactly what's needed - the mother bear defending her cubs, say.

Or, like the newborn, it's a way to express that something's not right. Really, it's that simple.

There's this idea that seems to be popular in the shrinkosphere that anger always masks another emotion, usually hurt or fear.

I contend that it ain't so. I believe anger is a direct response to either a) an unmet expectation or b) unfairness. In fact, it could be said that these are at root the same thing: I think we expect, innately, to be treated fairly and equally, whether this in fact matches our actual experience or not. The expectation (at an emotional, lizard-brain level) is still there. When we don't get what we expect, we get angry, whether it's a brief flash of annoyance at a minor disappointment or the deeper rage provoked by severe injustice.

Of course it could be mixed with something else, such as resentment, shame, fear, sadness, hurt. But I'm still perplexed at the insistence by so many people that anger is 'always secondary'. This seems patently untrue to me, and I wonder why it's important to so many to deny the essential, basic importance of anger. Why so much denial?