First, a disclaimer about my disposition: I don’t like
anger. I guess there’s nothing wrong with it per se, but I’m of the
opinion that, like any strongly felt emotion, it can cloud people’s judgment.
Want to get angry at the Slayer concert? Knock yourself out (literally). But if
you’re trying to make some sort of judgment about the world around you, I think
that being angry can only lead you astray.
And yet, I have to admit, right now, after reading about
last night’s mass murder, I feel angry, angry and fatigued, because I know the
cycle: violence happens, then people want something to be done about the
violence, but that typically involves restricting or monitoring others in some
way (restricting gun access, making your mental health history available to
authorities, monitoring your web use, censoring (or at least condemning) certain
kinds of expression). Then a group of people will become angered by the effort
to control or restrict them, citing their right to be free and how it is being
infringed. When I think about the seeming inevitability of the cycle, I get
tired. I also think, “What can I do about it?”
Maybe my small contribution as a researcher and media
educator can be to further understanding of the role of anger in this whole
cycle. Being angry at some group of “unfamiliar others” (e.g., not some ex-boss
or some ex-girlfriend who pissed you off) seems like a necessary-but-not-sufficient
criterion for committing mass murder. The violent acts seem to grow from
expressions of anger and hatred, and they seem to inspire anger and hatred.
Maybe there’s something about the way media allows us to
stay “immersed” in an angry state that perpetuates this cycle. We all get angry
from time to time, sometimes at individuals, but other times at groups of
people we don’t know personally (Republicans, Democrats, politicians in
general, liberal media, Fox News, Comcast, etc.). How much time do you spend in that
angry state, and does exposure to certain media messages keep you in that angry
state? My guess is that in order to engage in an act of mass violence, you need
to have been in a prolonged state of anger against unfamiliar others, and that
media (mainstream media messages and interpersonal content via online
communities) likely plays some role in helping to sustain that anger. In this
respect, I suspect it is different than violence against people you know, which
might be prompted by one incident and happen in the heat of the moment.
But here’s why it’s hard to just say that expressions of
anger are uniformly bad. Sometimes, you have anger at an injustice, and the
anger seems to be what motivates people to take action. Without the emotional “fire”
of anger, people might not take action, and injustice would be allowed to persist.
But, of course, that concept of “injustice” is subjective: the people
perpetrating the initial act of aggression often see themselves as bringing
justice to the world. So, too, do the angry people who respond.
Maybe it’s what you do when you get angry – some people act
aggressively while others take political action. While it is obvious that those
who respond to mass violence do not (thank god) respond with acts of aggression
that are of the same degree, I can see the responses as acts of aggression
(albeit on the less harmful end of the continuum). Often, people don’t respond to
acts of mass violence by being motivated to vote, which is in many ways a slow,
complex process involving numerous compromises and, as such, not exactly
anger-sating. They are often verbally aggressive toward others that they feel
are somehow part of the “other side”. I see protests as somewhere in the middle:
sometimes, they are acts of political and civic action; other times, they are
not much different than coordinated verbal aggression directed at an ideological
“other”.
Moreover, any attempt to say “don’t be angry” or “don’t
expose yourself to anger-inducing media” to anyone will likely meet with the
response: “you’re just trying to pacify and distract us from the injustice!”
Who am I to say that anyone else shouldn’t be pissed off at the state of the
world, or should avoid news that makes them angry and watch more cat videos
instead (or this damn dog getting licked by cows, which is pretty cute),
or at least maintain some balance between the two?
But still, I do want to talk to people about how anger in
media, at least potentially, at least
sometimes, only appears to be about rectifying injustice and improving the world,
when in actuality, it is just a kind of emotional button-pushing, just working
on a vulnerability in our brains, this ancient instinct to be tribal, to find a
threat, to identify some Other as the source of evil or injustice. I cannot
tell anyone what kinds of messages are button-pushing and what kinds will help
motivate people to take action that will make the world a better place. To do
so would be imposing my concept of “justice” on them, and I just don’t think people
dig that.
But maybe they’d be receptive to this message: If you’re in
the business of producing or circulating media content, you’ll never go broke
overestimating consumers’ appetite for content that appeals to their sense of
righteous anger. Put simply: anger sells. And we all like to think it’s not the media we consume, but that it’s the media the other guy consumes.
So, take a step back. Take a good, long, hard look at the media content that
you consume that you know makes you angry. Be open to the possibility that the
messages you choose might just be, at least in part, button-pushing. Even if it
(and you) is/are on the right side of justice, maybe there’s some part of it
that just ends up keeping you angry and keeps you pushing the buttons for more.
Keep asking, “what can I do to make the world a better place?” And if the
answer is “shoot someone”, think a little harder.
