ANGRY IS A BRAND THAT'S UNAFFORDABLE
The late and legendary soul singer Marvin Gaye sang about it. Its specter infests the Middle East and it breathes on America’s current political landscape, dividing citizens by party affiliations, ethnicities, genders, religions and sexual orientation. Anger. But what exactly is anger? And can it be ghettoized in the pantheon of emotions to an unwanted, third world status?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anger as a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism. This word, this feeling, anger was politicized last week when GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman tagged New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as being too angry to win Presidential office. Anger, a natural emotion that allows us to express a profound displeasure has now stepped outside of being an indigenous part humanity, such as joy, sadness and the like, to being used as a label that thwarts difference of opinion and verbal discourse on issues of import. As with anger, the internal right to one’s own opinion spans from the beginnings of creation.
As America has traversed the era of political correctness we have become a different strain of humanity. Not a nation of critical thinkers that American history likes to portray us as being; the descendents of the Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, Albert Einsteins and Martin Luther Kings, but a body of citizens who have become thin-skinned to dissent and disingenuous in our efforts to avoid those who would boldly disagree with our ways of thinking. Anger has become a label attached to differing viewpoints much like the letter given Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, The Scarlett Letter; “A”, not for adultery, but for angry.
The anger label has become an effective way for those in authority to conquer challenges to methods of operation, difference in opinion or alternative viewpoints. Corporate CEO’s speak of ex-employees being disgruntled, once those employees expose inequities in business operations. Women who seek the right to the self-determination of their own bodies are referred to as “angry” amongst other things by right to life proponents.
The stereotype of the angry black man has long been used to lessen the effectiveness of African-American leadership in their denouncing of racism by those who seek to keep the status quo or possibly even worse, those who have no agenda and are afraid to deal with confrontation on any level. This inability or unwillingness to deal with a discourse of difference is becoming America’s unheralded, yet growing weakness.
Labels pertaining to race, sexuality, gender and economic class have been used for centuries. Now this fact has crossed over to the world of emotions, as the label of “angry” has taken its place in the gallery of social construct and robs America of critical thought at grassroots levels on up. One is free to express their opinion, but in today’s climate face the danger of being dismissed with the tag of angry. This label doesn’t allow for progress. It hangs on with a death grip to the status quo without grappling with the possibility of newer, more appropriate ways of proceeding with political policy, social interactions or personal affiliations. This label has become a crutch that Americans need to quickly dispatch with if we are, as a nation, to walk into our future with clarity. Americans are not served by a culture that seeks to turn tables on the issues at hand by labeling dissenters and thereby lessening the impact of the opinion in this era of put-on political correctness. What this strategy truly does is absolves the labeler from their own opinions; a sort of short-hand denial of self-reflection where people refuse to take stock of their beliefs in relation to the challenge being presented or what their opinions say about them in a broader social context.
Casting opponents as angry has become a symbolic hiding place for those wishing to escape the possible effectiveness of true political-social discourses and it is up to American citizens to avoid this game of hide and seek. Holding public officials as well as individuals to a standard of discourse that will lead to self-reflection and an ear that is willing to listen to voices that do not agree with institutional or individual positions. If not, America faces the danger of becoming a nation unable to deal effectively with verbal dissent, which is the greatest right America offers to her citizenship. This lack of critical thought is a dam blocking the current of possibility in what is billed as a free society. But please don’t close the paper. I assure you, I am not angry.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anger as a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism. This word, this feeling, anger was politicized last week when GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman tagged New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as being too angry to win Presidential office. Anger, a natural emotion that allows us to express a profound displeasure has now stepped outside of being an indigenous part humanity, such as joy, sadness and the like, to being used as a label that thwarts difference of opinion and verbal discourse on issues of import. As with anger, the internal right to one’s own opinion spans from the beginnings of creation.
As America has traversed the era of political correctness we have become a different strain of humanity. Not a nation of critical thinkers that American history likes to portray us as being; the descendents of the Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, Albert Einsteins and Martin Luther Kings, but a body of citizens who have become thin-skinned to dissent and disingenuous in our efforts to avoid those who would boldly disagree with our ways of thinking. Anger has become a label attached to differing viewpoints much like the letter given Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel, The Scarlett Letter; “A”, not for adultery, but for angry.
The anger label has become an effective way for those in authority to conquer challenges to methods of operation, difference in opinion or alternative viewpoints. Corporate CEO’s speak of ex-employees being disgruntled, once those employees expose inequities in business operations. Women who seek the right to the self-determination of their own bodies are referred to as “angry” amongst other things by right to life proponents.
The stereotype of the angry black man has long been used to lessen the effectiveness of African-American leadership in their denouncing of racism by those who seek to keep the status quo or possibly even worse, those who have no agenda and are afraid to deal with confrontation on any level. This inability or unwillingness to deal with a discourse of difference is becoming America’s unheralded, yet growing weakness.
Labels pertaining to race, sexuality, gender and economic class have been used for centuries. Now this fact has crossed over to the world of emotions, as the label of “angry” has taken its place in the gallery of social construct and robs America of critical thought at grassroots levels on up. One is free to express their opinion, but in today’s climate face the danger of being dismissed with the tag of angry. This label doesn’t allow for progress. It hangs on with a death grip to the status quo without grappling with the possibility of newer, more appropriate ways of proceeding with political policy, social interactions or personal affiliations. This label has become a crutch that Americans need to quickly dispatch with if we are, as a nation, to walk into our future with clarity. Americans are not served by a culture that seeks to turn tables on the issues at hand by labeling dissenters and thereby lessening the impact of the opinion in this era of put-on political correctness. What this strategy truly does is absolves the labeler from their own opinions; a sort of short-hand denial of self-reflection where people refuse to take stock of their beliefs in relation to the challenge being presented or what their opinions say about them in a broader social context.
Casting opponents as angry has become a symbolic hiding place for those wishing to escape the possible effectiveness of true political-social discourses and it is up to American citizens to avoid this game of hide and seek. Holding public officials as well as individuals to a standard of discourse that will lead to self-reflection and an ear that is willing to listen to voices that do not agree with institutional or individual positions. If not, America faces the danger of becoming a nation unable to deal effectively with verbal dissent, which is the greatest right America offers to her citizenship. This lack of critical thought is a dam blocking the current of possibility in what is billed as a free society. But please don’t close the paper. I assure you, I am not angry.
posted by KHARI WYATT @ 9:48 AM
0 Comments
