Anger is usually considered to be a problematic negative emotion that is to be quickly stifled or resolved. It is implicated in nearly every social pathology from war to bullying to child abuse, yet it is also the spark of reform for social movements from civil rights to environmental law. Anger can also be healthy when it encourages people to change or leave from abusive relationships or jobs. Anger, therefore, has an odd dual role of being connected to both shameful and righteous feelings, and to being suppressed or expressed in different contexts. These aspects are poorly understood and readily confused.
Anger in school is most commonly understood and responded to through the classroom management paradigm in which anger is a negative emotion to be immediately discouraged through discipline and other practices. For example, in “Smart Classroom Management,” Michael Lisen (2010) writes, “Emotional outbursts, temper tantrums, yelling, lashing out. Severe misbehavior like this needs to be dealt with differently than typical rule breaking.” The mere expression of anger is described as “severe misbehavior” and “rule breaking” regardless of the context or reason for the anger. Students are not typically educated about why their anger arises or how to manage their emotions. The punishment perspective only teaches students to quell the outward manifestations of anger while the inner experience is left unaddressed. Additionally, the classroom management punishment approach is shaming since the mere expression of anger is considered to be co-equal with misbehavior and deviance. To be clear, it is the public expression of anger that is suppressed. Students do not learn that anger may be bad for them, nor learn strategies to understand and resolve the feeling.
These common negative perspectives on anger can lead to unhealthy suppression of anger. Uncomfortable teachers can deliberately or subconsciously encourage students not to express negative emotions even when negative emotion is appropriate. When teachers are uncomfortable with these negative emotions, it is common for difficult subjects (such as death, divorce and racism) to be avoided. In fact, some schools and universities require “trigger warnings” for topics that might upset and anger students. As a result, students may never gain skills in dealing with these emotions.
Alternatively, anger is thus sometimes promoted in education. For example, Patricia White (2012) believes “a democracy cannot dispense with political anger,” which “has a vital role to play in protecting things of value” and she recommends “schools and teachers … should not attempt to extirpate political anger.” There is an old saying that “if you are not angry, you are not paying attention.” To pay attention means that students will become aware of the world’s injustices: suffering people, environmental damage, abused children and animals, and toxic ideologies.
As this discussion suggests, anger is so confounding because different theorists tend to focus on one aspect. This results in anger being mistakenly placed in opposition to responsibility and morality. Close study of anger suggests that it is the simultaneous experience of threat and moral judgment; it entails both a judgment and an emotional response. Anger is a response to a perceived gap between what is occurring and what should be occurring. Anger includes:
- A moral judgment, i.e. “this is wrong,” which is a categorically good human impulse. This impulse can be misapplied, however. The accuracy of the moral judgment can vary greatly.
- An unpleasant threatened feeling state that can be rooted in the immediate moment or it might be also related to past experiences. Reflecting on the sources of the feeling is helpful. Also, knowing practical strategies to improve an upsetting situation reduces the feeling of threat.
- A will towards action that can be inappropriately acted upon or inappropriately ignored if the moral judgment and feeling states are not clarified and addressed.
Rather than being simply punished for anger, students need the chance to reflect on their anger. Doing so gives them the opportunity to notice that they have made a moral judgment. Students need to be taught to control their unpleasant feelings, not their moral judgment. Teachers can say, “You might be right to be angry, but first calm down so we can think about what is going on.” Students can be actively taught to regain composure as they “count to ten” as many times as is needed, and allow their angry thoughts and feelings to settle. After students learn how to calm unpleasant feelings, they can think about what is right and wrong and how others might feel. Teachers might wait an hour or until the next day when a student is calmer. Students can be taught to bring active compassion to the situation and to all of the people involved, including themselves. Teachers can say, “Write me a paragraph about how everyone involved in this feels and what solutions might help.” By doing this, students consider that they could be right or wrong when they are angry—similarly, they may or may not need to take action.
If students are justified in their anger, they will need to know how to take action to remedy a bad situation. They can be directed to concrete ways to improve interpersonal, social or political situations so that they do not feel merely helpless. For example, a student who is angry with a peer may need to be referred to an anti-bullying or peer conflict resolution program or come after class to talk further with teachers and parents. A student who is angry might help create a school-wide peer conflict resolution program. Students who are angry about problems in their school or community can learn what groups they can join or actions they can take to address the problem. It is very important, therefore, not to suppress or skip feeling angry. What begins as anger can then end in mastery of unpleasant feelings, resolution of conflict and action to solve social problems.