This misquotation contains an element of truth for some special situations, but there is more than one way of losing one’s head. Fear and panic, for example, are difficult emotions to control. They are often the result of deep-seated primitive automatic reactions associated with release of adrenaline into the blood stream. This is our "fight or flight" mechanism, with the flight aspect prevailing. Anger is what usually emerges when the fight option predominates. It is largely a natural reaction. This has led some psychologists to suggest that anger is good for you, or rather that suppressing anger is bad for you. It is this advice that I wish to challenge. We should be wary of anything related in any way to morality that can be deemed naturally good.

Anger invariably produces irrational reactions. There is enough irrationality in the world already, among the sane and sober. By irrationally venting one’s anger one can produce effects directly contrary to the philosophy of mutual respect that we have established for an aptious society.

If you think back to the times you have been angry, I would suggest that, contrary to the sentiments of my initial misquotation, you have then been in situations that you did not fully understand. Either you were frustrated for reasons you did not appreciate, or someone was doing something that you did not comprehend. In Transactional Analysis terms, anger is felt by the frustrated "Child" or the protective "Parent". An "Adult" response to the situation would be to seek a solution, or at least to try to understand. This is not to say that one should stand by idly philosophising while a crime is committed, only that a rational reaction is more likely to be effective than an angry outburst.

This is another important reason why I suggest that everybody should develop a clear philosophy of life, living, and human relationships. If you recognise a situation, even if previously it had been merely hypothetical, then self control is much easier. "Look wide", and "Be prepared", as the Scout mottoes enjoin.

A particular virulent form of anger, that could be thereby eliminated quickly, is that which results when an individual, or group of individuals, "takes" offence. Taking offence is a reaction to a perceived threat to one’s personal prejudices. If these views are rational, there is no reason to take offence. There can be no threat to a truly rational viewpoint. Either the attack is on the logic of the argument, which will stand or fall on its merits, or the attack is itself irrational, in which case it can be coolly dismissed. It is those attacks, logical or not, against their unreasoned prejudices, beliefs, or faith, that cause people to become angry by taking offence. They are trying to defend the indefensible. Again:

"People fight hardest of all to preserve their delusions." {Michael Moorcock}

Such Pavlovian outbursts can be minimised by having an aptious view of oneself. If you are OK, and know it, then attacks on one’s views pose no threat. The attacks are either valid or invalid; you can adjust or not accordingly. Furthermore, if you respect others, whatever their arguments, there is no value in becoming angry. The realisation that other people do not "give" offence, it is you who "take" it, is one of the most effective lessons of life. People can try to give offence, but you do not have to let them make you take it.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling will not hurt me"{Childhood lore}

Nevertheless, in our aptious society, deliberately trying to give offence would be a crime if it implied, as it might, disrespect for another person, or for a group of people as individual human beings. There would be no crime merely in presenting views that were in opposition to or different from others’. One should not have to wonder perpetually whether one’s reasonable mutually respectful opinions or actions would be liable to be taken as offensive. Even if one knows that others may well take offence, that is no reason for being unduly inhibited.

There was an excellent example of undue reticence recently on the Blue Peter programme, or rather not on it. The producer had been planning to cover a village festival that involved young children dressing up as 19th-century chimney sweeps. It was traditional that the youngsters blackened their faces for the event. The producer decided that the extent of blacking was too complete for his taste, and hence may give offence to those in the TV audience with naturally black skins. He had in mind such historical precedents as "The Black and White Minstrel Show", long vanished from UK television.

The producer was free to make up his own mind. That was his prerogative, but his reasoning was flawed. There could be no possible justifiable offence taken from children pretending to be sweeps, except perhaps by their parents who would have to clean the dirty faces. There was certainly no hint of any intention to be offensive, or to try to provoke others to take offence, on the part of the children or the event organisers. If some people were determined to take offence that would have been the problem of those taking the offence, no-one else’s.

It is sometimes said that in all human relationships there should be a certain amount of give and take. In an aptious society, however, there would be no giving or taking of offence. The life view "I’m OK, you’re OK" eliminates the very concept.

return to Contents

go to Love

View my guestbook