About 35 years ago, I attended a talk by the Dalai Lama in Edinburgh. During the session, someone asked him about the utility of anger, considering he’d spoken much about love and the dangers of anger. The Dalai Lama’s response, as best I recall, was insightful. He acknowledged that anger can indeed make things happen quickly, which is why it needs careful handling.
Anger tends to accelerate situations, much like pressing the gas pedal in a car. When speeding up, it’s crucial to ensure you’re headed in the right direction. Psychologists share a similar sentiment, feeling ambivalent about outrage—a form of anger but with distinct characteristics. Moral psychologists often view outrage negatively due to its potential to disturb our well-being and cause destruction. Conversely, intergroup psychologists see it as positive, noting its ability to unite people for change.
Today, many psychologists consider all emotions, including outrage, as neither inherently good nor bad. What’s important is how we manage these emotions—whether they are put to effective or ineffective use. Outrage doesn’t always equate to anger. According to the dictionary, it means to arouse fierce anger, shock, or indignation. This suggests that while outrage can provoke anger, it isn’t inherently angry.
Outrage often manifests as a shock to the conscience with a strong desire to correct a wrong. Anger, on the other hand, usually involves a personal element and can manifest as hurtful words. Outrage, if unchecked, can lead to anger and insults, which are counterproductive. Hence, managing outrage carefully is essential.
Moral outrage has played a significant role in addressing injustices. It acts as a catalyst for positive change. For example, in promoting environmental causes, showing images of pollution is more motivating than simply displaying beautiful sceneries. Feelings of anger and outrage often drive action more effectively than positive emotions.
However, outrage can also be highly destructive. It can morph into bullying and harassment, especially online, ruining lives over minor issues. Buddhist journalist Robert Wright discussed how outrage can be both useful and detrimental by examining two cases: one involving Jeanine Pirro on Fox News and the other, the “Russiagate” controversy surrounding the Trump campaign.
Wright performed a cost-benefit analysis for both scenarios. In Pirro’s case, outrage over her comments led directly to her suspension, showing how public outrage can cause a culture shift. With Russiagate, the investigations proceeded unaffected by public outrage. Here, outrage had minimal impact, demonstrating that its effects can vary greatly.
Outrage also taxes us emotionally and physically, leading to feelings of exhaustion. It can become addictive, making us feel righteous and connected to like-minded individuals. Yet, constant outrage is unhealthy and leads to a culture where minor offenses are publicly shamed.
To navigate outrage wisely, questioning if our response is proportionate and useful can prevent it from evolving into mob behavior. Selectivity in our outrage helps preserve our mental health and effectiveness. Some argue we should avoid outrage entirely, considering it an unskillful emotion. If anger is to be eradicated, we must first learn to moderate and wisely direct our passionate energies.
Outrage indicates that an injustice exists, prompting the need for action. This energy can drive effective responses without harboring ill will. For example, the Dhammapada emphasizes controlling anger, comparing it to a skilled charioteer mastering a racing chariot, suggesting the importance of managing powerful emotions rather than being led by them.
In conclusion, while outrage and anger can drive necessary change, it’s essential to handle these emotions carefully to avoid harm and exhaustion. Practicing equanimity, mindfulness, and wise action can help us use our passionate energies effectively without succumbing to destructive behaviors.