Estimated reading time: 11 minutes
Anger comes attached to a “credential” indicating that something happened that mattered. It communicates that a boundary has been crossed, someone has been wronged, a promise has been broken or a truth has been ignored. It also makes a very strong statement:
If you did not experience anger, it would mean you did not care.
Therefore, any advice to “control your anger” can feel disrespectful or insulting. It may sound like you are being told to be less alive, less loyal or less able to resist what is wrong. Unfortunately, the way Stoicism is traditionally presented today does not help either… The typical image of a Stoic person is one who accepts injury without complaint, has no feelings and views silence as strength. BUT, this is not the Stoic perspective.
The ancient Stoics did not teach that humans should suppress every feeling that arises in their bodies. They understood that many emotions, including shock, fear and pain, as well as a sudden tightening of the chest, may arise before the individual has had a chance to reflect. What they questioned was the next movement:
The story of hurt as an insult, the judgment that the other person deserves pain and the momentum to take revenge, a feeling that can quickly turn from tempting to essential.
For the Stoics, anger is not to be bottled up as a raw force. It is viewed as a diagnostic issue. Becoming angry usually means a person has accepted a set of judgments:
I have been wronged, this injury is unacceptable and that person must be punished. Until their punishment is received, I cannot be at peace.
As soon as these judgments become accepted and unquestioned, anger becomes the directing force in a person’s mind. The task of the Stoic is not of course to act as if the injury did not occur, but to question the judgment, the proposed punishment and the underlying story about what led to the injury.
The first flash is not the verdict
The initial section of Seneca’s work on Anger outlines the form of anger at it’s most extreme:
The impulse that wants to hurt another, even if it injures the angry person in the process.
He describes this impulse as a form of “temporary insanity.” Although, angry thoughts can appear to be rational to those who have experienced it, anger has the power to hold sway over one’s focus, reduce the ability to see reality, and take away from the clarity necessary to make meaningful change.
Seneca does not attribute it to a lack of ownership over the emotional outpouring of his anger. In the second chapter of Seneca’s On Anger, Seneca presents three elements of anger.
First, there is an involuntary response or reaction. An alarmed response, flushed skin, muscle tightness, an inner sense that there is something wrong has occurred. In more modern terminology, this would probably be interpreted as the initial spark of anger. You see an insult, read an insulting message, have someone speak over top of you, or witness a child being treated cruelly. The physical (instinctual) responses to these events occur before you have formulated your thoughts into a coherent sentence.
Second, the natural response to an insult or attack is to seek revenge, which begins with the understanding that one needs to be avenged because of their injury. To put it another way, the initial response to an insult evolves into a story:
What has occurred, what it signifies, and what one should do
The final and most damaging stage of the process of anger is the stage where the angry individual goes beyond the rational justification for punishing the aggressor, and shifts into a position where they want redress simply to satisfy their revenge.
This distinction in anger has a significant effect on how one deals with angry feelings. The Stoic does not deny that he has experienced the initial burst of anger. That is a natural instinctive emotional response, which may provide some vital information as to the source of one’s anger (fear, sorrow, fatigue, shame, or unjust). However, the first wave of anger does not give guidance as to how one should finally respond to it. And this is where true emotional intelligence comes in …
“The first stage is the instinctive response of an individual, which is, as it were, a precursor to anger, and a sense of impending action” - Seneca, On Anger, Book 2.
The crucial space is the interval between feeling disturbed and deciding what the disturbance means. That is where diagnosis begins.
Anger’s hidden argument
Anger feels immediate, but is never that simple. Anger includes a logical basis for its emergence; it occurs so quickly that the angered individual will identify it as factual. This is due to the lack of self-awareness, lack of metacognition as it is called today.
As an example, someone cancels plans at the last minute. The person has cancelled, that’s a fact. However, the person who has cancelled may also be angry because they feels disrespected by the individual who cancelled, because this is something this individual does regularly, because they feel humiliated by the way they were treated, and because the person who cancelled doesn’t seem to understand that what they did caused the anger.
Now, consider another example: A colleague has objected to the proposal you submitted for approval. The colleague’s objection is a factual account of what happened. But the individual who objected may also be angry because they feel threatened that the proposer will be diminished by their objection, or if no one else speaks up against the proposer, then they will be viewed as weak.
The anger felt in either example may be true. It could also be an exaggeration, half-truth, or a fabrication. There could be many reasons behind it such as low self esteem, lack of confidence, etc. The Stoics taught that anger will make a ”decision” about someone, before fully examining the evidence or considering how to arrive at that conclusion.
Seneca provided a good example of how people form opinions about others while being angry. He cautioned that people develop anger about something, prior to arriving at a conclusion regarding whether or not the situation that caused the anger was a mistake. People may become angry as a result of suspicion, gossip, or even an interpretation of a facial expression or a smile, either positively or negatively.
A rule of thumb proposed by Seneca was to argue the case of the absent party against yourself. What he meant is, to imagine how the absent party will explain what they did, in response to you and/or your actions. It is important to realize that not every negative experience is a misunderstanding, and this exercise allows for the focus to remain on the facts, rather than seeking to assign blame.
The key to creating a strong basis for developing your personal freedom from anger is to be straightforward and truthful in identifying what happened. Rather than asking yourself what your anger wants you to do, or what action will satisfy your desire to be understood, identify what actually occurred and what you have inferred from it.
This is where you gain the first step of your freedom from anger.
Anger is not the same as justice
A frequent defence of the importance of anger suggests that without anger, injustice would go unpunished. The Stoics disagree with this view because they believe that anger does not possess the ability to judge proportionately, which of course is true. Any action when taken through an emotional state is 90% wrong.
What distinguishes humans from animals, is our reasoning and our pre frontal cortex.
For a just decision to be reached, a judge must have vision. A just decision is only possible when the judge has the ability to see, to know or to determine what the harm is, what the facts are, who has been harmed, what the limit of the harm is and how to make reparations to the person harmed and impose the appropriate punishment. Anger is a means to identify an injury, but it cannot be used as a means of making a decision about the remedy to be provided because of anger’s desire to see the person who has caused the injury suffer.
Seneca argues that an act of courage or of correction can be accomplished without the emotion of anger. A surgeon may perform a surgical procedure to remove something life-threatening without having hate for the person being operated on. A judge does not require an outpouring of rage in order to condemn a criminal. A parent does not need to have an explosive outburst to protect their child. While in all situations described, a decisive action is likely to be taken quickly (without delay) and may be viewed unfavourably by the person acting, the authority of the action taken is derived from the logical reasoning behind the action, not from the pleasure derived from “getting even.”
This distinction is significant for those who have either explicitly been told or implicitly understood that to be calm is to demonstrate a lack of strength. Examples of actions that can be taken without the person wishing physically to humiliate or destroy the other are the same as the examples provided previously: speaking plainly to another, ending a romantic relationship, documenting an act of wrongdoing, seeking redress via a lawsuit, filing a complaint with an employer, holding someone accountable for their actions, denying the person further access to the grievant person’s property, and many others.
The Stoic alternative to anger is not pacifism, it is the use of rational, logical, clear-eyed, disciplined action without the addition of inflating the emotional state due to feelings of retribution, vengeance or desire to take revenge on the wrongdoer.
Diagnosis before discharge
The term “letting it out” implies that anger builds up inside of us like pressure in a sealed up container, when we express it we think we cleanse ourselves and when we suppress it we put ourselves in danger. The common thought behind the warning against denial is true:
Ignored feelings can alter our behaviour indirectly and erode us over time
However, expressing emotions, makes them in the long run stronger and more frequent. In other words, it is also dangerous and bad for us. True emotional intelligence is when we observe, understand and take the power out of them.
So, Seneca’s description causes us to think in a more focused way. What feeling are we actually “letting out”? Are we to speak of a boundary? Are we to identify our grief? Are we to request security from our fear? Are we to acknowledge a humiliation? Or are we to express a desire to make another person feel less important than we feel?
These are not the same feelings and therefore they should not be treated the same way.
To diagnose our anger is not to turn it into a “thinking problem” or to make it an “intellectual riddle”. We need to give enough focus to our anger BUT as an observer so that we may discover what is prompting it. This is crucial to be an observer, otherwise you will just identify with it … again … making it stronger and loosing perspective.
Often the thing upon which our anger is focused, is not the person that currently has our anger. An interruption at work may tap into an old fear of not being taken seriously; A reckless driver may evoke a day full of fatigue; A misstep by our partner may have touched upon some expectation that we never communicated to them. Past memories, past experiences, supressed feelings, etc. are almost always behind every episode of anger.
OF course, none of this differs from the idea that there is nothing wrong with us being angry. It does illustrate that our initial target may not be the ultimate target of our anger.
Frequently we punish the most easily available target rather than finding the actual origin of the injury from which the anger has arisen.
In this way the Stoic pause is not a way to run from our emotions; it is a very careful way to approach the truth, the other person, and the part of us that the anger is attempting to protect.
The five questions of an anger diagnosis
When we experience feelings of anger, it can be beneficial to not view this emotion either as an aggressor or as commanding. By treating your anger as a witness, it is possible to examine, and critically assess, the testimony of this witness.
First, identify the event that occurred. You should state the observable event in a way that a neutral third party could interpret as fair. For example:
“They showed up 30 minutes late” is an observable event. “They don’t respect me” is an interpretation. When you begin with the observable event of “They showed up 30 minutes late”, the conclusion of “They don’t respect me” does not preclude your ability to draw that conclusion, but allows you to retain the credibility of the observable event and not confuse your interpretation as evidence.
Next, identify the harm. Did someone break a promise to you? Did someone cross the boundary? Were you in a compromising situation, or was there a betrayal of trust? Were you embarrassed? Were you excluded from something you needed? Once the underlying harm associated with the feeling of anger is identified, there will be less confusion about what the underlying issues are.
Third, what have I added to the story to create the story around the injury? This is to identify the issues of motive, meaning, predictability, and belief. By identifying the issues of motive, chance, and fear, you separate your interpretation from your evidence.
Fourth, what is the proper protective response to the injury? If the value you are protecting is honesty, then perhaps the next logical step is to have an honest conversation. If the value you are protecting is safety, then perhaps the course of action would be distance, documentation, seeking help, or a report. If the value you are protecting is dignity, then the course of action may be to refuse to engage in the degrading act as opposed to retaliating with a victory. The correct Stoic response is not necessarily the one that provides immediate satisfaction to the individual who’s feeling angry, but it is the response that protects the value of honesty, safety, or dignity without allowing anger to take over or off course.
Fifth and finally, allow time to elapse between when you are feeling angry and when you take action regarding the issue. Allowing time to pass will allow for more clarity regarding the action you are about to take and ensure that if there is any action taken, it is completed with a clear understanding as to whether the action taken.
The discipline of delay
Yesterday, I had a difficult conversation with someone whose recurring resentment, anger, avoidance of responsibility, and lack of accountability made a calm, constructive exchange impossible. I won’t speculate as to the causes of those patterns, nor do I need to diagnose them to recognise their effect on the conversation. When I saw the discussion beginning to escalate, I ended it promptly and respectfully. I named that the exchange was moving out of control, suggested allowing time for emotions to settle, and made clear that any further conversation would need to resume later, under calmer conditions.
Delay is one of the most underrated tools in Seneca’s toolbox. Seneca does not perceive delay as cowardice. Instead, Seneca sees that deliberately delaying a response to anger protects you from making a mistake by forming an opinion about something that you are too sure about too quickly. It gives you time for your conscience to take control and take yourself out of the control of your emotions.
Seneca states:
“We must often give a matter time to develop its true character.” - On Anger, Book II (translated by H. Samuel)
That means that the concept of “delay” applies to both public and private anger. Delay is not to say that all decisions need to be made slowly; nor is it to say that a person experiencing immediate danger should wait until the condition passes before acting. If you are at risk of harm, protect yourself and those around you. Get out of the situation to seek help, preserve the evidence, contact the authorities as needed, or use the appropriate channel to seek support and accountability from those in authority.
In the area of being insulted, suspected, or betrayed, delay allows the mind to regain its perspective from anger. Delay provides time for the mind to receive additional evidence regarding the anger. Delay allows the body to settle down so that you may differentiate between the force of anger and the clarity of reason. Delay allows you to formulate a response to the event, which you can look at later and still feel it was a response that you made.
A good rule of thumb is to delay revenge, but not your right to defend yourself. You can defend your boundaries without necessarily wishing to hurt anyone. You can act with decisiveness, but not make a final judgement. You can say, “I will no longer put up with this,” while acknowledging that you do not yet fully understand the reasons for the event.
What Stoicism asks of anger
Rather than simply instructing us to be more cautious when expressing our anger, Stoic philosophy ultimately teaches that fully developed anger is an error in judgment, representing our misplaced judgement about the value we place upon how others treat us. In addition, it attaches undue significance to our desire for revenge.
This conclusion may seem harsh to many contemporary readers but does offer some degree of discipline. This thought-provoking assertion allows us to consider whether we are driven by values or by the desire for retribution and/or punishment (i.e., vengeance).
The Stoic approach to addressing anger is not based on having an expressionless face or living a life quietly. Stoics anticipate us to be able to experience disruptive emotional states and then to maintain their sense of judgement based on that experience. They encourage us to actively engage in understanding what caused the initial emotional response, to search for the rationale that led to it, to find any extenuating circumstances, and finally to choose a response that does not add to our frustration for ourselves.
In the experience of anger, we learn that it is indicating something of importance. In order to discern what is important about it, we need to use reason.
By Dr Ioannis Syrigos
References
Seneca. Of Anger (De Ira), Book I. Translated by Aubrey Stewart. Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Anger/Book_I
Seneca. Of Anger (De Ira), Book II. Translated by Aubrey Stewart. Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Anger/Book_II
Durand, Martin. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/