Article Digest: "Anger's Role in Society"
Santangelo, P. (2015). 19 Anger and Rage in Traditional Chinese Culture. Discourses of Anger in the Early Modern Period, 458–485. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004300835_020
(Article available here.)
In his essay, Santangelo does two things: first, he presented the concepts of "anger" in traditional Chinese literature and second, he situated these concepts in the patriarchal, Confucian, traditional Chinese society. The former is an exploration of the different words that the Chinese language uses to encapsulate varying concepts of "anger". Santangelo presented four basic words: nù, or the common concept of anger; qì, or passive irritation; nǎo, or building annoyance; and chēn, or getting angry quickly. (Note that I will not supply the given Chinese characters in the article because I am afraid I might misuse them.) Three other words are enumerated: fèn, or righteous indignation; yuàn, or resentment; and hèn, or hatred. The definitions of these terms are constructed through examination of their usages in traditional Chinese literature.
In his examinations, Santangelo showed consistently how each of these terms have a range of definitions instead of one specific denotation. According to literature, nù is closely linked with rage or violent anger. There is a tendency to perceive nù as negative, as persons experiencing such are illustrated to behave negatively, such as world destructive and self-destructive behavior. While also reflecting anger, qì leans to the side of passive-aggression. Literature uses qì when it needs to express anger that is bottled up inside a person, which usually ends up poorly for him or her. In contrast, nǎo and chēn are concerned with quick nature of anger.
Fèn, yuàn, and hèn are also used for expressing the concept of anger, but literature tends to use them in relation to different levels of righteous anger. Fèn is closest to indignation, as it is anger in response injustice. For example, a compound of fèn is used to illustrate the anger of the masses against corrupt public officers. Some literature even suggested that fèn is necessary as it is a positive type of anger. Yuàn and hèn are expressions of hatred and resentment. Like fèn, both yuàn and hèn are anger out of injustice; the difference is that yuàn and hèn are more concerned with the long-lasting sensation of hate towards injustice.
It is important to note that while these terms technically appear to have their certain directions for their representations of anger, their usage tends to blur the lines. Nù and qì can also mean righteous indignation like fèn. Fèn can also be an expression of negative anger like nù. It is difficult to distinguish between yuàn and hèn until their compounds are compared. These ambiguities reflect how heavily reliant the terms are with their usage and context. Fortunately, Santangelo does not only have a plethora of source literature, but he is also patient with connecting the dots among usages from different pieces of literature.
In the latter part of the essay, Santangelo connects these concepts of anger into the traditional Chinese context. As I have construed, the traditional Chinese literature represent the dual nature of anger: instinctual anger (from the usage of nù, qì, nǎo, and chēn) and moralist anger (from the usage of fèn, yuàn, and hèn). On one hand, instinctual anger is anger framed as an knee-jerk gut-feeling reaction. It is understood as a basic human emotion, along with joy and sadness. Instinctual anger is attributed negatively, as violent destructive behavior are associated with it. On the other hand, moralist anger perceives anger as an appropriate response to certain situations, especially those of humiliation and injustice. It is an acceptance that there are indeed points in humans' lives where they must feel anger. Anger is a result of life being generally unfair. This sort of framing paints the positive nature of anger, because without such moralist anger, it would be easy to cheat and abuse people.
The duality of anger, as simultaneously negative and positive, is of particular interest with Chinese literature in the context of a patriarchal, imperial, and Confucian society. Patriarchy in China would demote female anger as a distraction to male leadership and work efficiency. The anger of females are only acted upon whenever there is blatant injustice done by males. China as an imperial nation would incorporate the concept of anger in its political rituals as a sort of justification for state disciplinary policies. At times, it would backfire when the masses were dissatisfied with the state control apparatus, re-framing anger by claiming that the gods' wrath had been inflicted upon the government because the government is oppressive. Confucianism would affect Chinese society's perception of anger by its attempts to restrain society's anger completely. This is because Confucianism preaches of harmonious living, a lifestyle with no space for violent rage. Santangelo found interesting reactions on this from the Chinese: the Chinese would fail to live the dogma of harmony in the face of injustices, so they would either press astounding dissent, or they would imagine an perfect judicial system in the afterlife where no injustice would go unpunished. All in all, these are brief descriptions of the dynamics of traditional Chinese society with their concept of anger.
I have three brief comments on this article: 1. Santangelo trod carefully with connecting literature and culture, 2. Anger, or any emotion, is a positively peculiar topic for academic essays, and 3. The implications of anger's role in Chinese society holds water even in contemporary societies.
One of the premises of this article is the connection between literature and culture. In general, Santangelo used literature to ascertain an understanding of "anger" as a socio-cultural Chinese phenomenon. Santangelo is careful with this particular connection. He would state that while his lexical analysis is able to create a concept of "anger," such concept is merely a representation of the specificities of the actual phenomenon. I think this cautious disclaimer deserves credit, as I also believe that literature can only determine so much.
I mentioned in my Arrival review (link here) that language is a reflection of cultural identity because embedded within language are the realities of one's existence. Language, however, is merely a tool for communication. One of its products is literature. Literature, in comparison, is an expression of cultural identity. In literature, language is used as a tool to create an image of the cultural truths in a certain space-time. Literature is akin to a selfie: it captures a moment in the ever-evolving and ever-changing reality that is culture. Literature cannot entirely represent culture in as much as a selfie cannot entirely capture real life.
However, there are specificities in a selfie that we can hold true for that certain moment. Santangelo tried to grasp these specificities by examining how language was used--which is, in our selfie analogy, the elements that make a selfie like color, filter, and framing. Such specificities would then become important keys in understanding how it was in the past. I like how Santangelo reserved a few paragraphs to clarify this premise, as I think it is a vital piece to move forward from analyzing literature to corresponding results with culture.
The choice of topic in this article is interesting. The article talked of the emotion of anger, a fleeting and fluid phenomenon. Anger is not as rigid as rituals or even, behavior. It is difficult to contain in a single definition even if it is universal. So, how did Santangelo even clutch the water that is anger? It is slyly plain; he only worked out anger only to the extent of what literature is able to present. This way, literature would serve as the parameters where analysis of an emotion can ensue. In contrast, if an academic endeavor on the topic of anger would try to contain "anger" in real life, such endeavor would deal with degrees and directions that are ambiguous at best. With literature analysis, the emotion is already construed in a relatively controlled manner, in as far as the motivation behind the literature is concerned. For instance, if the literature is telling a creative story about the destructive nature of anger, then the analysis can operate in this negative connotation of anger.
Finally, I think that the implications of this study is not lost on contemporary societies. Traditional Chinese society, according to this article, perceives anger as an ambiguous emotion. On one hand, it can spur meaningless violence that is unhelpful and destructive. On the other hand, it is a righteous and rather expected reaction towards certain situations. The key that breaks that deadlock is the duration of anger. Anger is not a wise advisor; anger can be a morally correct reaction, but it should not make decisions for you. So while it is justified to be indignant at times, it is improper to sustain such anger to the point where it leads the way. Therefore, anger is generally a negative emotion.
The positive aspect of anger lies behind the reason for getting angry. Morally acceptable anger is determined by which situation anger sprung out of. During injustices, anger is an acceptable reaction. However, during petty frustrations, anger should be nipped in the bud. Therefore, the key is to observe which things makes us angry. Are we frustrated by forgivable circumstances? Are we indignant with continuously oppressive authority? Are you dissatisfied with your current life? We need to evaluate whether our reasons for anger actually do deserve such strong emotion. A careful control of anger can lead to a rather positive way of being angry, which feels like a normative goal that contemporary society has overlooked.
(Article available here.)
In his essay, Santangelo does two things: first, he presented the concepts of "anger" in traditional Chinese literature and second, he situated these concepts in the patriarchal, Confucian, traditional Chinese society. The former is an exploration of the different words that the Chinese language uses to encapsulate varying concepts of "anger". Santangelo presented four basic words: nù, or the common concept of anger; qì, or passive irritation; nǎo, or building annoyance; and chēn, or getting angry quickly. (Note that I will not supply the given Chinese characters in the article because I am afraid I might misuse them.) Three other words are enumerated: fèn, or righteous indignation; yuàn, or resentment; and hèn, or hatred. The definitions of these terms are constructed through examination of their usages in traditional Chinese literature.
In his examinations, Santangelo showed consistently how each of these terms have a range of definitions instead of one specific denotation. According to literature, nù is closely linked with rage or violent anger. There is a tendency to perceive nù as negative, as persons experiencing such are illustrated to behave negatively, such as world destructive and self-destructive behavior. While also reflecting anger, qì leans to the side of passive-aggression. Literature uses qì when it needs to express anger that is bottled up inside a person, which usually ends up poorly for him or her. In contrast, nǎo and chēn are concerned with quick nature of anger.
Fèn, yuàn, and hèn are also used for expressing the concept of anger, but literature tends to use them in relation to different levels of righteous anger. Fèn is closest to indignation, as it is anger in response injustice. For example, a compound of fèn is used to illustrate the anger of the masses against corrupt public officers. Some literature even suggested that fèn is necessary as it is a positive type of anger. Yuàn and hèn are expressions of hatred and resentment. Like fèn, both yuàn and hèn are anger out of injustice; the difference is that yuàn and hèn are more concerned with the long-lasting sensation of hate towards injustice.
It is important to note that while these terms technically appear to have their certain directions for their representations of anger, their usage tends to blur the lines. Nù and qì can also mean righteous indignation like fèn. Fèn can also be an expression of negative anger like nù. It is difficult to distinguish between yuàn and hèn until their compounds are compared. These ambiguities reflect how heavily reliant the terms are with their usage and context. Fortunately, Santangelo does not only have a plethora of source literature, but he is also patient with connecting the dots among usages from different pieces of literature.
In the latter part of the essay, Santangelo connects these concepts of anger into the traditional Chinese context. As I have construed, the traditional Chinese literature represent the dual nature of anger: instinctual anger (from the usage of nù, qì, nǎo, and chēn) and moralist anger (from the usage of fèn, yuàn, and hèn). On one hand, instinctual anger is anger framed as an knee-jerk gut-feeling reaction. It is understood as a basic human emotion, along with joy and sadness. Instinctual anger is attributed negatively, as violent destructive behavior are associated with it. On the other hand, moralist anger perceives anger as an appropriate response to certain situations, especially those of humiliation and injustice. It is an acceptance that there are indeed points in humans' lives where they must feel anger. Anger is a result of life being generally unfair. This sort of framing paints the positive nature of anger, because without such moralist anger, it would be easy to cheat and abuse people.
The duality of anger, as simultaneously negative and positive, is of particular interest with Chinese literature in the context of a patriarchal, imperial, and Confucian society. Patriarchy in China would demote female anger as a distraction to male leadership and work efficiency. The anger of females are only acted upon whenever there is blatant injustice done by males. China as an imperial nation would incorporate the concept of anger in its political rituals as a sort of justification for state disciplinary policies. At times, it would backfire when the masses were dissatisfied with the state control apparatus, re-framing anger by claiming that the gods' wrath had been inflicted upon the government because the government is oppressive. Confucianism would affect Chinese society's perception of anger by its attempts to restrain society's anger completely. This is because Confucianism preaches of harmonious living, a lifestyle with no space for violent rage. Santangelo found interesting reactions on this from the Chinese: the Chinese would fail to live the dogma of harmony in the face of injustices, so they would either press astounding dissent, or they would imagine an perfect judicial system in the afterlife where no injustice would go unpunished. All in all, these are brief descriptions of the dynamics of traditional Chinese society with their concept of anger.
I have three brief comments on this article: 1. Santangelo trod carefully with connecting literature and culture, 2. Anger, or any emotion, is a positively peculiar topic for academic essays, and 3. The implications of anger's role in Chinese society holds water even in contemporary societies.
One of the premises of this article is the connection between literature and culture. In general, Santangelo used literature to ascertain an understanding of "anger" as a socio-cultural Chinese phenomenon. Santangelo is careful with this particular connection. He would state that while his lexical analysis is able to create a concept of "anger," such concept is merely a representation of the specificities of the actual phenomenon. I think this cautious disclaimer deserves credit, as I also believe that literature can only determine so much.
I mentioned in my Arrival review (link here) that language is a reflection of cultural identity because embedded within language are the realities of one's existence. Language, however, is merely a tool for communication. One of its products is literature. Literature, in comparison, is an expression of cultural identity. In literature, language is used as a tool to create an image of the cultural truths in a certain space-time. Literature is akin to a selfie: it captures a moment in the ever-evolving and ever-changing reality that is culture. Literature cannot entirely represent culture in as much as a selfie cannot entirely capture real life.
However, there are specificities in a selfie that we can hold true for that certain moment. Santangelo tried to grasp these specificities by examining how language was used--which is, in our selfie analogy, the elements that make a selfie like color, filter, and framing. Such specificities would then become important keys in understanding how it was in the past. I like how Santangelo reserved a few paragraphs to clarify this premise, as I think it is a vital piece to move forward from analyzing literature to corresponding results with culture.
The choice of topic in this article is interesting. The article talked of the emotion of anger, a fleeting and fluid phenomenon. Anger is not as rigid as rituals or even, behavior. It is difficult to contain in a single definition even if it is universal. So, how did Santangelo even clutch the water that is anger? It is slyly plain; he only worked out anger only to the extent of what literature is able to present. This way, literature would serve as the parameters where analysis of an emotion can ensue. In contrast, if an academic endeavor on the topic of anger would try to contain "anger" in real life, such endeavor would deal with degrees and directions that are ambiguous at best. With literature analysis, the emotion is already construed in a relatively controlled manner, in as far as the motivation behind the literature is concerned. For instance, if the literature is telling a creative story about the destructive nature of anger, then the analysis can operate in this negative connotation of anger.
Finally, I think that the implications of this study is not lost on contemporary societies. Traditional Chinese society, according to this article, perceives anger as an ambiguous emotion. On one hand, it can spur meaningless violence that is unhelpful and destructive. On the other hand, it is a righteous and rather expected reaction towards certain situations. The key that breaks that deadlock is the duration of anger. Anger is not a wise advisor; anger can be a morally correct reaction, but it should not make decisions for you. So while it is justified to be indignant at times, it is improper to sustain such anger to the point where it leads the way. Therefore, anger is generally a negative emotion.
The positive aspect of anger lies behind the reason for getting angry. Morally acceptable anger is determined by which situation anger sprung out of. During injustices, anger is an acceptable reaction. However, during petty frustrations, anger should be nipped in the bud. Therefore, the key is to observe which things makes us angry. Are we frustrated by forgivable circumstances? Are we indignant with continuously oppressive authority? Are you dissatisfied with your current life? We need to evaluate whether our reasons for anger actually do deserve such strong emotion. A careful control of anger can lead to a rather positive way of being angry, which feels like a normative goal that contemporary society has overlooked.
Comments
Post a Comment