In Martha Craven Nussbaum’s article, “Aristotle on Emotions and Rational Persuasion”, I was particularly intrigued by one line. Nussbaum, in consolidating Aristotle’s views on emotions and rational persuasion (views which seem, at times, to conflict each other) states that “Anger is said to be a necessary motivation for defending things that are beloved—presumably because anger is seen as an acknowledgment that the item damaged has importance and without that acknowledgment one will have no reason to defend it.” (Nussbaum 316).
For me, this seems to be a critical and often overlooked reality of the modern world. We are quick to discount anger as counter-productive. As we read in our courses’ earlier texts, American society presents logic and rationality as the only legitimate bases for decisions. This flies in the face of the real decision-making process (from a neurological perspective), as Walker notes when he reminds us that those with “no-affect… would have difficulty forming any motive or intention whatsoever, would be in a state of profound indifference.” (Walker 84). So, a person who has no emotional dispositions, rather than being the epitome of the rational decision-maker, is nearly catatonic with indecisiveness.
In class, one student said something along the lines of “anger always gets such a bad rap, but in my opinion it’s the most important emotion to invoke in an audience” (If you said this, and I’ve mis-paraphrased please correct me!). My immediate, internal reaction was one of disapproval. Anger, it seems, has all-too-often been used to the detriment of rational “good” decisions. Hitler’s defamation of Jewish people would be the common example. But after reading Walker and Nussbaum, I’m beginning to think that anger may be crucial in discourse. After all, a lack of anger is indicative of a lack of values, an absence of things that are acknowledged as important (According to the first quote above). I’m beginning to see anger as a necessary expression of values, rather than the loss of rationality. So in reference to the common example, it now seems that our anger at Hitler (‘s anger) is a manifestation of the importance we place upon life, and compassion, over hatred. Anger at injustice and hatred, then, seems to serve the protection of justice and compassion/love. Maybe we need a little anger, then, to make rational decisions.
You are right in your point that we are quick to judge anger as counter-productive. Before reading this article, I never considered that anger could be used as a motivator to defend the items we value. Now that I am thinking about it, I think a perfect example of this idea would be the visual that Sean chose for his analysis. His image was a propaganda poster from World War II that featured images of a leering Hitler, burning church, dead mother and father, and bloody child. When someone looks at this poster they are provoked with anger at the horrors occurring in the scene. The anger is towards our values, religion and family, being destroyed. After viewing the image, men were more likely to enlist in the army to protect the values they cherish. So it does seem accurate to say that anger can show us what we value and are willing to defend in our lives.
ReplyDeleteIt seems strange that we are often taught to put our emotions aside when trying to persuade an audience. I agree that persons with “no-affect” are not going to be persuasive rhetoricians. Personally, I feel that when people show their true emotions, it gives them a real and enduring quality which makes me believe them more. Emotions, including anger, are probably the most important aspect in convincing an audience. I don’t think the World War II propaganda poster would have been as effective if it were to have no visuals and just state: If you want, join the war.
In response to:
ReplyDelete" Walker... reminds us that those with “no-affect… would have difficulty forming any motive or intention whatsoever, would be in a state of profound indifference.” (Walker 84). So, a person who has no emotional dispositions, rather than being the epitome of the rational decision-maker, is nearly catatonic with indecisiveness."
I'm glad you chose to include this line. I certainly noticed it when I read it and thought it was interesting--largely from a personal perspective. I do not experience a wide range of emotions, nor to I experience emotions with much intensity. Rather, my emotions seem to materialize in physical ailments (feeling nauseous when I'm nervous, and having auto-immune reactions in periods of high stress). I also have an *enormous* amount of trouble making even the simplest of decisions. I have friends who are highly emotional, who also seem to have little trouble making decisions. They "go with their gut," I suppose you could say. While I, not having many "gut feelings" to "go with", do often feel "catatonic with indecisiveness."
When it comes to making critical decisions in life, I often find myself trying to ignore my emotions in order to be reasonable. But as you point out here, reasonable decision-making and emotional disposition are not mutually exclusive; rather, quite the contrary: the former is needed for the latter to occur. I guess I should be glad that I have emotions to help me make decisions.
ReplyDeleteTo your point about anger:
Responding with anger (or any emotion for that matter) is an expression of our values and indicates that we are moral, feeling human. And while feeling some anger may be useful in reasonable decision-making, I believe Aristotle would be quick to caution us. Aristotle acknowledged that emotions could be experienced inappropriately, which could lead to un-virtuous action. As we all know emotions (particularly anger) can escalate uncontrollably, leading us to perform actions we later regret. So, while responding with anger might indicate to us that there is injustice/hatred going on, it may also lead us to act out in unreasonable ways (eg. violence). I think you were smart to put "a little" (indicating restraint) before "anger" in your final sentence.
I'd say that anger is really a vitally import part of any decision making process. The thing about anger is that it must be controlled and properly mediated. Anger is something that tells us that we are having a reaction to what is occurring - like you said, lack of reaction is essentially a signal of a lack of values. Anger is the alarm bell that indicates to you that something is objectionable and needs to be addressed. That said, I do not endorse provoking anger as a vehicle for violence or hatred or anything like that - but that said, there are few motivators as strong as anger if properly used. For an example, think of the civil rights movement. People who go out to march and protest in the face of police armed with water cannons and attack dogs don't do so because of logic and rationality - they have looked at the situation in some way and are angry that it is the situation. As a result they are willing to go out and risk bodily harm to change it. The same could be said of most protest movements - the sensation of anger at the status quo is the driving factor for change. Back on the more personal level, if a *good* rhetor, as in one not attempting to deceive you for his own good, is able to evoke anger from you, there are few better indicators that on some level you are dissatisfied or opposed to whatever it may be that the speaker is talking about.
ReplyDelete