meditation and mindfulness

Anger Without Attack. Anger Without Attack:

Anger as a Relateful Force for Intelligent Action

Abstract

A common psychological belief suggests that beneath anger lies sadness, implying that emotional maturity involves dropping anger in favor of grief and acceptance.  While this can sometimes be the healthiest course of emotional evolution, I argue that this framing is frequently overused and can be a form of bypassing–one that neutralizes a vital energy of action-taking.

This article explores anger as a necessary, protective, and prosocial force when done in a Relateful way.  Drawing on Relational Life Therapy (RLT), developmental psychology, and applied relational practice, I propose that the task is not to eliminate anger, but to temper and aim it.  Immature anger leads to attack by following impulsive whims; suppressed anger leads to withdrawal and loveless relationships.  Mature anger enables intelligent action: action oriented towards goodness for self, loved ones, and even the target of our anger.

I outline practical methods for working with anger, including clarifying positive goals, softening excess intensity to get to manageable levels through empathy, and removing language that causes defensiveness while becoming more influential.  Particular attention is given to romantic relationships in which one partner avoids anger to keep the comfort, which inadvertently reinforces harmful patterns from the other partner.

Rather than framing sadness as the “truth beneath anger,” this paper positions anger as a signal of violated values or unmet needs–one that, when used skillfully, supports healthier relationships and creates more goodness in the world.

—-—-

Author Information

Author: Shane Orton

Background: Relatefulness facilitator; experience in personal development, therapeutic models (RLT, NLP, NARM), and meditation practices (Mindfulness, Vipassana, Metta, Heart Coherence Technique, Focusing by Eugene Gendlin)

Affiliation: Relateful

Contact: shaneorton12@gmail.com

———

Introduction: Is Sadness Really Underneath Anger?

A commonly repeated phrase in emotional work is that underneath anger is sadness.  There is truth here, but also a risk.

When we stop trying to change a situation or influence another person, we may indeed find grief–an energy of accepting reality.  We mourn what we cannot have.  At times, this is not only appropriate, but necessary.  For example, if we are angry at our father, but he has passed.

This is often misapplied because sadness can have us more well-liked than when we are angry.  In many cases, moving prematurely into sadness functions as a form of emotional bypassing–one that dissolves anger when action is needed.

If our child is being attacked, parental anger is not something to let go of, but something to mobilize.  It’s when the impulses that anger brings aren’t helpful that anger is made out to be the bad guy.

The question is not whether anger is good or bad, but whether it is utilized with mature handling.

———

The Function of Anger: Action-Taking

Anger exists to signal violation and mobilize energy toward change.  The energy of anger is not only useful, but essential–provided it is regulated and focused.

The problem is not the energy of anger itself.  The problem is when the impulses of anger are allowed to reign while the wiser self is unclear of how to aim towards goals of goodness.  The impulses want to attack, the wiser self wants to influence.

Healthy anger:

• Has a clear purpose
• Is directed toward protection or change
• Does not give in to impulses to humiliate or destroy

The goal is not to eliminate anger through resignation, but to bring it to a manageable level so that it can be used for intelligent action.

Intelligent action means acting with clarity and intention–not using anger as a weapon, but as fuel.

———

Why Sadness Is Often Chosen Over Anger

Why do people try to default to sadness rather than anger?

One reason is likeability.  Many people experience themselves as controlling, hurtful, and less influential when angry while they are more persuasive when they are sad.  

Another reason is the safety of keeping relationships.  Anger risks burning bridges, which is especially scary when relating to a romantic partner.  Sadness, on the other hand, invites care.

Choosing sadness isn’t always wrong.  I am arguing that it is sometimes overused, especially when anger can be the healthier choice.  For example, in Relational Life Therapy (RLT), they often nudge the partner that chooses to bypass anger to instead use it for the good of the relationship before the relationship becomes loveless.

The cost of bypassing anger is inaction–when action is what the situation calls for.

———

Clarifying Anger: Aiming the Goal Toward Goodness

A Relateful approach to anger begins with looking inward to see the goodness in its intention.

Before acting, look for:

• What value(s) am I protecting?
• What do I want them to know?
• What do I want changed?
• Who is this action for?  (Me?  A loved one? The relationship?)

When the goal is clear, the task is to stay loyal to the goal rather than the impulse to harm, insult, or control.

Anger can come with destructive impulses.  These impulses are survival instincts and are not trustworthy on their own.  The energy is useful; the impulses are not.

———

Softening Anger Without Losing it: The Role of Empathy

When anger becomes too intense to use cleanly, it can be softened with empathy.  The intention is not to erase anger, but to bring it to manageable levels.

Empathy does not mean excusing improper behaviors or giving up on taking action.  It means seeing the humanity of the target of your anger so that your response is more informed and influential.

For example, if someone is behaving narcissistically, you might imagine them as a child who received false empowerment–undeserved praise with poor parental guidance.  This does not mean pity or forgiveness, but provides context that can allow more maturity in our anger.

Contexts increases influence.

When we understand where a behavior comes from–even if we made up the reasons for a behavior ourselves–we can act more strategically than reactively.

———

Relational Life Therapy (RLT): the Cost of Suppressed Anger

RLT offers a useful lens here.  Oftentimes, RLT finds that one partner is suppressing anger in order to keep things comfortable.  This usually backfires.

The partner who avoids anger creates a dynamic where the other partner can continue harmful behaviors without consequence.  This may keep the relationship in the short-term, but often leads to less love from the harmed partner, which leads to a loveless relationship.

RLT encourages the less empowered partner to tap into their anger to speak up, name the bad behaviors, and create discomfort–risking the relationship in order to heal the relationship.

Discomfort, in this way, is not cruelty, but a path back to love and healing.

When comfort is removed, change becomes necessary.

———

Anger Without Insults: Unblocking Influence

One practical rule dramatically increases the effectiveness of our anger: remove insults.

The impulse to call someone an idiot, jerk, or child is understandable–especially when we want the other to feel the pain we’re feeling.  However, it creates defensiveness more than invites openings for influence.

Instead:

• Name the behavior you dislike.
• Name the impact it has.
• Give an alternative behavior that aligns with their desires.

For example, rather than calling someone an idiot, you could say:

• “I don’t think you’ve thought this through.”
• “I want you to research this more before deciding.”
• (Or, the hardest one to say.) “I know you’re smart and I think you’ve been fed false information.”

This will probably be difficult.  But information that comes with ego-wounding remarks are more likely to be rejected with the message itself.  Information that comes with ego-boosting respect is more likely to be well-received and influence.

The objective isn’t to fight their ego, but to make the change that aligns with your goal.

———

Conclusion: Anger as a Relateful Skill

Anger doesn’t have to be uncaring.  When integrated maturely, anger is a tool of love.

The work is not to let go of anger in favor of sadness, but to develop the skill to use anger for good–to soften it to manageable levels, clarify its goals, and keep it aimed on the right path without letting impulses to hurt take over.

Relateful anger includes humanization of the other, confronts with honesty without burning bridges, and creates the conditions for influential change.

———

Originality Statement

This work is original, has not been published elsewhere, and represents the author’s own thinking and experience.

Conflicts of Interest.

None.

Permissions

Any illustrative examples are hypothetical.

Resources

• Us: Getting Past Me and You to Build a More Loving Relationship by Terrence Real

From Brain into Body. When not knowing what to do next, rather then trying to logically figure it out with your brain, ask your body... 

what do you desire? 

See where it takes you

Relatefulness vs Circling. I've been discovering distinctions and felt-senses of Relatefulness that seem to differ from how I know Circling. My short catch phrase is: "If meditation is the art of being, and Circling is the art of being-with, then Relatefulness is the art of being-human-with."

I like this, it's short and sweet. I can't tell what Relatefulness really is vs what I'm making it and, given that I'm a founding member, it doesn't matter. I'm gonna bully these points.

Jane Goodall is in more Flows than she is in Surrendered Leadership. Helping behavior, care, needs, art, and the building of infracstructure are welcomed in Relatefulness. One thing I notice about Circling, if person A offers person B something, person A is (at least culturally) more likely to ask, "What's underneath it for you?", as if they're asking, "What's this cocaine cut with?" It's rarely believed in Circling if the underneath isn't negative. If the offering Circler says, "Care", then most Circlers assume a spiritual bypass and probably imagine being less sexually attractive (sarcasm). In Relatefulness I'm creating that, Person A offers Person B something, Person B, taking notes from Hannah Taylor, feels whether accepting feels like comfort and then accepts or declines accordingly. 

In Relatefulness we let the responsibility for shadow-hunting be with the one offering. It's a huge leap to believe that accepting something is bad because the offer had some shadow somewhere inside of it. It's actually a ridiculous leap. It's stupid. The shadow could just as easily be ameliorated by seeing its energy flow generatively or made worse by non-rational repetitive rejection.

Boom. Suck it. (I don't know who I'm angry at....myself.)

Last night as I was leading lab it felt amazing. I was watching them float in and out of chit chat. The thing that wasn't in and out was everything they were talking about was meaningful. There wasn't anyone there, besides a voice in my mind, that was tracking whether they were using speech patterns of immediacy, "Being here now, I feel like my balls haven't descended." They were just talking. I did not police it because it felt so fucking good. We're monkeys and we feel good. What I did do was use immediacy leaning language and speak it between people. I let people see the effect and never brought up them following. If it's good and it works then they'll follow at their aligned speed.

I stayed in slight vigilance as the thing in my brain that polices immediacy, or is on the lookout from being policed, slowly calmed down. It was beautiful.

In short, Relatefulness is more about being monkeys than monks, healthy than right, in alignment than understood.

Pass the bananas!

A Jhana rabbit hole. Someone on X/Twitter introduced me to a meditation retreat company called Jhourneys that focuses on helping people get into Jhana states. Apparently there are different stages of Jhana. People describe them as states of euphoria, bliss, joy, and contentment that stay with you and some have shared that they have more capacity to be with the harder more challenging aspects of everyday life.

Any one have any experience with Jhanas?

Last night I listened a podcast featuring a guest who has been experiencing these states since the early 80s. (https://jhourney.transistor.fm/episodes/being-happier-than-you-ever-realized-for-no-apparent-reason-leigh-brasington) The energetic transmission was profound.

I’m really curious to learn more.

Are We Ever Awake/Free/Thriving Enough To Not Practice? Through the years, I’ve had periods in my life where I feel so overwhelmingly good that all my daily spiritual practices (yoga, meditation, prayer, Big Mind process, relatefulness, spiritual study, etc) fall to the wayside.

When I feel super awake, connected to everyone and everything, able to flow with whatever is happening, in an unshakeable trust that Basic Goodness is all there is, it’s really easy for me to go: Well, this is it. I’m done. No point in doing any practice of any kind anymore. And that’s not to say that I abandon practice entirely. I still lead my sessions online a few times a week or whatever, but the underlying attitude in me is this is all optional.

And yet, the feedback that I keep getting from Life is that I do, in fact, need practice.

There’s something about making the daily commitment to presence, to myself, to Spirit, and dedicating one or several periods of my day to some form of spiritual practice that is just so nourishing.

And when I stop doing it, it’s like if I stop doing physical exercise. After a while things start feeling kinda stagnant, and my way of being in my life gets wonky. I’m more likely to make choices that could hurt me and the people close to me.

I’m grateful that I can always come back to the routine of one or more daily practices. It feels healthy. : )

Are We Ever Awake/Free/Thriving Enough To Not Practice? Through the years, I’ve had periods in my life where I feel so overwhelmingly good that all my daily spiritual practices (yoga, meditation, prayer, Big Mind process, relatefulness, spiritual study, etc) fall to the wayside.

When I feel super awake, connected to everyone and everything, able to flow with whatever is happening, in an unshakeable trust that Basic Goodness is all there is, it’s really easy for me to go: Well, this is it. I’m done. No point in doing any practice of any kind anymore. And that’s not to say that I abandon practice entirely. I still lead my sessions online a few times a week or whatever, but the underlying attitude in me is this is all optional.

And yet, the feedback that I keep getting from Life is that I do, in fact, need practice.

There’s something about making the daily commitment to presence, to myself, to Spirit, and dedicating one or several periods of my day to some form of spiritual practice that is just so nourishing.

And when I stop doing it, it’s like if I stop doing physical exercise. After a while things start feeling kinda stagnant, and my way of being in my life gets wonky. I’m more likely to make choices that could hurt me and the people close to me.

I’m grateful that I can always come back to the routine of one or more daily practices. It feels healthy. : )