Recently, when driving to town, a set of traffic lights changed to amber. Being a rule-abiding sort, I stopped. Checking the rear-view mirror, I could see that the driver behind appeared to be suffering a fit. His arms were waving around and his head was shaking violently from side to side.
The penny dropped; it was a fit all right: of anger. I had upset him by stopping for an amber light, preventing him going through on red. Surprise, surprise, he was driving a SUV–type vehicle, large enough to house a family of four. He overtook me at the first opportunity; cue more head shaking. Resisting a Churchillian response, I consoled myself with research findings that part of the male anatomy is inversely proportional to the size of the owner’s car. Before you ask, a Vauxhall Corsa.
But I digress. Why are so many people angry these days? I’m not talking about what has sadly, become everyday rudeness. It’s, “You looking at me, pal?”, full-in-your-face anger. Road workers are routinely abused by drivers delayed a few minutes. Retail and hospitality staff encounter aggressive customers on a daily basis. Nurses, doctors and ambulance personnel are physically threatened. The NHS has become a target for anger rather than respect. It’s probably nothing new. Twenty years ago, the Guardian was asking why we were becoming so intolerant. Nevertheless, we seem even less willing nowadays to live and let live.
Partly, it’s due to ignorance and anger becoming legitimised. High profile figures such as Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson pride themselves on being rude. Clarkson was fired by the BBC in 2016 following a hissy fit about the absence of hot food. He recently described a neighbour as a “deluded fool”.
Similar comments and observations fuel anger amongst the more impressionable in society. Morgan, Clarkson and the rest, doubtless view their takes on life as witty and harmless, but they shape the opinions and behaviour of readers and followers. It’s relatively easy to tap into a rich vein of anger by adopting a “non-politically correct” stance. The prime minister’s past comments about picaninnies, watermelon smiles and Muslim women resembling letterboxes, appear to have inflicted little political damage. The non-politically correct have become the patron saints of the angry.
Cursory examination of “have your say” social media sites reveals a cesspit of bile as contributors launch personal attacks on fellow posters they will never meet or know. Twitter, Facebook and the rest present publicly as sounding boards for reasoned debate, but in truth, they are megaphones for anger and hate. Social media encourages vulnerable people to reveal more about themselves than they should, allowing the emotionally stunted to invade their lives with hurtful and hateful comments.
It’s particularly unfortunate that Twitter and Facebook have become politicians’ preferred method of communication with the electorate. As ex-president Trump demonstrated daily, it’s impossible to present a reasoned argument in 280 characters. But it’s enough to spread lies and intolerance and inflame already angry people. The march on Washington was a stark demonstration of what can happen when anger becomes the dominant emotion.
Of course, it’s not an exclusively American phenomenon. In the UK, populist politicians such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage took advantage of what Professor David Andress of Portsmouth University calls “cultural dementia”. They sold a totally fictitious version of the past, deliberately intended to stir up anger and old resentments.
Britain could be made great again by “taking back control” and freeing ourselves from the EU. “We” stood alone in 1940 and could do it again. The clock could be turned back to the time when the pink of the British Empire dominated the maps that hung on classroom walls.
Professor Andress suggests that economics boils down to scarcity and insecurity and insecurity turns into anger and scapegoating. All the problems of former industrial areas were down to the EU and uncontrolled movement of labour.
In the international context, Professor Peter Turchin of Connecticut University has mapped the overlap of economic insecurity with political and social turmoil, concluding that there is a cyclical “spike” in anger and social unrest every 50 years or so. The relative peace and stability enjoyed by Europe for the past 75 years has been the exception, not the norm.
It’s probably no coincidence that three quarters a century of unprecedented stability matches almost exactly the existence of the EU. History warns that populist politicians promoting divisive “cultural dementia” may win cheap votes at home, but on the larger, world stage, they are playing with fire.
Politicians have righty called for a “gentler tone” in politics following the deaths of Jo Cox and David Amess. For that to happen they need to examine the impact of their own actions in promoting “cultural amnesia”. Describing those opposed to Brexit as saboteurs and enemies of the people doesn’t strike a gentler tone.
So, what has this to do with the anger that we observe and experience on daily basis? It matters because anger and immoderate language in parliament and the press backwashes into everyday life. People who are already insecure or feeling left behind by national or international events tend to take out their anger and frustration on those closest at hand in shops, bars and in the street.
Their impact on wider society is disproportionate and anger snowballs. The harm done both to the angry person and those on the receiving end needs to be recognised addressed. The NHS Inform website on How to Control Your Anger provides an excellent starting point and deserves a much higher profile. Let’s all take a deep breath and by our everyday actions, help the angry brigade to cool it.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel