Anger

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 240 of 447 · 20 per page

• From Momma and the Meaning of Life (1999)

  Do I?” “What do you think, Myrna?” “I don’t think so. And your opinion?” Unable to procrastinate indefinitely, or to lie, or to tell the truth, Ernest squirmed. “If by ‘whine’ you mean you tend to complain about your situation repetitively and unproductively—then, yes, I’ve heard you do that.” “An example, please.” “I promise to answer that,” said Ernest, deciding it was time for a process comment, “but let me say something first, Myrna. I’m struck by the change in you these last weeks. It’s been so fast. You aware of it?” “Change how?” “How? In almost every way. Look at what you’re doing—you’re direct, focused, challenging. Like you say, you’re keeping it in the room; you’re talking about what’s taking place between us.” “And that’s good?” “It’s great, Myrna. I’m delighted to see it. To be honest, there were times in the past when I felt you hardly noticed I was in the room with you. When I say it’s great, I mean you’re moving in the right direction. But still you seem so—what should I say? So one-sided, so—well, acerbic, as though you’re continually angry with me. Am I off base?” “I don’t feel angry with you, just frustrated with my whole life. But you said you’d give me examples of my whining.” Suddenly this woman who had been too slow for him was becoming almost too fast. Ernest had to concentrate all his attention on their discourse. “Not so fast. I’m not buying into that word, Myrna. I feel you’re trying to brand me with it. I said ‘repetitious,’ and I’ll give you an example of that: your feelings about your CEO. How he’s not efficient, how he should make the company leaner, how he should fire incompetent workers, how his softheartedness is going to cost you big money in your stock options—that’s the kind of thing I mean. You’ve discussed this over and over again, hour after hour. Just like your comments about the dating scene—you know what I mean. During those hours I’ve ended up feeling less engaged with you and less helpful as well.” “But those are the things that preoccupy me—you tell me to share what I’m thinking.” “You’re absolutely right, Myrna. I know it’s a dilemma, but it’s not what you say but how you say it. But I don’t want to detract from my earlier point. The mere fact that we’re talking so openly supports what I said a little while ago—that you’re different, working better and harder in therapy. “It’s time to stop for today, but let’s try to pick up from here next week.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  Maximilien Robespierre, his main rival for power, noticed the change and began to spread the rumor that Danton had lost his revolutionary fervor and could no longer be trusted. Robespierre’s campaign had effect: when it came time to elect members to the highest governing body, the Committee of Public Safety, Danton did not receive enough votes and Robespierre packed it with his sympathizers. Danton now openly worked to put an end to the Terror, through speeches and pamphlets, but this only played into the hands of his rival. On March 30, 1794, Danton was arrested for treason and brought before the revolutionary tribunal. It seemed ironic that the tribunal he had formed now held his fate in its hands. The charges against him were based on pure innuendo, but Robespierre made certain he was found guilty and sentenced to death. Upon hearing the sentence, he yelled at his judges, “My name is engraved on every institution of the revolution—the army, the committees, the tribunal. I have killed myself!” That same afternoon he and other condemned men were put in carts and led to the Place de la Révolution. Along the way, Danton passed the residence where Robespierre lived. “You’re next,” Danton shouted in his booming voice, pointing his finger at Robespierre’s apartment. “You will follow me!” Danton was the last one to be executed that day. An enormous crowd had followed the cart, and now they were quiet as he was led up the stairs. He could not help but think of Louis, whom he had reluctantly sent to the guillotine, and the many former friends who had died during the Terror. It had taken a few months, but he had grown sick of all the bloodshed, and he could sense the crowd before him was feeling the same way. As he laid his neck on the block, he shouted to the executioner, “Make sure you show my head to the people. It is worth a look!” After the execution of Danton, Robespierre unleashed what became known as the Great Terror. During four tumultuous months, the tribunal sent close to twenty thousand French men and women to the guillotine. But Danton had anticipated the shift in mood: the French public had had enough of the executions, and they turned against Robespierre with remarkable speed. In late July, in a heated meeting at the assembly, its members voted to arrest Robespierre. He tried to defend himself, but the words came out haltingly. One member shouted, “It is the blood of Danton that chokes you!” The following morning, without a trial, Robespierre was guillotined, and days later the assembly abolished the revolutionary tribunal. — At around the time of Robespierre’s execution, the new leaders of the revolution were looking for ways to drum up funds for the various emergencies France was facing, and someone mentioned the recent rediscovery of Louis’s magnificent coronation carriage, the Sacre . Perhaps they could sell it.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  What makes anger toxic is the degree to which it is disconnected from reality. People channel their natural frustrations into anger at some vague enemy or scapegoat, conjured up and spread by demagogues. They imagine grand conspiracies behind simple inescapable realities, such as taxes or globalism or the changes that are part of all historical periods. They believe that certain forces in the world are to blame for their lack of success or power, instead of their own impatience and lack of effort. There is no thought behind their anger, and so it leads nowhere or it becomes destructive. You must do the opposite. Your anger is directed at very specific individuals and forces. You analyze the emotion—are you certain that your frustration does not stem from your own inadequacies? Do you really understand the cause of the anger and what it should be directed at? In addition to determining if it is justified and where the anger should be directed, you also analyze the best way to channel this emotion, the best strategy for defeating your opponents. Your anger is controlled, realistic, and targeted at the actual source of the problem, never losing sight of what initially inspired the emotion. Most people engage in some cathartic release of their anger, some giant protest, and then it goes away and they slip back into complacency or become bitter. You want to cool your anger, bring it more to a simmer than a boil. Your controlled anger will help give you the resolve and patience you will need for what might be a longer struggle than you had imagined. Let the unfairness or injustice lie in the back of your mind and keep you energized. The real satisfaction comes not in one spasm of emotion but in actually defeating the bully and exposing the narrow-minded for who they are. Do not be afraid to use your anger in your work, particularly if it is allied to some cause or if you are expressing yourself through something creative. It is often the sense of contained rage that makes an orator so effective; it was the source of much of the charisma of Malcolm X. Look at the most lasting and compelling works of art, and you can often read or feel the restrained anger behind them. We are all so careful and correct that when we feel the carefully channeled anger in a film or a book or wherever it is, it is like a fresh wind. It attracts all of our own frustrations and resentments and lets them out. We recognize that it is something real and authentic. In your expressive work, never shy away from anger but capture and channel it, letting it breathe into the work a sense of life and movement. In giving expression to such anger, you will always find an audience.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  187Lecture 19—Slave Religion in the Americas õAfter the white authorities executed Turner, his lawyer, a white man named Thomas Gray, published a pamphlet called The Confessions of N a t Tu r n e r. It’s unclear if these were actually the words of Turner or if Gray modified them. But even if Gray shaped the text, it gives a sense of how Turner claimed divine inspiration to rally his followers. Take this passage: While laboring in the field, I discovered drops of blood on the corn ... And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me; for as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, [it] was now returning to earth in the form of dew. õTurner said that he told a white man about these miracles, and nasty, bloody sores immediately appeared all over the man’s body. Consider the power that story would have on other slaves listening to Turner: It was likely an appealing message of divine justice. SLAVE WORSHIP õUntil the early 19 th century, evangelical groups allowed blacks to preach to people of their own race. The Baptists licensed and ordained black men, and Methodists allowed black lay preachers until state legislatures started outlawing it in the 1810s. õAs the years passed, the slave codes in the South restricting slave behavior became more and more oppressive. The codes made it illegal for blacks to gather in meetings for worship or education. õBy the 1820s, most black Christians in the South had to be under the authority of white congregations and denominations. In theory, black Christians in the South always had a white pastor and were under the discipline of a white church.

• From Reading the Bible from the Margins (2002)

  According to Leviticus 27:1–8, the value of men between the ages of twenty and sixty years was fifty silver shekels, while a woman was only worth thirty. If the men were over sixty years of age, then their worth dropped to fifteen shekels, while the worth of women dropped to ten. One is left questioning if these laws were indeed the will of God or if these were the laws of men who attributed the regulations to God in order to protect their power and privilege within patriarchy. If these regulations came from God, then God stands accused of sexism. It appears that the Bible advocates patriarchal structures. At the very least, it has been used to justify sexism. How can liberation be found in what feminist biblical scholar Phyllis Trible calls these texts of terror? We are told that King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, had three hundred wives and six hundred concubines. Can a biblical case be made for polygamy and concubinage? Of course not—we automatically assume that these particular social structures are not relevant for the modern era. Additionally, we consciously or subconsciously make a distinction between the Bible advocating a particular social structure and the Bible simply describing the social practices of its time. Yet, how do we justify in our own minds the rejection of social structures such as polygamy and concubinage while still advocating the overall foundation of patriarchy? Is patriarchy also a structure that the liberating Good News of Jesus demands that his disciples flatly reject? To answer this question, we turn to the New Testament. Sexism from the Margins One of the regulations of the Law not mentioned above deals with divorce. According to Deuteronomy 24:1–2, a husband could dismiss his wife simply by serving her with a written bill of divorce. The grounds for divorce could be minor, based on something she did that was considered improper or even on a general dislike of her. By the time of Jesus, the practice had developed whereby a husband was able to divorce his wife for whatever reason he chose, yet no Levitical law existed that allowed women to initiate divorce procedures. Divorce was a male privilege. Matthew 19:3–9, however, provides a model for interpreting patriarchal passages like Deuteronomy 24:1–2, as well as the other biblical verses that contribute to the marginalization of women. The Matthew passage reads as follows: And the Pharisees approached [Jesus], tempting him by saying, “Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for whatever reason?” And he answered them, “Did you not read that God made them male and female from the beginning? And God said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  All of this contrasts sharply with the way narratives of abused straight (and, usually, white) women play out. When the Framingham Eight—a group of women in prison for killing their abusive partners—came into the public eye in 1992, people were similarly uncertain about what to do with Debra Reid, a black woman and the only lesbian among them. When a panel was convened to hear the women’s stories to consider commuting their sentences, Debra’s lawyers did their best to leverage the committee’s inherent assumptions and prejudices by painting her as “the woman” in the relationship: she cooked, she cleaned, she cared for the children. The attorneys believed, rightly, that Debra needed to fit the traditional domestic abuse narrative that people understood: the abused needed to be a “feminine” figure—meek, straight, white—and the abuser a masculine one.36 That Debra was black didn’t help her case; it worked against the stereotype. (In another early lesbian abuse case, in which a woman gave her girlfriend a pair of shiny black eyes, the prosecutor acknowledged that while she was grateful for and surprised by the abuser’s conviction, she believed that the fact that the defendant was butch and black almost certainly played into the jury’s willingness to convict her.) The queer woman’s gender identity is tenuous and can be stripped away from her at any moment, should it suit some straight party or another. And when that happens, the results are frustratingly predictable. Most of the Framingham Eight had their sentences commuted or were otherwise released, but not Debra. (The board said that she and her girlfriend had “participated in a mutual battering relationship”—a common misconception about queer domestic violence—even though it had never come up during the hearing.) She was paroled in 1994, the second-to-last member of the group to achieve some measure of freedom. An ABC Primetime report about them barely talked to or about Debra compared to the other women. The Academy Award–winning short documentary about the Framingham Eight—Defending Our Lives—didn’t include Debra at all. The sort of violence that Annette and Debra experienced—brutally physical—or that Freda experienced—murder—is, obviously, far beyond what happened to me. It may seem odd, even disingenuous, to write about them in the context of my experience. It might also seem strange that so many of the domestic abuse victims that appear here are women who killed their abusers. Where, you may be asking yourself, are the abused queer women who didn’t stab or shoot their lovers? (I assure you, there are a lot of us.) But the nature of archival silence is that certain people’s narratives and their nuances are swallowed by history; we see only what pokes through because it is sufficiently salacious for the majority to pay attention.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  parent who likes to punish and inflict hurt. In both cases, the child looks out on a world that seems fraught with hostility, and their answer is to seek to control it by becoming the source of the hostility themselves. At least then it is no longer so random and sudden. As they get older, they become adept at stimulating anger and frustration in others, which justifies their original attitude—“See, people are against me, I am disliked, and for no apparent reason.” In a relationship, a husband with a hostile attitude will accuse his wife of not really loving him. If she protests and becomes defensive, he will see this as a sign that she has to try hard to disguise the truth. If she is intimidated into silence, he sees that as a sign that he was right all along. In her confusion, she can easily begin to feel some hostility on her part, confirming his opinion. People with this attitude have many other subtle tricks up their sleeve for provoking the hostility they secretly want to feel directed at them—withdrawing their cooperation on a project at just the wrong moment, constantly being late, doing a poor job, deliberately making an unfavorable first impression. But they never see themselves as playing any kind of role in instigating the reaction. Their hostility permeates everything they do—the way they argue and provoke (they are always right); the nasty undertone of their jokes; the greediness with which they demand attention; the pleasure they get out of criticizing others and seeing them fail. You can recognize them by how they are easily moved to anger in these situations. Their life, as they describe it, is full of battles, betrayals, persecutions, but seemingly not originating from them. In essence, they are projecting their own hostile feelings onto other people and are primed to read them in almost any apparently innocent action. Their goal in life is to feel persecuted and to desire some form of revenge. Such types generally have career problems, as their anger and hostility frequently flare up. This gives them something else to complain about and a basis on which to blame the world for being against them. If you notice signs of this attitude in yourself, such self-awareness is a major step toward being able to get rid of it. You can also try a simple experiment: Approach people you are meeting for the first time, or only know peripherally, with various positive thoughts—“I like them,” “They seem smart,” et cetera. None of this is verbalized, but you do your best to feel such emotions. If they respond with something hostile or defensive, then perhaps the world is truly against you. More than likely you will not see anything that could be remotely construed as negative. In fact, you will see the opposite. Clearly, then, the source of any hostile response is you. In dealing with the extremes of this type, struggle as best you can

• From Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality (2007)

  We’re missing a verb. The word submit is not in the verse. You have to go looking for the verb, which is in the verse before it. The wife isn’t commanded to do anything different from what everybody is commanded to do in the previous verse, namely submitting. Placing the needs of others ahead of her own, especially in her most significant relationship—the one with her husband. Verse 23 is next: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” The word head is the word kephale in the Greek language. We could spend hours analyzing exactly what it means, but the larger point is that the husband is supposed to be like Christ. And what does that look like? Notice how the text continues. Verse 24 repeats the submit command, and then verse 25 reads, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Christ’s “headship” comes from his giving himself up for the church. His sacrifice. His surrender. His willingness to give himself away for her. His death. Whatever authority the word head carries with it is rooted in the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore the sacrifice of the husband. So the husband is commanded to lay down his life for his wife, and the wife is commanded to submit to her husband, but they’re both commanded to submit to each other because everyone is commanded to submit to everyone else, and all of this is out of “reverence for Christ.” Will You? Head spinning yet? There’s a lot here, and it centers around a paradox. Several years ago, I met with a couple who had been married a short time and needed some spiritual direction. Their marriage was falling apart, and the week before, in the midst of a heated argument, he had hit her. As you can imagine, the meeting was tense from the start. It soon degenerated into an argument between them, with their voices getting louder and louder and their words getting more and more hurtful. At one point the husband got so angry that he looked at me and said, “Do you see what I mean? She won’t submit!” To which I replied, “Will you?” Which didn’t exactly calm him down. He wanted her to submit, whatever that means, without his having to die. He was essentially waiting for her to obey him, as a dog would, and then his will would be accomplished. I have seen this countless times in marriages. The husband has some warped idea that he is supposed to be the leader, which means she’s supposed to do what he says. And then he gets frustrated when things don’t go his way. And in some cases, he actually uses verses such as these in Ephesians as his reason why things aren’t working.

• From Paul and Matthew Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Terence L. Donaldson (2021)

  Paul’s restriction of Moses’ law to a bygone period goes a long way toward explaining his repeated floggings by Judaean compatriots (2 Cor 11:24). Moses’ law was the foundation of Judaean life everywhere: the law that Judaean minority communities in many places had a hard-won permission to observe, exempting them from being subject to the prevailing laws in many poleis.59 Yet outside writers occasional y enjoyed ridiculing Moses as a supposed outcast from Egypt: a magician, leper, or deeply antisocial.60 Judaeans did not need one of their own now seeming to join in such deprecations, just as they did not need Antiochus of Antioch undermining their legitimacy there (Josephus, War 7, earlier), especial y given that Paul was basing his claims on the post-mortem appearances of a Judaean crucified in Jerusalem. Even Acts, though general y a calming and homogenizing narrative, claims that when Judaeans from Asia spotted Paul near Jerusalem’s temple, they were outraged because he was “teaching everyone everywhere against the people, the law, and this place” (Acts 21:28). The same text claims that Christ-following Judaeans, who insisted on maintaining Judaean law, were under the impression that Paul was teaching “all Judaeans living among the nations defection from Moses: advising them not to circumcise their children or continue in the customs” (21:21). These impressions 58 Porphyry (vel sim.) in Macarius Magnes, Apocr. 4.2; in Hoffmann, Against the Christians, 68–9. 59 Virtual y every page of Josephus’ Antiquities and Against Apion, composed for Roman audiences in the first instance, is about the excellence of Moses’ laws as those governing Judaean life. Outside observers never doubted that Moses was the lawgiver under whose ordinances Judaeans everywhere lived, e.g.: Hecataeus of Abdera in Diodorus 40.3.38; Apollonius Molon in Josephus, Apion 1.145; Diodorus 34–35.1.1–5; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.34–46; Tacitus, Hist. 5.2–4. 60 See Apollonius Molon in Josephus, Apion 1.145 and Tacitus, Hist. 5.2–4. 34 34 Paul and Matthew among Jews and Gentiles are difficult to explain historical y as the invention of this author. Left with only tiny fragments from Paul’s life, we do not have clear examples of what he said to other Judaeans, unless the letter to the Romans fits that bil . But already to the Corinthians he implies that he did talk with Judaeans when the opportunity arose, and when he did so he adapted his language for the sake of The Announcement: While being free from al , I have enslaved myself to al , so that I might win more.

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  Dream House as House in IowaIn late October, she visits you in Iowa City and decides to be a Dalek for Halloween. You are confused by this, profoundly, because she scorns the most earnest bits of nerd culture for reasons that are never precisely clear. She’s never seen a single episode of Doctor Who. When you tell her you’re going to be a Weeping Angel (you found the perfect nightgown in a Mennonite thrift store; a heavenly, draping Grecian shift in a barely there baby blue), you have to explain the villain to her. But she wants to be a Dalek, and she wants to make the costume herself; when she gets to town she begins to buy and assemble the pieces. She cuts up cardboard boxes, slices craft-store foam balls in half for the Dalek’s signature texture. She buys gold spray paint. Your basement fills with fumes. The night of Halloween, your girlfriend insists on making an elaborate dinner—tuna steaks lightly seared on each side. Butternut squash risotto. Her costume is not done—the spray paint has only just dried, the foam pieces need to be glued to the torso. When you try to gently move her along, she snaps at you, so you begin to get dressed in your own costume: the nightgown, a pair of painted wings, and white and blue makeup on your face and chest and arms. This last part takes much longer than you anticipate—is it that you underestimated the surface area of human beings in general, or your body in particular? You stand in front of the mirror swirling color onto your face as she slams things and stalks around the house, angry that her costume is not finished. Every so often, you snarl soundlessly into the mirror. She yells questions at you every time she passes the bathroom door. Why did you insist on tuna for dinner? (You didn’t.) Why did you let her be a stupid Dalek? (You don’t answer.) What the fuck are you supposed to be again? (An ancient alien life force that disguises itself as the statue of a weeping angel. They send their victims back in time and feed on the potential energy of the life no longer lived in the present. A terrible undeath.) “A what?” “A statue,” you say. “Just a statue.”20 On your way to the party, it is an almost perfect night: a little nippy, the air smoky and sharp, the drag and slide of autumn leaves across your path. You show up so late that it’s moved past fashionable and full swing, and the party has entered a scarier, darker place. You walk past a friend who has combined alcohol with something else, and when you say hi to her she looks at you with the blankest, most dead-eyed stare you’ve ever seen.

• From Reading the Bible from the Margins (2002)

  Probably, in his mind's eye, he conceived himself to be a good husband, a sensitive man, a “good catch.” How lucky his wife was to be married to an honest, God-fearing man like himself. How ungrateful of her not to appreciate all he has done for her! For her even to suggest that he was the cause of her pain was a shock. It might have even debunked his carefully constructed identity. If she was even remotely right, then he could not be as good as he imagined himself to be. Rather than explore this possibility, he preferred to move on. In like fashion, a good part of the dominant culture honestly believes that it is responsible for providing many good things for those who live on the margins of society. In most cases, the dominant culture does not stop to even consider that it may be causing pain to those who are disenfranchised. Such an assertion questions the moral fabric of many who see themselves as religiously committed. Hence, the haste to move on and just get along. Those in the center of power and privilege are able to set the terms as to what constitutes the proper topics to be addressed, the type and tone of discussion that are appropriate, the questions and concerns that are to be formulated and raised, what constitutes a proper answer or response, and how the ultimate goal of the discussion (reconciliation) will be achieved. If those who hold grievances are unwilling to abide by how the discourse is constructed, then a conversation will not be possible until they learn how to express themselves properly. How then do those who are on the margins of society find their own voice? Power to Name I recall one day when a learned Euroamerican colleague invited me to lunch. Although I was aware that he vehemently disagreed with many of my perspectives on biblical texts, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss those differences. Early in our conversation, on the way to the restaurant, he asked me why I was so angry. What had happened in my life to cause my anger? The question floored me. I always thought of myself as a happy, fun-loving person. Why would he perceive me as angry? For over half of the time we spent together, I tried to prove that I was not angry. It wasn't until afterward that I realized what had occurred. My colleague had wielded the power to name me. By labeling me as angry, my perspective ceased to be valid. Anything I had to say was a product of my so-called anger, as opposed to rigorous scholarship or reflection. As long as the biblical interpretations of people on the margins are reduced to a product of collective anger, then their perspectives can easily be dismissed as unscholarly with little if no relevance to the overall biblical discourse. The power to label becomes the power to control and the power to silence.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, As stated above [1439](A[3]; Q[46], A[4]), anger both follows an act of reason, and hinders the reason: and in both respects it may cause taciturnity. On the part of the reason, when the judgment of reason prevails so far, that although it does not curb the appetite in its inordinate desire for vengeance, yet it curbs the tongue from unbridled speech. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 30): “Sometimes when the mind is disturbed, anger, as if in judgment, commands silence.” On the part of the impediment to reason because, as stated above [1440](A[2]), the disturbance of anger reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes, face and tongue; wherefore, as observed above [1441](A[2]), “the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce.” Consequently anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result. Reply to Objection 1: Anger sometimes goes so far as to hinder the reason from curbing the tongue: but sometimes it goes yet farther, so as to paralyze the tongue and other outward members. And this suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection. Reply to Objection 3: The disturbance of the heart may sometimes superabound to the extend that the movements of the outward members are hindered by the inordinate movement of the heart. Thence ensue taciturnity and immobility of the outward members; and sometimes even death. If, however, the disturbance be not so great, then “out of the abundance of the heart” thus disturbed, the mouth proceeds to speak. TREATISE ON HABITS (QQ[49]-54) OF HABITS IN GENERAL, AS TO THEIR SUBSTANCE (FOUR ARTICLES)After treating of human acts and passions, we now pass on to the consideration of the principles of human acts, and firstly of intrinsic principles, secondly of extrinsic principles. The intrinsic principle is power and habit; but as we have treated of powers in the FP, Q[77], seqq., it remains for us to consider them in general: in the second place we shall consider virtues and vices and other like habits, which are the principles of human acts. Concerning habits in general there are four points to consider: First, the substance of habits; second, their subject; third, the cause of their generation, increase, and corruption; fourth, how they are distinguished from one another. Under the first head, there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether habit is a quality? (2) Whether it is a distinct species of quality? (3) Whether habit implies an order to an act? (4) Of the necessity of habit.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  The internet has also created a new and powerful weapon—cyberwar. As they always have, criminals simply co-opt technology to become more creative and elusive. Human aggression simply adapts to the newest media and technological innovations, finding ways to express and vent itself through them. Whatever the new invention is in one hundred years for communication, it will likely suffer the same fate. As Gustave Flaubert put it, “Speak of progress as much as you want. Even when you take out the canines of a tiger, and he can only eat gruel, his heart remains that of a carnivore.” Human aggression in individuals and in groups tends to emerge or heat up when we feel helpless and vulnerable, when the impatience for control and effect rises. And as increasing numbers of people and groups are feeling this way, we can expect more of this and not less in the future. Wars will get dirtier. As insecurities rise, there will be more confrontations between political groups, between cultures, between generations, between men and women. And there will be even better and more sophisticated ways for humans to justify their aggression to themselves and to the world. The denial is stronger than ever—it is always the other person, the other side, the other culture that is more aggressive and destructive. We must finally come to terms with the fact that it is not the other but ourselves, all of us, no matter the time or the culture. We must own this fact of our nature before we can even begin to consider moving beyond it. It is only in our awareness that we can start to think of progress. Passive Aggression—Its Strategies and How to Counter Them Most of us are afraid of outright confrontation; we want to appear reasonably polite and sociable. But often it is impossible to get what we want without asserting ourselves in some way. People can be stubborn and resistant to our influence, no matter how congenial we are. And sometimes we need a release from all of the inner tension that comes from having to be so deferential and correct. And so all of us inevitably engage in behavior in which we assert ourselves indirectly, striving for control or influence as subtly as possible. Perhaps we take extra time to respond to people’s communications, to signal a slight bit of disdain for them; or we seem to praise people but insert subtle digs that get under their skin and instill doubts. Sometimes we make a comment that could be taken as quite neutral, but our tone of voice and the expression on our face indicate we are upset, stirring up some guilt. We can call this form of aggression passive, in that we give the appearance that we are merely being ourselves, not actively manipulating or trying to influence people. Nevertheless, a message is sent that creates the effect we desire.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  310The History of Christianity II õBut by this point, conservative Christians had realized that if they wanted to protect their vision of the traditional family, sexual ethics, gender roles, and the all-around authority of scripture as they interpreted it, then they had to get involved with the United Nations because it had enormous global inf luence. õOne of the founding principles of the UN charter is equality between men and women. Since the 1970s, the United Nations has convened periodic conferences to discuss the empowerment of women around the world, and in 1995, one of these happened in Beijing. õAs reports from the conference filtered out, some activists in the Christian right did not like what they heard, especially the call for national governments to treat men and women as socially equal, able to fill equivalent roles in the workplace, public sphere, and at home. õEvangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons got organized. At the United Nations’ follow-up conference on women’s issues in New York five years later, some people passed out f liers that warned of the spread of the “homosexual agenda” and “widespread abortion.” õOne of the leaders of this bloc of conservative Christian organizations was a man named Austin Ruse, who ran the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (now called the Center for Family and Human R ig hts). õRuse realized he could prevent the conference from reaching consensus on women’s issues by creating a “pro-family” voting bloc of conservative, religious countries that did not want to be bossed around by Westerners. That alliance included the Vatican—which sent a representative to the conference—and also Sudan, Iran, Libya, and Syria. õThese countries are not exactly renowned for their records on human rights—particularly the rights of Christians. But the American activists were pragmatists, and the strategy worked. They kept the New York conference stuck in debates over abortion and homosexuality, and prevented serious discussion of poverty and violence against women. 311Lecture 31—Culture Wars and the Christian Right õThe Christian right got a boost in this global alliance building when George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election. Bush appointed conservative Christians to key leadership positions in government and at the United Nations. Conservative think tanks and ministries like Focus on the Family—which had started out only concerned about the American culture wars—started devoting money and time to building international networks of likeminded activists. SUGGESTED READING Butler, Born Again. Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity. Kruse, One Nation Under God. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER äWhen Americans use the phrase “the Christian right,” what do they mean? äWhy did conservative activists argue that liberals’ defense of women’s equality in foreign countries is a kind of cultural imperialism? äHow might the Christian right’s campaign to build international alliances inf luence America’s domestic culture wars? 312

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  In the final week, you go to the local bowling alley with her and her writer friends. You’d driven there in her car—a sleek, luxury thing gifted by her parents—and she was supposed to be the designated driver, for once. So you’d been drinking freely of the pitchers of pale beer, the sort you don’t drink, except you never get the chance to get drunk around her anymore and you’re eager for that looseness in your limbs. She has a single beer, sips it slowly, smiles at you. You bowl the way you always bowl; your turns generally ending with no pins down at all, because you get too excited and the gutter slurps up the ball. But then every so often, a strike; so beautiful and devastating a crash that you get the sensation of being good at something, a sliver of confidence. You turn the ball in your hand, pearlescent and peach, and whip it down with that beautiful thunk-whirr. She sits there, looking butch, and pats her lap. You sit. You haven’t had many boyfriends or girlfriends, and none of them—and certainly no flirtatious people in your past—have ever gestured to you like this. You feel calm, content, a little high. Just a girl sitting on her girl’s lap. Her hands are running up your breasts before you can do anything about it. You clasp them in your own and push them down gently. She puts them up again. When you move them a second time, you can feel her anger; you can’t see her but the smell of her changes, like a cheap dish towel left on a live electric burner. She snaps around you like a Venus flytrap, pinning your arms against your torso. She leans in to your ear. What are you doing, she says. It doesn’t sound like words, like a question; it sounds like a purr. “Don’t,” you say. She tightens her grip on your arms. “I fucking hate you,” she says. She sounds, suddenly, drunk, even though you’ve been watching her and you know she’s had only the one beer. But you’ve had beer, too, and you don’t know what to do. “I fucking hate you,” she says again. The sounds of the bowling alley are coming from very far away; you feel like your heart is going to stop. You are not a parent; no one has ever told you that they hated you. You stand up and look around wildly at the others, who are studiously looking elsewhere. “I think we need to go,” you say. “I think—”

• From Reading the Bible from the Margins (2002)

  Nowhere in the discourse is the option of repenting for the human-rights violations toward people of color even considered. Power to Become the “Real” Victim Robert H. Bork, the conservative legal jurist whom then president Ronald Reagan nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court but whose nomination was defeated in Congress, wrote once that the only group that is truly oppressed in the United States today is white, heterosexual males. Providing a voice to many in the dominant culture, Bork accused people on the margins of participating in a rhetoric of victimhood so as to force Euroamericans to seek absolution from those they have supposedly oppressed. He added that such actions by people on the margins lead to the vilification of all Euroamericans. Those college or university professors dealing with issues of race “teach resentment and fear [and their] careers would be diminished or ended by progress in racial reconciliation; [hence it is to these professors’ best interest] to preserve and exacerbate racial antagonism.”3 By recasting themselves as victims, victimizers are free from having to deal with how societal structure privileges them. Bork refuses to recognize that Euroamericans are not the only ones who “belong” in the United States while others simply live here. When those on society's margins attempt to establish a dialogue to investigate how they too can inhabit this country as full and equal citizens, power holders whose power is jeopardized by such assertions begin to cast themselves as the victims, while labeling those seeking dialogue as “race hustlers.” They see themselves under the “tyranny” of those who have historically been oppressed but who now, according to Bork, have greater opportunities to advance but instead blame whites for all of their problems. Euroamericans are, indeed, victims, but not victims in the sense Bork intended. Instead, they are victims of the very structures designed to protect their power and privilege. According to Thandeka, a minister and black theologian, from a young age, children are taught their place in society and how they should relate to others. In most communities the “white” norm is taught as the legitimate way to interact with others. As this norm is taught, children are forced to suppress their natural inclinations to play and relate with each other at daycare or school. In kindergarten, children naturally play together regardless of race or gender, but by the time they reach high school, they have been taught and conditioned to sit at different tables in the school cafeteria. They learn to mistrust their co-students because they fear being exiled from their own community. “You better not date a black man or I'll disown you,” the parent may verbally or nonverbally communicate to the child. Or children may learn to remain silent or offer up nervous laughter as the usual response to racist jokes, slurs, or abuse. Euroamericans, seeing themselves as the norm, are, in effect, raceless; that is, everyone else is “colored,” while they have no color.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  “Well, you’ve indicted someone for perjury for contradicting the state’s case. Do you intend to prosecute everyone who challenges the evidence in this case?” My voice was now rising in exactly the way I wanted to avoid, but I was provoked by his attitude. “Alabama case law is clear that a perjury charge can’t be filed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that a false statement has been made,” I went on. “A perjury indictment seems like a tactic designed to intimidate and discourage people from coming forward with evidence that contradicts the State’s case. The charge against Mr. Houston seems really inappropriate, Mr. Chapman, and legally indefensible.” I knew I was lecturing him and knew he didn’t like it, but I wanted him to know that we were going to defend Walter in a serious way. “Are you representing Darnell Houston now, too?” “Yes, I am.” “Well, I’m not sure you can do that, Mr. Stevenson. I think you might have a conflict there,” he said, and then his voice shifted from argumentative to blandly matter-of-fact. “But don’t worry, I may drop the perjury charges against Houston. Now that the judge has denied your motion to reopen the case, I don’t have any interest in pursuing charges against Darnell Houston. But I do want people to know that if they make false statements concerning this case, they are going to be held accountable.” I was confused and a little stunned. “What are you talking about? The motion to reconsider has been denied?” “Yes, the judge has already denied your motion. You must not have gotten your copy of his order. He’s down in Mobile now, so sometimes there are mail issues.” I tried to conceal my surprise about the court’s ruling on the motion without even permitting a hearing. I asked, “So you have no interest in investigating what Darnell Houston is saying about the possibility that the State’s main witness may be lying?” “Ralph Myers is the State’s main witness.” It was clear that Chapman had looked more deeply into the case than he had initially claimed. “Without Hooks’s testimony, the conviction wouldn’t be valid,” I said, leveling my voice. “Under the State’s theory, Myers is an accomplice, and state law requires confirmation of accomplice testimony, which can only come from Hooks. Mr. Houston says that Hooks is lying, which makes his testimony a critical issue that should be heard in court.” I knew I was right. The law was as clear as it possibly could be on this question. But I also knew that I was talking to someone who didn’t care what the law said. I knew that what I was saying wouldn’t persuade Chapman, but I felt the need to say it anyway.

• From In the Dream House (2019)

  Dream House as Pop SingleA year before I was born, the band ’Til Tuesday, led by Aimee Mann, came out with the single “Voices Carry.” The breathy, haunting song about an abusive relationship was a top-ten hit in the United States. In the music video—which was in heavy rotation in the early days of MTV—the boyfriend is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous. A meathead in gold chains and a muscle shirt, he delivers his aggressively banal dialogue with the subtlety of an after-school special. Throughout the video, he dismantles Aimee piece by piece. At first, he compliments her music and her new hair—punky and platinum, with a rattail. Later, in a restaurant that looks like it was borrowed from a sitcom set, he removes her elaborate earpiece and replaces it with a more traditional earring before playfully chucking her under the chin. There is a shot of Mann behind a gauzy curtain, her face pressed into it with desperation, which cuts to her leaving for band practice. Here he confronts her on the steps of their brownstone; when he grabs her guitar case, she tears out of his grasp. When she returns, he scolds her for her lateness. “You know, this little hobby of yours has gone too far. Why can’t you for once do something for me?” When she speaks for the first time—“Like what?” she asks, tilting her chin upward in a challenge—he attacks her, pushing her against the stairs and forcibly kissing her. At the end of the video, they are sitting in a theater audience at Carnegie Hall. The boyfriend puts his arm around a now-polished Mann—sitting quietly, strung with pearls—before discovering her intact rattail and curling his lip in disgust. Mann begins to sing—softly at first, and then louder as she tears a stylish fascinator off her head. Then she stands up and is screaming, she is scream-singing—“He said ‘Shut up’ / He said ‘Shut up’”—and everyone is turning to look at her. This final scene, Mann said in an interview years later, was inspired by Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much, when Doris Day’s character lets loose a bloodcurdling scream during a symphony performance, to foil an assassination.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  particular battle is in fact important, with a greater sense of detachment you can now plot a more strategic response. More often than not you will realize that certain battles are not worth it in the end. They are a waste of valuable energy and time, which should be high on your scale of values. It is always better to walk away from a circular battle, no matter how deeply you feel personally invested in it. Your energy and your spirit are important considerations. Feeling petty and frustrated can have reverberating consequences for your ability to think strategically and reach your goals. Going through the process delineated above in the Keys will naturally elevate your perspective and put your mind on the strategic plane. And in life as in warfare, strategists will always prevail over tacticians. 3. Ticker tape fever. During the run-up to the 1929 crash on Wall Street, many people had become addicted to playing the stock market, and this addiction had a physical component—the sound of the ticker tape that electronically registered each change in a stock’s price. Hearing that clicking noise indicated something was happening, somebody was trading and making a fortune. Many felt drawn to the sound itself, which felt like the heartbeat of Wall Street. We no longer have the ticker tape. Instead many of us have become addicted to the minute-by-minute news cycle, to “what’s trending,” to the Twitter feed, which is often accompanied by a ping that has its own narcotic effects. We feel like we are connected to the very flow of life itself, to events as they change in real time, and to other people who are following the same instant reports. This need to know instantly has a built-in momentum. Once we expect to have some bit of news quickly, we can never go back to the slower pace of just a year ago. In fact, we feel the need for more information more quickly. Such impatience tends to spill over into other aspects of life—driving, reading a book, following a film. Our attention span decreases, as well as our tolerance for any obstacles in our path. We can all recognize signs of this nervous impatience in our own lives, but what we don’t recognize is the distorting effect it has on our thinking. The trends of the moment—in business or politics—are embedded in larger trends that play out over the course of weeks and months. Such larger spans of time tend to reveal the relative weaknesses and strengths of an investment, a strategic idea, a sports team, or a political candidate, which are often the opposite of what we see in the microtrends of the moment. In isolation, a poll or stock price do not tell us much about these strengths and weaknesses. They give us the deceptive impression that what is revealed in the present will only become more pronounced with time.

• From In an Unspoken Voice (2010)

  He feels the impulse to punch with his fists; his anger intensifies momentarily but then subsides. The vise grip in his tensed muscles begins to loosen. (These muscles had been engaged, as Nina Bull demonstrated, to inhibit the original urge to punch.) Bob sighs in relief as his legs begin, gently, to tremble. He “lets in” his wife’s supportive presence and then suddenly recalls, “Oh yeah, that’s what it was. Before I left the office, Alex, the supervisor, and I were discussing a marketing plan for the new widget. Alex and I had strongly differing opinions; we just couldn’t seem to agree. I felt competitive. We were combative, but in a good way. I felt forceful and clear. I suppose we could have hammered it out. Instead we stopped short of a solution when I remembered that Alex was dating the boss’s daughter. I stifled my power and ingenuity, and then, yes, that’s when I felt myself go into a rage. I wanted to throttle Alex but then retreated. I just wanted to leave and go home. The rest of the day I silently fumed. And then, when things were, well, the way they usually are at home, I wanted to explode. I felt the same seething rage I had felt at work. I guess I was triggered to blow when I set foot into the familiar mess at home; I just wanted to blow off steam. I was ... well, really afraid that I could hurt you or the kids. So instead, I just went off to read the paper and simmered silently behind my paper fortress. I didn’t want to blow up at you and the kids. Really, what I wanted was the calm contact I am getting from you now.” This state of calm, unlike the temporary relief provided by the Valium in the first scenario, is a real shift in his perception of safety, an enduring one. It is achieved by a process of self-regulation and social engagement, rather than the temporary masking offered by a tranquilizer—though both act to relax the tight muscles. This collaborative experience is what brings Bob and Jane closer together. The feeling of combativeness that Bob experienced at the office was powerful, focused and motivating. Had he not stopped himself, he might have entered into a productive negotiation with Alex. However, when he thwarted this process (out of a perceived threat that may or may not have even really existed), his directed feeling of healthy aggression (for getting what he needed and protecting what he had), erupted into (impotent) rage. This abrupt transition—from a fluid, organizing feeling process into a disorganizing, nonproductive, reactive emotional state—is what was so brilliantly studied by Nina Bull. So why do we get stuck with our negative emotional states, habitually wearing them like our only set of shirt and trousers? Many people (like the young samurai) use their rage to intimidate. Others indulge habitual sadness and remain helpless victims.