Here's Wishing I Can Proffer A Sympathetic Bit

Chauncey, I am happy to respond to your distressing call for support for your exemplary efforts to aspire toward a nonshaming and affirming climate for discourse and to establish normative standards to sustain such a climate. Regrettably (i.e., distressingly) these standards are not always possible to meet, for (I'll speak for myself) my distress at some issues raised sometimes reaches a level of too-much-ness that would require of me the self-discipline of a monk in order to remain self-reflective enough to make what I would consider a worthwhile contribution. Thus, as you correctly remind us, we do need one another for support in sustaining positive norms, for none of us, I assume, aspires to achieve the self-discipline of a monk.

You have been making some brilliant postings in defense of your position that it is typically, if not almost always, futile to the point of self-immolation to try to change a corrupted, abusive work setting singlehandedly. There is much to be said for empowering people to take charge of their life's distressing conditions and work to ameliorate bad situations at work and elsewhere. But little of what can be said is praiseworthy when the so-called empowering apporach has little chance of success or when the effort involved is extremely costly. "Extremely costly" means it would engender very high levels of another kind of distress-anguish in the effort to ameliorate one type of distress. A case of losing a lot of A to gain some of B without realizing until after B is won how important A was.

Along these lines I would like to add that we often hear about the literature on learned helplessness and on the value of optimism, but there is also an impressive literature in experimental social psychology and in the decision sciences showing how nonproductive it is to persist toward a goal with optimism and determination in the face of great odds against success. This literature is extensive and represents some very well-done research but is seldom referred to because it is not compatible with the larger cultural ethos of "never give up," "be a winner," "nobody likes a quitter," etc. These are all slogans to reinforce society's overarching rejection of and unwillingness to even acknowledge, much less provide badly needed sharing comfort for, each other's distress-anguish. (I am reminded here of a quote I wrote down a long time ago from a souce I have long since lost: "We tempt each other to insanity by leaping eagerly into a word in which we pretend not to feel as bad as we really do about the cruel ways people treat each another.")

In many sections of our culture--and in far too many segments of the psychotherapy profession--the cry of distress is typically met with some very unempathic and shaming reactions. Much distress then gets backed-up, and the shame of distress is typically managed in the culture with the usual line-up of suspects found at the four corners of Don's compass. Those members of the psychotherapy profession who help others overcome "emotional vulnerability" are often also part of this team effort to shame those who would cry out in distress-anguish. Kaufman, somewhere in his book The Psychology of Shame, refers to the cry of distress as the most shamed affective expression in our culture.

Affect theory teaches us to use an affect to call attention to its stimulus. It doesn't say we can eliminate every unwanted, distressing stimulus. Some are unavoidable. The balm of sharing distressing affect with comforting others can often ease distress so we can be eased enough to be able to move on to other things that capture our interest-excitement. (I felt proud writing this now because I can show off to Don something I learned, in part at least, from his reply to my posting on crying. I got it right, didn't I? Say yes.)

My understanding of Tomkins's concept of anger has been a source of inspiration and helpful guidance at least as useful as his concpet of shame. As Tonkins noted, we have not much difficulty recognizing that distress-anguish is a result of too much stimulation, but we seem to balk at the next step--thinking of anger as just STILL MORE of too much stimulation. I say to those who have the forebearance to listen to my longwindedness (and who are thus grateful for an occasional fit of succinctness on my part)that distress is too much stimulation and anger is much too much stimulation.

There has been a great deal of valuable discussion of anger in this forum that is seen in the anger of someone defensively reacting to shame in the attack-other mode of relating. I hope this dialogue continues, too. Perhaps it may also be valuable to think of this form of anger--the attack-other-defense-against-shame form of anger--as one subtype of anger. Or perhaps attack-other-in-response-to-shame is an anger "script," maybe?-- I'm not too clear yet in applying the higher-level of complexity in Tonkins's thinking as is found when the word "script" enters the picture. Thus, the broader category of anger per se (i.e. the simple affect) is basically the affective amplification of a situation of much-too-much-ness. (Incidentally, I would eagerly welcome any help in my fumbling efforts to use Tomkins's theory here, for I am fond of saying that I try to learn from others' mistakes since I won't have time enough in one life to make them all myself. An ethical scientist maximizes his/her chance of being proven wrong..sort of like Don's creative stupidity, no?)

Thinking of anger-rage as more distress-anguish seems to rob our everyday theories of anger of their rich assembly of explanations (am I talking about scripts again?) that claim that anger is a matter of some sort of failure or frustration in human relation. Of course relational failures and frustrations are one source of much too much stimulation--especially the relational failures with loved ones or would-be friends (and forum participants) whose psycholgical availablility is lacking just when our intersting-excitement about connecting is yet unabated, i.e., the relational failure associated with interpersonal shame.

But when one's level of stimulation is already quite high and distressing and close to the anger level--or when backed-up anger affect is close to getting "unbacked-up" (i.e., about to be expressed and or experienced consciously and directly) in the context of a favorable responsive/supportive environment--it may take only a slight increment in stimulation density (perhaps in the form of a slightly shaming relational experience) to spill into anger. This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

Now here is what I'm trying to get at: Is the anger found when the straw breaks the camel's back REALLY the anger of defense against shame or is it an anger that results from already very high levels of distress made slightly higher--but enough to now call on anger--by the small increment in distress from even a mildly shaming encounter? I am arguing for the possibility that not all anger that occurs just after shame is necessarily a defensive reaction to consciously experiencing shame affect but instead may be a manifestation of the incremental effect of the distress of the shame affect iteself when shame occurs at a time when distress is already quite high. Based on my own introspection, this seems to be a kind of anger I sometimes find in myself, sometimes when contemplating certain postings on this and other forums, in fact.

I heard a story that Bion was once speaking at a psychoanalytic conference and the atmosphere was highly contentious and heated. Bion was asked what he thought about the matter under discussion. He said the climate was not conducive to thinking. Now that's my point. If dialogue about a highly contentious and serious subject--such as, say, work abuse and DV--follows Chauncey's example and dictum to "go slow to go fast," then the level of stimulation can be kept from reaching too-muchness or much-too-muchness.

I like the idea of anger being much-too-much-ness, for then anger is detoxified--i.e., it is easier to not take personally that which provokes anger. Meanwhile, however, we can use the affect of anger to take a look at what can be done, if anything, to better manage the situation creating the overstimulation. I, for one, am learning from you, Chauncy, and from others, many ways to manage the overmuchness I experience when encountering opinions and contributions on this forum with which I disagree. I thank you, Chauncey, and everyone for making this a forum where I can learn so much not just about the content of Affect Theory but how we can make it work as an experiment in relating to one another with respect for the great importance of our own and others' affect. What a gift is this opportunity!

Chauncey, I have your book on order and eagerly await it's arrival. .................

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who finish what they start and so on.

• Anger Scripts by Don Nathanson, 4/30/97
  • Don, Lots to Think About--Thank You by Jim Duffy, 4/30/97
• Anger as the Tip of a Pyramid by Vick Kelly, 4/30/97
  • Marvelously Interesting and Useful Model by Jim Duffy, 4/30/97