Before I summarize our classroom conversation about anger, I will highlight the thematic thread of the course. We are considering accounts of specific emotions through the cognitivist and non-cognitivist perspectives. Cognitivists posit emotions as relating to cognitive beliefs, evaluations, and appraisals. Conversely, proponents of noncognitivism argue emotions have a more primal, physiological nature – we locate them in our evolutionarily programmed bodily responses. In our discussions and readings, we have focused on Robert Solomon’s arguments for the cognitivist position. As we look at Solomon’s approach to basic emotions like anger, it is important to remember his commitment to cognitivism. He will attempt to root physiological feelings of anger within our cognitive judgements.
In our discussion, we tried to reconcile the subconscious nature of addiction with the cognitivist language. Solomon claims that “anger tends to be recurring and habitual … we become addicted to our emotions. We come to need the biochemical ‘hit.’” (21). We considered cases where we become “addicted” to our anger. For example, we might use anger as a coping mechanism in vulnerable social situations. As we receive the biochemical hits which correspond to our social roles, we may become slowly and habitually addicted to anger. However, although Solomon’s claim seems aligned with everyday experience, he risks giving ground to the non-cognitivist view. If additive emotions trigger a subconscious neurological response, then we may need to reconsider emotions as cognitive judgements. The class worked through this puzzle by arguing that subconscious addictions and emotions can still support Solomon’s commitments. If we can verbalize our emotional addictions through evaluative language and judgements, then cognitivism can withstand the objection. We observe cases of people who overcome subconscious emotional addictions through therapy – this gives credibility to the position that these addictions can still be understood as cognitive judgments.
After this conversation, we briefly moved to the normative question surrounding anger and emotional addiction. Regardless of whether we can become addicted to anger, we still must ask whether we should reaffirm these neurochemical hits. In order to approach this question, we analyzed anger as a strategy which can enable a person to move from a “one down position” to a “one up position” (24). In this way, we can use anger to transform our social position and status. Sometimes, people habituate anger to reaffirm their space within social settings. In most cases, we would be inclined to see this as a negative use of anger. However, we see people, particularly minorities, who have permanent “one down positions” within society. In these cases, we recognize a justification for addictive anger. Perhaps, it is only through habitual anger that oppressed individuals can renegotiate and reaffirm their position in a society skewed against them. In this sense, an addiction to anger might not only be an acceptable strategy, but also a necessary tool for the survival and safety of oppressed groups. As we move forward in the course, we will continue to explore the normative and political implications of emotions.
Shared by: Dylan Brown