Despite its mixed reputation, anger can play a constructive role at home, at work and in the national consciousness, psychologists are finding. APA Monitor

It often gets a bad rap because of its association with violence, but the two are often dissociated. Not only is there anger without violence [I might be considered a prime example; a very angry person, in my own estimation and that of those around me; but nonviolent. — FmH], but much violence occurs without appreciable anger. The values of constructive anger range from facilitating political change to the physiological benefits of diffusing pent-up frustrations in, for example, cardiac patients; suggesting that not being angry enough could be more of a problem.

Anger also plays a powerful and arguably positive role in the workplace and in politics, finds Larissa Tiedens, PhD, of Stanford University. These are arenas, she notes, where anger is often used for status, power, control and strategic purposes rather than for emotional expression.

In these, settings, individuals primed for anger may make more optimistic appraisals and feel an enhanced sense of control. Does this suggest that anger is merely the opiate of the disempowered masses, in a way, and that the sense of control is illusory? Both in a psycholigical and a sociopolitical sense, anger is often posited as the inverse of depression, ‘depression turned outward’. (Depression is also referred to as ‘anger turned inward’.) There is also considerable evidence, especially from the evolutionary psychology sphere, some of which I’ve discussed here in the past, that depression may be, in a sense, a more realistic viewpoint in some situations; that it has been evolutionarily preserved because it is adaptive. One of the leading contender theories suggests that, in making us less less confident and less energetic, it prevents futile actions. So, am I being more than a little bit scurrilous when I suggest that, perhaps, the best position of all is to be angry but passive?

…(S)uch studies have implications for the current “war on terrorism.” They suggest that President Bush’s angry, tough-guy stance may affect public reaction by reducing uncertainty and increasing a sense of control…

However, if the enemy continues to prove elusive, the tactic may prove maladaptive… “At the same time anger effectively provides a sense of certainty and prepares people for action, …it also simplifies their judgment processes and leaves them prone to bias.”