A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now

A BEE IN THE MOUTH: ANGER IN AMERICA NOW considers issues of 'social anger', or how the anger in American society has become not only excessive but glorified. College-level collections strong in social sciences in particular will find here a unique survey of evidence of the 'new anger' dominating American culture, from politics to music. Chapters analyze how this anger has manifested itself throughout society, how it affects relationships, ideals and goals, and how it differs from 'anger' of the past. An intriguing title, perfect for classroom discussion.

Peter Wood is an anthropologist, which places his analysis in a slightly different place from the work of social critics or journalists or pundits or even historians. He looks at the long view, and asks "What precisely does this society believe about anger, why do they believe it, and when did they start?" However, I don't think he really nailed the answer; possibly we are too deep inside it to differentiate the zeitgeist from the gee. I do, though, find his argument that this is a new phenomenon completely compelling. Another problem I had stems from not really understanding what he means by anger. He gives lots of examples of what he sees as symptoms or emblems of anger, but are t-shirts, tattoos, and piercings really manifestations of anger? I'd like to know what constitutes anger. If I say, in a measured and reasoned voice, "Stop that, or I will kill you" am I angry? Or if I scream hysterically "I'm sick of this traffic" am I angry? Anger, derision, condescension, bile, smarminess, are all part of the same trend towards dismissing opponents as unworthy of consideration, but they are not all anger. Nor is that dismissal anger. Now there is lots of what I think of as anger in political discourse. Name calling, shouting down, and screaming "I hate..." are part of what is happening in contemporary discourse, especially visible in academia. But these are not really new, as he points out. The difference today, carefully and extensively documented, is that this anger is now seen as a badge of authenticity, a medal to be worn with honor rather than a character flaw to be controlled. Virulent animosity has characterized our politics at least since Burr shot Hamilton. (I do wish he had addressed a now unknown firestorm that dominated American politics for decades, the venomous loathing that followed the Civil War and included once famous names like Tilden, Conkling, Hayes and Arthur. Those fellows knew how to be angry.) But today the hater is seen as being true to something, a sincere and trenchant critic, though I suspect the currency will change should a Democrat be elected in 08. I believe it is partly the Sports Center syndrome. The loud, the crazed, the belligerent, the rude, the bad boys, the obnoxious all get on TV and their messages, truncated to fit the 10 seconds provided, broadcast. We all know about Cindy Sheehan, a hugely famous bumbling know-nothing blowhard with a mean streak she is eager to display, but the innumerable reasoned critics, whether pro or con, get nowhere. People won't listen? Don't listen? Can't? I don't know, but the short and virulent attack, frequently full of personal slander substituted for content (think of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot;" though again, imagine if Ann Coulter published a book entitled "Rosie O'Donnell Is a Big Fat Idiot") has become the gleefully tallied currency of "discussion," and anyone who denies it is denying reality. So, is the book worth reading? Well, I was not as enlightened as I was