Wrath, the Worst of the 7-Deadly Sins, links to:
“VIOLENCE”
Why?
“Our ‘human’” culture was founded on:
“VIOLENCE”
Yes, and too bad, because this means we are shaped by:
“VIOLENCE”
We HAVE ALWAYS BEEN creatures of VIOLENCE.
We create VIOLENT societies or societies underscored by VIOLENCE.
Perhaps, human beings are genetically VIOLENT.
The only time humans have not acted from the undercurrent of violence is when we have been fearful of the consequences of a violent act.
Some might say, Dr. Hill, I’m not violent, I’ve never had a violent thought in my life, I don’t even own a gun.
But, think more deeply about it. When was the last time you enjoyed a movie, read a book, followed a documentary podcast with a violent theme, watched and enjoyed a sport with violent features (Football, Rugby, Boxing to name just a few), gotten angry and raised your voice towards another, perhaps a family member, had a violent fantasy, said off-hand phrases like, “I could just ‘kill’ myself or “I’d rather be dead.” .
A few Scholars of Cultural Anthropology have asserted that Religion is a culturally-generated prohibition of VIOLENCE.
The reasoning goes that without religion, humans would have killed themselves into extinction a long time ago.
If so, I respect this FEATURE of religion. In a weird way, then I’m grateful for religion.
THANK YOU RELIGION!
I can say more on this topic because I am familiar with the intrapsychic potency of violence. My practice as a psychologist has been, in part, confronting mental health conditions that emanate from (or are associated with) “self-violence” or VIOLENCE turning inward on the self.
VIOLENCE, has been linked to several mental health disorders. Think trauma.
The human act of Violence, can be traced to the earliest civilizations. Violence has passed from civilization to civilization.
The Romans were violent, The Greeks were violent, The Chinese were Violent, all societies; classical, Eastern, Western, as well as communes, indigenous tribes & villages, families, if they had any form of “humanity,” were influenced by VIOLENCE.
The image below from 2001: A Space Odyssey underscores the point.
The socio-philosopher-anthropologist, “Rene Girard” a French polymath, historian/anthropology philosopher whose work on the: 1. the imitative, or the mimetic, basis of human desire and 2. the scapegoat mechanism, is an illuminating depiction of this idea.
But, Girard is NOT the only learned person to study this connection. Levi Strauss, Nancy Schepler-Hughes, Franz Boaz; and, many others including German, English French, and American 19th and 20th Century Scholars have made this point.
Girard is one of the more credible because he accumulated systematic evidence, along with a robust theory, to make it.
VIOLENCE, is a manifestation of ANGER.
Violence always follows a WRATHFUL spirit.
WRATH is not simply anger although both anger and wrath are cognitive/emotional pathways to the violent act. WRATH always leads to violence, whereas this is not the case for anger.
That’s why WRATH is framed, as one of the seven-deadly SINs.
But, WRATH is not always depicted as Sinful. WRATH would be, by strict dictionary definition terms, a SIN minus some noteworthy exceptions,
For example, God, especially of the Old Testament, was at times Wrathful, or expressed WRATH), but, as the story goes, God (or Yahweh) did not commit sin in doing so.
Therefore:
SIN is essential, to understanding WRATH as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
SIN
Defined as:
1a: an offense against religious or moral law. b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible. SIN is, secondarily, tied to the concept of GOD: 2a: transgression of the law of God and 2b: [a] vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God. [vitiated=to debase in moral or aesthetic status]
Focus on: 2a, … reprehensible.
Reprehensible (an adjective): 1: deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.
This definition makes it clear that, among other things, sin means “wrong” or a “wrong-doing”.
People view wrong-doing as an act/thought that is generated from a person’s conscious awareness (and control).
Say, you make a wrong turn in your car. Would this be a sin? Answer = NO.
A vehicular “wrong turn” would be inadvertent, a wrong; however, making a wrong turn, inadvertently, would not be a sin. This is because the wrong turn, although totally under your control, might be viewed as a wrong, but it’s certainly not a reprehensible, it doesn’t even break a civil law (unless it is without stopping and through a red light). BUT, to yell or scream in anger at someone, raise your voice in a hostile way towards a child, take vengeance on another because you feel wronged. This would be in anger or wrath, and in some people’s view, a sin (Note: some might justify anger as not always a sin: Jesus yelled at the money-changers selling cattle, sheep, doves, and other things while sitting at tables in the temple court). But, Jesus, as the story goes, was not angry with the people, he was upset at the behavior and motivation of the people, per se. A very fine distinction here, but one that in the context of Biblical writing seems to be perceived as helpful versus hurtful.
For example, most people would label the behavior as Jesus showing, Righteous Indignation, NOT SINNING per se.
Sinning (or not sinning) can be difficult to determine in this context, and it depends on the circumstances and the motivation of the person acting angry.
WRATH is another story
What is it?
WRATH defined: Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1. strong vengeful anger or “indignation”. 2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement. 3. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.
Note: “indignation” = anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean.
Note: “vengeance” = the act of killing, injuring, or harming someone because they have harmed you. (In this definition, “you,” can be expanded to family, friends, etc.)
Why is WRATH one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
Since Wrath action is motivated by a strong vengeful hatred of another and Wrath emerges from a deep resentment to the point of extracting retribution, the tenants of Christianity warns against it:
“Vengeance” is destructive. A person consumed by rage and revenge will act irrationally and even immorally to extract vengeance and the person’s determination of what “retribution” is. This underscores the sinfulness of WRATH as a potent weapon to be personally re-dressed for what is perceived as a wrong (from a Biblical/Judeo-Christian POV) and why it has been labeled; first by Catholicism, then by Aquinas, as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Fact: WRATH is always destructive. A society will destroy itself if people are all totally consumed by WRATH (Think: “The Hatfields and McCoys”)
Aquinas states that: Anger is a Passion
Who would disagree with this: Aquinas places anger with all the other passions (love, etc.),
A Passion is “Good” if it is regulated by “reason”, but Anger is difficult to regulate with “reason” and Anger embedded in WRATH is always unreasonable, primarily because WRATH is idiosyncratic (determined by the wrathful individual.
WRATH is ANGER amplified into a weapon and without REASON.
The Biblical Scriptures are replete with anti-wrath proclamations:
"Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil."
Psalm 37:8
"But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth."
Colossians 3:8
However, GOD, acting in WRATH, is somehow able to keep “reason” intact when choosing to act WRATHFULLY. So, God (Yaweh), can be wrathful (with reasons).
"I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them." Ezekiel 25:17
The sin of WRATH is certainly not confined to Christian doctrine alone.
In the Koran, WRATH also comes with a (reasoning) feature:
The tenants of Islam describe “seven central and destructive sins”
“Avoid the seven destroyers.” They said: “O Allah’s Messenger! And what are they?” He replied: “Committing Shirk with Allah, magic, to kill someone that Allah has prohibited – except for just cause – consuming Riba (Usury), consuming the wealth or property of an orphan, to flee on the day of the march (to battle), and to slander the chaste, unaware, believing women.” [Al-Bukhari 6857] (note: {Allah, in general, forbids others to kill, although “killing another” is not totally prohibited. In (rare) cases where it might occur, the act is done only in relation to the solemn state of: “reason” and “universal justification”}).
WRATH would, then, (by interpretation) be a violent act towards another without “Universal Just Cause” and without reason.
Is WRATH harmful to the individual?
The answer is unequivocally: YES
There is Always a personal cost to acting WRATHFUL.
Anyone who has experienced the emotional state of WRATH, defined as: strong vengeful anger or “indignation” with the goal to extract punishment (a weaponized act), possibly even death, for a perceived wrong-doing would describe it as overwhelming.
Upon reflection, following a wrathful response, some might describe the initial feeling of WRATH as potent, a powerfully directed emotion that takes hold, and that a decision to act (or do something about the person/situation who has perpetrated the wrong) has been started (within the individual [who perceives being harmed] and who is initiating a WRATHFUL response).
But this initial feeling quickly gives way or to an overwhelming feeling of uncontrollable: anger, resentment, hostility, and rage (all rolled up in one big activating-bent-on-destruction ball) - with a formidable desire to act violently towards another in the form of vengeance to be extracted. When this second emotion WRATH-state takes hold it usually doesn’t let go until the wrathful response is executed, and it may continue afterwards. If it is not, the person can turn WRATH inward with potentially devastating consequences.
Almost everyone I’ve encountered who has described to me what I would define as a wrathful response, usually confesses later that it is difficult, if not impossible to manage, keep in check, and to ultimately resolve (even after a wrathful act has been fully initiated and completed). In most instances, the wrathful person feels “out of control” as the wrath-emotion overwhelms one’s state of being. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to compartmentalize a wrathful emotional state.
Are Human Beings Genetically pre-disposed to Violence?
Are Human Beings Genetically pre-disposed to WRATH?
What happens to a person, neurobiologically, when a wrath emotion takes hold:
There are inbuilt aggressive/violence engaging mechanisms in the brain that when engaged (via WRATH), function to dysregulate higher cortical processes in favor of subcortical activation.
Expressed anger/wrath/rage dysregulates higher-order brain substrates associated with rationale thought, abstract thinking, and emotional impulse control (structures like the: amygdala, pre-frontal cortex are dysregulated). The felt experience is a sense of a loss of control (perhaps to an overarching purpose or goal to take vengeance on a perceived perpetrator) and diminished personal awareness. Heightened focus on “the other” in a negative, do-harm way.
There is heightened localized action-oriented attention centers that amplify focus on anger-related stimuli to the exclusion of other stimuli.
Neurochemical processes also dysregulate, a substantial drop in serotonin, dopamine, and acetylcholine occurs; a large influx of adrenal cortisol that among other things activates physical capacity (think adrenaline rush).
Cortisol, among other things, increases blood pressure, respiration, is a vaso-constrictor, and heightens general physiological activation. The body transitions into a fight-flight state that if not acted on immediately begins to dysregulate other organ structures (respiration, heart rate, balance, etc). It’s like a panic attack with focus and purpose.
Should the Wrathful state persist for a few days, perhaps weeks or months, the long-term consequences are fatigue, depressed mood, hopelessness, confusion, reactive anxiousness, and sustained physical activation with no way to discharge it: high blood pressure, etc.
Who wants to experience this panoply of negative personal activation? No one, except a Wrathful individual.
There is a whole Self-Help literature on anger management. But, again, anger and wrath are different. There is much less written on managing wrathful hate. In wrath, harm to another is the focal point. In this case, harm is justified (by the acting person) as a form of vengeance extracted for a perceived wrong-doing.
The only way to control wrath is to AVOID IT. If a person finds themselves in a situation where WRATH seems imminent, then an immediate re-evaluation of the situation is in order. It is possible to divert or even stop a wrathful urge in this precursory state: Re-evaluation should include:
The Wrong-doing itself including the rationale for the wrong-doing.
The person engaged in the perceived “wrong-doing”.
The reasons and purpose for your decision to act wrathfully or why you “believe” or “perceive” that this is a wrong-doing that requires your personal wrathful response. Your own world-view or POV needs to be examined at this point. Is it for me, personally necessary to engage in wrath towards this person/situation/thing.
Establishing a pre-determined boundary-line for your “outrage” or “anger” and especially your perceived “need for vengeance” in any given situation. A family member is murdered, how would you react to the perpetrator? This is a hard question to entertain, but I believe there is value in carefully thinking through how one might reason/think/experience such an event. Would the response be to take vengeance on this perpetrator yourself? How might you expand your view of consequences to include the checks and balances of society?
How you would ultimately face, as a reasonable human being, such an event, and the limits to which you would choose to respond are important criteria if you want to mediate a wrath-emotion. Would these be based on yourself as a reasonable/rational human being, or would they be based on anger/vengeance/retribution/destroying the perpetrator at all costs.
#4 & #5 highlights a weighty matter, and there would certainly be substantial emotional disruption in a person who have lost a loved-one to such a heinous act. But, How might you respond? Are there limits to a response to something like this.
I raise this as thought exercise because if a WRATH response is fully engaged, there are unknown consequences for the person experiencing the WRATH emotion as well as for those around that person.
My view: The #1 method for controlling wrath is: AVOIDANCE OF THE EMOTIONAL STATE.
You might say, this is an over-simplified answer to a complex question because it’s not always possible to avoid experiencing an emotion especially when it happens to you and it may start without your awareness. It’s like saying, to control a panic attack, don’t put yourself in any situation where you might have one.
While I understand, and appreciate, this logic. I would argue that a panic attack is not the same as Wrath. It is my POV that we are taught, and even rewarded, early on to act wrathfully. We watch television, play video games, etc. where we see people experiencing, even engaging in, wrath, and being rewarded for it. We view WRATH as a legitimate response to being wronged (think of all the gun-related deaths where the shooter was the targeted victim or the shooter perceived himself being victimized for one reason or another). WRATH with a gun is DANGEROUS. Here, I believe is where social influence has gone awry.
My experience is that “WRATH” is something the individual, ultimately, consciously, turns on (an attitude or state of mind), or consciously starts. When WRATH is engaged, it amplifies quickly and it remains an open questions as to when and how it subsides (if it ever does).
For example, as best as I can tell, Wrath is spreading across our global social system. Now a pervasive idea in our global psyche, we see it in the news, in published in books; we hear WRATH preached from the pulpit of politics.
WRATH and it’s corollary, “Vengeance”, is glorified on the web, especially in streaming and other televised mediums. WRATH is popular and idealized as a “best” approach to set things “straight.” Media, including journalistic and creative media amplify it. WRATH, more than than any of the Seven Deadly Sins, is capable of destroying (if it is not already doing so) the entire world.
If humanity ends itself by its own hand, it will be WRATH that moves it. Once WRATH gets hold of an individual, a group (or mob), a community, a society, or the world itself, it will NOT stop. This is the message and mission of WRATH.
Where will it take us as a society?
I’m not sure I have an answer to this question.
So, find that internal switch (within yourself) that engages WRATH and “deactivate” the switch. If this means getting rid of your weapon, a gun, Then do it!