Awakening Osiris McCutchan

7/28/2019 Awakening Osiris McCutchan

1/266


2/266


3/266

AWAKENINGOSIRIS:

THE TRANSFORMATIVEPOTENTIALOFANGER

by

RICHARD DAVID MCCUTCHAN

A dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY

INSTITUTE OF IMAGINAL STUDIES

2000

This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty of the

Institute of Imaginal Studies by:

______________________________

Aftab Omer, Ph.D.Dissertation Advisor

______________________________

Richard Carolan, Ed.D.

Dissertation Director

______________________________Gregory Max Vogt, Ph.D.

External Reader

______________________________

Melissa Schwartz, Ph.D.

Academic Dean


4/266

ABSTRACT

AWAKENINGOSIRIS:

THETRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIALOFANGER

by

Richard David McCutchan

This dissertation proposes a new perspective for understanding the expression of

anger. Drawing from depth psychology, affect-theory, and mythology, it attempts to free

the understanding of anger from its problematized conceptualization by exploring the role

of reflexivity and its transformative potentials. The dissertation presents a typology of

the ways in which anger is experienced. The research investigates the reported

experience of five men who had physically abused their partners. The investigation

focuses on their anger and the role of reflexivity in tapping the transformative potential

inherent to the experience of anger. Identifying and engaging with the imaginal

structures associated with these anger experiences is viewed as a catalyst for

transformation.

The typology categorizes four constellations of how anger is experienced. It

focuses on the interaction between self- and other-focused anger and the role of

reflexivity. The four constellations are reflexive/self-focused anger (watching mode),

reflexive/other-focused anger (participating mode), non-reflexive/self-focused anger

(numbing mode), and non-reflexive/self-focused anger (reacting mode).

Guided by the typology, interviews were conducted with five men convicted of

spousal abuse. The taped interviews were then subjected to a narrative analysis utilizing

iv


5/266

v

co-researchers. In a second round of interviews, these men were introduced to the

typology along with its associated mythic imagery. They were encouraged to identify

and engage the imaginal structures associated with their anger experience as identified by

the co-researchers. It is hypothesized that this type of reflexivity may catalyze

transformation of identity and relationship.

Through theory and application, the research presents an in-depth perspective of

the potential of identifying and engaging with the imaginal structures associated with

anger as a catalyst for transformative change. The response to the typology by the

participants shows potential for its use in working with domestic violence abusers,

particularly for the purpose of increasing self-awareness.


6/266


7/266


8/266

viii

Plurality of Meaning

5. REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Domestic Violence

Anger, Self, and Other

Conclusion

Appendix

1. SEGMENTS OF TRANSCRIPTS TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

2. INTERVIEW REFLECTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND SUMMARY 211

3. CONSENT AND DISCLOSURE FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

4. RATING SCALE OF REFLEXIVITY SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275


9/266

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES

1. Four Primary Quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2. A Typology of Anger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3. High and Low Reflexivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

x


10/266

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For those who are not angry at the things they should be angry at are thought to be fools,and so are those who are not angry in the right way, at the right time, or with the right

persons.

Aristotle1

Aristotle professed an ideology of moderation toward the expression of anger,

contrary to his contemporaries such as Plato or Protagoras. InRhetoric he acknowledged

its virtue being found in a balance between excess and defect.2

Silvan Tomkins, whose

research focuses on the primary role of the affects, takes a similar view. His research

notes that not all anger turns to aggression, nor does all aggression become destructive.3

He also says that there are characteristics of anger and aggression, which sensitize all

society to inherent danger and therefore prompt a universal vigilance along with

sanctions against its free expression.4 Stephen A. Diamond wrote that the destructive

manifestations of anger and rage are seen in such forms as hostility, hatred, narcissistic

rage, violently explosive tempers, as well as implosive suicidal self-loathing.5

In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud wrote that the survival of our world

might depend on mankinds ability to come to terms with the forces of aggression and the

resulting conflicts between nations, races, religions, communities, and individuals.6

Psychology has only more recently, with the development of affect research, begun to

understand the relationship between human aggression and the affect of anger. In his

book,Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions, Otto Kernberg uses affect

research to argue that at the core of Freuds aggression drive resides the affect of anger.7


11/266

2

As yet psychology as well as humankind has not been able to come to terms with anger's

destructive nature. As a result, Stephen Diamond says, most "respectable" Americans

habitually suppress, repress, or deny their angerinadvertently rendering it doubly

dangerous. He wrote, the chronic suppression of anger and rage can and does sow the

evil seeds of psychopathology, hatred, and violence.8

If we listen to Aristotle, his words challenge us to look beyond the lens of

psychology to find a different image of anger. From Shakespeare to mythology to

historical writings we find tales in which anger and rage are not only destructive but also

transformative. Anger has been the catalyst that has built empires, and the fuel that has

sustained revolutions, both violent and non-violent. It has been the impetus toward many

humanitarian pursuits of justice and liberty. Recently, three Nobel laureates, in a news

interview, acknowledged that their anger was a motivator in their efforts toward peace.9

Their stories suggest that when ones desires or dreams have been blocked or restricted it

is the powerful forces of anger that can provide the passion, ardor, strength, endurance,

and courage that moves one toward action.

The mythology of anger from the earliest times attests to its tie to Eros (love and

desire). From the Homeric creation myths we learn that chaos gives birth to Eros that

brings forth not only love and desire but also terror, anger, strife, and fear. Earlier

Egyptian myths similarly present anger and rage as a response to chaos, emptiness, and

confusion. It is anger and rage that bring birth to the world. That very anger is the spark

that says I am alive, I will not stand for this, even if I can do nothing I will yell out. As

James Hillman describes it, our scream of rage is the voice of the self waking up, passion

being ignited, opening the door for Eros to enter.10

Hillmans interpretation argues that

the human psyche continually returns to a place of emptiness and chaos to once again act


12/266

3

out an awakening that brings new life (Eros) back. As Aristophanes writes, in its search

for reunification of the psyche, Eros will attempt again and again to create dark nights

and confusion by returning to its origins in chaos.11

I have found that anger in the men in

my therapeutic practice resonates with ancient mythology. They scream in desperation,

crying out for love and passion to return to their lives. However, the anger or rage by

itself is not a formula that brings back Eros, in fact it often keeps it away. This research

moves toward a re-imaging of anger that allows light to be shed on how anger both repels

and attracts Eros. Benedictus Figulus points us in the direction with his words, Visit the

center of the earth, there you will find the global fire. Rectify it of all dirt, drive it out

with love and ire. . . .12

Theoretical Overview

The contention of this research study is that there is a transformative potential

inherent to the experience of anger. This challenges the dominant view in psychology

that has held to a problematized understanding of anger and its expression. Psychology,

along with contemporary culture, has taken the position that expressions of anger are to

be generally regarded as inappropriate and destructive to individuals, the community and

culture at large. As Rollo May wrote, our culture requires that we repress most of our

anger, and, therefore, we are repressed in most of our creativity.13

At best, anger

expressions are considered productive only as a release or catharsis. Fully

acknowledging the powerful destructive nature of the emotion anger, this research

explores both the effect of its suppression along with its potential for growth. I explore

these areas in this research by investigating the experience of men whose anger resulted

in marital violence.


13/266

4

I contend that the expression of anger has the potential for positively impacting

the development of the self, as well as ones relationship with others. I further contend

that confrontation with significant others is a normal and necessary component for human

development. This confrontation with otherness starts in childhood and continues

throughout life. Heinz Kohut et al., suggest that the primary affect aroused by this

confrontation with otherness is anger.14

How one expresses that anger becomes critical

for both the internal development of a sense of self and the external development of

intimate relationships. When anger is expressed with self-awareness it has the potential

of creating experiences that can be transformative of identity as well as deepening

relationships.

The following theoretical frames support the contentions of this study: affect

theory, Jungian archetypal theory, and self-psychology along with intersubjectivity

theory. The key assumptions of this dissertation that are based on these theories are the

following:

As Otto Kernberg argues, the basic building blocks for the development of the

self lies in the affects.15

Daniel Stern tells us that affects such as joy, surprise, fear, and

anger become directly associated with and organize ones primary experiences with

others in the world.16

This starts with ones primary caregivers as represented in object-

relation theory. In early childhood the development of the self depends on empathic

reception from the primary caregiver. The child's development of a self-structure is

dependent on the caregivers ability to respond to the affects experienced by the child.

Initially there is an identification of the child with the caregiver, particularly exemplified

by the mirroring that takes place between child and caregiver. In order for a separate,

independent self-structure to emerge, a breaking away from the identification with the


14/266

5

primary caregiver must take place. Mahlers rapprochement stage of development that

addresses separation-individuation is indicative of this process.17

Winnicott describes this process as the destruction of the early internal object that

enables the child to go beyond relating to the primary caregiver through identification,

projection, and other intrapsychic processes.18

It is only by the process of coming into

confrontation with difference from the other that the child is able to develop an

independent healthy self-structure. This process, according to Winnicott, is not a one-

time experience but rather a life-long process. It is my contention, supported by the

works of Kohut, Kernberg, Benjamin and Winnicott, as referenced on the previous pages,

that one of the primary associated affects related to this experience is anger. Their works

suggest that anger pushes for differentiation. It is anger that lets us know that our needs,

desires, yearnings are not being met or are being negated by another who has different

needs.

There is much that can go wrong with this confrontation with otherness. Kohuts

essay on narcissistic rage vivifies what can happen to the development of the self when

parent and child are unable to negotiate the conflict between self and otherness.19

Kohut

argues that mans rage is a narcissistic problem that leads to alienation from him or her

self, caused by the breakdown of an endangered or fragmented self.

Jessica Benjamin describes the successful negotiation of the confrontation as a

stage when the anger and rage damages neither parent nor the self.20

The impact of such

a successful negotiation brings with it a new experience of external reality that is in

distinct contrast to the inter-fantasy world. In intersubjective theory, this contrast shows

that an internal structure exists that is cognizant of ones own experience of the world as


15/266

6

well as the experience of others who experience it differently. This eventually leads to

what intersubjective theorists refer to as subjective and objective self-awareness.

It is my contention, based on the works mentioned in this section, and my own

research and practice that the confrontation, which has its roots connected to the affect

anger is necessary for the continuing process of psychological growth to take place. An

individual development of and capacity for subjective and objective self-awareness in

moments of confrontation with others increases their potential for transformation of

identity. By transformation of identity I mean a change of the internalized self-structure

that takes into account both the intrapsychic and the intersubjective. Such confrontations

become creative and productive for the individual and relationship. Like Winnicott, I see

this as a vital and important life-long process, where relatedness is characterized not by

continuous harmony but rather by disruption and repair.

Jung referred to the psychological process of developing self-awareness as

reflection.21

Jung saw reflection as a cultural instinct par excellence, which gives

men/women the capacity to transform their emotions.22 He wrote, Reflexio is a turning

inwards, with the result that, instead of an instinctive action, there ensues a succession of

derivative contents or states which may be termed reflection or deliberation.23

He

further states, reflection re-enacts the process of excitation and carries the stimulus over

into a series of images which, if the impetus is strong enough, are reproduced in some

form of expression.24

He says that it is the awareness of those images that gives a

person the capacity to transform the compulsive act into a conscious and creative one.

The more common term for this is self-awareness. W. R. Torbert conceptualizes

phenomena that is not just an internal process of reflection and deliberation but rather one

that the person is conscious in the midst of action.25

Torberts conceptualization is


16/266

7

further developed by John Heron and Peter Reason as a critical component in research to

denote a self-reflexive attention to the ground we stand on.26

Sheldon Bach and John

Auerbach have used the terms reflexive self-awareness and self-reflexivity to

describe similar processes of selfawareness in the midst of action.27

This research will use the term reflexivity to describe a phenomenon that includes

both a reflective process and active participation in the world. Aftab Omer has been

instrumental in developing a conceptualization of reflexivity that includes both reflection

and participation. He defines reflexive participation as the practice of surrendering

through creative action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities inherent in the

present moment.28

He further says reflexivity involves . . . the capacity to engage and

be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our experience. He

defines imaginal structures as:

. . . assemblies of sensory, affective, and cognitive aspects of experienceconstellated into images; they both mediate and constitute experience. The

specifics of an imaginal structure are determined by an interaction of personal,cultural, and archetypal influences. These influences may be teased apart by

attention to the stories that form personal character and the myths that shape

cultural life. During the individuation process, imaginal structures are transmuted

into emergent and enhanced capacities as well as transformed identity. Anyenduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a

transmuting of imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an

affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of the soul.29

In this research I contend that reflexivity, when coupled with the anger experience,

can tap the transformative potentials inherent to the experience of anger. The research

study investigates the reported experience of five men who have physically abused their

partners. The investigation focuses on their anger in context of a relationship and how

reflexivity interfaces with that anger. The potential role of identifying and engaging with

the imaginal structures associated with these anger experiences are investigated as being


17/266

8

the catalyst for transformation. For the purpose of this investigation I present a typology

of how anger is experienced.

This typology of anger is presented as a model for working with and

understanding therapeutic issues involving anger. Moreover, it is presented to expand the

dimensions of how we talk about anger. The lens that I look through has its origins in

depth psychology. However, the typology, as addressed in the literature review, is

grounded in multiple fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, domestic

violence research, affect theory as well as depth psychology. Any typology is

reductionistic by definition, since it directs us toward a process of simplification of our

experiences. Yet it is only through simplification, by use of abstractions, that we make

sense of those experiences. My typology is therefore a simplification. However, the

abstractions that it uses are presented in order to create images that expand the awareness

of the topic. In keeping with this, I will start with images from mythology that carry the

abstract concepts that delineate my typology.

The Myth Of Osiris

Man today stripped of myth, stands famished among all his pasts and must dig frantically

for roots, be it among the most remote antiquities. Friedrich Nietzsche

30

Since its early development, psychology has drawn from ancient myths to name

the abstractions of psychological concepts such as narcissism or the Oedipus complex.

For Jung, myths have meaning for everyone because they represent in story fashion

archetypes, that is, patterns of life that are universally valid. By using these myths we


18/266

9

add life, meaning, and depth to our understanding of the human condition. In Jungs

words,

In describing the living processes of the psyche, I deliberately and consciously

give preference to a dramatic mythological way of thinking and speaking, becausethis is not only more expressive but also more exact than an abstract scientific

terminology, which is wont to toy with the notion that its theoretic formulations

may one fine day be resolved into algebraic equations.31

There are many myths that could contribute toward the understanding of anger.

For example, Ares, the Greek god of war, evokes the image of anger and rage. However,

I looked for a myth that would show how anger transforms into creative energy while

also showing an awareness of the destructive forms anger takes, a myth that gives light to

the various manifestations of anger, transcends its destructive qualities, and shows us

how it might be transformed into a creative life force.

The myth that spoke to me as I struggled with my understanding of anger comes

from an ancient body of literature inscribed on the walls of pyramids more than 4000

years ago. These writings are most commonly known as the pyramid texts or the

Egyptian Book of the Dead.32 The primary myth that comes out of these writings is that

of Osiris. As in so many ancient myths, there is no one version of Osiris. The telling has

changed over many thousands of years. Osiris various forms changed even within the

ancient texts that spanned centuries of Egyptian history. Early writings by the Greeks

were collections of oral stories and it was not until the nineteenth century that the

hieroglyphs were actually decoded. I rely primarily on the version of E. A. Wallis

Budge, originally published in 1911, as well as Sir James George Frazers, The New

Golden Bough.33

Also helpful has been the more recent texts including Normandi Ellis

poetic translationAwakening Osiris and Jean Houston's book The Passion of Isis and

Osiris.34


19/266

10

The myth of Osiris begins with the creation of the universe. Nut, mother sky, has

been impregnated by Geb, the life force of earth. They had previously given birth to Ra

and Thoth, the sun and moon respectively. In Nut's womb lived five children: Osiris,

Set, Horus, Isis, and Nephthys. Ra the sun, Nut's first-born child, was jealous of sharing

the world with his siblings. As Frazer writes, Ra in his anger cursed the goddess, saying

that she should give birth to the offspring neither in any month nor in any year.35

For

16,000 years the five waited to be born. Thoth, the moon god, using trickery in a game

similar to checkers, won five days of the year from Ra. Thoth only agreed to return the

days to Ra if he allowed the five brothers and sisters to be born. Ra became enraged but

in the end agreed. Thus Osiris and his four brothers and sisters were born in anger. Lots

were chosen to see who would be born first. Although Osiris won, Set argued that he

should be first for he wanted to go out and do battle with Ra for preventing their birth for

so long. According to Houstons translation, the following words are spoken: Set

shouted, Could I but see him face to face, I'd poke out his eye. Horus intervened

saying, the lots are cast as they are cast. There are those of us who would prefer not to

be born at all. It is an endless striving, full of unfilled desire and regret.36

In the end it

was agreed that Osiris would go first and make peace with Ra. Horus was born second,

Set third, and then Isis and Nephthys.

Osiris made peace with Ra and proceeded to build agricultural communities along

the Nile of Egypt. Horus, unlike his brothers, feared life on earth. In Houstons words

He climbed to the belly of the sky, a hawk of gold, whose claws never pressed against

the earth. Keen were his eyes and wide his vision. . . . From the heights he observed

how the laws of Heaven and Earth were formed, how deep the night, how bright the

noon, how cool the shade, how beautiful the dusk and dawn.37


20/266

11

Set, malformed by his rage, was born with the head of an ass. He became the

warrior leading his band of men through the rugged mountains, hunting in order to

survive the desolate areas of Egypt. Isis, Osiris twin in the womb, became Osiris wife

on earth and likewise Nephthys became Sets wife.

Thus, our story begins on earth with three man-gods and two women-gods. Osiris

travels from village to village, worked hard to teach the art of agriculture along the Nile.

Isis, his partner, practiced the art of medicine and midwifery using herbs, and was often

away helping with births throughout the land.

As legend has it, a great feast was held to celebrate the twenty-eighth year of their

arrival and the abundance of the harvest. Set, jealous of Osiris accomplishments on

earth, devised a plan of revenge, for he blamed Osiris for his harsh life in the wilderness.

He built a beautiful cedar box the size of a man. It was carved and decorated with jewels

and ornamentation. With his group of 72 men, he arrived at the feast. Osiris,

unsuspecting, was pleased to see his brother and welcomed him and his men. Well into

the night, when all were in good spirits, Set playfully announced that he would give his

beautiful box to any man who fit into it. One by one with great rivalry and laughter each

man got into the box, but none fit for it was very large. In the end only Osiris was left;

when he laid himself down in the box it was a perfect fit. At that moment Sets men ran

forward and nailed the box shut. The box, now a coffin, was quickly carried to the Nile

and set adrift. Set thus took over Osiris position of ruler of the land. In her grief, Isis

searches for Osiris to bring him home for a proper burial. Through much trial she

eventually finds Osiris in the coffin and secretly brings him back. She leaves him hidden

in a cave, but by chance Set finds the cave and discovers Osiris in the coffin. Overcome

by rage, Set dismembers the body of Osiris into 14 pieces and throws them into the Nile.


21/266

12

When Isis discovers what has happened, she is again overcome by grief and once again

goes after Osiris body, eventually retrieving all but one of the 14 pieces. Osiris phallus

has been eaten by the fish and is not recoverable. Isis puts Osiris body back together and

carves a phallus to replace his. According to the myth, she uses her powers and becomes

impregnated by Osiris and a son is born.

The son is named Horus after his uncle and is referred to as Horus twice born.

This Horus is raised in seclusion to protect him from the wrath of Set. As he grows up he

is instructed by his father, who now resides in the underworld. When Horus reaches

adulthood he goes forth to challenge Set as ruler of the land. They fight for many days

and nights in a terrible battle. It is so horrible that even the gods want it to stop. Isis is

overcome and tries to offer compassion to Set. Horus, consumed by the battle, cuts off

his mothers head. Thoth restores it with his powers. Horus loses one eye during the

battle, which is healed by the spit of Thoth. His eye thus returned to him brings new

sight and the ability not to be blinded by battle.

Eventually, the fighting stops with Horus the supposed victor. However, Set goes

to the supreme court of the gods in the great hall at Heliopolis and makes a claim that

Horus is a bastard and therefore unfit to rule. Not content at having murdered his brother,

Set carries his rage beyond the grave accusing the dead Osiris of high crimes and

misdemeanors. In one version of the myth, Horus is pronounced the true-begotten son of

his father and given the crown and power over all the land. Frazer tells us that in another

version the victory of Horus is not so decisive, and it ends in a compromise by which

Horus reigns over the Delta, while Set becomes king of the Upper Valley of the Nile.

Either way, the accession to the throne of Horus begins, for Egyptians, the modern period

of the world. Horus is the first of the Pharaohs to rule Egypt.38


22/266

13

In my search for what transforms anger, the myth of Osiris offers a story that

exhibits four forms of anger, each with their own dynamics related to transformation.

These four forms match up with the four quadrants of my typology, given the

descriptions of watching, numbing, reacting, and participating. The three brothers born

as god-men represent the four personifications: Horus the Hawk (watching), Osiris

(numbing), Set (reacting), and Osiris son Horus twice born (participating) who becomes

first Pharaoh of Egypt.

Set is most easily identified by his anger and rage. Nathan Schwartz-Salant writes

of the mythological importance of this connection as it relates to transformation.

39

He

begins by reacting with anger to Ra the sun, perhaps rightly so, for his mothers

suffering. His rage is so great he is born malformed with the head of an ass, an image

well suited to describe how some individuals act when overcome by rage. As the myth

progresses we find Set blaming Osiris for his fate, which eventually leads to killing his

brother and the dismemberment of his body. Horus the Hawk, unlike Set, responds to

Ras anger at his mother not with more anger, but with fear, retreating to the safety of the

sky where he can spend his time watching the laws of heaven and earth. He escapes

into the sky in an attempt to free himself from involvement with earthly conflicts and

emotions. I will refer to him as the one who is always watching for his ability to see

what others cannot.

Osiris, without the keen eye of his brother Horus, proceeds diligently. He is a

hard worker who brings abundance and prosperity to the land, but then becomes a victim

of his brothers anger. He becomes trapped by his brother in a coffin and dismembered.

According to the legend, he then becomes ruler of the underworld. The anger and rage of


23/266

14

his brother traps Osiris and takes away his power, leaving him impotent. I represent

Osiris with the attribute of numbing.

Last comes Osiris son Horus, seen by Jung as a transformation of Osiris by

bringing the unconscious to light. In fact, the myth gives the impression that twice-born

Horus has the qualities of all three god-men. As with the first Horus, he shares his name

and the symbol of the hawk, one who can see what others cannot. Twice-born Horus

needs to fight his uncle, Set, to show that he has the spirit of a warrior before he can

rightly take his place as ruler of Egypt. In that battle Horus loses an eye that is returned

and healed by the spit of Thoth, who represents wisdom. Significantly, this symbolizes

Horus having gained the capacity for self-awareness and thus the heat of battle no longer

blinds him. According to Normandi Ellis, Osiris is always represented as the spiritual

warrior.40

Throughout this dissertation I will represent Horus by his quality of

participating, indicating the ability to act with clarity and compassion.

A Proposed Typology Of Anger

The human rage reaction has not been adequately evaluated from a psychiatric orpsychological point of view, even though it is a central phenomenon in violence.

Robert Zaslow41

This typology has been developed based on my fieldwork as well as theory and

research in the area of anger. Originally, I did not start my inquiry into anger with a

typology in mind. My interest was to explore the psychological benefits of anger as an

emotion and how it contributed to the growth of the individual. My clinical work over

the past seven years has entailed facilitating groups where anger, often involving

violence, has been a central issue. During this same period, I have also been working

with a wide range of men in personal growth groups. Consistently, I found anger to be a


24/266

15

central theme in mens lives. I also found there to be a disturbing lack of continuity

among the multiple disciplines of psychology with regard to understanding and working

with the varied experiences of anger.

Although all areas of psychology have theoretical controversy, with anger there

was something even more disturbing to me as a clinician and researcher. As I observed

the men with whom I worked, I would find myself moving from one clinical approach to

another as I worked with different men. My theoretical frames of reference were rooted

in social cognitive research, affect theory, and depth psychology. One or more of these

would have significant relevance and applicability to any particular situation. However,

each seemed to have limitations in understanding the spectrum of the experiences of

anger. Even more troublesome was the contradictory research data between theorists.

As a result of struggling with the contradictions in the research combined with the

experience of men dealing with anger, a typology began to emerge. It focused on several

dominant attributes of anger that presented themselves in research, theory, and in the

field. The first of these is angers instinctive nature, what Jung calls the autonomic

nature of the affects. In common language, this represents how anger can take hold of us

to the point where our behavior is out of control. Common language uses phrases like

in a fit of anger, or possessed by anger. The second attribute that the typology

addresses is the intersubjective nature of anger. Anger is most typically relationship

based. We get angry with someone. More often than not that someone is close to us,

such as a friend, a spouse, or our child. The intersubjective nature of anger deeply affects

the internal self, giving a feeling of validation or rejection of who we think we are.

This validation or rejection of the self is closely related to how one deals with

their anger. The individual struggles between expression and non-expression of anger.


25/266

16

Due to personal and societal values, sanctions, and fears, anger is, most likely, the most

suppressed and repressed of the emotions in Western culture. The last aspect that the

typology addresses is angers potential for transformation, that which changes the

destructive potential of anger to creative acts that are life affirming. Keeping these

aspects in mind, my typology focuses on four ways that anger is experienced:

reflexive/self-focused anger (watching), reflexive/other-focused anger (participating),

non-reflexive/self-focused anger (numbing), and non-reflexive/other-focused anger

(reacting).

Table 1: Four Primary Quadrants

Reflexive

Mode1 Watching Mode 4 Participating

Self-focused Other-focused

Mode 2 Numbing Mode 3 Reacting

Pre-reflexive

As Table 1 shows, there are four primary quadrants to the typology. The

horizontal axis relates to self-focused anger on the left side and other-focused anger on

the right side. The vertical axis relating to high-reflexivity at the top and low-reflexivity

or pre-reflexive at the bottom. Consequently, the quadrants moving counter clockwise

starting at the upper left corner are: 1) high-reflexivity and self-focused anger

(Watching); 2) low-reflexivity self-focused anger (Numbing); 3) low-reflexivity other-

focused anger (Reacting); 4) high-reflexivity other-focused anger (Participating). The

four quadrants can be conceptually tied to the myth of Osiris. Correspondingly, the


26/266

17

quadrants represent the experiential modes as follows: 1) Horus the Hawk, watching; 2)

Osiris, numbing; 3) Set, reacting; 4) Horus Son of Osiris, participating.

Before addressing the key constructs in the typology I will give a behavioral

description of what sets the stage for an anger experience to take place. The sequence is

consistent with Silvan Tomkins affect theory, Paul Ekman and Richard Davidsons

affect research, the work of Keith Oatley, and the neo-associative theory of Leonard

Berkowitz.42

A stimulus happens in the external world. Then there is a reaction to it.

For the anger experience to happen, an internal sensory stimulation must be activated

unique to the affect anger (see the affect system, Literature Review). This internal

stimulation comes in the form of bodily changes and feelings (biologically based). This

internal sensory stimulation has the same attention-grabbing power as the external

stimuli. It is this internal sensory stimulus that generates an impulse to action along with

a network of messages. As is true for the external stimulus, the greater the intensity of an

internally generated stimulus, the more completely it commands attention and redirects

the processing of ones personal resources such as images, defenses, cognition, motor

processes, scripts, etc. (The body reacts initially much the same as a response to pain,

such as touching a hot stove.) At this point if anger is evoked we may begin to have what

is called an anger experience. If the system were in balance we would assume that the

intensity of the internal stimulus would be proportional and appropriate to the external

stimulus. For anger this could range from mild irritability to rage. A multitude of

influences affects the intensity. A person may be tired, happy, or depressed, for example,

any of which conditions will affect the internal intensity of how they experience the

external event. Other variables affecting the intensity include past experiences with

similar situations and affects extending back to primary experiences with caregiver


27/266

18

related to anger.43

Despite the multitude of variables that impact how anger is evoked,

there are relatively few forms that anger takes and can still be called anger. I have chosen

two specific variables that are dominant in determining those forms.

Those variables are the relationship between self-focused anger and other-focused

anger as it is impacted by the capacity of reflexivity.

Self- And Other-Focused Anger

To avoid a reductive typology of anger that separates the emotion from behavior,

my typology attempts to make sense out of anger by including the behavior that anger

elicits. The affect theorists describe emotions, and anger in particular, as having action

tendencies that when activated elicit a behavior. They consider the function of the

emotions to provide information: 1) to inform the organism of how it values the stimulus

that has affected it, 2) to communicate to others ones internal experience (via facial

expressions and action). I use the term other-focused to describe the multiple ways that

anger shows itself in behavior directed toward another. It may be aggressive, destructive,

expressive, verbal, nonverbal, coherent, non-coherent, artistic, violent, funny, or

irritating, as well a combination of these behaviors. The polarity of this is self-focused

angeranger that is held or focused on oneself, wherein the experience primarily takes

place within the persons internal world. The anger or rage is turned against the self.

Little or no expression of self-focused anger is used with the intent to directly penetrate

the outer world of others, although it may have an impact. For example, as I become

aware of my anger, I leave the situation to be by myself till I can get over it.

When other-focused anger can have a wide range of expressions that can include

violent destructive acts as well as creative constructive ones. By definition the form it


28/266

19

takes has the component of having impact on others, while self-focused anger primarily

refers to a limited internal experience of anger that is not shared, communicated, or

demonstrated to the world outside oneself. C. D. Spielberger makes this same distinction

in his anger expression inventory, focusing on the health effects of self-directed versus

other-directed anger.44

Reflexive/Pre-Reflexive

The second variable (vertical axis) ranges from pre-reflexive to reflexive. The

term pre-reflexive is based on J. P. Sartres definition.45

He uses the term to denote the

lack of cognitive capacity to reflect on the meaning of ones experiences. He compares it

to animals in that they are not aware of being aware.46

An example would be that of a

tired and frustrated parent who yells at or slaps their child without thinking. In his

research on being angry, Stevick also uses this term where he describes the experience

of anger as pre-reflexive.47

For my purpose, the term pre-reflexive refers to the

experience of acting without thought or awareness.

On the other end of this axis in my typology is reflexivity. I use this term to

denote a high degree of awareness of ones self and ones experiencing of the anger

affect. To feel ones angry feelings, to think ones thoughts. Jung writes of this

phenomena as a reflective instinct (Reflexio) that gives man the ability to transform the

otherwise compulsive act into a conscious content.48

I use Omers definition of

reflexivity as the capacity to engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape

and constitute our experience.49

Omers definition contains not only the reflective

aspect spoken of by Jung but also an engagement or participation with otherness.


29/266

20

Trudy Mills and Sherryl Kleinman formulate that there are four primary ways that

an individual may respond to a situation: reflexive and emotional, unreflexive and

emotional, reflexive and without feeling, and neither reflexive nor emotional.50

They

emphasize that humans do not simply respond to the environment, but interpret what is

going on around them including their own actions. This process of self-reflexivity

goes into decision-making and, when combined with peak emotion, can bring both

insight and what they call felt action. Mills and Kleinmans sociological perspective

on how people experience their thoughts and feelings is similar to the Jungian

understanding of the interplay between reflexivity and emotion.

It is important to emphasize that reflexivity is not entirely an internal process.

The process is first initiated by stimulus from the external world. Second, to be aware of

the internal as well as external images in our world means a continual interchange with

those images. We might imagine the reflexive process to be dialectic in nature. For it to

work, there must be a continual exchange with otherness. As Omer points out the task

of experiencing the other demands that we recognize and relate to differences. 51 It is

important to emphasize that pre-reflexive/reflexive is not either/or but on a continuum

from non-awareness to a reflexive consciousness.

Using the two primary axes of self- and other-focused and reflexive/pre-reflexive

(see Table 1) I will now describe the four primary modes of experiencing anger. This

typology is an adaptation of the four modes of experiencing typology proposed by Omer

in writing about the importance of engaging and recognizing differences.52


30/266

21

Table 2: A Typology of Anger

HIGH-REFLEXIVITY

MODE 1: WATCHING MODE 4: PARTICIPATING

holding compassionate involvementsuppression reflexive participation

alienation art, social movementsymbiotic mode

53empowerment

embodiment

Self-focused anger (Non-participatory) Other-focused anger (Highly participatory)

MODE 2: NUMBING MODE 3: REACTINGrepression blaming, revenge

psychic numbing regression, projection

chronic, depression splittingirritability violent rageschizoid

PRE-REFLEXIVITY

Mode 1: Reflexive/Self-Focused (Watching)

The process of reflecting on ones awareness of his or her anger and inhibiting

any outward expression or acknowledgement of it to others exemplifies this category.

Though normally we find the process of reflexivity to be transformative, from clinical

experience I find that anger become transformative for individuals only when there is

some outward expression of it. In Omers description of reflexivity, the capacity to

engage and be aware of those imaginal structures that shape and constitute our

experience, the word engage becomes the critical issue.54

Within our culture,

engagement denotes doing or action. In this context engagement would imply

involvement with another. Within that context a mode of experiencing anger that is fully

reflexive and self-focused is in general incongruent. There may be a more viable form in

Eastern thought in such disciplines as meditation. However, staying with the


31/266

22

phenomenology that is exhibited in our culture, this quadrant addresses the mode of

experiencing that falls short of a full reflexivity but at the same time involves the

experiencer with awareness of their anger. This area is discussed here.

This limiting of action (inhibiting the communication of the emotion to another)

can distinguish itself by the defense mechanism of suppression: I know I am angry, but

it is best not to show it, for that will only make things worse. The common term used

here is holding. In general this mode is initiated out of fear, either the fear of

abandonment, retribution, or fear of hurting someone that is close to them. In general, in

this mode one chooses an internal solution, one watches rather than participates with

the other. (It should be noted that the other could potentially be a substitute

[therapist, friend, or expressive process, in which case the mode of experiencing moves

out of Mode 1]. This would be other-focused and move the experience into or toward the

participating mode.)

I find Mode 1, common in codependent/symbiotic relationships, to be a form of

protecting the relationship at all costs. Omer suggests that in such symbiotic

relationships, when anger is forbidden, the energy to differentiate is not there. He also

says under the constraints of symbiosis, the not entirely deadened urge to differentiate

surfaces as withholding.55

In the long run it contributes to an emotional alienation from

the other. When it is the mode of preference it often goes with a symbiotic character

behavior described in the writings of Stephen Johnson as dependent, clinging,

complaining, and afraid of separation.56

Script Decisions and Pathogenic Beliefs:

The less conflict the better. I am nothing without you, and I am afraid my angerwill chase you away. I am responsible for protecting you from my anger. If I

really love you, I wouldnt be angry with you. I cannot tolerate difference


32/266

23

between us. I have to control myself or I will totally lose control. Do not rock the

boat.

Defenses:

Suppression, merger, denial, identification, omnipotent responsibility,

introjection.

Horus the Hawk: In order to bring life and substance to the abstraction of self

and other-focused anger and reflexivity I will return to our guiding metaphor of the

myth of Osiris. Our interest here is in the phenomenon of anger when it is turned inward

and while the individual is still reflexive. Osiris brother, Horus the Hawk, best

represents awareness without outwardly showing or acting on it. In the mythology,

Horus the Hawk is reluctant even to being born, fearing the rage of Ra the sun god. In

Houstons translation Horus said about life, it is an endless striving, full of unfilled

desire and regret. But the particular image that stands out about this Horus is that once

born he clung to the belly of the sky, a hawk of gold whose clawed feet never pressed

against the earth. Keen were his eyes and wide his vision.57

In psychological terms,

Horus brings to us a constellation ruled by fear. He indicates that it is far better to rise

above conflict than to embrace it. Rising above means to have a keen eye so that one can

spot danger in order to avoid it. However, as the myth tells us, the Hawks feet never

touch the ground. This symbolizes the shadow side of Horus, the hawk, for he is left

ungrounded and unconnected to life in a state of alienation. He makes every attempt to

suppress negative emotions such as anger for fear of what it might bring.

Mode 2: Pre-Reflexive/Self-Focused (Numbing)

This mode, in contrast to the prior one, is characterized by the defense of

repression. In extreme forms it is denoted by a schizoid state. This mode of experiencing

involves the denying of internal reaction to the stimulus. Unable to handle the


33/266

24

experiencing of the anger or conflict, the person essentially numbs out his or her

awareness of it. In psychoanalytic terms this is represented by the concept of repression.

Omer points out the importance of Robert Liftons shift from repression to psychic

numbing.58

Liftons psychic numbing, which he found in both the survivors of Nazi

concentration camps and the survivors of the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb, characterizes this

mode well. He says [psychic numbing] refers to an incapacity to feel or confront certain

kinds of experience, due to the blocking or absence of inner forms of imagery that can

connect with such experience. . .59

In extreme form it manifests as a pervasive

tendency toward sluggish despair, diminished vitality, chronic depression, and constricted

life space which covers over the rage and mistrust that is just beneath the surface.60

Irritability is also a manifestation of this mode. The most extreme of this mode would be

a psychotic state.


I do not need you. You cannot hurt me. Im not angry. My happiness, success,

and survival do not depend on you. I can punish you by withholding from both ofus. I do not feel anything. It is better to deaden oneself than to risk being killed.

Ill kill myself rather than experience the anger and the hurt that goes with it. Just

leave me alone.

Defenses:

denial, repression, dissociation, projection, identification, turning against the

self, chronic holding back of unacceptable or distrusted impulses. Rule-boundliving, addictions, rituals, anything that wards off anger-related content.

Osiris: The Egyptian god of the underworld best represents this constellation that

is dominated by repression. As we remember in Egyptian mythology, Osiris was first

born of the god-human incarnations. Osiris represented fertility; as a young man he

brought stability and growth to Egypt. Then in the prime of his youth and the height of

his reign, his brother, Set, took his kingdom from him by trickery and left Osiris nailed

inside a coffin, sentenced to eternal life in the underworld. The images of the Osiris


34/266

25

myth hold the psychological dynamics of entrapment, abandonment, and powerlessness.

The myth describes Osiris despair as he finds himself trapped and powerless in the

underworld. There is a similarity with what Lifton describes as the numbing of modern

life that can bring despair, diminished vitality, and depression, all of which hover over

the rage and mistrust that are beneath the surface.

The Egyptian myth of Osiris also speaks to the phenomenon of anger within

relationships. It is his wife, Isis, who eventually finds Osiris dead and tries to bring him

back to the living. In psychological terms she is trying to wake Osiris up from his inert

and numb state. We could liken Osiris to the hard-working husband who comes home

and collapses on the couch in front of the TV, or the young man out of work, feeling

defeated, or the middle-aged man who has lost his energy and drive for work and finds

little meaning in his life. The spouse of any one of these men may find herself living

with an emotionally unavailable partner. Much like Isis, she finds herself trying to

awaken Osiris from his inert state, looking for the passion she once knew.

Mode 3: Pre-Reflexive/Other-Focused (Reacting)

This category is exemplified by highly explosive reactions. We often experience

the person in this mode as regressing to an infantile temper tantrum. We see little self-

awareness. Clinically, it is common to see splitting in this pre-reflexive state which

fosters little awareness of self and other. Not only does the intent seem to be to blame the

other for ones upsetness, but also to make the other angry as well. Blame and revenge

become the key focus of energy in this mode. In a higher functioning individual (as one

moves up toward awareness) this mode is exemplified by criticality, demandingness,

dominance, and stinging aggressiveness.


35/266

26


I would not be angry if it wasnt for you. Its all your fault. I will make you payfor my suffering. Do not dare to challenge me. Social authority is the enemy and

one should act on ones impulses to protect oneself. Neediness or helplessness is

repulsive and should be avoided at all cost.

Defenses:

splitting, omnipotent responsibility or grandiosity, projection, identification,

primitive regression, denial, reaction formation, aggression and hostility,narcissistic rage, repression, acting out.

Set: The metaphor that carries this constellation is Set, Osiris brother and enemy.

Set, born second as a god-human in Egyptian mythology, carries the archetype of the

warrior, later seen in Greek mythology as Ares. Sets birth typifies his essence, he argues

(but fails) to be born first so that he can do combat with Ra the sun god who has

prevented his and that of his brothers and sisters birth for 16,000 years. Houston

translates that while still in the womb, Set shouts, Could I but see him face to face, I'd

poke out his eye.61

Set can be equated with the more primitive Hunter archetype.

While Osiris was building his kingdom based on agriculture, Set led his band of men

through the woods teaching them to be hunters. In this constellation, numbness or fear is

not the problem. Set instinctively responds with anger or rage turning it into action

directed outward. In the mythology, when Set finds Osiris coffin, brought back by Isis

to Egypt, he is instantly consumed by rage. Even though Osiris is dead in the coffin, Set

is so enraged that he dismembers the body of Osiris into 14 pieces and throws them into

the Nile.

Also inherent in Set is his orientation toward blame. In the mythology the blame

starts with Ra, the sun god, for causing his mothers suffering, then he blames Osiris for

his unhappiness with his wife, and later his blame is directed toward Osiris son, Horus.


36/266

27

Mode 4: Reflexive/Other-Focused (Participating)

This category is best exemplified by reflexive participation within the heat of the

anger. Omer uses the term, reflexive participation to refer to both a mode of being and as

a transformative practice. He describes reflexive participation as the practice of

surrendering through creative action to the necessities, meanings, and possibilities

inherent in the present moment.62

Further, the term reflexive participation describes the

capacity to experience differences from the other while neither being merged with nor

alienated from the other.63

Compassionate involvement also might describe this mode of

experiencing. What we see in this mode is the transforming of anger into imagining and

bringing forth a world that is different. In the long term, this may take the form of a

social movement or art. In the immediate experience, reflexive participation would

include a mode that is willing to experience intersubjectivity. Operating in this mode

means that the individual is willing to confront the differentness between ones self and

the other. Within the context of the clinical relationship, Nathan Schwartz-Salant

addresses the importance of this mode of expression inNarcissism and Character

Transformation. He writes: Anger and rage are catalysts that are the driving force for

the transformation . . . denial of rage can result in a stalemate in which little

transformation occurs.64

This mode of experiencing does not mean that the immediate

response to anger involves direct confrontation. The reflexivity process may bring one to

delay the type of action to be taken or to redirect it elsewhere. However, this mode holds

to an awareness of oneself and the other in the midst of action as one responds to the

anger reaction. In order for the anger to become transformative, the mode of

experiencing must embrace the emotional state, while simultaneously recognizing and


37/266


38/266

29

Personal History

My research addresses the concept of reflexivity as it relates to anger and the men

in my study. It would be incongruent if I, the researcher, was not reflexive about my own

experience as well as revealing to my audience my reflective process. As Jung wrote I

know well enough that every word I utter carries with it something of myself. . . .66

With that in mind, the following is an overview of what brought me to do this research.

I have early childhood memories of my fathers rage echoing through the house. I

remember cowering in a corner or hiding under the covers. Later, I attended schools in

the inner city where too often anger was accompanied by the use of guns and knives. I

remember sitting at lunch time on the steps of my high school spouting off to my

companions about a particular group of kids who, that morning, had beaten up one of our

friends, sending him to the hospital. After I stopped talking, one of my friends looked at

me and said with a sarcastic tone What are you going to do, whip his butt? His words

silenced not only me, but all of us, because we all knew there was nothing we could do!

We carried no knives or guns and in the world we lived in that meant we had no power.

Any anger we felt was useless, and was best left buried or forgotten. Needless to say, the

concept of using our anger toward constructive transformation was non-existent for us

during those years.

During my late teens I had a significant argument with my dad. Looking back, I

realized that it was the first time I really stood up to him. I was brutal in my verbal

attack, and when it was over I could see he was crushed. We never let our anger rise up

between us like that again, for we had gone to a place too hurtful for either of us. That

day I believe my anger changed me, but it was not without a price. The potential for us


39/266

30

as father and son to learn more about ourselves from our differences was lost due to fear

of the hurtful and destructive quality of the anger that engulfed us that day.

In many ways, my therapeutic practice today is about going back to those early

experiences of anger. I work with a diverse population of men. Whether working with

doctors or with construction workers, I see that anger has an effect on their lives. Those

who end up in our judicial system for violent crimes particularly exemplify the

destructive nature of anger. Their struggles with anger turned to violence were quite

different than my own. However, working with these men has increased my insight into

the nature of my own anger.

Participatory Research

This dissertation is a product of those men who shared their lives and suffering

with me. The symbolization that took the form of a typology came from the images that

they engaged and brought awareness to in hundreds of hours of therapy. In this research,

I collaborated with five men, each with his own unique story of domestic violence. The

focus of the interviews was to bring understanding to the experience of anger through a

mutual investigation and reflection. The participants brought with them their stories. In

turn I brought images and experiences of the men I had worked with over the years.

First, I listened to their stories. Then, through dialectical exchange and an Imaginal

Psychology orientation, I encouraged and facilitated a reflexive dialogue about their

experience. I was not looking for facts about what actually happened during the abuse,

but rather what was occurring for the research participant as related to the phenomenon of

anger. Catherine Riessman emphasizes the importance of the interviewer as a significant

contributor to the direction of the narrative. She says that the interviewer brings in his or


40/266

31

her theoretical/epistemological positions, values and more often than not, his or her

personal biography. Close analysis of the narrative derives legitimization of these types

of interpretative or hermeneutic methods.67

The strategy adopted for this research

investigation was a qualitative research design using the in-depth interview with a

narrative approach.

Four Masters

I have already stated that the multi-perspectival lens I look through comes from

Imaginal Psychology. This dissertation is being written for the Institute of Imaginal

Studies, which has a distinct orientation toward the imaginal world that undoubtedly has

influenced my research. Pertinent to the approach that I have taken in this dissertation is

the lineage that gives the school its name and situates itself in Imaginal Psychology, a

discipline that draws from a number of domains of knowledge. These domains include

spiritual traditions, somatic practices, creative arts, mythology, indigenous wisdom, deep

ecology, and social critique.68

The Institute of Imaginal Studies hosts an Imaginal Psychology that reclaims soul

as psychologys primary concern. Imaginal Psychology distinguishes itself from other

orientations in psychology such as humanistic, transpersonal, and depth. In the Institutes

catalog, Omer describes Imaginal Psychology in the following way:

Imaginal Psychology has its roots in the transformative practices that are at the

core of many spiritual traditions and creative arts. In the last one hundred yearsmodern depth psychology has rediscovered these sacred potentials. ImaginalPsychology traces this vein of gold through its ancient and modern manifestations

in ways relevant to our contemporary lives, enabling a distinctly post-modern

psychology to emerge.69


41/266

32

Hence, Imaginal Psychology moves us out of the clinical inquiry of the consulting room

and psychology laboratories. In fact Imaginal Psychology is larger than what is normally

considered psychology. Robert D. Romanyshyn writes, the term psychology might be

too small to encompass the range of the imaginal realm, because psychology as it

generally exists today is too small for the reality of soul.70

Therefore the necessity to

draw on knowledge domains outside of psychology.

Imaginal Studies, as an approach to disciplined inquiry, recognizes that our

experience and our actions in the world depend upon the images we inhabit.71

Research

in the realm of Imaginal Psychology calls for a search for knowledge that not only

contributes to academia but also embraces the community that the research is addressing.

This dissertation data collection has focused on the domestic violence abuser. In so

doing, a variety of images are evoked, not the least of which is the pain and suffering

perpetrated on spouses and children by the acts of domestic abusers. Since this

dissertation identifies itself with a psychology of the soul acknowledging that suffering

must be part of it. This is but one image that was evoked by our topic. I have chosen

four primary archetypal representations to give voice to some of the key images that

concern this dissertation. They include the poet, the therapist, the judge, and the

researcher. These voices have had their influence on my thoughts, my writing, and my

interchanges with participants and co-researchers. I present them here to make their

presence explicit to the reader. They will appear throughout the dissertation with the

intention of bringing a plurality of understanding to the topic. The poet will have his eye

tuned to the myths that are carried within each participant, myself, as well as the culture.

The therapist is keenly aware that the participants of this research are real people with

suffering and pain that cannot be ignored. In contrast, the judge reminds me that this


42/266


43/266


44/266


45/266

250

identity. Any enduring and substantive change in individual or group behavior requires a transmuting of

imaginal structures. This transmutation depends upon an affirmative turn toward the passionate nature of

the soul.

30. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music. In The Philosophy ofNietzsche. Translated by Clifton P. Fadiman (New York: Random House, 1909).

31. Carl G. Jung,Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. vol. 9, Pt. 2, 2nd ed.,TheCollected Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., 1959

1968), quoted in Stephen A Diamond,Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: The Psychological Genesis ofViolence, Evil, and Creativity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 87.

32. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani (New York, Dover,1967).

33. Ibid.; Sir James George Frazer, The New Golden Bough, ed. Dr. Theodor H. Gaster (NewYork: Criterion Books, 1959).

34.Normandi Ellis,Awakening Osiris: A New Translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead(Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988); Jean Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris (New York:Ballantine Publishing Group, 1995).

35. Frazer, The New Golden Bough, 563.36. Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 33-34.37. Ibid., 34.38. Frazer, The New Golden Bough, 32839.Nathan Schwartz-Salant uses the mythology of Set in relationship to narcissistic rage as

related to Kohuts works. Nathan Schwartz-Salant,Narcissism and Character Transformation: The

Psychology of Narcissistic Character Disorders (Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. 1982). In his book,The Borderline Personality, he again uses the myth of Osiris this time relating Osiris being dismembered tothe borderline personality. Nathan Schwartz-Salant,Archetypal Factors Underlying Sexual Acting-Out in

the Transference/Counter-transference Process (Wilmette, IL: Chiron, 1984), 1-30. The two prevalent

character disorders related to domestic violence are narcissistic and borderline disorders. Susan E. Hanks,

Translating Theory into Practice: A Conceptual Framework for Clinical Assessment, DifferentialDiagnosis, and Multi-Modal Treatment of Maritally Violent Individuals, Couples, and Families. In

Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Emilio C. Viano: 157-176 (Washington, DC:

Hemisphere Publishing Co., 1992), 169.

40. Ellis,Awakening Osiris, 22.41. Robert Zaslow and Marilyn Menta. Rage, Resistance, and Holding: Z-Process Approach

(San Jose, CA: Spartan Bookstore, San Jose State University, 1977).

42. Tomkins,Affect/Imagery/Consciousness, vol. 3: The Negative Affects: Anger and Fear; PaulEkman and Richard Davidson, ed. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions: Series in AffectiveScience (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Keith Oatley, Those to Whom Evil Has BeenDone, Perspectives on Anger and Emotion,Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 6, ed. Robert Wyer and

Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1993), 159-66; LeonardBerkowitz, Towards a General Theory of Anger and Emotional Aggression, Perspectives on Anger and

Emotion,Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 6, ed. Robert Wyer and Thomas K. Srull (New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993).


46/266

251

43. Clinically, the intensity of the anger reaction adapts to fulfill a psychological function, such asto assert autonomy, to eliminate an obstacle or barrier, or to eliminate or destroy a source of profound pain

or frustration. Kernberg,Aggression in Personality Disorders and Perversions.

44. Charles D. Spielberger, G. A. Jacobs, S. F. Russell and R. S Crane, Assessment of Anger:The State-Trait Anger Scale, Advances in Personality Assessment, vol. 2.ed. J. N. Butcher & C.D.Spielberger (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983).

45. Jean P. Sartre, The Emotions: Outline of a Theory, trans. B. Fechtman. (New York:Philosophical Library, 1948).

46. Theoretically, many have challenged the concept of pre-reflexivity, as all emotion has anappraisal element. However, from a phenomenological approach, the term as defined by J. P. Sartre

describes the common mans descriptive experience. It also has been used in a similar way in thephenomenological research of E. L. Stevick, An Empirical Investigation of the Experience of Anger,

eds. A. Giorgi, W. F. Fischer, and R. von Eckarsberg,Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological

Psychology: vol. 1 (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press., 1971).

47. Stevick, An Empirical Investigation of the Experience of Anger, 132-48.48. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, vol. 8, par. 241-3.49. Omer, definition for reflexivity, 1997.50. Trudy Mills and Sherryl Kleinman, Emotions, Reflexivity, and Action: An Interactionist

Analysis, Social Forces, 66 no. 4 (June 1988): 1009-1027.

51. This Dissertation, in chapter three, titled Experiencing the Other, examines the significanceof reflexive participation via a thorough examination of narcissism and mans search for the missing other.Aftab Omer,Experience and Otherness: On the Undermining of Learning in Educational Organizations

(Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1990), 109.

52. Ibid., 163.53. Ibid., 85-7.54. Omer, definition for reflexivity, 1997.55. Omer, Experience and Otherness, 189-190.56. Stephen Johnson in his book, Character Styles elaborates on the symbiotic character style as it

applies to this mode of anger. Stephen M. Johnson, Character Styles (New York: W. W. Norton and Co,

Inc., 1994), 36-40

57.

Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 34.

58. Omer, Experience and Otherness, 83. quoted in Robert Jay Lifton, The Life of the Self, (NY:Basic Books, 1976), 27.

59. Ibid., 83.60. Robert J Lifton,Death in Life (New York: Random House, 1967), 504.61. Houston, The Passion of Isis and Osiris, 33.


47/266

252

62. Omer, definition for reflexive participation, 1997.63. Omer, Experience and Otherness, 110.64. Schwartz-Salant,Narcissism and Character Transformation, 54-6.65. Andrew Samuels,A Critical Dictionary of Jungian Analysis (Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc.

1986), 128.

66. Carl G. Jung, Freud and Psychoanalysis. vol. 4. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung.Bollingen Series 20 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), par. 774.

67. Catherine Riessman,Narrative Analysis (Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc., 1993), 61.68. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche.69. Aftab Omer, in the Institute of Imaginal Studies Course Catalog, 1997-98.70. Robert D. Romanyshyn, Ways of the Heart: Essays Toward an Imaginal Psychology

(Pittsburgh: Trivium Publications, 2002), 23.

71. Omer, in the Institute of Imaginal Studies Course Catalog, 1997-98.


48/266

34

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The overall literature review for this dissertation is divided into three primary

parts. Part one is a review of literature on anger, part two on reflexivity, and part three on

research that combines anger and reflexivity. Part one, on anger, is reviewed in four

segments designated as: Social Cognition Theory and Anger, Domestic Violence, Affect

Theory and Anger, and Depth Psychology and Anger.

Anger Research

Social Cognitive Theory and Anger

Oedipus tragic flaw is his wrath against his own reality.

Rollo May1

A social cognitive view of anger has been the predominant perspective in

psychological research over the last 50 years. It has taken its lead from early Western

cultural views of anger. Aristotle wrote in his work,Rhetoric, Anger may be defined as

a belief that we, or our friends, have been unfairly slighted, which causes in us both

painful feelings and a desire or impulse for revenge.2

This definition closely resembles that of James R. Averill in his renowned book,

Anger and Aggression: an Essay on Emotion.3

He wrote, Anger ensues primarily when

the frustration is occasioned by the actions of another person, actions, which are

appraised by the angry individual as unjustified or at least avoidable.4


49/266

35

More recently Leonard Berkowitz acknowledges that this definition is entirely

consistent with the underlying assumptions of conventional cognitive social psychology.5

As Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett indicate, the dominant theoretical perspective in the

field supposes that virtually everything people do and feel in a given situation is

determined by how one construes what is happening.6

This position is consistent with

Schachter-Singers 1962 social psychological theory of the emotion. Stanley Schachter

and Jerome Singer presumed that bodily and neural biological responses to an event do

not in themselves stimulate a given form of behavior or even cause the production of

qualitatively specific feelings.

7

This theory, which has dominated the field of social

cognitive psychology, specifies that specific feelings are experienced and actions are

taken only when the afflicted person has made an interpretation of their internal

sensations and that those internal sensations, at best, only create a diffuse and

undifferentiated arousal state.8

This theoretical framework for understanding anger came from the early work of

William James.9 James counters what he calls the common man's view that an event

happens, one feels an emotion, and then one acts on it, with the assumption

that bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more

rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike,afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are

sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be.10

Thus, James, in his writings on emotion, predominantly sees emotion as an end product.

Keith Oatley describes the sequence as being an event occurs, which is followed by a

bodily reaction, and then followed by the emotion as a perception of the bodily reaction.11

This line of thought deems that bodily sensations caused by an event are not in

themselves emotions. They only become emotions such as anger as a result of how they


50/266

36

are construed by the individual. Schachter and Singers conventional formulations

suggest that the unhappy occurrence, however it arises, does not in itself produce motor

reactions having particular aims. The individual thus acts in a certain way because of a

decision, reached consciously or unconsciously, as to how to act. B. Weiner, Dolf

Zillmann, et al. give empirical support for this reasoning, based on reports of individual

experiences as well as laboratory research.12

This formulation has contributed to the

general social cognitive argument that cognition must be present for any emotion to take

place.

One of the most outspoken cognitive theorists on the emotion and anger is

Richard Lazarus. He strongly argues the importance of the interpreted subjectivity of the

experiencer in deciding whether an event is arbitrary or malevolent on the part of the

offenders intentions. Lazarus points out that present-day cognitive motivational

relational ideas restate Aristotle's concept of anger as the reaction to a personal slight or

insult that in effect is an assault on one's ego identity. He sees provocation as the element

of what makes adult anger different from other negative emotional states all of which are

derived from harm, loss, or threat.13

A complication in understanding anger is that often the terms anger and

aggression have been used interchangeably. As noted by Averill, the relation between

anger and aggression is not clear.14

He distinguishes anger as a passion, not an action.

Elizabeth Lemerise and Kenneth Dodge elaborate on Averills position suggesting that

sometimes aggression can be an expression of anger, but in other cases it may serve

dominance and instrumental functions.15

In general it is accepted that anger does not

inevitably lead to aggression. In the more recent article, Advances In Social Cognition

Perspectives On Anger and Emotion,Berkowitz notes that few experimental social


51/266

37

psychologists have tried to spell out in any detail the possible relationship between

aggression and the less fairly specific emotional state commonly termed anger.16

Berkowitz himself makes the distinction that aggression has to do with behavior that

deliberately attempts to achieve a particular goal, i.e., injuring another person. This

action is thus goal directed. By contrast, anger doesn't necessarily have any particular

goal and refers only to a particular set of feelings, the feelings we usually label

anger. 17

Some are only hostile responses, classified as instrumental aggression are

prompted largely by the hope of gaining some benefit other than injuring the victim.

Lemerise and Dodge suggest that there are emotional aggressive actions, which are

presumably impelled largely by specific emotional reactions within the body.18

Berkowitz and Dodge are among the growing number of social cognitive researchers that

have made use of affect theory research. These will be discussed in the section on affect

theory.

In contrast to Berkowitzs definition that limits anger to a set of particular

feelings, many social cognitive theorists have actually expanded on the functional

significance of anger. A mixture of social cognitive and affect theorists see anger as

serving a variety of adaptive functions. According to Lemerise and Dodge, these include

the organization and regulation of internal physiological and psychological processes that

are related to self-defense and mastery as well as the regulation of social and interpretive

behaviors.19

They see anger as both an energizer and an organizer of behavior and as a

social signal that regulates interpersonal behaviors. Averill particularly emphasizes the

context of the function of anger coming through socialization by caregivers and the larger

social context.20

Carol Malatesta says, from a social developmental context, the child from very


52/266

38

early on needs to learn how to express anger in culturally acceptable ways.21

Developmental social psychologists Lemerise and Dodge see problems in the modulation

and expression of anger in children implicated in failures of social interaction

development.22

They argue that anger has been shown to bias social information

processing. This makes reactive aggressive responses to others more likely. They also

associate problems in the modulation of anger on individuals with maladaptive internal

regulation. If this condition is chronic, Carroll E. Izard and Rogers R. Kobak, as well as

Kenneth Dodge and John D. Coie, say it becomes reflected in the development of

psychopathology.

23

Dodge and Coie indicate that reactive or angry aggression is a major

correlate of social rejection by ones peer group.24

The research of John Gottman and

Lynn Katz gives evidence that exposure to chronic high levels of anger and arousal has

been linked to inappropriate social behavior both with parents and with peers.25

In conclusion, the general agreement among social cognitive theorists is that

anger is a socially construed response that requires some level of cognition. For the

emotion of anger to be experienced one must appraise the situation either consciously or

unconsciously, then conclude that the actions of another person were unjustified or at

least avoidable. It is also generally agreed that reason becomes the remedy, through the

process of socialization that protects man from using his anger in a hurtful or destructive

manner. Aggression, although often coupled with anger, can be experienced independent

of anger and in general is not considered the same as anger. Social cognitive theory in

general sequences the experience of anger in a Jamesian model. An event happens, there

are diffuse bodily reactions, those bodily reactions are interpreted. It is that interpretation

that distinguishes one negative emotion from another, the emotion being the endpoint.


53/266

39

Most recent controversies among social cognitive theorists involve distinctions

between anger and aggression, the role of cognition as related to anger, action tendencies

as a part of the diffuse bodily reactions, and the sequence of events that leads to an anger

experience. These controversies in part have been influenced by affect theory during the

last decade and thus will be discussed in the section on affect theory.

Domestic Violence

Our challenge, then, is not to suppress violence but to fulfill it and, once it has been

liberated from its repression, to discover its charms.

Thomas Moore26

Research in the area of domestic violence as a social problem is relatively new.

As seen in the writing of M. Faulk, early research viewed wife assault as a phenomenon

produced by individual pathology.27

In contrast to this, during the 1970s, wife assault

broadened to include sociological causes. R. Emerson Dobash and M. Bogart assert that

a particularly strong influence came from the feminist perspective that holds that spousal

abuse basically is the result of attitudes held in a patriarchal society that supports the

inequality of women.28

Early Psychological Explanations of Domestic Violence

Faulk notes that in early psychiatric explanations wife assault was described as

rare and the men who committed it as unusual, atypical, and pathological.29

Studies by

Frank Elliott and John Snell et al. explained wife assault as caused by neural mechanisms

or by the victim herself.30 These studies have been highly criticized by those taking a

feminist perspective, like Dobash and Dobash, as well as by more recent pathological-

oriented researchers like Donald G. Dutton.31

In particular Dutton has criticized

explanations emphasizing psychiatric disorder by such researchers as Roger Bland and


54/266

40

Helene Orn as reductionistic and having the orientation toward inserting diagnostic labels

in lieu of etiology.32

Dutton argues that such studies never developed ideological models

that explained the abuse, focusing instead on association of

Documents

Awakening Osiris McCutchan