The Politics of Anger and The Righteous Mind

Anger is a uniquely intoxicating emotion, perhaps even more powerful than happiness and love. While conventionally viewed as a negative feeling, individuals are not repelled by it. Instead, they crave it. And during an election season, anger, above all else, is what fuels righteous indignation and widens societal divides. 

How can it be that in a society where we go out of our way to avoid unpleasantness in almost every aspect of our life that anger is so often sought after? Neuroscience offers an explanation. 

The Neuroscience of Anger

In the 1960s, psychiatrist Robert Heath conducted an experiment wherein he implanted electrodes in participants that would allow them to trigger certain emotions. Participants had the option of choosing to stimulate the parts of the brain that induced either feelings of drunkenness, sexual arousal, mild frustration and anger, or laughing or giggling. 

Of all these feelings, the one area that participants consistently preferred above all else was mild frustration and anger. Shocking as this may be, there are several reasons for this. Mild frustration and anger are essential to human growth. Anger and frustration present the types of challenges that push people to overcome their perceived limitations and achieve things they never thought possible. Anger also floods the system with dopamine, which is responsible for pleasure, euphoria, reward, and motivation, making it one of the most addicting neurotransmitters. 

But anger’s negative consequences are all too evident today. When unbridled anger triggers a sense of moral righteousness, it creates a dangerous cycle wherein people justify their pursuit of conflict under the guise of furthering their “correct” views. Social Media is the arena where this phenomenon plays out today.

Most of us have experienced the feelings of anger that arise when we scroll past political content on X with which we viscerally disagree. Maybe you had no intention of participating in social media arguments when you sat down for your morning coffee and doomscrolling session, but once the anger begins it’s hard to stop. Suddenly, you’re like the Hulk, unable to stave away the righteous anger and you don’t really want to, because it feels good. Your heart starts to pound, your palms get sweaty, and the adrenaline is pumping. Not only do you want to reply to the triggering post, you feel as if it is your duty. You’re right, other people are wrong, and they need to be put in their place. 

You post your anger-riddled reply and you’re feeling good, high on the feeling of being a warrior for your righteous cause. And then the replies come in and you find yourself trapped in online debate that becomes less about true moral conviction and more about moral superiority. And this constant rinse and repeat cycle creates the “us” against “them” mentality that is dividing society today. 

The Righteous Mind

Prolific author and social psychologist Johnathan Haidt explored this human phenomenon in his book The Righteous Mind. Haidt highlights how individuals seem to crave these feelings of moral indignation and seek interactions that make us feel morally superior. And while we might feel like we have written a brilliant treatise on our beliefs every time we engage online, our responses tend to read more like “word vomit,” poorly articulated, filled with personal attacks, and lacking any real substance. Haidt calls this “moral dumbfounding.”

We see moral dumbfounding on display constantly on social media and it usually goes something like this: “My candidate is better than your candidate because your candidate is a bad person for believing XYZ. My candidate is the only ethical option because he isn’t your candidate because your candidate is bad!” This explanation contributes nothing to political discourse. And yet, these political debates have resulted in people cutting off family members and longtime friends, because righteous indignation is more important than civil discourse. “If you’re not on ‘my team’ you’re dangerous and I have a duty to ignore your reasoning and condemn you.”

As Haidt explains, “people bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative moral worlds.” 

This uncivil discourse is problematic, but with anger acting as such a prevalent human emotion, is there any remedy? Not without a major shift in society that would require having real conversations with people and listening to what they have to say. Whether that is possible in a world where people feel empowered to rage post from behind the safety of their keyboard seems unlikely today. But once you are cognizant of the problem you might try making an effort to recognize when you are called to engage in an argument out of anger–and perhaps, you can make the choice to scroll past and consume some uplifting content instead. While you might not get the dopamine rush you get from anger, you might find the peace of mind is a welcome substitute.