 |
 |
The discussion on anger is going around in circles - which is usually a good indication that the participants are not talking about the same thing. In an effort to clarify the situation I shall attempt in this posting to summarise the arguments of each point of view, as I see them. I shall then throw some final thoughts into the ring after which I will silence this voice as it is beginning to repeat itself. Ok - here goes. Part of the problem is that the 'pro-anger' lobby is talking about anger and the 'pro-acceptance' lobby is talking about sustained anger. The pro-anger arguments are: 1. Our anger at having PD is justified. 2. Our anger can be focused and used to motivate us to fight PD. 3. Anger is therefore a good thing. 4. PD is a chronic condition therefore there will constantly be new causes for justifiable anger. The pro-acceptance lobby does not argue with any of these statements insofar as they apply to anger as a specific response to a specific situation. But we are pointing out that anger is part of a bigger process in which it is one of several steps along the way to emotional/spiritual health. We are saying that: 1. Our anger at having PD is justified. 2. experiencing and releasing our anger is a necessary part of completing the grieving process and regaining spiritual/emotional health. 3. during the anger phase of the grieving process, anger can be focused and used to motivate us to fight PD. This makes good use of an otherwise destructive emotion 4. hanging on to our anger because we see it as the only way to fight PD is counterproductive because it halts the grieving process, and changes anger to sustained anger. 5. Even used as a motivating force sustained anger is not a positive thing because it does damage to us. 6. Because PD is a chronic condition we need to be as emotionally/spiritually/psychologically healthy as we can be because causes for grief (and, by extension anger) will keep coming at us. This is not some privately held belief for which we are trying to gain support. The existence of the grieving process is widely accepted and we are in the position of saying that it is not just words on paper - not just high sounding theory. We know, not as a matter of opinion but because we have done it, that once you let go of your anger you can complete the process of denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance; and then, no longer grieving, get on with the business of living - which includes battling PD. This doesn't mean we all become saints and never again feel anger. It is more than likely going to be an ongoing part of our lives with PD. Sometimes this may be because a major deterioration in our condition has initiate a new grieving process. More often it will be caused by frustration at not being able to do something. It's hard not to get frustrated and its hard not to express that frustration as anger. If our overall emotional/spiritual/psychological health is good, (i.e. we are no longer grieving that we have PD) the episode comes and goes and is of no more significance than the momentary burst of anger anyone would feel in response to stubbing a toe, for example. Acceptance is not some mindless nirvana which, once achieved, lasts for all eternity - it is a state of health and needs maintaining just like any other state of health. Part of that maintenance is recognising recurring sources of frustration and anger and either accepting them as they are or avoiding them. And if it is not possible to avoid them, or if you choose not to avoid them, accepting them is the only emotionally healthy choice left. I don't like the fact that I have PD; but to spend my life angry about it is the emotional equivalent of driving down a narrow, gravel surfaced, steep and winding mountain road and not watching my speed because I am angry that I am on that particular road and don't like where it is taking me. The consequences of, in addition, refusing to turn the wheel because that would be allowing the road to dictate my course, would seem to be self evident. Dennis