Managing anger: how to turn fury to your advantage

There are only four true reasons for anger against other people.

The Danish writer and psychotherapist Ilsa Sand in her book Compass of Emotion: How to Understand Your Feelings laid out the true origins of aggression on the shelves and gave recommendations on how to direct the seething emotions into a productive channel instead of destructive.

Each of us has moments when we are angry with other people. And it seems that there really is an excuse for anger. Someone pushed you and did not apologize. Someone was late for an important meeting, forcing plans to shift. Someone climbs with their tenderness and silly SMS, when at work a blockage! You give the will to objective, at first glance, indignation, read out the "offender" - and on the output you get a conflict, a spoiled mood, strained relations with others and other delights of splashed anger.

At such moments, many consoled the thought: "He was the first to start, I just answered." But this is not so. Extremely rare anger is just anger. Much more often we get angry with other people not through their fault - the causes of fury are hidden in ourselves. Anger is a typical secondary feeling that arises only as an answer to other, deeper emotions that we experience in connection with the situation.

These emotions, becoming the trigger for rage, are in most cases based on one of four reasons.

Someone by word or deed intentionally or accidentally wounded your self-esteem, humiliated you, demonstrated your insignificance. This is one of the most frequent causes of anger. Vanity is the painful point of all mankind.
Someone offers you attention, closeness, care, which you are not ready to accept now. The resulting irritation is self-protection, it works almost automatically.
Someone commits actions that categorically contradict your values ​​and ideals.
Someone by their actions violates your plans and complicates the achievement of goals.
If you determine which of these causes caused anger, it will be easier to deal with anger. Consider these four groups in more detail.

Anger management, when hurt self-esteem
Anger that arises in response to criticism or humiliation, psychologists call narcissistic. The reaction to it is predictable in the majority from https://customwriting.com/essay-help-online: people turn into children who repel the offender and shout to him: "It's like that!" The more restrained and rational there is another desire - to try to explain, to point out that he was mistaken in his criticism, to get him changed his mind.

Unfortunately, these tactics often do not work. If you are outraged, the matter will develop into a conflict in which your abuser hardly recognizes your rightness. If you start to explain, you are likely to be considered a bore and are unlikely to listen.

How it looks in life
Imagine her husband and father (well, let's say, Tom), who returns home after a day's work, sees wallpaper painted by children, tired wife Lisa, and in addition she discovers a mountain of dirty dishes in the kitchen. "You stayed at home all day, could not you at least wash the dishes ?!" he flares up.

Lisa predicts vomiting in response. She wants to shout: "You can not! Try to "sit at home" myself, I'll see how you manage with two children, run away with them shopping, feed them all, read books with them, you'll hang them! "Lisa is ready to list all the homework she's doing in Tom, but he does not notice.

And, at first glance, Lisa is right. But if it gives vent to its indignation, it will only aggravate the conflict.

What to do
Understand that anger in this case is a secondary feeling. Most likely, behind Lisa's indignation lies not anger at her husband, but two other feelings.

1. Sadness
Sadness is due to the fact that a close person sees Lisa not as she would like to look in his eyes. Not a wife who puts a lot of energy into creating a "reliable rear" for her husband, to be a good mom for common children, but a lazy and slovenly woman.

If so, then the best way out is to voice your real emotion. Tell Tom: "I'm very upset that you are scolding me." Most likely, he will answer: "And what do you think I'm wrong?" And only now is the time when Lisa has a reason to start explanations, because Kolya expressed his readiness to listen to her.

2. Fear
This feeling also often hides behind narcissistic anger. Lisa is worried: if Tom really thinks of her as a slob, then suddenly he will not want to live with her any more? Suddenly he will start looking for another woman?

If Lisa really is afraid of parting, she needs to voice her feelings again. For example, ask: "Do you say this ... This means you love me less?"

Tom can answer this: "I love you, but I'm so tired after work. I just want to come to a clean house, where they meet me with dinner. " From the aggressor in the eyes of Lisa, Tom will become what he is, into a tired man who nevertheless loves her and the children. Fear will fly away, and with it will leave and anger. And the life problem can be solved without raising the voice of each other.

Film and Culturalism

Some films from Battleship Potemkin to A Short Film about Love, from The Seventh Seal to Dreams, from Pather Panchali to Charachar or from Brazil to Dialogue Delirium (Kichhu Sanglap Kichhu Pralap) give us something pure in essence. What it actually is? This hovering atmosphere of cinema-aesthetics and film culture has been developed out of a concept and its subsequent practices of cultural theory. That is culturalism. Now, the whole cinematographic culture can be looked in this perspective for getting a novel taste of better understanding. In this paper, I am trying to give such visions and concepts. In this axis of cultural theory, culturalism is radiating as an important concept that follows a culturalist tradition in human civilisation. Culturalism flourished in Europe to be specific it has found its root in Germany and England during the last two centuries. The course of culturalist tradition and culturalism as it is found in England are taken in this paper for analysing film and cinematographic culture in general including Indian perspectives.

Culturalism stands for pure culture, preservation of culture and promotion of culture. It is against utilitarianism. Culturalism gets its force with the rise of English studies in England. It is only from the later half of 19th century the study of English in the academic institutions in England began. With the culture of serious English studies the cultural tradition of the English and England are being preserved culturally and systemically to a great extent. Culturalism also allows people to make choices they really want to make. As for students, they are free to use a help of https://customwriting.com/pay-for-paper  and other services.  Government in many places comes to take the responsibility of preserving culture through opening academic institutions and helping them to sustain and flourish. Matthew Arnold to whom culturalist tradition own a lot of decisively opted for state sponsorship of education as the mechanism by which culture could be preserved and extended, and as the centre of resistance to the driving imperatives of an increasingly mechanical and materialist civilisation. In the late 19th century, and even more so in the 20th, the culturalist discourse finally become institutionalised within the academic discipline we now know as "English"1

The context of English literature comes very much in association with culturalism. Culturalism bears is a tradition which from Barke through to T. S. Eliot (1885-1965), clearly embraced, in one important registrar, a radically conservative reaction against capitalist modernity. But in another, and equally important register, it embraces also a radically progressive aspiration to go beyond that modernity: the obvious instances here include William Blake (1757 - 1827), P. B. Shelley (1792 - 1822), William Morris (1834 - 1896), Orwell of course, but also Williams, whose intellectual career is properly intelligible only as a late constitution of this Anglo-culturalist tradition. Whatever the register, however, culturalism remains irretrievably adversaries in its relations both to capitalist industrialisation and to utilitarian intellectual culture. This is a tradition which underpins much of English romantic poetry, but also much of what we often describe as the 19th century English realist novel.

From these two above quotations of Andrew Millner the sense, nature and practice of culturalism seems a little bit clear. Following him again we can get more fundamental aspects of culturalism. Moreover, it has been accorded a quite distinctively Marxist inflection. Thus Richard Johnson, for example, sees the new discipline of cultural studies as founded upon a theoretical terrain demarcated between, on the one hand a kind of Anglo-Marxist culturalism best represented by the works of the historian E. P. Thompson and the literary critic Raymond Williams, and on the other, that type of Francophone structuralist Marxism establish by the philosopher Louis Althusser Johnson’s usage seems to me far too preoccupied with these comparatively recent culturalist and structuralist Marxism, to the extent that it clearly underestimates the significance for each of their respective non-Marxist precursors. I propose, then, to use the term rather differently to denote that type of anti-culturalism which become incorporated within a largely literary tradition of speculation about the relationship between culture and society, variants of which recur within both British and German intellectual life. In both German and British versions, the concept of culture is understood as incorporating a specifically "literary sense of culture as "art" with an "anthropological sense of culture as a "way of life". And in each case, the claims of culture are counterpoised to those of material civilisation. Hence, Shelley’s famous dictum that: "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.".

Spelling Commission Report

The report calls for several key elements that have become familiar elements of the recent assessment push: a focus on outcomes, a somewhat nebulous term that is invoked consistently in the assessment and accountability movement literature; the endorsement of value-added metrics, a controversial method of assessment that uses how individual and institutional scores change over time to assess educational quality; increasing access to, and standardization of, information available for students, parents, and the general public; and tying these reforms into accreditation. Throughout it all, the Spellings Commission report returns again and again to the need for standardization and standardized testing metrics. In the reports of experts from site https://customwriting.com, specifically suggested three standard assessment methods as models. First, the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), a prominent standardized test of college student learning. Second, the National Survey of Student Engagement and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, a research effort of Indiana University designed to investigate educational practice at the collegiate level, such as how much time and effort students invest in learning, the number of books and papers typically assigned, and what the average requirements are for earning an American bachelor’s or associate’s degree.

Third, The National Forum on College-Level Learning, a broad, multistate effort to understand college student learning, using such metrics as the CLA, the National Adult Literacy Survey, the two-year college learning assessment WorkKeys, and graduation admissions examinations such as the GRE, GMAT, and LSAT. Although the report officially endorses no particular assessment, the CLA is mentioned three separate times as a good example of the kind of standardized assessment the Spellings Commission advocates. This cannot help but have a powerful impact on the visibility and viability of the CLA (and its successor, the CLA+) as a major assessment system.

The report does not merely advocate standardized tests as a method for achieving transparency and accountability, but also argues that there must be a system of incentives and penalties that makes this kind of assessment ubiquitous. “The federal government,” reads the report, “should provide incentives for states, higher education associations, university systems, and institutions to develop interoperable outcomes-focused accountability systems designed to be accessible and useful for students, policymakers, and the public.” Perhaps keeping in mind the scattered and inconsistent policy response to A Nation at Risk, the Reagan- era educational policy document that identified broad failures in the American educational system and called for vast reforms, the report here asks for federal intervention to ensure something resembling a coherent, unified strategy of assessment. The term “interoperable” is key. It suggests that states and institutions should not be made to conform to a particular assessment metric or mechanism, but rather to ensure that results from whatever particular assessment mechanism they adopt be easily compared to results from other mechanisms. This endorsement of local control and institutional diversity is common to American political rhetoric, where federalism and the right of local control are often deeply entrenched. As a practical matter, however, it is unclear whether there will really be a sufficient number of interoperable testing options to give states and institutions meaningful choices. The Spellings Commission also directed the regional accrediting agencies to go even further in pressuring colleges and universities to take part in rigorous assessment, instructing them to “make performance outcomes, including completion rates and student learning, the core of their assessment as a priority over inputs or processes .”