Reconsider the Anger of Marginalized Communities

ABSTRACT

Anger is an apt and justified response to wrongdoings, yet conventional approaches commonly view it as an intrapersonal problem that solely demands cognitive or behavioral interventions. Mainstream treatments of anger often neglect its contextual factors, potentially invalidating the legitimate grievances of marginalized people. This paper challenges these views by examining existing literature, and rethinks the role of anger by placing it within the contexts of social power structures. It argues that anger‐related processes can constitute affective injustice, further perpetuating systemic oppression and injustice. To advance sociocultural competency in treating anger among marginalized people, this paper offers practical guidance, such as the role of client autonomy in the anger treatment process and a systemic conceptualization of anger rooted in systems theory. It also recommends key directions for future research, such as the intersectionality of anger regulation among marginalized communities. Ultimately, the paper is not about introducing novel models or interventions for treating anger but rather seeks to shift the focus from merely approaching anger as a clinical problem to addressing its systemic roots, empowering clinicians to incorporate these factors into the treatment process.

It's a catch‐22 situation: I'm angry about this, but I can't show it, or else they'll use that anger as a stick to beat me with.

Merritt et al. ²⁰¹²

1. Introduction

Globally, about 22% of adults reported experiencing anger on any given day (Gallup 2024). In the United States, the estimated rate of uncontrolled anger was 7.8% (Okuda et al. 2015). Anger, like sadness or joy, is a universal emotion with significant adaptive functions (Gentry 2007). It serves as a response to perceived threats or injustices, prompting individuals to take protective or corrective action when being physically or psychologically restrained (Darwin ^1872/1965; Izard ¹⁹⁷⁷; Lewis ¹⁹⁹³; Tamir et al. ²⁰⁰⁸). It mobilizes energy and resources, facilitating confrontation and problem‐solving when one's rights or values are violated (Mikulincer 1988; Sell ²⁰¹⁷). On a larger scale, anger has historically served as a powerful motivator and catalyst for social change, as evidenced in various significant historical events (Narayan 1988; Kulkarni ²⁰²⁴). However, despite these adaptive functions, anger is often linked to numerous negative consequences at personal, relational, and societal levels.

Unattended anger can lead to physical health issues, such as coronary heart disease (Denollet et al. 2010; Niaura et al. ²⁰⁰²), and mental health problems, including anxiety and depression (DiGiuseppe and Tafrate ²⁰⁰³; Hendy et al. ²⁰¹⁶; Stevenson ¹⁹⁹⁸). In relationships, it is associated with increased conflicts and intimate partner violence (Holtzworth‐Munroe and Clements ²⁰⁰⁷; Schoebi et al. ²⁰¹⁰). At a societal level, anger may sabotage work productivity, group cohesion, and social unity (Boiger et al. 2013; Grandey et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Larsson et al. ²⁰²⁴; Rimé ²⁰²⁰; Van Zomeren et al. ²⁰⁰⁴).

Traditionally, clinical approaches focus on regulating anger away, viewing it as an intrapersonal problem rather than considering the broader context that gives rise to it (Cherry 2018; Robins and Novaco ¹⁹⁹⁹; Szasz et al. ²⁰¹¹). This perspective might be particularly harmful to marginalized communities that are historically excluded from the mainstream based on their sociodemographic status, including race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic situation, and other factors. Essentially, marginalization is rooted in an unequal social power structure under which certain social groups are systematically disadvantaged or mistreated, leading to limited access to resources, representation, and opportunities. These imbalances perpetuate cycles of exclusion, making it difficult for marginalized communities to overcome the barriers imposed by societal structures (Aneshensel 2009; Baah et al. ²⁰¹⁹). For these communities and their members, anger is often an apt and justified response to the systemic injustices and sociopolitical oppression in their everyday lives (Bahamondes et al. 2019; Fakhoury ²⁰²¹). By ignoring these contextual factors, conventional approaches fail to address the systemic and structural sources of anger, thereby unconsciously yet actively perpetuating another type of injustice rooted in the affective process (Srinivasan 2018; Sterrett‐Hong ²⁰²⁴). This affective injustice further compounds oppression and social inequality to the marginalized people (Archer and Mills 2019; Bell ²⁰⁰⁹; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴).

This paper aims to reposition anger within its broader context, challenging its negative connotations by recognizing its roots in social justice and power structures. It builds on this foundation by exploring the philosophical argument that anger, as experienced by marginalized people, may constitute an affective injustice that compounds their societal challenges (Archer and Mills 2019; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸). Additionally, the paper critiques conventional anger treatments for overlooking contextual factors, which can inadvertently invalidate the legitimate grievances of marginalized communities (Consedine et al. 2012; Corbin et al. ²⁰¹⁸; Garcia et al. ²⁰¹⁵). To address this, practical guidance is provided to help clinicians navigate the complexities of anger in marginalized communities, promoting a systemic conceptualization of anger (Abernethy 1995; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴). Finally, this paper advocates for a shift in the current paradigm by recommending future research directions, including examining intersecting identities, the long‐term impact of anger regulation strategies, and the role of anger in social movements (Archer and Mills 2019; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸).

It is worth noting that while this paper critiques the mainstream focus on anger as solely an intrapersonal clinical issue, it does not seek to idealize the functionality of anger or minimize the harm of unattended anger. Rather, it aims to highlight the need for clinical treatment to serve as a space where the potential injustices underlying anger can be acknowledged and where anger can be transformed. Eventually, the anger of marginalized people might become a powerful force for facilitating the therapeutic process and challenging the structural status quo. To begin with, let us turn our attention to how anger has acquired its “notorious” reputation.

2. The “Notorious” Emotion

2.1. Feeling Rules

Emotion, such as anger, encompasses multiple components in its unfolding process, including physiological changes, subjective experience, and expressive behaviors (Gross 2015). While emotions might include an involuntary element and seem uncontrollable (Darwin ^1872/1965), especially in the physiological aspects, the emotion‐related process is far from neutral and deeply social (Boiger et al. 2013; Rimé ²⁰²⁰; Thoits ¹⁹⁸⁹; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰).

Hochschild (1979, ¹⁹⁸³) innovatively proposed that our daily emotional life is governed by the social structure in which we are embedded. According to this notion, individuals are socialized to follow rules and norms dictating when and how to feel appropriately in given situations. People dedicate emotional labor to routinely mold their feelings to align with dominant norms. Otherwise, they risk being deemed socially deviant or unacceptable, which usually leads to extra emotional burdens (e.g., shame or alienation; Lively ²⁰²⁴). These “feeling rules” vary by individual sociodemographic positions, such as gender and professional status, contributing to a pattern of inequity in emotional experiences and expression. For instance, women are expected to take on greater responsibilities than men in managing emotions for themselves and others (Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹; Hochschild ¹⁹⁸³). Similarly, lower‐rank workers experience different emotional expectations compared with their supervisors, especially regarding anger expression (Callister et al. 2017; Spencer and Rupp ²⁰⁰⁹).

In this socially constructed emotional culture, members with marginalized identities, including people of color, have less power in determining whether or how to engage with their emotions (Ashley 2014; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹; Sue et al. ²⁰⁰⁷). This lack of autonomy is particularly significant in the experience of anger, a natural and common emotion for people suffering from structural oppression and social injustices (Archer and Mills 2019; Bell ²⁰⁰⁹; Consedine et al. ²⁰¹²; Fakhoury ²⁰²¹; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸; Whitney ²⁰¹⁸).

2.2. Dismissed, Stigmatized, and Pathologized

For marginalized people, their anger is often labeled as inappropriate, irrational, counterproductive, disruptive, or even dangerous (Cherry 2018; Paytas ²⁰²²; Stevenson ¹⁹⁹⁸; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰). This negative connotation has deep roots in the mainstream culture's interpretation and response to anger throughout history (Srinivasan 2018), reinforced by various stereotypes and biases (Corbin et al. 2018; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹).

2.2.1. Historical Context

The mainstream culture in the United States defines the world through a filter of meritocracy and individualism, which is ultimately a manifestation of White privilege (DiAngelo ²⁰¹⁸). This filter skews societal evaluation of anger based on the experiences and positions of the privileged. Consequently, the anger of marginalized people is rejected as unintelligible when the dominant group cannot comprehend the cause (i.e., injustices and oppression), deemed inappropriate when it does not fit the privileged narrative of comfort and civility, and seen as disproportionate when it challenges the structural status quo (Cherry 2018). In other words, the evaluation of anger is inherently subjective, serving to protect societal norms established by those in power (Hochschild 1983; Rimé ²⁰²⁰).

The historical origin of anger stigmatization can be traced back to slavery and colonization, particularly for the Black community (Consedine et al. 2012). During slavery, expressions of anger by enslaved individuals were brutally dismissed and punished, establishing the notion that their anger was inappropriate, illegitimate, and dangerous (Ashley 2014; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸). This oppression‐centered stigmatization persists today, with Black individuals' anger often viewed as more threatening and less justified compared with that of their White counterparts (Wingfield 2010). Although institutionalized slavery ended nearly 160 years ago, the anger of marginalized groups, especially people of color, is still viewed as a sign of moral failure or lack of self‐control (Archer and Mills 2019) and as a threat to the social order (Ford et al. 2022; Liebow and Glazer ²⁰²³), and is often depicted as inherently violent and disruptive (Paytas 2022). Ultimately, these devaluations and stigmatization of anger serve as forms of social control that solidify the unearned privileges of those in power, and reinforce the subordinate position of marginalized groups (Pismenny et al. 2024; Whitney ²⁰¹⁸).

2.2.2. Stereotypes and Norms

Beyond historical contexts, the anger of marginalized people is further undermined by pervasive norms and stereotypes (Livingston and Rosette 2020). These biased ideas add layers of complexity, particularly affecting women and LGBTQIA+ groups, whose anger is dismissed or pathologized differently compared with other groups (Crenshaw ^1989/2013; Hendy et al. ²⁰¹⁶; McInroy and Craig ²⁰¹⁷).

For instance, the “angry Black woman” mythology (Malveaux 1989) portrays Black women as irrational, aggressive, uncontrollable, overbearing, and unfeminine. This image not only excludes Black women from conventional standards of feminine virtue but also subjects their anger to heightened scrutiny and discrimination despite the oppressive context (Ashley 2014; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹). Collins (1990/2022) seminally discussed how this stereotype controls Black women by distorting their legitimate emotional responses to injustice as irrational or baseless, undermining the credibility of their lived experience and reinforcing the intersecting oppression of racism and sexism. Similarly, Harris‐Perry (2011) examined how this stereotype impacts the political and social standing of Black women by pathologizing their emotions and policing them to conform to societal norms of docility.

In addition to the “angry Black woman” stereotype, an equally pervasive and controlling image is the STRONGBLACKWOMAN trope (Harris 2015). While it might seem empowering, the STRONGBLACKWOMAN imposes unrealistic expectations on Black women to be always brave, resilient, and self‐sufficient, overlooking their vulnerability and need for support (West et al. 2016). Corbin et al. (2018) gathered the experiences of thirteen Black college women from historically and predominantly White institutions in the United States. These women, including students and tenure‐track faculty members, consistently reported feeling trapped between justified anger and the expectation to embody the STRONGBLACKWOMAN when facing routine racial battles, leading to extensive psychosocial and physiological costs, including anxiety, emotional exhaustion, helplessness, and hopelessness.

Mass media also plays a critical role in shaping public perceptions and reinforcing anger‐related biases (Brooks and Hébert 2006; Corbin et al. ²⁰¹⁸; Harris ²⁰¹⁵). In the service of maintaining the power of dominant culture (Barlow 1993), media representations of anger commonly depict marginalized groups in a negative light while demonstrating positive images of the privileged group (Entman and Rojecki 2001). For instance, regarding the lack of nonbinary restrooms at school, a White father's anger might be justified and even admirable, but a Black father's anger can be viewed by the audience as reckless and irrational. Pre‐existing societal stereotypes, including the “angry Black woman” and the idea of gay men being overly emotional, are commonly found in media, attributing their anger as an inherent disposition or personality flaw (Ashley 2014; Blashill and Powlishta ²⁰⁰⁹). These portrayals amplify societal fears and biases, leading to increased scrutiny and harsher punishment of marginalized groups when they express anger (Stevenson 1998). Furthermore, news outlets, television shows, and films consistently characterize people of color as uncivilized citizens whose lower socioeconomic status is due to their chaotic family relationships, impulsive behaviors, and poor insights, marking their anger as unjustified or self‐perpetrated (Oliver et al. 2009). When marginalized communities take collective actions to confront injustices and oppression, media reports on protests and social movements largely focus on the disruption, further preaching the view that the anger of nondominant groups is dangerous or counterproductive (Boykoff 2006).

It is also worth noting that anger from different groups is judged inconsistently based on different identities, creating further confusion and inconsistency in their affective experiences (Cherry 2018). For instance, a White gay man's anger toward inflation rates might be approved and widely supported, yet their anger about being mistreated as a sexual minority can be dismissed and condemned. This intersectionality highlights how various aspects of identity, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation, interact to impact anger‐related beliefs and individual experiences across the broader system (Crenshaw ^1989/2013; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹). Unfortunately and unfairly, due to pervasive stereotypes and pathologized norms, the expression of anger is often not a viable option. Even the experience of anger itself can become too costly for marginalized people (Consedine et al. 2012; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰).

2.3. Suppress to Survive

From a psychological and evolutionary perspective, anger is an integral part of the neural defense system that detects threats, signals wrongdoing, and mobilizes the body to guard against physical or psychological danger (Darwin ^1872/1965; Fakhoury ²⁰²¹; Siegel ¹⁹⁹⁹). This emotion has evolved to play a crucial role in assessing the environment and enhancing survival chances (Bilodeau 1994). For marginalized people living under pervasive injustice and oppression, anger, as a survival mechanism, is biologically functional and socially essential (Ashley 2014; Lorde ¹⁹⁸⁴; Sznycer et al. ²⁰²²). However, marginalized people might feel compelled to suppress their experience and expression of anger in the very interest of survival (Archer and Mills 2019; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰).

2.3.1. Internalized Stereotypes

Members of marginalized communities are heavily impacted by broader societal biases, making them susceptible to internalizing their anger as a personal deficit. This internalization can lead to the nonacceptance of anger, low self‐esteem, and shame regarding both the self and their group identity (Ashley 2014). Pervasive anger‐related stereotypes and pejorative associations may also cause fear of being perceived as problematic and threatening (Morgan and Bennett 2006; Thomas et al. ²⁰⁰⁴). To avoid these stereotypes, marginalized individuals often become hypervigilant about their emotional states (Corbin et al. 2018). For instance, Black women, aware of the “angry Black woman” stereotype, may proactively self‐police and silence their anger in their personal life, the workplace, and even the treatment process to avoid stigmatization and seek approval (Bell 2009; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴). Similarly, a gay man who does not want to be labeled as “emotional and dramatic” might feel pressured to silence their anger and rationalize situations when facing discrimination based on their sexuality (Blashill and Powlishta 2009).

2.3.2. External Stressors

Marginalized individuals often feel the need to conceal their true feelings, particularly anger, to avoid multilayered ramifications. For example, Harlow (2003) found that Black professors often need to exert additional emotional labor to control their anger, thereby maintaining professionalism and mitigating adverse performance evaluations. Similarly, Wingfield (2010) conducted 25 semi‐structured interviews with Black professionals on feeling rules in workplaces, revealing that corporately mandated expression rules, particularly regarding anger, are implicitly yet significantly racialized. The Black participants indicated that certain emotions, particularly anger, are for their White colleagues only. Aware of these rules, they must conceal their honest feelings, including anger in response to colleagues' racist comments, to avoid severe consequences, such as job loss, missed advancement opportunities, ostracism from colleagues, tarnished reputations, and negative sanctions from supervisors.

Further, Consedine et al. (2012) investigated the affective paradox, wherein minority populations report counterintuitively lower levels of anger despite their disadvantaged socioeconomic–political context. Their study, involving 1364 women from six ethnic groups, suggests that the tendency of minority individuals to suppress anger is better explained by emotion regulation rather than a desire to appear socially appropriate. Their emotion regulation perspective emphasizes that their habitual suppression is a socialized coping strategy, developed through experiences such as parental discipline, to survive in a discriminatory environment.

Additionally, in the criminal justice system, people of color face disproportionate punishment for expressions of anger, including extended interactions with law enforcement and police violence (Bor et al. 2018; Côté‐Lussier ²⁰¹³; Williamson et al. ²⁰¹⁸). On an interpersonal level, expressing anger can damage relationships when friends, family, and colleagues disapprove or react negatively, further isolating the individual and limiting their social resources and support system (Corbin et al. 2018; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰). Even when marginalized people's anger is acknowledged as justified, they are often urged to let it go by ill‐wishers and well‐wishers, in the name of facilitating calmer and more productive conversations (Lorde 1984). Otherwise, they might be blamed for allowing their anger to become counterproductive to constructive progress (Archer and Mills 2019; Srinivasan ²⁰¹⁸).

2.3.3. Cost of Suppression

While their anger is likely rooted in systemic power structures, suppression often becomes a survival necessity, and the painful cost of suppression fully falls on marginalized people (Merritt et al. 2012). Occasional suppression with intentionality can reflect emotional flexibility and adaptability in certain contexts (Villanueva et al. 2024). However, across disciplines, habitual suppression has consistently been viewed as a maladaptive coping mechanism (Aldao et al. 2010). In a comprehensive review, Patel and Patel (2019) highlighted the extensive consequences of suppression on physical and psychological health, such as cardiovascular diseases, weakened immune systems, mental distress, burnout, and emotional numbness. Their study also found that suppression diminishes overall well‐being, reducing life satisfaction and happiness while impairing relationship quality and social interactions across many domains.

Specific studies regarding anger suppression support its overall negative impact. For instance, the suppression of anger can exacerbate existing mental health issues, including increased anxiety and depression (Stevenson 1998). Physically, it can increase the risk of adverse cardiac events (Denollet et al. 2010), and accelerate epigenetic aging (McKenna et al. ²⁰²¹). In LGBT groups, Hendy et al. (2016) conducted a study with 344 participants who reported concerns regarding their sexual identity. In the study, out of the many mediators, including expressed anger and substance use, suppressed anger was the only mediator that significantly explained the relationships between sexual minority stressors (e.g., harassment and concealment) and negative psychological outcomes, including posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, poor self‐esteem, lack of job satisfaction, and interpersonal conflicts.

It is worth noting that suppressing anger does significantly reduce outward expression, possibly helping marginalized people avoid those anger‐related stereotypes and potential ramifications discussed above. However, suppression usually cannot reduce physiological arousal and internal stress, leading to a discrepancy between internal and external affective experiences (Gross and Levenson 1993). This experiential discrepancy may lead to inauthenticity and burnout, compromising people's overall performance and emotion regulation capacity (Hochschild 1983; Grandey et al. ²⁰¹⁹).

Furthermore, members of marginalized communities can have different beliefs regarding their capabilities and efficacy in enacting anger‐motivated actions, resulting in various perspectives on the necessity of anger suppression. These divided views can erode group cohesion and unity within marginalized communities, undermining their ability to advocate for themselves and their communities (Paytas 2022; Van Zomeren et al. ²⁰⁰⁴).

Last but not least, anger suppression is a fear‐based survival coping mechanism that many marginalized people may feel they have no choice but to engage with. Therefore, the regular use of suppression might rob them of their sense of agency and control, contributing to guilt and shame. Habitual use of this strategy can lead to further experiences of powerlessness and frustration, perpetuating the cycle of oppression (Pismenny et al. 2024). Beyond the individual, the cumulative psychosocial–physiological impact of suppression is often shared among family, friends, and larger marginalized communities, with the potential to be passed down across generations, embodying the painful score of suppression (Van der Kolk ¹⁹⁹⁴).

2.3.4. Too Much to Feel

When suppression is the only viable option, the very experience of anger becomes costly. Triggered by uncontrollable stressors associated with racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, marginalized people might be predisposed to experience anger rooted in their neural defense mechanisms. However, to avoid being trapped in pejorative stereotypes and the severe consequences of expressing anger, they must expend considerable emotional labor to police and silence their anger. This no‐win situation takes a toll on their overall well‐being, putting them at higher risk of emotional instability and psychological incongruence (Archer and Mills 2019; Thomas and González‐Prendes ²⁰⁰⁹; Hochschild ¹⁹⁸³). Every time anger rises, they may face a new battle, despite the overwhelming amount of battles they are already facing (Corbin et al. 2018). On top of the cumulative ramifications of anger suppression, many marginalized people might also experience a daily ethical conflict in choosing between expressing their anger to battle injustice or silencing their feelings to avoid the repercussions. Srinivasan (2018) defined this normative conflict of marginalized people as affective injustice.

3. Affective Injustice

In recent years, scholars in philosophy and sociology, particularly within feminist studies (Bell 2009), have analyzed how the judgment of anger, when ignoring its sociocultural and political roots, becomes another form of injustice that entrenches systemic oppression against marginalized people (Ford et al. 2022; Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴).

Cherry (2018), in her work “The Errors and Limitations of Our ‘Anger‐Evaluating’ Ways,” critiqued how the evaluation and acceptance of anger are inherently biased, determined by the evaluator's emotional proximity and social familiarity with the angered individual. Marginalized members, often seen as the “other” in society, disproportionately experience rejection and stigmatization of their anger, reflecting an epistemic and moral failure committed by the dominant group. According to Cherry, this failure is essentially a refusal to genuinely engage with marginalized people's experiences and legitimate grievances. It also serves as a form of social control to protect the interests of the privileged, commonly through anger‐policing and anger‐gaslighting. While anger‐policing disapproves of the existence of anger itself, anger‐gaslighting convinces marginalized people to accept their anger as unwarranted or exaggerated. Both are defined as types of emotional injustice by Pismenny et al. ²⁰²⁴ (see their work for major categories and subtypes of emotional injustice).

The concept of affective injustice was first introduced by Srinivasan (2018) in her work “The Aptness of Anger.” Srinivasan argued that victims of injustice face a conflict between the aptness and prudential reasons for their anger. While the former supports anger as a fitting and appropriate response to the injustice experienced, the latter advises victims to forgo their anger because it is counterproductive to their situation. For instance, getting angry might lead to the abolition of a conversation on how to change the oppressive context they face. This conflict, a dilemma that victims must navigate routinely between expressing justified anger and avoiding further harm, was defined as affective injustice by Srinivasan. She further proposed that anger, as a response to injustice, is an essential form of communication, publicly acknowledging the injustice and calling for rectification. In other words, Srinivasan believed anger has intrinsic value in highlighting moral wrongdoings and instrumental value in motivating corrective actions and social change. Referring to the counterproductive view of anger, Srinivasan recognized its validity but critiqued that this perspective essentially exists for the comfort of the perpetrator by transferring the emotional labor to the victim.

Various scholars have corroborated and expanded Srinivasan (2018) argument (see Paytas ²⁰²² for exceptions). In her work “Oppositional Anger: Aptness without Appreciation,” Fakhoury (2021) proposed removing the Matching Constraint from people responding to injustice with anger. The Matching Constraint, proposed by Srinivasan (2018) and termed by Fakhoury, states that personal reason for anger must match the facts that justify the anger for it to be apt. Fakhoury built a case for anger from a psychological perspective, arguing that people usually cannot immediately understand or articulate the underlying cause of their anger, due to its roots in the neural defense system. Fakhoury contended that while the Matching Constraint is an ideal situation, making it a prerequisite for justified anger could lead to misinterpretation of anger, exclusion of legitimate grievances, discrimination against the cognitively disadvantaged, and an extra burden on marginalized people.

Consistent with Fakhoury's (2021) perspective, Bell (2009) and Whitney (2018) both proposed that anger itself is a virtue in oppressive contexts. Bell argued that anger serves as a morally and politically valuable response to oppression. It helps maintain self‐respect, provides epistemic insight into one's standing in the moral community, bears witness to injustice, and motivates social change. Bell emphasized that the virtue of anger lies in its ability to uphold moral principles and reflect one's commitment to justice, even when it comes at a personal cost. When the anger of marginalized people is dismissed or pathologized, it perpetuates affective injustice and hinders the empowerment of their communities. Similarly, Whitney proposed that all emotions, including anger, possess intrinsic intentionality: they are not random responses but are directed toward specific situations. She underscored affective intentionality to reinforce the idea that anger is a valid and necessary response to perceived wrongdoings, serving as an essential tool for revealing deeper societal issues. She further highlighted that marginalized individuals often struggle, internally and externally, to have their anger recognized as legitimate, supporting Fakhoury's (2021) critique of the Matching Constraint.

Together, these perspectives assert that anger, far from being a mere emotional response, embodies a virtuous stance against injustice. It validates the grievances of marginalized individuals and empowers them to challenge the status quo. This virtuous stance of anger is well‐aligned with the Emotion as Social Information (EASI) Theory (Alkhadher et al. 2024; Van Kleef ²⁰⁰⁹). According to this theory, individuals use others' emotions to make sense of social interactions and form judgments about the fairness or unfairness of a given situation. Observers, including those from more privileged groups, can infer the presence of wrongdoings through the anger expressed by marginalized individuals. This can potentially lead to increased awareness and societal sensitivity to the injustice facing marginalized communities. In essence, EASI theory recognizes the role of emotions, including anger, as powerful signals and vital information in social interactions and justice judgments for everyone in the structured system.

To advance the understanding of the nuanced role of emotion in the social justice process, Pismenny et al. (2024) compiled prior research and offered a comprehensive taxonomy of emotional injustice, further strengthening the argument for anger as a virtue and a necessity in oppressive contexts. Inspired by the concept of affective injustice (Srinivasan 2018), they defined emotional injustice as occurring when the treatment of emotions is unjust and/or emotions themselves are used to treat people unjustly (e.g., getting frustrated about anger). Their taxonomy includes major categories such as Emotion Discounting and Emotion Policing, highlighting how emotions, particularly those of marginalized groups, are often misinterpreted, dismissed, manipulated, and policed in ways that not only reinforce systemic oppression but also constitute an emotional injustice. For instance, they described Emotion Discounting, where emotions like anger are invalidated and dismissed as irrational or hysterical, especially when expressed by marginalized individuals. This discounting aligns with the former observation that anger in marginalized communities is often delegitimized and pathologized.

To sum up, multiple scholars collectively reinforce the notion that anger, as a response to oppression, is intrinsic and instrumentally valuable but systematically undermined through various forms of emotional injustice. This undermining not only invalidates the anger of marginalized individuals but also perpetuates the very structures of oppression that their anger seeks to challenge. By recognizing and addressing these forms of emotional injustice, we can better appreciate the virtuous role of anger in the fight against oppression and work toward creating a more just and equitable society. However, despite the significant philosophical and sociological analyses, it is concerning that the concept of affective injustice remains largely unexplored within the broader mental health field (see Ford et al. ²⁰²² and Liebow and Glazer ²⁰²³ for exceptions, but their discussions focus on White Fragility).

4. The Missing Context in Conventional Approach

As early as 30 years ago, insightful scholars cautioned the mental health field about the broader neglect of adequate treatment for anger. DiGiuseppe et al. (1994), for example, highlighted the conceptual confusion surrounding anger, often subsumed under hostility or aggressive behaviors. This conflation can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate interventions, thereby undermining the development of evidence‐based practices specifically targeting anger. They noted that anger is underrepresented in both clinical practice and empirical studies, partly due to the lack of diagnostic categories for anger in major diagnostic systems like the DSM‐III‐R at the time. This remains the case in the newest DSM‐5‐TR (American Psychiatric Association ²⁰²²). Importantly, they reminded us that neglecting contextual factors in the treatment of anger could hinder the formation of a therapeutic alliance and consensus on treatment goals with the client.

Similarly, Abernethy (1995) raised concerns about the absence of cultural competency in addressing anger within clinical training. She highlighted that cross‐racial interactions frequently contain underlying anger, which is often avoided or ignored by clinicians. Abernethy noted that clinicians, who may be perceived as representing “the system,” could inadvertently provoke further anger and jeopardize the client's progress if they fail to consider the power dynamics in the treatment process. She emphasized the ramifications of neglecting the sociocultural context of anger, including reinforcing stereotypes, premature termination, and ineffective treatment. Abernethy argued that while anger is commonly associated with destructive effects, its potential to motivate change and clarify surrounding situations is neglected in clinical discussions.

Innovatively, Robins and Novaco (1999), in their work “Systems Conceptualization and Treatment of Anger,” challenged the traditional view that attributes anger to immediate provocations and dysfunctional thoughts. Instead, they argued that anger should be understood as a contextual and dynamic phenomenon embedded within an interdependent network of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental systems. They advocated for a systems‐oriented conceptualization of anger, viewing it as grounded in long‐term adaptations to internal and external demands within overlapping systems. For example, anger in work settings is closely related to the larger sociocultural–economic–political structure. Without a systems view of anger, treatment might be ineffective at addressing the root causes, leading to incomplete and temporary solutions. Consequently, meaningful and sustainable change might not be achieved, and persistent anger stays with the client.

It is encouraging that, in the past decades, many clinical advancements have been made in treating anger. Cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT) and cognitive‐only interventions, for example, have demonstrated substantial efficacy, reporting medium‐to‐large effect sizes in reducing various anger‐related issues. These interventions achieve a 65%–70% success rate in helping adults manage anger expression and suppression (Del Vecchio and O'Leary ²⁰⁰⁴; DiGiuseppe and Tafrate ²⁰⁰³; Lee and DiGiuseppe ²⁰¹⁸).

However, many concerns raised by prior scholars still largely remain. First, there is a lack of empirical studies on treating anger in marginalized and disadvantaged populations (Sterrett‐Hong ²⁰²⁴; Wingfield ²⁰¹⁰). Emotion‐related studies, including those on anger, have mostly included college students or were conducted in laboratory settings (Xu et al. 2022). These studies often left out contextual factors, such as gender, race, and their intersectionality, focusing primarily on the immediate outcome of treatment. The corresponding findings have limited implications for working with anger rooted in social injustice and oppression. Evidence for this is the glaring paucity of studies on anger treatment and sociocultural competency, reflecting a dearth of empirical findings to guide clinical practice. Second, multiple meta‐review studies on anger treatment show that cognition‐ and behavior‐oriented interventions are the primary approaches in both clinical practice and empirical studies for anger. For instance, Lee and DiGiuseppe (2018) identified 13 meta‐analyses of anger treatment, with eight of them focused solely on CBT. Behavioral and cognitive modalities involve changing the way one interprets and/or behaves in anger‐inducing situations. While these approaches can effectively reduce the intensity of anger (DiGiuseppe and Tafrate ²⁰⁰³), they locate the core problem within the client's behavior or cognitions, demanding the client to change without addressing structural inequities (Archer and Mills 2019).

Expanding on Srinivasan (2018) discussion on anger‐related injustice, Archer and Mills (2019) reviewed how popular cognitive and behavioral interventions might be inherently ineffective and unjust for marginalized people, whose anger is a response to existing power structures. They identified four broad categories of cognition‐ and behavior‐based strategies that marginalized people might be advised to utilize: situation selection and modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation (Gross 2015). Archer and Mills (2019) argued that none of these strategies offers an appropriate solution for anger rooted in oppression, as they often require the victim to choose between turning away from the injustice or accepting the harmful outcomes of employing them. For instance, situation selection and modification are strategies used to prevent anger by avoiding or adjusting the situation. An example of this is a sexual minority refraining from sexuality‐related conversations with an anti‐LGBTQIA+ colleague. While these strategies could reduce the intensity and frequency of anger, they could further silence the oppression and maintain the power structure, potentially escalating systemic injustices. Another strategy, cognitive reappraisal, is one of the most researched and is widely known for its effectiveness in reducing negative affect through re‐evaluation of the situation, especially when compared with suppression (Aldao et al. 2010). However, Archer and Mills (2019) warned that it carries various dangers for the marginalized. The most alarming one is that the reappraisal process might distract attention from the wrongdoing by focusing on positive elements, minimizing the harm of the violation, and compromising the victim's judgment of incoming danger. Further, it might contribute to self‐blame, guilt, shame, or even self‐hatred when the victim believes they could have done something differently to avoid the wrongdoing (e.g., “I should not disclose my sexual orientation anymore”).

In summary, the literature on anger treatment is now abundant, yet the systemic definition and sociocultural competent practice areas have not advanced much compared with 30 years ago. The predominant approach (i.e., CBT) to anger treatment reveals a broader clinical definition of anger as an intrapersonal problem to be managed (Ashley 2014; Robins and Novaco ¹⁹⁹⁹; Szasz et al. ²⁰¹¹). Psychological treatment for anger, which should provide professional and objective support to marginalized people and their communities, might become another perpetrator in the oppressive system by unconsciously yet actively permitting emotional injustice (Pismenny et al. 2024). Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see scholars in philosophy initiating novel discussions on affective injustice by drawing connections with psychological literature. Notably, Archer and Mills (2019), without disregarding the intra‐ and interpersonal harm of uncontrollable anger, acknowledged the importance of equipping marginalized people with effective anger regulation strategies. However, they emphasized that it is crucial to first acknowledge the wrongdoing and the burdensome demand of regulating anger in the face of systemic injustice and oppression. The next step is to empower marginalized individuals by providing them with autonomy, which is essential for fostering a sense of control. Additionally, when the larger system remains unchanged, clinical treatment can guide marginalized individuals in navigating complexities by assisting them in selecting actions that maximize benefits and minimize harm. This awareness is precisely what systemic couple and family therapists need as they navigate a world far from the ideal it should be.

5. Systemic Treatment of Anger

Living in a socially constructed emotional culture (Hochschild 1979, ¹⁹⁸³), clinicians often are not immune to the various stereotypes and stigmatization surrounding anger (Ashley 2014). A biased view of anger can lead to inaccurate assessments and superficial conceptualizations, pathologizing the client and limiting treatment efficacy (Robins and Novaco 1999). More concerningly, it can sabotage the client's sense of security and safety when the clinician fails to acknowledge the oppressive context and legitimate grievances, impacting the client's future help‐seeking behaviors (McDowell et al. ²⁰¹⁷).

Therefore, to advance systemic treatment for anger, the foundational step is exploring and challenging the clinician's view of anger. The Person‐of‐the‐Therapist Training (POTT) model (Aponte 2017) is a structured framework for critically examining the clinician's personal aspects and their associations with clinical practices. The model helps clinicians explore and address beliefs, biases, and lived experiences about anger that might positively or negatively impact the treatment process. With ongoing reflective practices, clinicians can recognize and reject the various ways that the dominant culture dismisses, stigmatizes, and pathologizes the anger of marginalized people. Furthermore, the model encourages therapists to integrate their personal and professional selves, allowing for a more holistic and genuine approach to therapy. When working with marginalized individuals, this integration helps clinicians to be more authentic in the treatment process. An example of such authenticity is acknowledging the therapist's own anger and frustration toward injustice and oppression or validating the client by saying, “you have a lot to be angry about” (Ashley 2014).

Second, while more empirical studies are needed, advancing systemic treatment of anger lies less in the development of new approaches or skills and more in honoring our roots in systems theory by advocating a systems‐oriented conceptualization and treatment of anger (Bertalanffy 1969; Knudson et al. ²⁰²⁰; Robins and Novaco ¹⁹⁹⁹). A systemic orientation rejects mainstream psychotherapy's default bias of defining anger as an intrapersonal issue and instead emphasizes the role of culture and larger systemic factors in individual functioning. Under a systemic conceptualization, anger is no longer solely a behavioral or cognitive issue within the individual. Rather, it is positioned within the interacting dynamics of societal systems (e.g., economic and political), individual positionality (e.g., gender and race), and metanarratives (e.g., the “angry Black woman”) that shape our interpretation of anger. In the treatment process, anger in marginalized communities is understood as a potential response to systemic oppression and injustice, expanding conventional treatments (e.g., CBT) by encouraging therapists to consider social power dynamics, historical injustice, and ongoing marginalization influence, allowing for more culturally sensitive and effective interventions (McDowell et al. ²⁰¹⁹; Sterrett‐Hong ²⁰²⁴; Wampler and Patterson ²⁰²⁰).

Illustrating the systemic approach, McDowell et al. (2017), in their book “Socioculturally Attuned Family Therapy: Guidelines for Equitable Theory and Practice,” provide a comprehensive framework and concrete recommendations for various treatment modalities, including CBT, the primary approach for anger treatment. Their guidelines emphasize the importance of incorporating sociocultural contexts into therapeutic interventions, ensuring that treatment approaches are equitable and culturally sensitive. For instance, in CBT, this might involve integrating discussions about anger‐related social justice, power dynamics, and cultural identity before cognitive restructuring and behavioral interventions. By following these guidelines, therapists can enhance their ability to provide effective and respectful care to marginalized people from diverse backgrounds.

Third, facing systemic injustices and oppression often leaves marginalized people without an optimal choice, resulting in a sense of being out of control and powerlessness (Srinivasan 2018). Thus, inviting the client's autonomy in the treatment process is crucial. One way to empower autonomy is by initiating a transparent conversation on the benefits and potential ramifications of different anger‐regulation strategies, emphasizing the injustice of bearing such burdensome emotional labor. These transparent discussions not only provide opportunities for the client to make informed decisions about their anger regulation but also acknowledge the grievances and emotional injustices they face. Another way to strengthen the sense of agency is by introducing the psychological view of anger, narrating it as an autonomous self‐defense mechanism in an inequitable world. This perspective might also help remove shame from clients who have internalized stereotypes and stigmatization, implying their anger is an intrapersonal pathology. Furthermore, Ashley (2014), discussing the “angry Black woman” stereotype, highlighted that successful treatment must include addressing the intra‐ and interpersonal impact of destructive stereotypes about anger. Specifically, she noted that when clients are unaware of the dominant bias and stigmatization of anger, clinicians should introduce these concepts, starting with process questions such as “What are your thoughts or associations with anger?” When exploring these anger‐related thoughts and beliefs, Ashley added, the client might not feel safe, and clinicians need to use questions to assess the client's level of comfort, such as asking “What is your experience of and comfort level with these questions?”

Fourth, in their work “Anger Can Help: A Transactional Model and Three Pathways of the Experience and Expression of Anger,” Butler et al. (2018) proposed a model for navigating anger that focuses on individual and relational dynamics. This model does not fully account for the broader societal power imbalances and systemic oppression that significantly impact marginalized communities. However, the model is rooted in attachment theory and proposes that the path to healing is first validating grievances, and then building a balanced view of self and others. For marginalized people, clinicians could adapt this model by exploring how anger‐related experiences have impacted the client's views of self, significant others, and the world. For example, does suppressed anger, due to internal or external stressors, make them believe they are not worthy of justice?

Fifth, a review of 13 meta‐analyses of anger treatment shows promising results for family therapy for anger (Lee and DiGiuseppe ²⁰¹⁸), though related studies are rare and the underlying mechanisms are largely unknown. Commonly, anger treatment is conducted in individual therapy. For systemic therapists, conducting conjoint sessions for the angered client and their significant others, especially with family members, might be an important clinical direction. Family sessions might help members collectively acknowledge their injustice experiences, providing validation and support to each other.

Finally, a systemic approach to anger also requires flexibility and sensitivity to avoid overgeneralizing or treating the experiences of marginalized communities as monolithic. It is important to acknowledge that not all anger‐related experiences are rooted in oppression or injustice, and the unique context of each individual must be considered. Anger‐related beliefs and expressions in marginalized communities are influenced by the intersections of identity, including race, gender, and socioeconomic background. For instance, while Black women may contend with the pervasive “angry Black woman” stereotype, which pathologizes their anger as irrational or aggressive, LGBTQIA+ individuals may suppress anger due to fears of being labeled as overly emotional or dramatic. Additionally, not every Black woman holds the same beliefs or experiences around anger; some may challenge the “angry Black woman” stereotype, while others might internalize it. These nuances underscore the need for clinicians to approach anger as deeply embedded within broader systems of power that uniquely affect different communities. Recognizing the individuality of each client's experience, rather than assuming a uniform or monolithic anger response, allows clinicians to provide more culturally sensitive and effective interventions.

In sum, advancing the systemic treatment of anger necessitates a multifaceted approach that challenges the clinician's own biases and incorporates sociocultural contexts into clinical interventions. Empowering clients by acknowledging their autonomy and addressing systemic injustices within the therapy room can lead to more equitable and effective care.

6. Future Directions

The study of anger within historically marginalized people reveals significant gaps and research opportunities. The following recommendations aim to deepen our understanding of the complex layers of anger in these communities and their relations to social justice.

First, further research should explore how different identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation) and their intersections impact the experience and expression of anger in marginalized communities. Identifying specific needs and tailoring treatment to address the multifaceted nature of anger in different groups is crucial. This will enhance the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and ensure they are culturally and contextually relevant.

Second, longitudinal studies are needed to examine the long‐term effects of popular anger‐regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal and suppression, on physical and mental health in marginalized communities. This includes exploring how routine cognitive reappraisal in oppressive contexts might be linked to negative outcomes, such as lower awareness of injustice or discrimination. Additionally, research should investigate potential protective factors, such as family support and self‐acceptance, when marginalized individuals choose to suppress their anger to protect themselves (e.g., maintaining job security).

Third, investigating how anger can be used as a tool for empowerment and resilience in marginalized communities is another crucial area. Further research might study how clinical interventions could help marginalized people harness their anger to reclaim agency and advocate for their rights. Understanding the empowering potential of anger can lead to more strengths‐based approaches in therapy. For instance, exploring the “Goldilocks zone” of anger and how it does not compromise the client's overall well‐being while retaining the communicative and alarming functions of anger (Rush et al. 2024).

Fourth, future research should investigate how anger can serve as a driving force in social justice. This includes examining how anger mobilizes individuals and communities to take collective action and how it influences the dynamics within social movements. Understanding the mechanisms through which anger can be channeled into productive advocacy efforts can help design interventions that support marginalized communities in using their anger constructively.

Finally, there is a need for more qualitative studies that understand the meaning of anger to various marginalized groups, and the traditional or indigenous coping mechanisms they have been utilizing. For instance, many Black families teach their children, especially boys, to manage their anger when encountering law enforcement. Understanding how this family legacy could be both a risk and a protective factor in functional anger regulation is crucial.

There is always more to be done, especially in addressing social injustice. By focusing on these future directions, research can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of anger in marginalized communities and inform practices that promote justice, health, and empowerment. The hope is that through dedicated efforts, meaningful change can be achieved.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper underscores the critical need to reconsider anger within historically marginalized communities, recognizing it is not always a pathology but potentially a legitimate response to systemic oppression and social injustice. By understanding anger through its historical, sociocultural, and political contexts, we can appreciate it as a powerful motivator for personal agency and collective actions. To ensure adequate treatment of anger, clinicians must embrace a systemic approach that honors the complex realities of marginalized individuals, challenges related stereotypes and biases, and integrates sociocultural competency into practices. In the therapy room, this means clinicians should adopt reflective practices to assess their own biases and employ frameworks like the POTT model to enhance cultural sensitivity and humility. Additionally, interventions can be tailored to include discussions around social power dynamics, the emotional labor of anger regulation, and client autonomy in choosing anger regulation strategies. Future research should continue to explore the intersections of marginalized identities and anger, the long‐term effects of anger regulation strategies, and the empowering potential of anger in advocacy efforts. Through these efforts, we can contribute to a more just and equitable society, where the voices of marginalized communities are heard, validated, appreciated, and uplifted.