When it comes to power, people tend to naturally think of laws, documents, meeting decisions, personnel appointments and removals, leadership speeches, etc. These are of course power, and are typical forms of power, but in fact there are less typical forms of power. I have observed that sometimes being angry can also be a manifestation of power.
Angry people are often powerful, and it seems that only they can be angry, and only their anger can achieve the corresponding desired effect. For example, we often hear the masses say: “The secretary is very angry about this!” That is, this matter is very important, the secretary is very dissatisfied with the handling of this matter, and then something may happen; small cadres say big cadres: ” The principal is so angry that they slapped the table!” This means that things that make the principal angry may be re-handled, and the relevant personnel may fall out of favor; I remember an old Red Army soldier once said that he was most afraid of two things in his life, one is the prime minister’s seriousness, Second, the chairman lost his temper.
It can be seen that the consequences of being angry with people in power are very serious. It may mean that some people will be criticized and punished. In serious cases, they may go to prison, lose their lives, or even start a movement because of this, which will change the fate of countless people. … …From this it can be seen that the anger of the powerful people itself exudes an aura of power, and its deterrent effect should not be underestimated.
Because of this, people in power tend to use this weapon appropriately, getting angry, angry, and violent when necessary. This can sometimes have good results, and it can be said to be complementary to issuing documents and making formal decisions; also because of this, there is no power. The most powerful people try not to make the powerful people angry, and the less powerful people should not make the powerful people angry. Instead of making them angry, it is best to try to make them happy. Those who make them angry should be excluded and suppressed as much as possible, and all the factors that make them angry should be eliminated, and flattery and praise come into being.
In some places where there is no clear hierarchical identity for the time being, such as tour groups, classmates, circles of acquaintances, etc., some people will highlight their status by “angry”, and emphasize their own weight by getting angry, expressing anger, and speaking fiercely. This is actually an attempt to compete for power.
By contrast, it is hilarious for little people to get angry. If a young person who has just joined the job is “angry” in front of everyone (even for obvious system drawbacks), it seems that it will only give everyone the impression of immaturity, ignorance, and lack of self-discipline; a cleaner is “angry” “(Even for legitimate reasons), it will only make people feel that their work attitude is not correct and can’t bear any complaints; a certain group of people is often angry, and colleagues often feel that they complain too much and are difficult to get along with. It’s not that you are angry, or you are not qualified to be angry. If you are angry without self-awareness here and now, it only means that you take yourself too seriously and fail to put yourself in the right position. Everyone will feel inexplicable about your anger. Even thought it was ridiculous. To go further, if countless little people get angry together, it is simply absurd, committing chaos, and it is definitely a new trend that endangers stability and unity. Being angry, especially expressing it publicly, is so inconsistent with our traditional culture!
Can everyone be equal in the face of anger?
Can we start by allowing little people to be angry, valuing little people’s anger, and taking little people’s anger seriously?
——-
This article is from: https://ift.tt/whZLWuy
This site is only for inclusion, the copyright belongs to the original author