There are two qualitatively different forms of anger visible on our streets. We describe them in Angrynomics.
We need to more articulate in describing this emotion. There are types of anger and they should be labelled.
There is an economics of anger. Anger resolves collective action problems. ‘Loss of temper’ is a credible threat. It is a commitment not to be locally rational.
Moral principles must be reinforced. From Aristotle to Martha Nussbaum to Cornell West there is recognition of the appropriateness of moral outrage. Anger can signal injustice.
But tribal rage is its opposite. You cannot discuss these types of anger as equivalent - one establishes ethical principles, the other is a precursor to amoral tribal violence.
There are good reasons why angry sports fans (a specific category in our book) are a minority. Moral outrage has far broader reach - not least because it is cognitive and rational.
Angry fans are inherently violent - also towards their own. That is their function.
In symbolic terms, Churchill is more complex - through one lens he represents the defeat of fascism, through another the glorification of imperialism.
The arrival of angry fans (football hooligans in this instance) helps reveal the typology of angers.
