Part Two: Anger and Hate

Readings:

Thich Nhat Hanh on Dealing with Anger

“Demonizing the Hater” by Robert Gould

Dilemma of Part Two:

Expressing strong emotions, like anger and hate, is important because one should have a full range of emotions, and emotional communication helps us understand each other; however, expressing strong emotions can be experienced by others as abusive, retraumatizing, and/or a micro-aggression.

Questions:

1. How do with distinguish the terms: anger, outrage, hostility, frustration, contempt, disrespect?
2. What is the upside and downside of our emotional suppression bias against potentially disruptive emotions?
3. How can we more easily express and manage emotions that tend to escalate conflicts, such as:
   1. impulsivity;
   2. triggered annoyance;
   3. cultural triggers;
   4. trauma triggers;
   5. grumpiness;
   6. self-disappointments;
   7. loneliness;
   8. low self-esteem?

How can we desensitize our emotional triggers?

Everyone has emotional triggers, issues or concerns that cause one to get angry, frightened, insecure, or shocked. There are certainly issues or concerns that are anger-worthy, fear-worthy, insecure-worthy, or shock-worthy. However, one might want to lower one’s level of reactivity to these issues or concerns, so that one can respond to them without causing reactivity amongst those who nearby. In order to lower one’s level of reactivity, one needs to desensitize oneself concerning the issues or concerns that cause reactivity, so that one is not so deeply triggered.

There are many ways to desensitize oneself:

• Try to become more of a neutral observer to detach oneself from emotional flooding;
• Validate the other side of the issue or concern;
• See the other side from the view from compassion, while releasing yourself from your view from judgment. Remember that human beings are both judgmental and compassionate.
• Take a break from the conflict;
• Ask yourself if the issue or concern is actually a threat to your person or identity.

Further Questions for Discussion:

• How are emotions used to dominate others?
• How can emotions be abusive?
• How can expressing emotions trigger retraumatization in others?
• How does conflict work frequently engage strong emotions, and what is the best way to help disputants express their emotions, without domination, abuse or retraumatization?
• Do conflict processes have a bias against strong emotions; and how is that problematic?
• Sometimes anger expresses deep hate; how can that be handled in conflict work?
• What is the upside and downside of demonizing the hater?
• Why is there a hate crime bias in our thinking about haters?
• How do we navigate hate, free, true speech?
• How does righteous hate against haters add more hate to the world, and is this always the case?

Analysis of the Dilemma of Strong Emotions:

The dilemma in navigating emotions is that strong negative emotions can be emotionally abusive, while repressing emotions can be mentally and emotionally destructive. It is quite challenging to find a way to express a full range of emotions, while being sensitive to those witnessing this expression, who might have been emotionally abused, or are experiencing retraumatization by being present to the expression of strong emotions. Conflict workers need to both validate disputants’ full range of emotion, while watching or listening to the potential stressful reactions of other disputants.

When differences or conflicts trigger strong emotions, it is not surprising that people express anger, outrage, hostility, frustration, contempt, condescension, and disrespect, amongst other feelings. Clearly, these emotions can contribute to the escalation of a conflict, so working with them can be challenging. Validating and understanding disputants who are emotional can certainly be calming. However, too much of this can also be pacifying, when it would be better to accept that the disputant is emotional, and ask if this person is comfortable continuing the collaborative process. We must be mindful that a full range of emotions is healthy, not necessarily a sign of weakness or mental illness. The facilitator of the process must only bring the level of elevation down to the point that all of the participants are comfortable proceeding with the work on the underlying conflict. Again, navigating emotions in conflicts means that the facilitator must regularly check-in with participants to continue to make sure that the comfort level is maintained. In the event that a participant needs to take a break from the process, a short hiatus can be called for everyone. Too often, within collaborative processes, I have noticed that there is a bias against anger and the associated emotions. Calmness should not be forced on people who are comfortable being angry or being around angry people.

Eldridge Cleaver (African American), in his “Soul on Ice,” is clearly angry at white people, and expresses it in a variety of emotional ways in the first half of this excerpt. However, in the last half, he is able to switch gears to affirm how young white people have been sympathetic and have contributed positively to the civil rights movement and have strongly promoted equal rights and equal respect. Cleaver’s anger towards white people did not get in the way of expression support white people committed to social and racial justice.

Thich Nhat Hanh (Vietnamese) explains how to manage anger from a Buddhist perspective, but he does not demonize anger or the associated feelings. Rather he is happy to identify with his own anger, and ‘take care of it’, so that it does not become destructive.

Hatred is a different story. Though the terms, “hate” and “anger” are often interchangeable in ordinary usage, a “hate crime” is usually much more severe than an “anger crime.” A hate crime is a combination of criminal activity and hatred toward some oppressed group. I suggest that there is generally a difference between anger and hate because hate is both a deeply felt emotion and a harsh judgment towards an oppressed group. In this sense, the severity of a hate crime is increased because of the belief that certain groups of people ‘deserve to be punished.’

Punch a Nazi?

In the following, I suggest that we are on weak moral grounds when we believe that is permissible to punish hater groups in as similar way that they do to oppressed groups. The motto of certain leftist groups to “Punch a Nazi” is an example of demonizing the hater, and wanting them hurt. The moral outrage that these people feel towards white supremacy is certainly understandable, as they are horrified that oppressed people, not only remain oppressed, but are subject to a new round of more frequent hate crimes. Navigating this dilemma is challenging, but the specter of white supremacists provoking violence from anti-white supremacy is keeping more mainstream protesters out of public areas, where they and their children might be subjected to violent spillovers.

Gould Essay: Demonizing the Hater: How Can We Transform Hate without Contributing to It?

• Better to perish than hate and fear; and twice better to perish than to make oneself hated and feared. (Nietzsche, 1911, translated by P. V. Colm)

Is it wrong to hate or demonize haters?

This is not merely an abstract concern, but is relevant to those of us who seek to transform the culture of hate into a culture that embraces the richness of diversity. Does our hatred and intolerance of haters inhibit their transformation and contribute to hate in the world? Does hate belong to the full range of emotions that is desirable in a healthy emotional life?

Hatred as Judgment and Hating Haters as Judgment:

I suggest that the key problem with hatred is the element of judgment that gets fixed in an individual’s cognitive processes, and institutionalized in culture. The hate of outrage appears to be a healthy response to injustice, but risks the same internalization and institutionalization as the hatred that it opposes.

Transform haters, do not hate them.

The alternative that I suggest is that hate can be effectively transformed by working within the dynamics of identity formation, maintenance, and defense. Dialogue, therapy, mentorship, education, job placement, and reintegration into a community of peers with positive identities seem to be the most effective ways to address those who hate.

Distinction between Anger and Hate:

It is important for my audience to know that I am using a fuzzy distinction between anger and hate. In common use, these terms overlap, so it does not seem to be possible to cleanly divide the two from each other. However, there does seem to be a general sense that hatred is more fixed and subject to ideological justification than anger. Generally speaking, we can get over being angry easier than we can get over our hatreds, and we seem to be able to provide more grounds for our hatred than for our anger. We can get angry because we are grumpy, but our grumpiness rarely spawns hatred. I might get angry if I am served Brussels sprouts by someone who knows that I hate them, but my hatred for them is justified by some unpleasant childhood experiences, where my anger is just a fleeting emotion based on the perceived insensitivity by the one who served me. In the following, I will be supposing that anger can build into hate, and that one who is frequently angry may find it more easily to hate. Later, I will take up this element of judgment implied in hatred that seems to be missing in the mere experience of anger.

Personal Story: There is an inherent inadequacy in my reflections on hate.

Though I am attempting to connect with a wide range of experience, I am limited by the fact that, while I have hated and have been hated, I have not hated, nor been hated to the degree that many people have experienced. Furthermore, I have not been close to, nor worked closely with, people who have hated, or been hated, in the extreme. On the other hand, I have not led a sheltered life: My life has been threatened on a few occasions; I have been in dangerous physical fights; I have been in the military and played college football. (For me, football was more violent.) I have worked with gang-affected youth, my father-in-law was a racist, and a friend of mine was a Hell’s Angel. However, I will have to trust my audience to fill in the details that are outside of my experience.

Historical Overview of Emotions:

In at least Western philosophy, theology, and science, emotions have been divided into positive and negative polarities: some emotions have been understood as good, some bad. We have inherited this dichotomy from early Christianity. Evagrius Ponticus, 4^th century, supposed that ira (wrath) was among the eight evil thoughts. (Moore, 2010) Later, Spinoza suggested that our emotions could be divided as innervating (stimulating us to activity) and enervating (depressing or “draining” our interest in the world) (Sharp, 2005). From this view, emotions such as anger and hatred, depress our interest in the world and should be avoided as vices. Nietzsche, following Spinoza’s division, asserts a connection between hate with war, and overcoming hate with peace: “The so-called armed peace that prevails at present in all countries is a sign of a bellicose disposition that trusts neither itself nor its neighbor, and, partly from hate partly from fear, refuses to lay down its weapons. Better to perish than hate and fear; and twice better to perish than to make oneself hated and feared.” (Nietzsche, 2009)

Overcoming the Bifurcation of Emotions:

This division of emotions into good and evil has only recently begun to change within the psychological community. A shift in thinking about emotions has occurred from “earlier portrayals of emotion, which emphasized its disorganizing, irrational, or stressful side” to the “emergent views of emotion [that] underscore its biologically adaptive and psychologically constructive features.” (Thompson, 1994)

Hanna and Brown (2004) describe this new thinking about emotions in the following:

“Self-awareness entails individuals’ ability to label their emotions, whether pleasant or unpleasant, and to accept them as part of being human. Self-esteem involves an acceptance of emotions as important information about the self and an ability to act responsibly on those feelings. When individuals are not able to tolerate their fears or anxieties, they develop controlling or addictive behavior intended to numb unpleasant emotional states.” (p. 81-82)

Healthy Full Range of Emotions:

This shift toward the view that a full range of emotions is healthy can be seen in the shift in thinking about the emotional numbing that occurs with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Up until recently, victims of PTSD were thought to have emotional numbing across the spectrum of emotions. This does indeed occur in the immediate aftermath of trauma. However, the pattern seems to shift as trauma victims develop PTSD. In PTSD, victims can too easily find themselves engulfed in memories of trauma, which trigger intense negative feelings that are difficult to control, while they continue to have difficulty accessing positive feelings, while they are in the wake of the remembered trauma. However, with appropriate therapy that reduces the “frequency and intensity of re-experiencing states,” victims should be able to “fully access their pre-traumatic positive and negative emotional repertoires or capacities.” (Litz & Gray, 2002) In this assessment, emotions are still divided between positive and negative; however, the health of a full range of emotions is also evident.

The Type A Stigma:

Another way that anger and hatred has been stigmatized as negative is through the proliferation of medical literature that has suggested that anger is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) through the Type A behavior pattern (Friedman & Rosenman, 1959) Type A personalities were described as aggressive, controlling, and impatient, hating both delays and ambivalence. However, this view has been revised significantly though continuous research. Now, the emerging view is that constructive anger expression (using anger to resolve conflict) may lower CHD, while destructive anger justification (avoiding blame while blaming others) seems to increase the risk of CHD. (Davidson & Mostofsky, 2010)

How Emotions are Constructed:

Complicating our views of emotion is the controversy over how it is constructed. On one side of this debate is the organismic account (Freud, Darwin, and James), where emotion is biologically driven as an instinct or impulse, and can only be socially shaped by how the emotion is triggered or expressed, not how it is constructed or experienced.

On the other side of the debate is the interactive account (late Freudian, neo-Freudian), where “social influences permeate emotion more insistently, more effectively, and at more theoretically posited junctures.” (Hochschild, 1979) While the truth may be that emotion is a composite of biological, psychological, and social factors, depending on the emotion and depending on the circumstance, we might wonder if our feelings are ever simple gut reactions, purely physical, without psychological and cultural layerings. This seems to be especially the case with hatred, where social and rationalizing factors seem to figure so prominently.

Personal Story:

When I feel hatred for boiled Brussels sprouts, is it because of a purely physical gut reaction, or does it have to do with my family environment and my psychological development when they were served to me as a young child? The hatred that I developed seems to stem from what Brussels sprouts mean to me, meant to my family, and mean to the greater culture around us? After a lifetime of hating even the smell of Brussels sprouts cooking, I was given some of this evil vegetable that was quickly stir fried in olive oil at high heat. I loved them! Cooked differently, smelled different, and served in a radically different family and social setting. Full disclosure: I’ve also tried to desensitize myself from the many things that I have hated, so I was predisposed to stop hating Brussels sprouts. So, the object of my hatred, as well as the construction of my hatred, emerge from a variety of conceptual, contextual, and experiential factors, and my hatred is overcome by another complex set of influences.

Distinction between Anger and Hatred:

One could argue that anger might be part of the full range of healthy emotions as experiences to be identifies and shared, but that hatred—being more of a judgment—should not necessarily be considered a member of the set of healthy emotions to experience and express. This view follows from the observation that when we get angry, it is often the case that something has made us angry—we are reacting with anger. In my experience, anger as my reaction, or the reaction of others, has often revealed powerfully important information about core values that are perceived to be threatened. These experiences have validated my suspicion that anger can be an enormously insightful and useful emotion.

Hate as Intentional:

On the other hand, when we are filled with hatred, we generally find ourselves proactively hating something or someone. In this way, hate tends to be directed at the object of our hatred. Again, this is a fuzzy distinction with plenty of exceptions. However, if it holds true in many instances, it follows from the understanding that hate may be generated by ethnocentric cultural influences and/or with hasty reasoning and judgment.

Case Study:

Let’s examine two hate crimes from the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa: first, Stephen Biko, a black, anti-apartheid, South African student leader, who was assassinated in 1977; second, Amy Biehl, a white American student who was in South Africa to help end apartheid, and was murdered in 1993. Biko’s death in police custody was a hate crime born of the institutionalization of apartheid. Biehl’s death occurred at the hands of a group of young black militants, while shouting racial epithets, directed at white people. This was also clearly a hate crime, but interestingly more a product of riotous anger than institutionalized hatred. Amy Biehl’s parents forgave her killers after they were granted amnesty by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1997, four years after the murder. In their words (South African Government Information, 1997):

We have the highest respect for your Truth and Reconciliation Commission and process. We recognize that if this process had not been a pre-negotiated condition, your democratic free elections could not possibly have occurred. Therefore, and believing as Amy did in the absolute importance of those democratic elections occurring, we unabashedly support the process which we recognize to be unprecedented in contemporary human history.

At the same time we say to you it’s your process, not ours. We cannot, therefore, oppose amnesty if it is granted on the merits. In the truest sense it is for the community of South Africa to forgive its own and this has its basis in traditions of ubuntu and other principles of human dignity. Amnesty is not clearly for Linda and Peter Biehl to grant.

You face a challenging and extraordinarily difficult decision. How do you value a committed life? What value do you place on Amy and her legacy in South Africa? How do you exercise responsibility to the community in granting forgiveness and in the granting of amnesty? How are we preparing prisoners, such as these young men before us, to re-enter the community as a benefit to the community, acknowledging that the vast majority of South Africa’s prisoners are under 30 years of age? Acknowledging that the recidivism rate is roughly 95%. So how do we, as friends, link arms and do something?

Institutional and Enculturated Hatred:

From these comments, it is clear that Amy Biehl’s parents understood that the victory over apartheid was a victory over a deeply entrenched form of institutional hatred. But their worry was that another form of hatred becomes enculturated within the cognitive processes of impoverished, black youth, unless they are given an opportunity to succeed within the new South African order. So, we can make a distinction between these two hate crimes: the Steven Biko murder was caused by a deeply institutionalized form of hatred, whereas the Amy Biehl murder was a triggered by a form of hatred reacting to the culture of apartheid hate. One might even say that her death was caused by a murderous rage that was part anger, part hatred. To the degree that her presence, near the black militants, made them furiously angry, her death can be distinguished from the beating death of Steven Biko, who was the object of the police’s institutional hatred.

Hate of Oppression and Hate of Resistance:

The comparison between these two cases is important because it contrasts hatred, which is deeply institutionalized within the mainstream culture and legal structure of a nation, against a hatred that becomes part of a resisting subculture and part of the immature, cognitive processes of militant youth within that subculture. Clearly, both forms of hate crimes are deadly and tragic; however, the hate of the resistance was in good measure generated by the hate built into the mainstream culture.

Central Question:

So, this brings us to our central question, is it wrong to hate haters when our hate is our outrage against injustice? One way to approach this question is to say that it is completely understandable how institutions develop hateful policies to control large populations under the domination of elites—or to seek to reinforce traditional prejudices in the face of cultural diversity. It is also completely understandable how liberation movements can easily develop hateful attitudes as part of their overall resistance and pride strategies. Acceptance and understandability, especially in the Buddhist tradition, can lead to a personal peace that quells the fires of hatred, but does not necessarily lead to apathy. One can still struggle against injustice and seek to comfort those who suffer, while finding complete acceptance of evil in the world.

Buddhism on Resistance without Hatred:

This is particularly evident within Buddhism (Ziporyn, 2000), and quite visible within contemporary Engaged Buddhism. Ziporyn explains that, within Tiantiai Buddhist thought, “the only way to handle ineradicable evil and suffering is to involve ourselves in it, by accepting it and adding additional elements that recontextualize and transform it.” (Loy, 2004)

Justification for Hating Haters:

Another approach is to make a judgment that resistance hatred is better (or more excusable) than domination hatred. This would mean that it is acceptable to hate haters, as long as the haters hated are the dominators and the hating of haters is part of the resistance to that domination. However, this formula doesn’t diminish the violence that hating haters can unleash on the world. So, it is hard to use terms like “better,” “excusable,” or “acceptable” with much moral force to describe hateful, violent militants.

Liberation Movements Split between Violence and Nonviolence:

We might prefer that militants be angry and nonviolent, rather than hateful and violent, but militant movements often are split between the two strategies. So, even nonviolent activists are put in the position of tolerating the hate and violence of liberation movements because of the justice being sought. But does their toleration undermine the transformational power of nonviolence? This answer to this question may hinge on how the mainstream media frame the conflicting sides of the same protest. Currently, in the United States, we have nonviolent and violent demonstrations against white supremacist racism. Often the media sensationalize violence, so the image of anti-hate becomes more violent. This media sensationalism, during the 1960s and 1970s let to the creation of underground, activist media to inform people of the transformative power of nonviolence. Now, we have electronic media that seeks the same end.

Hypocrisy of Privileged People Hating Haters:

Turning to another example, we might wonder if it is acceptable for those within American mainstream society to hate the hatred expressed by racist subcultures. The first problem with this is that mainstream American society retains a significant element of racism, institutionalized within it. This racism is not always visible to the mainstream population who have not experienced the brunt of it, as opposed to the minority populations that it targets. On this view, the hatred expressed by white supremacist subcultures is merely an exaggeration of the racism implicit within mainstream society. So, it is somewhat hypocritical for us to hate the other haters, when we are members of a society that accepts the normalcy of its own institutionalized hatred.

Adding to the Amount of Hate in the World:

The second problem with our hating haters is that we are adding to the amount of hate in the world, potentially hardening that hate within our cognitive processes, becoming motivated by hate, becoming routinely hateful, and contributing to an upward spiral of hate that ensnarls both the hater and hated into an ever-increasing drama of hate and violence—institutionalization and internalization. Furthermore, current research is suggesting that people who feel angry most of the time prefer to maintain this trait. (Schwartz, 2011) Though anxiety management training may be successful for anger reduction, not everyone can access—or wants to access—this training. (Deffenbacher, Demm, & Brandon, 1986)

Anger and Hate as a Personality Trait:

Since anger can be a persistent personality trait, we should not be surprised that hatred can also be a persistent personality trait. Furthermore, those with such persistent personality traits can easily see the objects of their anger and hatred as persistently hateful beings—demons who personify evil. Therefore, it is not surprising that white supremacists have a whole pantheon of evil to hate: most, if not all, minorities, and those who support them. It is also equally unsurprising that those who oppose white supremacy can also demonize them as ugly racists. Given that we all can be victims of our habits, these hatred-habits are hard to abandon, even as they may contribute little to change. Is there another alternative?

An Alternative to Hating the Hater:

I suggest that we work within the dynamics of identity formation, maintenance, and defense to transform hate. Negative identities are developed around the premise that “I am not that!” The Other is seen as inhuman, immoral, and a threat. Positive identities are developed around the premise that “I am different, but include and am included by the Other.” Nationalist identities can be either (and sometimes both) positive and negative. Extreme negative nationalist identities tend to be warlike because they need to scapegoat or eliminate other identities. Negative identities can be maintained in a population by reminding them of the way that Others are a threat. Positive identities are formed and maintained in cultures that promote and positively experience diversity. Positive cultures resist stereotyping outsiders. Individuals with negative identities can be welcomed into cultures with positive identities in the hopes of transforming negative identities into positive. This transformation requires careful education and mentorship through building positive relationships with diverse people.

Negative Identities Reinforced by Transient Communities and Electronic Echo Chambers:

The fundamental problem in transforming negative identities into positive is when the negative identity is backed up by a deeply held religious or political orientation. Though mainstream religions, social, and political organizations have some negative identities built into their belief systems, these systems also contain a certain degree of positive identification. This leaves marginal religious sects, and social and political groups, where negative identities are fundamental to their identity. Reaching people in these groups is problematic in contemporary American society, where community members are so transient and identity group beliefs are reinforced by electronic echo chambers.

Creating Opportunities for Dialogue:

To address these negative identity ideologies, we can the opportunity for dialogue, where people with similar religious, social, or political views—but with positive identities—discuss their alternative orientation. If such talks fail, or fail to occur, another tactic is to tit-for-tat negotiations (Axelrod, 1984), which motivates cooperation through positive reinforcement and discourages noncooperation through negative reinforcement. This negotiation strategy is effective in quite adversarial circumstances. It appears to be a viable strategy to motivate hate groups to cooperate with peer groups who have positive identities. It certainly seems to be more effective than punishment, which simply reinforces negative identities. However, there must be some underlying motivation for negative identity groups to meet with positive identity groups. As an example, Antifa, the anti-white supremacist group appears to be populated with people from similar working class heritages as the white supremacist group. Common ground may be achieved, if the wealth gap is the topic of conversation.

Therapeutic Intervention:

Childhood attachment disorders, and other developmental issues, can create rigid senses of self that resist positive identities. Therapy might benefit people in this group, but it might need to be motivated by another kind of tit-for-tat negotiation. Others with negative identities might have flexible senses of self that can adapt to new circumstances and a more diverse set of peers. Governmental pressure may be needed to encourage such transformation, but economic opportunities must also be part of the equation.

Clearly, hate crimes need punishment to send a strong message of their unacceptability. However, it is ironic that prison social structure often replicates and encourages the hate group divisions found on the outside. It seems that hate criminals need to get back into the community of positively-identified peers, while being prevented from rejoining hate groups. New peers need to share many values with hate felons, except that these new peers have positive identities. As an example, if hate crimes are done by a white supremacist street youth, after prison, they could be trained, and then placed in a job with other former street youth, who have either given up their white supremacist ideology, or never had it in the first place. In my view, mentorships, as well as educational and employment opportunities, are the key to effective transformations from negative to positive identities. Failure to do these things, effectively, will doom us to a future of hateful rhetoric, behavior, and criminality.

References

• Alelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Davidson, K. W., & Mostofsky, E. (2010). Anger expression and risk of coronary heart disease: Evidence from the Nova Scotia Health Survey. American Heart Journal, 159, 199-206.
• Deffenbacher, J. L., Demm, P. M., & Brandon, A. D. (1986). High general anger: correlates and treatment. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 24, 481-489.
• Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1959). Association of specific overt behavior pattern with blood and cardiovascular findings; blood cholesterol level, blood clotting time, incidence of arcus senilis, and clinical coronary artery disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 169, 1286-1296.
• Hanna, S. M., & Brown, J. H. (2004). The practice of family therapy: Key elements  across models. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
• Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
• Litz, B. T., & Gray, M. J. (2002). Emotional numbing in posttraumatic stress disorder: current and future research directions. Australian and New  Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 198-204.
• Loy, D. R. (2004). Evil and/or/as the good: Omnicentrism, intersubjectivity, and value paradox in Tiantai Buddhist thought. [Review of the book]. Philosophy East & West, 54, 99-103.
• Moore, J. F. (2010). Evagrius Ponticus and cognitive science: a look at moral evil and the thoughts. Zygon, 45, 1024.
• Nietzsche, F. W. (2009). Human, all-too-human: parts 1 and 2; Beyond good and evil. London: Wordsworth.
• Schwartz, C. (2011, February 06). High on anxiety. Newsweek, 157, 10.
• Sharp, H. (2005). Why Spinoza today? Or, “A strategy of fear.” Rethinking  Marxism, 17, 591-608.
• South African Government Information. (1997). Statement by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on amnesty arising from the killing of Amy Biehl. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/pr/1998/p980728a.htm
• Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: a theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25-52.
• Ziporyn, B. (2000). Evil and/or/as the good: Omnicentrism, intersubjectivity, and value  paradox in Tiantai Buddhist thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.