It may be worth noting that hatred, while not in itself an emotional expression, has more of an active relationship to anger than other 'states' do. Hatred, in contrast to the heat of anger, tends to be cold. Reich remarked describing the emotions of basic contact: 'If you don't love me, I hate you.' Another therapist (Alexander Lowen) has remarked that hatred is 'frozen love,' or love gone cold because of rejection. I would propose that love only turns to hate after another stage has been gone through, that of rage. The cycle seems to be: reaching out with love—rejection by the other person—bitter tears of grief—further rejection of this—an attempt to fight through to the person with burning rage—rejection even of the expression of rage—further rejection of this—a 'freezing' of the rage and grief into cold hatred. More simply: love—rejection—grief-rejection—rage—rejection—hate.

In therapy, we sometimes see this whole cycle being played out, with one emotion succeeding the others as the 'layers' of muscular armor against feeling dissolve. It is useful to be aware of this cycle in EFA, particularly in understanding the process of switching, as well as some problems of resolution.

Resolution

It is possible that after a clear expression of rage a person may be ready to make contact with another person with love and tenderness, but it is not likely. There is often the need for a period of recuperation. The person may feel the need to be alone, do some tidying up or chores, take a walk, or some other neutral activity. This may because the system is still somewhat excited by the flow of adrenaline that the rage has provoked (apparently the composition of the blood remains altered for some hours after the organism has gone into emergency) and the person needs time to be able to feel normally soft and open again. So even if the expression of rage has been complete, do not force contact on the person. Give them time and space. If the person exits with a vigorous slam of the door, don't go after them!

The main problems in resolution are states of depression and guilt. Psychoanalytic theory proposes that depression is rage turned against the self. The rage need not ever have been expressed, it is turning around. The connection between suppressed rage and guilt has also been made by psychoanalysts, but more specifically some of Reich's successors, (e.g. Baker, Konia) propose that guilt after rage occurs when the rage has been only partially expressed, through a process in which the muscles have been activated, but since the action has not been fully carried through, the condition of rage is retained (biochemically or energetically) in the muscle tissue, causing a feeling that is called guilt. (The process may be the same for guilt after any emotional expression: the guilt only occurs if the emotion has been restrained and incomplete.)

Where it seems clear that the expression of anger was halfhearted or cut off abruptly, and it is then followed by depression or guilt, it may be worthwhile trying to reactivate the anger by drawing the person's attention to the anger-producing situation again, and using whatever EFA measures seem appropriate. To stay within the guidelines of noninvasion, this reactivation of the situation should perhaps best be reserved for intimate relationships, where it is justified by the fact that after all you, as the person's friend or partner, have to live with and put up with the intensity of the person's depression or guilt. Reactivation, and the full expression of the rage, may discharge whatever energy has been accumulated and retained.

Problems

Resentment. Nonemergency problems with the expression of anger are usually due to a kind of short-circuiting of the anger process in which rage is deflected into a vicious circle of resentment which drags on and creates resentment or indifference in others, which causes more resentment, and so on. Or else, sarcastic remarks provoke a verbal duel that is as exhausting as any expression of rage, without being satisfying. Or sulking leads to indifference from others and causes a build up of inner pressure. In these processes, pressure is the key word. We acknowledge this in our language, using words such as 'simmering,' or 'his blood is boiling,' or 'he feels like a time bomb waiting to go off.' Just as the pressure in a pressure cooker ultimately depends on the strength of the container's lid, so in the human organism when there is an inner cooking and boiling of resentment, the 'lid' tends to be in the area of the mouth and jaw and back of the neck; the whole area may become stiffer and stiffer as the person holds more and more sensations of resentment that well up from the chest and abdomen, but are held back by the clamped jaw, tight lips, and rigid neck. Eventually an explosion may occur. The person 'blows his stack.' But more often the situation requires the human equivalent of a safety valve, and the person lets off steam in the form of resentful looks or sarcastic remarks. Sarcastic remarks particularly are identifiable as a safety valve function in the fact that they literally tend to emerge from the side of the mouth, through the smallest possible space. One primitive roar of rage or baring of the teeth might release more energy than emerges through a dozen civilized barbed remarks.

Another characteristic of bottled up resentment is 'prickliness.' As Reich pointed out, in the absence of emotional nourishment and support, it is easy to become like a cactus in a desert. Prickliness is often due to feelings of being unloved, but of course—in another vicious circle—prickliness is not necessarily a very lovable trait. It is hard to embrace a cactus.

These are recalcitrant problems—the sarcastic, irritable person is not likely to be provoked into a real, cleansing explosion, since his or her side of the mouth 'digs' are a fairly adequate safety valve. And the prickly person may have lost the capacity to respond to love. These conditions may be worked on in therapy, or in their less severe forms, they may dissolve if the person's life changes in the direction of more love or more satisfying work. But they are outside the scope of EFA which does, after all, work to aid a discharge that is already in process. If they occur in an intimate relationship, an understanding of the underlying rage or need for love may help guide the kind of contact you can make. If you can get the person to really look at your eyes, and if you refuse to respond in kind to the digs or wounded prickliness, the contact between you may become intensified to the point where a real rage or a real appeal for love begins to emerge.

Acting out. In rage, acting out takes the form of repeated scenes in which there is a lot of noise or many objects become smashed. A key element is usually the presence somewhere nearby of a third party as an audience, either in the same house, or in the most embarrassing cases in the same public place, such as a restaurant. The scene is most often being staged to cause embarrassment. The fact that this kind of rage is most often associated with women is not biological but another sign of how legitimate rage expression has been so powerfully crushed in many women. When rage is expressed in this way, with the goal of causing embarrassment, enlisting sympathy, or re-awakening love, it is by definition not rage. Real rage wants to destroy obstacles to contact, not merely to embarrass another person into behaving differently or to make an appeal for love.

Making a lot of noise and smashing objects at random assure that whatever real rage there is cannot be focused. The choice in EFA is either:

1) to confront the person and focus the apparent rage, using the kind of measures described earlier, or

2) to allow the acting out to run its course without being provoked into joining the battle (essentially a mock battle). To be present and sympathetic to the person afterwards is an attempt to make contact with what the person's real need is.

On the other hand, genuine rage can be dramatic, even melodramatic. If someone at a dinner party gets up and turns over the table, or turns to a neighbor and splashes him or her with the contents of a glass, the eyes may be genuinely blazing with anger. As always, the truth is in the eyes. Focused contact means the rage is genuine. But apart from such observational criteria, genuine rage can be felt. Acting out may be brilliant, but it is hollow, carrying no feeling with it for others except embarrassment.

A final word on embarrassment at someone else's rage in a public place, whether genuine or acting out: keep your reaction in proportion. How many times have you been seriously embarrassed in your life? And how many of those times has the scene later become a subject for amused anecdotes? Telling the story will raise a laugh in you and in others. Even though the telling may bring a flush of embarrassment to your face, the incident has probably caused no serious damage to your reputation or self image.

In many people, the fear that is so commonly mixed with anger is a fear of what might happen if their anger is finally let out after years of being held in. This can be a problem. If a person is consistently masochistic, in the sense of turning every angry impulse inward and converting it to an inner suffering, which is in turn used as a weapon and anger substitute in the form of resentment or sulking, any attempt to goad that person into revealing the anger will be very threatening. Normally, your attempt to goad becomes added to the list of the person's grievances and increases the inner tension rather than relieving it. Eventually, you may lose patience and control, make a mistake, and end up feeling you are persecuting an innocent victim. The way out of this is not to goad. If your honest attempt to confront the person's anger through contact and a declaration of where you stand does not get through, leave this problem alone. If it becomes more severe, it may turn into a depression in the person and cause him or her to seek professional help.

Emergency

The main emergency when rage gets out of hand is violence.

Unfortunately, once this point has been reached, there are no specific measures to take except, if you are stronger, to restrain the person, or if you are weaker, to run away or appease. Emotional First Aid can only be effective in the prevention of violence, in defusing it before it starts.

The other side of the same emergency is the threat of suicide, where the person's rage against the world is blocked and turned back against the self. Suicide may be basically, as is well known, 'a call for help.' But it takes energy, and this energy normally contains a large component of anger. The anger tends to be generalized, to be 'against the world' rather than against a specific situation or person, that is, it tends to be unfocused. Emotional First Aid cannot prevent suicide in a person who is seriously disturbed or depressed; anyone with repeated suicidal thoughts would be well advised to seek professional help. EFA can, however, whether working with rage, grief, or fear, prevent an acute situation of emotional distress from overwhelming a person who is otherwise well balanced.

As Crisis Intervention Centers realize, even a voice at the other end of a telephone may prevent some suicides. The crucial element is support, and the fact that the depressed person can discharge pent up emotions, even verbally. Rage is often the main emotion, and should be encouraged to take a focused direction. It should not, however, be unnecessarily exacerbated. Remember that a basic rule for EFA is to prepare a way for the discharge of what is already being expressed, not to encourage the build up of a charge that may be too much for the person to handle.