As a general orientation to something as complex as human emotion (or anger in particular), it's hard to ts usually the case that:
For every reasonable generalization, there's also (1) a contrary or opposite that's also true; (2) a set of conditions needed to maintain it; and (3) another set of conditions
Philosopher Robert Soloman, who made studying human emotions the work of a lifetime, states the following "myths" about emotions in his book True to Our Feelings, and then demonstrates the ways in which they are untrue or are oversimplifications. The "myths" include:
I've been watching a video lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology given by Robert Sapolsky at Stanford University. The combination of psychology and brain sciences confirms some folk theories (and fashionable scientific models) and refutes others.
At the MIT Media Lab and other places, research is developing the idea (along with a theory called "honest signals") that the human mind -- including behavior and emotions -- is inherently social in nature. It's almost like humans have two "minds" working in parallel, an individual mind and a social mind.
The status of anger in most religious and spiritual traditions is problematical. It is probably essential that such traditions have provided ways for people to understand and manage this basic human experience. However, the result has often become deadening, oppressive, or led to lopsided human development.
The concept of Spiritual Bypassing (a term coined by John Welwood in 1984 -- see [1] and [2]) refers to:
"...using spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep personal, emotional "unfinished business," to shore up a shaky sense of self, or to belittle basic needs, feelings, and developmental tasks, all in the name of enlightenment.
Aspects of spiritual bypassing include: