From Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth to Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Audre Lorde, and bell hooks, the United States has a rich tradition of writers and activists who have drawn attention to anger’s value as a tool for resisting racism. “Racial hatred is real,” hooks (1995: 17) observed a quarter century ago, “and it is humanizing to be able to resist it with militant rage.” Myisha Cherry’s The Case for Rage is a timely and engaging contribution to this tradition. Responding to the deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and others, it invites a new generation of readers to reflect on their anger at racism. The book does not ignore the fact that in day-to-day life anger is often hasty, confused, badly motivated, or poorly expressed. But it points to another form of anger that it argues is insightful, considered, motivated by commitment to the good and opposition to evil, and expressed in effective and articulate ways, and that affirms the value of those who have been subjected to racial injustice.In the first of the book’s seven chapters, Cherry differentiates her approach to anger from other recent approaches. Rather than assuming all instances of anger are the same, she proposes that anger comes in several varieties. She distinguishes between these variants by looking at their object, “target, action tendency, and aim … as well as the perspective that informs the anger” (14). She discusses five varieties, four of which are clearly problematic. Rogue rage has a sensible object—namely, injustice. But it falls short in each of the other dimensions. It is targeted at almost everyone, blaming them for the injustice whether they were responsible or not. Its action tendency is to separate the angry person from everyone else in a ‘me-against-the-world’ fashion. Its aim is to hit back at those blamed for the injustice. But it despairs of the world getting better (which is its perspective). A second variant, wipe rage, is no more discriminating than rogue rage. In response to a perceived injustice (real or imagined), the person with wipe rage selects a racial target, blaming their pain on (all) the members of another race. Because their perspective assumes they are caught in a zero-sum game, their aim is to wipe out members of the other race and their action tendencies are directed toward this end, trying to eliminate the other either literally or figuratively. Ressentiment rage is rooted in an experience of powerlessness that is blamed on a more powerful group. Its aim is to pay members of the more powerful group back for one’s own (or one’s group’s) powerlessness. It is fundamentally reactive, focused more on the condition and history of the powerful than on the angry person’s or group’s future flourishing. The distinctive characteristic of narcissistic rage is that it responds to an instance of systemic injustice as if it were merely a personal affront. The provocation for narcissistic rage is not that some injustice occurred but rather that it happened ‘to me’. The narcissist is unmoved by similar injustices happening to others. What matters to them is not justice or its absence but rather personal hardship or insult. The target of narcissistic rage is not an unjust system that treats many people like this but merely the individuals they think have mistreated them. The perspective from which it arises is the belief that one is a special case and its action tendency is to insist that one should be exempt from such treatment on account of one’s privileged status.The fifth variety of anger Cherry discusses avoids the problems of rogue, wipe, ressentiment, and narcissistic rage. She calls it Lordean rage after Audre Lorde. It is the variety of anger that she thinks “essential to the racist struggle.” The object of Lordean rage is racism as it manifests itself in systems, institutions, actions, attitudes, and assumptions. “The targets of Lordean rage are those who are complicit in and perpetrators of racism and racial injustice” (23). Its aim is to change the things that currently support racism, including the beliefs, social norms, and institutional arrangements that maintain it. The perspective from which Lordean rage arises is a desire to see racism eliminated, not only in the forms that affect one’s own group but in all its forms. “I am not free,” Lorde (2020: 63–64) suggests—and Cherry agrees—“while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” Finally, the action tendency of Lordean rage is to pursue the steps required to root out racism in all its forms.Chapter 2 contends that Lordean rage can meet three conditions that frequently come up in both philosophical and public discussions of anger, namely, it can be fitting, appropriate, and correct. In claiming that Lordean rage is ‘fitting’, Cherry means it makes sense to be angry at racism, just as it makes sense to be afraid of something dangerous or delighted about something good. By ‘appropriateness’ she means moral appropriateness. It is morally appropriate to respond to racism with Lordean rage, Cherry asserts, provided one’s anger “respects the humanity of the wrongdoer and aims to create a better world” and does not cause one to neglect other, sufficiently important, responsibilities (37). Finally, Lordean rage is correct when it represents the world accurately, tracking a genuine instance of racial injustice and attributing it to the right cause(s). Because victims of racism are frequently greeted with ignorance, skepticism, and a lack of empathy on the part of members of the dominant group, they are saddled with an unfairly heavy evidentiary burden. The silver lining, Cherry suggests, is that Lordean rage “is more likely to correctly represent racism than the other anger variations” because such high demands have been made of the members of oppressed communities before their testimony is taken seriously (46).Chapter 3 looks at benefits of Lordean rage for anti-racist struggle. Anger communicates to others that the angry party thinks someone has wronged them. Lordean anger is particularly eloquent because it is clear about its object, target, perspective, and aim. Lordean rage can serve to deter future transgressions of the same type. The angry person is eager to act, which increases the likelihood they will confront racism. Because anger boosts one’s confidence, Lordean rage can support a person’s belief in their own capabilities at the precise moment when racism challenges this belief. These benefits are evidenced both by psychological experiments and by the testimony of Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Martin Luther King Jr., and those they inspired to oppose racist practices in the United States.Chapter 4 discusses a range of social assumptions and informal social norms that have often been used to discourage victims of racial injustice from experiencing Lordean rage. Because these norms make it an “outlaw emotion,” just experiencing Lordean rage can be an act of resistance, independently of any other steps one might take to combat injustice.The fifth chapter sounds a cautionary note for allies in the struggle against racism, because there are errors to which their Lordean rage is particularly prone. (An ally, in this context, is someone who takes steps to resist injustice X but who is not from the group[s] at whom X was/is directed.) Allies should not think that, simply because they are angry about an injustice, they know what it feels like to be its victim. This is true even if they have firsthand experience as a victim of a similar injustice. Allies should not let their anger or actions sideline the primary victims of injustice. They should guard against the temptation to think their own anger is what ‘really’ matters. Allies should not use their anger to advertise their own virtue. And allies should not think of themselves as heroes riding in to save the downtrodden.Chapter 6 offers an alternative approach to anger management for those experiencing Lordean rage. Standard approaches aim to moderate, suppress, or eliminate anger. Cherry’s alternative encourages the expression of Lordean rage. Rather than hiding it, victims of racial injustice should give it voice. They should find others who feel similarly and work to support each other. They should set out plans with concrete steps to help them translate their anger into action. And they should refuse “to give up” their anger “until there is a reason to do so” (160).The book ends on a personal note, reflecting on how Audre Lorde’s essays and poems have inspired Cherry’s own writing and guided her responses to experiences of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Both Lorde’s work and the anger she championed, Cherry suggests, can help “hold back the despair” that might otherwise take hold when one is confronted by racism’s persisting presence in American life.The book is meant to appeal “to the academic and activist, the philosopher and citizen” (7). For the activist and citizen, I think it succeeds. It is a welcome introduction to a rich tradition of thought for a nonspecialist reader wanting to reflect on healthy ways of responding to racism. Reading The Case for Rage should inspire them to engage with more of that tradition. However, the academic and philosopher will, unsurprisingly, wish the book had spent more time mapping the conceptual terrain and wrestling with the academic literature on the topic. I found myself with a number of unanswered questions, including:1. Why is anger “essential” to anti-racist struggle? The book only argues that it can be useful to the struggle.2. Is Lordean rage a different variety of anger than ressentiment or narcissistic rage? Or is it, instead, anger in a different sort of person—one who cares about justice for all rather than merely personal benefit or harm? More broadly, how do we distinguish between what is true of a kind of emotion and what is true of a kind of person who might have that emotion?3. What conclusions should be drawn from the acknowledgment that some cultures take a dimmer view of anger than WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic)? Is the upshot of the case for Lordean rage that non-Western cultures are wrong about anger? Is the case merely spelling out what members of WEIRD cultures will think about anger once they work out the implications of their fundamental assumptions? Is the case an intervention in WEIRD culture that is trying to shift that culture’s views on anger in one direction rather than another?4. Are “expressing,” “suppressing,” and “repressing” the only possible ways of responding to one’s anger?Hopefully reading Cherry’s book will inspire academic readers to take up some of these questions and carry on the conversation.

中文翻译：

---

愤怒的理由：为什么愤怒对于反种族主义斗争至关重要

从弗雷德里克·道格拉斯和索杰纳·特鲁斯到马尔科姆·X、詹姆斯·鲍德温、托尼·莫里森、奥德丽·洛德和贝尔·胡克斯，美国有着丰富的作家和活动家传统，他们让人们关注愤怒作为抵制种族主义工具的价值。 “种族仇恨是真实存在的，”胡克斯（Hooks，1995：17）在四分之一个世纪前观察到，“能够以激进的愤怒来抵制它是人性化的。” Myisha Cherry 的《愤怒的案例》是对这一传统的及时且引人入胜的贡献。为了回应布伦娜·泰勒、乔治·弗洛伊德、艾哈迈德·阿伯里等人的死亡，它邀请新一代读者反思他们对种族主义的愤怒。这本书并没有忽视这样一个事实：在日常生活中，愤怒往往是仓促的、混乱的、动机不良或表达不善的。但它指出了另一种形式的愤怒，它认为这种愤怒是有洞察力的、经过深思熟虑的、出于对善的承诺和反对邪恶的动机，并以有效和清晰的方式表达，这肯定了那些遭受种族不公正的人的价值。在这本书的七章的第一章中，切里将她处理愤怒的方法与最近的其他方法区分开来。她没有假设所有愤怒的情况都是相同的，而是提出愤怒有多种形式。她通过观察对象“目标、行动倾向和目的……以及表达愤怒的视角”来区分这些变体（14）。她讨论了五个品种，其中四个明显有问题。流氓的愤怒有一个合理的目标——即不公正。但它在其他各个方面都存在不足。它针对的是几乎所有人，无论他们是否有责任，都指责他们造成了不公正。它的行为倾向是以“我对抗世界”的方式将愤怒的人与其他人分开。其目的是回击那些被指责造成不公正的人。但它对世界变得更好感到绝望（这是它的观点）。第二种变体，擦除愤怒，并不比流氓愤怒更具歧视性。为了回应感知到的不公正（真实的或想象的），具有擦拭愤怒的人选择一个种族目标，将他们的痛苦归咎于（所有）另一个种族的成员。因为他们的观点假设他们陷入了零和游戏，他们的目标是消灭另一个种族的成员，他们的行动倾向就是为了这个目的，试图从字面上或形象上消灭另一个种族。怨恨愤怒的根源在于一种被归咎于更强大群体的无能为力的经历。其目的是为更强大群体的成员补偿自己（或群体）的无能为力。它从根本上来说是被动的，更多地关注当权者的状况和历史，而不是愤怒的个人或群体的未来繁荣。自恋愤怒的显着特征是，它对系统性不公正事件的反应，就好像这只是个人侮辱一样。激发自恋愤怒的原因并不是发生了一些不公正的事情，而是它发生在“我身上”。自恋者对其他人发生的类似不公正行为无动于衷。对他们来说，重要的不是正义或正义的缺失，而是个人的困难或侮辱。自恋愤怒的目标并不是这样对待许多人的不公正制度，而只是他们认为虐待过他们的个人。它产生的角度是相信一个人是一个特例，其行动倾向是坚持认为一个人应该因为自己的特权地位而免受这种待遇。切里讨论的第五种愤怒避免了无赖的问题，擦拭、怨恨和自恋的愤怒。她以奥黛丽·洛德（Audre Lorde）的名字称其为“洛德式愤怒”。她认为这种愤怒是“种族主义斗争的关键”。洛德人愤怒的对象是种族主义，因为它表现在制度、机构、行动、态度和假设中。 “洛德人愤怒的目标是那些种族主义和种族不公正的同谋和肇事者”（23）。其目标是改变目前支持种族主义的事物，包括维持种族主义的信仰、社会规范和制度安排。洛德人愤怒的观点是希望看到种族主义被消除，不仅是影响自己群体的形式，而且是所有形式的种族主义。 “我不自由，”洛德（Lorde，2020：63-64）建议道——切里也同意——“而任何女人都是不自由的，即使她的枷锁与我的非常不同。”最后，洛德式愤怒的行动倾向是采取必要的步骤来根除一切形式的种族主义。第二章认为，洛德式愤怒可以满足三个条件，这三个条件经常出现在哲学和公众对愤怒的讨论中，即，它可以适当、适当、正确。切里声称洛德人的愤怒是“恰当的”，他的意思是对种族主义感到愤怒是有道理的，就像害怕危险的事情或对美好的事情感到高兴一样。她所说的“适当”是指道德适当。切里断言，只要一个人的愤怒“尊重不法行为者的人性并旨在创造一个更美好的世界”，并且不会导致一个人忽视其他足够重要的责任，那么以洛德式的愤怒来回应种族主义在道义上是适当的（37）。最后，当洛德的愤怒准确地代表世界、追踪种族不公正的真实实例并将其归因于正确的原因时，它是正确的。由于种族主义的受害者经常受到主流群体成员的无知、怀疑和缺乏同理心的对待，因此他们背负着不公平的沉重证据负担。切里建议，一线希望是：洛德式愤怒“比其他愤怒变体更可能正确地代表种族主义”，因为在认真对待受压迫社区成员的证词之前，他们已经提出了如此高的要求（46）。第 3 章着眼于洛德式愤怒的好处反种族主义斗争。愤怒向其他人传达这样的信息：愤怒的一方认为有人冤枉了他们。洛德式的愤怒尤其雄辩，因为它的对象、目标、视角和目的都很明确。洛德人的愤怒可以阻止未来同类的违法行为。愤怒的人渴望采取行动，这增加了他们面临种族主义的可能性。因为愤怒可以增强一个人的信心，当种族主义挑战一个人的信念时，洛德式的愤怒可以支持一个人对自己能力的信念。这些益处通过心理学实验和弗雷德里克·道格拉斯、索杰纳·特鲁斯、马丁·路德·金以及他们启发反对美国种族主义行为的人的证词得到了证明。第四章讨论了一系列社会假设和非正式社会规范这些词经常被用来阻止种族不公正的受害者体验洛德人的愤怒。因为这些规范使它成为一种“非法情绪”，所以仅仅经历洛德的愤怒就可以是一种抵抗行为，独立于人们为打击不公正而可能采取的任何其他步骤。第五章对反对种族主义斗争的盟友来说是一个警告，因为他们的洛德式愤怒特别容易犯一些错误。 （在这种情况下，盟友是指采取措施抵制不公正 X 的人，但他不是来自 X 所针对的群体。）盟友不应该仅仅因为他们对不公正感到愤怒而这么认为，他们知道成为受害者的感觉。即使他们有作为类似不公正受害者的第一手经验，情况也是如此。盟友不应让他们的愤怒或行动忽视不公正的主要受害者。他们应该警惕认为自己的愤怒才是“真正”重要的事情的诱惑。盟友不应该利用他们的愤怒来宣扬自己的美德。盟友不应该认为自己是拯救受压迫者的英雄。第六章为那些经历洛德愤怒的人提供了另一种愤怒管理方法。标准方法旨在缓和、抑制或消除愤怒。切里的选择鼓励了洛德人愤怒的表达。种族不公正的受害者不应该隐藏它，而应该发出声音。他们应该找到志同道合的人，并努力互相支持。他们应该制定包含具体步骤的计划，帮助他们将愤怒转化为行动。他们应该拒绝“放弃”他们的愤怒，“除非有理由这样做”（160）。这本书以个人笔记结尾，反思了奥德丽·洛德的散文和诗歌如何启发了切丽自己的写作并指导了她的回应种族主义、性别歧视和恐同的经历。切里表示，洛德的作品和她所倡导的愤怒都可以帮助“抑制绝望”，否则当人们面对美国生活中持续存在的种族主义时，这种绝望可能会占据上风。这本书旨在吸引“学者和活动家、哲学家和公民”（7）。对于活动家和公民来说，我认为它是成功的。对于想要反思应对种族主义的健康方式的非专业读者来说，这是对丰富思想传统的欢迎介绍。阅读《愤怒的案例》应该会激励他们更多地参与这一传统。然而，毫不奇怪，学者和哲学家希望这本书花更多的时间来绘制概念领域并与有关该主题的学术文献进行斗争。我发现自己有许多未解答的问题，包括：1。为什么愤怒对于反种族主义斗争“至关重要”？本书仅主张对斗争有用。2．洛德愤怒是一种与怨恨或自恋愤怒不同的愤怒吗？或者是对另一种人的愤怒——一个关心所有人正义而不仅仅是个人利益或伤害的人？更广泛地说，我们如何区分某种情感的真实情况和可能有这种情感的人的真实情况？3。承认某些文化对愤怒的看法比怪异文化（西方文化、受过教育的文化、工业化文化、富裕文化和民主文化）更悲观，我们应该得出什么结论？洛德人愤怒的结果是非西方文化对愤怒的误解是错误的吗？这个案例是否仅仅说明了“怪异”文化的成员在弄清楚其基本假设的含义后会对愤怒有何看法？此案是否是对怪异文化的干预，试图将这种文化对愤怒的看法朝一个方向而不是另一个方向转变？4。 “表达”、“压抑”和“压抑”是回应愤怒的唯一可能的方式吗？希望阅读切里的书能激发学术读者提出其中一些问题并继续对话。为什么愤怒对于反种族主义斗争“至关重要”？本书仅主张对斗争有用。2．洛德愤怒是一种与怨恨或自恋愤怒不同的愤怒吗？或者是对另一种人的愤怒——一个关心所有人正义而不仅仅是个人利益或伤害的人？更广泛地说，我们如何区分某种情感的真实情况和可能有这种情感的人的真实情况？3。承认某些文化对愤怒的看法比怪异文化（西方文化、受过教育的文化、工业化文化、富裕文化和民主文化）更悲观，我们应该得出什么结论？洛德人愤怒的结果是非西方文化对愤怒的误解是错误的吗？这个案例是否仅仅说明了“怪异”文化的成员在弄清楚其基本假设的含义后会对愤怒有何看法？此案是否是对怪异文化的干预，试图将这种文化对愤怒的看法朝一个方向而不是另一个方向转变？4。 “表达”、“压抑”和“压抑”是回应愤怒的唯一可能的方式吗？希望阅读切里的书能激发学术读者提出其中一些问题并继续对话。为什么愤怒对于反种族主义斗争“至关重要”？本书仅主张对斗争有用。2．洛德愤怒是一种与怨恨或自恋愤怒不同的愤怒吗？或者是对另一种人的愤怒——一个关心所有人正义而不仅仅是个人利益或伤害的人？更广泛地说，我们如何区分某种情感的真实情况和可能有这种情感的人的真实情况？3。承认某些文化对愤怒的看法比怪异文化（西方文化、受过教育的文化、工业化文化、富裕文化和民主文化）更悲观，我们应该得出什么结论？洛德人愤怒的结果是非西方文化对愤怒的误解是错误的吗？这个案例是否仅仅说明了“怪异”文化的成员在弄清楚其基本假设的含义后会对愤怒有何看法？此案是否是对怪异文化的干预，试图将这种文化对愤怒的看法朝一个方向而不是另一个方向转变？4。 “表达”、“压抑”和“压抑”是回应愤怒的唯一可能的方式吗？希望阅读切里的书能激发学术读者提出其中一些问题并继续对话。