There are risks in indignation, and the main one is not being heard

Indignation is an important engine, although I reach this conclusion through practical life. When I face an injustice or a disqualification, I get royally pissed off. It is the “big invitation” (De Almeida, M.) to fall into the “minus-plus” existential position and go off playing psychological games.

Although psychoanalysis and political communication have some reasonableness about the themes of discontent, disillusion and the formulation of threats, it is in transactional analysis that I find the first map for understanding what indignation is. My intention is to un-indignate us a little.

The “minus-plus” existential position (“I’m not OK, you’re OK”), described by Berne, has to do with the individual who thinks he is at a loss in relationships. “The other gets more!”, “But that’s because he’s better looking!”, “The heavy work always falls to me!”, and so on. And if the other is “plus,” then I am “minus.”

I ask: why do we “hate” an opposing “ideology,” or corruption? Fine, there are several possible mistakes. Faced with a flagrant error by others, what do we do? Scream? Impose violently? Of course not. And that is the “problem” of indignation.

Indignant, we think we have a free pass to lowness. And that is where the “persecutor” of psychological games enters the scene, to “tell the truth!”, to “lay down a reality check!”, “You’ll have to swallow me!” What is the chance that an “indignant” person is heard? Low. Very low.

It matters little how important the message is if it lacks the right way of reaching the other. Indeed, the “right way” is the way the other will understand. “Communication is what the other understands.”

Against or not subject a, you chose subject b as a cause, you were called to clarify c? It is possible and necessary. Please do not stop taking part. We can talk about absolutely everything without raising our voices, nor harming our brothers while thinking we are doing good.