Supreme Court Happening!

When Anger Turns Symbolic: The Psychology of Defying Authority

History has often witnessed moments when people, in helpless rage, turn against those in power. When a leader, judge, or any authority figure takes a decision or makes a remark that hurts the sentiments of a section of people, emotions flare up. What begins as disagreement can quickly turn into anger — and sometimes into open defiance.

We have seen this many times in recent history.

Even former U.S. President George W. Bush faced the famous “shoe-throwing” incident in Iraq — a symbolic act of protest, more emotional than harmful.

When Mrs Indira Gandhi visited Tamil Nadu during her tenure, her convoy faced public attack, which a regional leader at that time called “public displeasure.”

Recently, a Supreme Court judge faced a shocking moment when someone attempted to throw objects at him.

Though such acts can never be justified, they raise an important question — why do people react this way to authority? What happens in the human mind when power meets emotion?

Authority and Emotional Reactions

An authority — whether a Prime Minister, Judge, or Officer — stands as a symbol of power, law, and control. When such a person speaks or acts, it is seen not just as an individual’s decision but as the voice of the system itself.

So, when that action or statement goes against a group’s belief, faith, or expectation, it is felt personally — almost like an insult or injury. People don’t just hear the words; they feel them. The hurt quickly turns into anger, especially if they believe that power has been used unfairly.

In psychology, this is often explained as an “ego threat” or “status frustration.” When people feel that their dignity or identity is being dismissed, emotions take control, and reason fades.

The Helplessness Behind Anger

One common thread in all these incidents is helplessness.

The individual or group reacting this way often has no real power to counter the decision or statement through official or legal means. They may feel unheard, ignored, or cornered. When frustration builds up without any proper outlet, it turns into aggression.

This is what psychologists call the “frustration–aggression response.”

In simple words — when a person cannot do anything about an injustice, the bottled-up frustration bursts out as an act of defiance — sometimes loud, sometimes dramatic.

So, the act of throwing a shoe, shouting in anger, or insulting a leader is rarely about physical harm. It is a symbolic protest — a way of saying, “I am not powerless; I can still express my anger.”

Symbolic Defiance: Speaking Without Words

Such actions — from shouting slogans to throwing objects — are not just emotional bursts, they carry meaning.

They are symbolic messages to the world:

“I am angry. I feel wronged. I want the public to notice.”

The person doing it often feels that no one is listening — that their pain or protest has no place in normal discourse. So, they act in a way that cannot be ignored.

It’s a desperate attempt to communicate in a language that power understands — shock.

In their mind, they are not doing something shameful; they are challenging injustice, even if the act itself is socially unacceptable.

The Role of the Crowd

Many of these incidents happen in public places, and that setting changes everything.

When a person is surrounded by a crowd sharing the same anger, their individual control weakens. The crowd’s emotion becomes the person’s emotion.

Psychologists call this “deindividuation.”

It means that in a crowd, personal identity dissolves; people act based on collective feeling rather than reason.

What one might never do alone, one may do in a group — because the sense of personal responsibility fades.

That is why crowd-based protests can sometimes turn violent or insulting without any one person truly intending harm.

When People Believe the System is Biased

The reaction also depends on how people perceive authority.

If they believe that the person in power is biased, prejudiced, or politically influenced, then their anger feels morally justified.

They think:

“I am not insulting the system — I am exposing its injustice.”

This gives a moral colour to emotional acts. In their eyes, they are not committing disrespect; they are making a moral statement.

They believe their act will make others notice that the system is not as neutral as it claims to be.

Historical and Cultural Layers

In societies like ours, where for long periods many people have felt unheard or suppressed, emotional expression becomes a substitute for dialogue.

Public anger is not always against a single decision — it often carries the weight of long-term mistrust.

When the public loses faith in institutions or feels that justice is reserved for the powerful, emotional rebellion becomes the only visible form of protest.

A Human, Yet Unacceptable, Reaction

None of these explanations mean such actions are right.

Throwing objects at a judge, insulting leaders, or humiliating officials cannot be accepted in a civilized society.

But to understand them is not to justify them — it is to recognise that anger against authority is often a symptom of deeper emotional wounds: helplessness, alienation, and lack of trust in institutions.

In Conclusion

Behind every such act of defiance lies a story — of frustration, emotion, and broken trust.

When authority speaks or acts, it is expected to represent fairness and neutrality.

When that trust is questioned, emotion replaces reason.

And when people have no other voice, their anger turns symbolic.

Understanding this psychology helps us not to excuse such acts — but to see what drives them.

The real solution lies not in punishing emotion, but in rebuilding trust between authority and the public — where decisions are explained, voices are heard, and dignity is respected on both sides.

Time to realize, Authorities need to understand the publics mentality and their wishes. They cannot utter words as they desire. Personal choices cannot  intervene  the law.