“Don’t show them anger because then they think we are criminals.”
This quote, from one of the young minority ethnic men I interviewed, reflects a painful reality: The expression of anger is not equally accessible to everyone. In my recent study of young minority ethnic men in Denmark, I examine how anger is not only an internal state, but also a socially regulated practice. It is moralised, racialised and shaped by structures of power. And some bodies – especially racialised male bodies – are marked as threatening when they express anger.
Anger can be seen as a justified response to injustice – a powerful emotional reaction that can challenge inequality and drive social change. But in practice, anger is not available to everyone. Some are allowed to express it. Others are punished for showing it.
In my research, I found that anger – far from being a useful tool – is something these young men must carefully suppress. Not because they don’t feel it. And not because they think they are not entitled to express it. But because expressing it makes them vulnerable – to suspicion, to exclusion and to danger.
When anger becomes a threat: Real-life experiences
For many of these young men, anger is a normal part of life at home. It can be loud, physical and unfiltered. Parents shout, siblings argue and push each other – but it is not ‘a big deal’, as one of the informants told me. But in public – for example at school, at work, in encounters with the police – anger becomes something else: a threat.
One young man shared how his father, despite frequently showing anger at home, constantly reminds him to stay calm in public – a lesson shaped by the father’s own experiences. The concern is that any display of anger will be read through the lens of his gender and brown skin and perceived as a threat. This captures the emotional double bind these young men live with: Within the home, anger is familiar and accepted, yet in public it becomes dangerous. They are forced to navigate two opposing emotional codes, leaving little or no space for expressing anger in the majority society.
When these young men express anger publicly, the consequences can be serious. One participant told me how he was thrown out of a fast food restaurant simply because he was standing near a noisy group of boys who looked like him. He was not with them, but the manager assumed he was because of his brown skin. When he asked why he was being expelled, he was shouted at and humiliated, without explanation. He remained calm and left. He told me that the reason: “If I show that I’m angry, they might call the police. That’s always a potential threat I have to live with – that they’ll call the police. So I just left. It wasn’t worth it for a cheeseburger…”
Another young man described being strip-searched by police as a teenager. He had done nothing wrong. But he matched a vague suspect description. His account was humiliating – and, like so many others, it ended not in apology but dismissal. He was not heard. He was simply told to “fuck off”.
These are not isolated incidents. Again and again, I heard how these young men are denied the right to react with anger – even when they have every reason to be angry. And when they do show anger, even in words, they are treated as unstable, problematic or dangerous. One young man argued with his teacher in frustration and was immediately sent home. He was not listened to. He was simply removed.
Structural bias: How society polices emotional expression
What we’re seeing here is emotional inequality. The right to express anger is not equally distributed. White men are often allowed to use anger to assert themselves. Their anger can be read as political, passionate, even brave. But for young brown men, anger is often seen as potentially criminal. And that reading comes not (only) from their behaviour – but from how their bodies are perceived.
This is not just a matter of individual bias. It is structural. Danish society – like many other Western societies – values emotional restraint, especially in public life. But these norms are classed and racialised. They assume that the ‘right’ way to show emotions looks like White, middle-class self-control. Any deviation from this becomes suspicious and illegitimate.
Rethinking anger: Recognising emotional inequality
When young racialised men get angry, the system responds as if it has been threatened – not challenged. And yet anger, as the poet and activist Audre Lorde reminded us, is not just an outburst. It is a form of knowledge. It can reveal injustice and give people energy to act. But only if we let it speak.
Suppressing this anger doesn’t solve the problem. It reinforces it. These young men learn to stay silent, not because they don’t care, but because speaking up puts them at risk. They don’t lack emotions. They lack permission. They don’t lack stories. They lack a space where their stories are heard as legitimate.
If we want a fairer society, we need to take emotional inequality seriously. We need to stop pathologising the emotions of marginalised groups. We need to understand what the anger is telling us – and who does not have the same opportunities to express it.
Betül Özkaya is a PhD fellow at Aalborg University in Denmark. Her research focuses on the sociology of emotions and social inequality.
Özkaya, B. (2025). Unequal conditions of anger for minority ethnic young men. Emotions and Society.
‘Don’t show them anger because then they think we are criminals’: unequal conditions of anger for minority ethnic young men by Betül Özkaya is available to read open access on Bristol University Press Digital here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Salah Ait Mokhtar via Unsplash