What is Aggression

Conservatives believe that competitive aggression is part of human nature. Given this, they argue, no egalitarian society can be possible. Given how often people behave aggressively, it is hard to believe aggression is totally socially constructed. We can look at it two ways. Aggression is one of the basic human motivations. Or aggression is a tool, a capacity that is put into play to pursue other more basic motivations. Sociologists tend to the second view. This podcast starts to examine this debate.

Transcript

Chapter 2: On aggression 
Terry Leahy 2024
 In the last chapter I outlined a theory of human nature that suggests six basic drives. Hunger, health and comfort, sexuality, sociability, creativity and autonomy. What is obvious from that list is I do not talk about aggression as a basic drive. 
A lot of people believe that an aspect of human nature is a basic desire to be aggressive, to compete aggressively, to harm other people. That people enjoy competitive aggression in conflict with other people. The terrible human history of wars and cruelty makes this an attractive theory. If you do not believe that there is a basic desire to harm other people, you must explain why these behaviours are so common. 
 In this chapter, I'm going to outline what I think is a viewpoint that fits with what most sociologists say when it comes to this topic. Sociologists rarely talk about human nature and tend to assume that our natures are socially constructed. Beneath this flag waving claim, the actual detail of social accounts in fact relies on views of human nature. You may think that this is a topic more suited to psychology than sociology. But in my view, it is a topic that sociologists must think about all the time and make assumptions about. 
Sociologists and evolutionary psychologists
The main debate in this field is between this assumed sociological view and the view of a group of thinkers who usually refer to themselves as ‘evolutionary psychologists’ at the present time. Previously they called their view ‘sociobiology’. The reason for these terms is this. These writers believe that the pressures of evolution have created a human nature, a biology, that predisposes people to typical social behaviours. An early version of these theories was outlined by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox. A later popular account was that of Desmond Morris. More recently still, Steven Pinker elaborates this view as evolutionary psychology. The most well-known current popularist of this view is of course Jordan Peterson, a favourite of the manosphere. This view is quite common in society at large. That there's an urge to kill. 
When evolutionary psychologists critique the sociological view, they describe it as a doctrine of ‘human perfectibility’, a rose-tinted glasses view of the human species. They think this is also part of the dominant leftist view of the world. That this view leads social movements into quixotic attempts to create an egalitarian, cooperative and harmonious society. These attempts are disastrous failures because they do not consider the realities of human biological nature. 
We can think of the vision of human perfectibility as a world peopled by those little plastic dolls without any genitals. Or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World where people are doped up so that they never have an aggressive thought. According to evolutionary psychologists, that would be a sociologist’s paradise. Sociologists, they say, are mad enough to believe we can socially construct the world to be like this — without the drugs. 
I will suggest this is a misleading picture of where sociologists are coming from. In any case, the ideal of a perfectible human society, with people socially constructed to have no negative qualities, would be a somewhat bizarre utopia. We must look at what humans are in fact like and talk about what works for humans as they actually are. Rather than imagining some species that’s totally perfect.
So now let me get onto the central question — is aggression a basic drive of human nature? It depends on what you mean by these terms, ‘aggression’ and ‘human nature’. This is what I am going to mean here. Aggression is intentionally doing physical harm to someone. It's not just a conflict of wills. Where you use other methods to get people to do what you want. Or you resolve a conflict of will in some other way. Aggression means going out and harming someone, or at least plausibly threatening to do physical harm. The term ‘human nature’. There is a view of human nature in which everything that humans have in common is part of human nature. Like ears or an arm. But that is not what we normally mean by the term. We mean the basic motivations common to human beings, not just other things that are common. 
My view is that sociologists believe there is no basic to desire to do physical harm to other people, as such. In other words, doing harm to other people is not a pleasure, which we can all enjoy because of our human nature. We can compare this to other desires that we do take to be part of human nature, like say for food. We could say, human beings all have appetite for food. Eating is a pleasure, which human beings can enjoy. Unless things are really odd for some reason, they will enjoy this. We could say the same about affection and say humans desire affection from other people.
 What sociologists are saying is that aggression is not like that. Harming someone else is not something that people generally enjoy. A pleasure, which everyone should be educated to enjoy. It’s in your nature to enjoy it and so on. Sociologists have a slightly different view from that. Not to say that it can never be enjoyed, and I'll talk about that. 
Aggression as a tool
The basic view of sociologists is that aggression is a tool rather than a basic drive. So, it's a tool common to human beings. Okay. Rather than a basic motivation of people. We are biologically enabled and may want to harm people when we are having a conflict with someone else. Where they are blocking us from pursuing some desire or other. They're standing in the road. 
For example, Kate in my household is having a conflict with our neighbour, Mark, over Mark’s use of his front carport. Normally, his front carport is a quiet place. His car just sits there. One of the rooms in our house is close to his front yard. That is the room that Kate uses as her office. Up until now, she did not get any noise from Marks’s yard in her office. Recently, Mark has driven his car out onto the street and left it there so he can use the carport for industrial work. He loves power tools — saws, angle grinders, drills, mulchers, leaf blowers, gurneys, welding torches. So, he's decided to run his power tools every minute of the day and night in his car port. The conflict is that he's frustrating one of Kate’s great passions, which is to sit in her office writing. To work during the day. He makes that difficult with these power tools She feels bludgeoned by vast amounts of noise. In that situation, it is perfectly understandable that she wants to harm Mark. That she imagines attacking hm. That she desires aggression. Even though in practice it is unlikely that she will do any such thing. 
However, from the sociological point of view, that does not mean that a drive to harm others is a basic desire of human nature. Waiting for a good opportunity to express itself. Not at all. The capacity to be aggressive and the desire to be aggressive are tools with which we are endowed by evolution. They come into play in situations where we have a conflict with other people. From an evolutionary point of view, these feeling come up because there are cases where we may be more likely to get our own way by violence or the threat of violence. But the underlying desire that makes this tool relevant is always something else, related to the basic desires of human nature listed above. In the example I am giving, the relevant basic desires for Kate are firstly, creativity, wanting to work at the desk and write stuff. Next comfort, as the constant barrage of noise from Mark’s power tools is uncomfortable. 
Aggression as a tool is like having an arm for grasping. You need your arm to pick things up. Or having a sense of pitch. Knowing what note is higher than another is useful in understanding and appreciating music. Or a capacity to use language to communicate. These are all things that are common to people, but they're common as tools rather than basic desires.
If aggression was a basic drive, there would only be one truly satisfying way to express aggressive feelings, which would be engaging in aggression and doing physical harm. You couldn't buy off aggressive feelings. Like here, have an ice cream instead. Excuse me, an ice cream just doesn't cut it. I want to smash their head in. Right. And we would be looking around for opportunities, to act aggressively. One of the greatest pleasures of life. Here's an opportunity. Oh, let's do it.
By contrast, if aggression is merely a tool, we might be well satisfied by some other solution. If there's something else that can make it possible for us to go about our business without harming people. Or they get out of our hair in some way, then we stop feeling these aggressive desires. 
I'll take the example of the guy next door again. Perhaps another solution is to go to talk to Mark about the noise. And he agrees not to use power tools in the front yard, but only in his backyard workshop where the noise is not such a big problem. And only up till the hours of seven o'clock in the evening and only after eight o'clock in the morning. That might work. It is in fact a more pragmatic solution than attempting to do physical harm. Providing all this works, Kate’s murderous feelings about Mark will diminish and eventually even vanish altogether.
This sort of analysis of aggressive behaviour is ubiquitous, and it's not just in sociology, but in everyday explanations of things. The weirdest thing is that evolutionary psychologists who talk about an urge to kill use explanations like this themselves. Steven Pinker, who is one of the evolutionary psychologists who lambasts the left for their stupidly optimistic view of human nature, is a classic case. He has whole rave on drug gangs in the United States and what does he say about these drug gangs?
He says they use a lot of violence. There's a lot of shooting. Unfortunately, in recent American history, that's absolutely true. He goes on to say that the reason is that the people running these drug gangs are running them as a business. They intend to make money. Because this business is illegal, they can't call in the police if someone does not respect the conventions of business. If someone wants to steal their drugs. If they have a contract with someone to supply them, and they get less than what has been contracted. So, they make use of illegal violence to protect their business. What’s really interesting is that Pinker does not say the reason for this gang violence is — gangs just love to kill people. After all, that is human nature. No, he doesn't say that at all. He has this whole other economic explanation.
Why is that? Because that's exactly how aggression functions. It's a tool, not a basic self-sufficient motive. 
Enjoying aggression
So, what is happening when people enjoy aggression? The explanation that sociologists avoid is that aggression itself is a basic desire and satisfying that desire is enjoyable. So here are some other ways of thinking about how aggression may be enjoyed by the perpetrators. 
1. As explained in the previous chapter, autonomy is a basic desire. Getting what you want is a basic desire of people. Sometimes one way to get what you want is by aggression, or the threat of aggression. In cases like that you maybe enjoy the aggression because you know that you're going to achieve what you want by being aggressive. The real pleasure is in getting what you want. 
2. Aggression can be a response to injury or a payback. For example, if you have been humiliated. When you are aggressive in response it feels like you are restoring the balance. Your pain and their pain. You enjoy that process even though the aggression itself is just a necessary means to that end. 
3. Aggression can be a means of taking risks and getting excitement. Lots of soldiers and warriors enjoy aggression for its excitement value. In other words, the pursuit of excitement is an aspect of creativity as a basic desire. Enjoying the risks of creatively constructing the world. Getting involved in a war, or a raid is one way of pursuing excitement. But clearly there are also other ways of satisfying these desires in other kinds of risks. Surfing, skydiving or contact sports. But also, things like making music or writing a book. The adrenaline rush, the sense that you're doing something. 
Excessive aggression
It may seem that the explanation of aggression provided so far makes sense for a lot of aggressive moods and actions but not all of them. There are aggressions that seem excessive in view of the conflict going on. You could think of them as unwarranted. Almost as though the aggressor is looking for an excuse to get aggressive. Taking pleasure in aggression for its own sake. Those who see aggression as a tool rather than a basic desire have a variety of accounts for these kinds of moods and acts. Some accounts relate unwarranted aggression to psychological mechanisms based in more basic drives. Alternatively, the explanation may say that the aggression is indeed originally caused by some conflict of will, but the aggressive mood or act has been displaced from its original, rational target onto some other party. 
1. We could also say that some people, and not everyone, take a particular pleasure in aggression. That it is a character trait, rather than a basic desire common to all people. In that perspective we would want to look at how this character trait has been socially constructed in these particular people. We might argue that these people have been rewarded for aggressive behaviour and desires with incentives that satisfy other basic desires of human nature. For example, their social environment has given them respect for their aggressive moods and actions. Not unlike the training of a pit bull terrier really. Rewarded with food and affection for aggressive attacks on other dogs. As may be obvious, a whole social order may be premised on the social construction of aggression in some people. The basic desires in question are for affection and regard, not for aggression as such. You are taking pleasure in an action that can be expected to augment your status. More on this later. 
2. We can also look at aggression as delayed payback. A channelling of anger caused by an earlier trauma. The pleasure lies in getting a sense of power and control — to alleviate feelings of humiliation and powerlessness. For example, the anger that you originally felt towards a father who was beating you up. That anger may be repressed at the time. It is not safe to attack your father. But it can come out in later aggression against people who are powerless to fight back. There can be a chain of angry behaviour going down from one generation to the next. 
So, when sociologists want to explain what we might consider to be excessively aggressive behaviour and moods, they turn to explanations of this kind. More on this in the next two chapters.
Is aggression always bad?
The final question that I want to talk about in this chapter is whether aggression is always a bad thing. For a sociologist, the implied question here is — who are we talking about? Maybe it is good for one party and bad for another. Trying to look at this systematically I will start with the party that is the target of aggression. 
1. Clearly, there's the damage to health, physical comfort and psychological well-being that comes with being physically attacked. You might even lose your life.
2. The damage to your autonomy because the aggressor is using physical sanctions to prevent you getting what you want.
3. There may be specific kinds of damage depending on the context. Like damage to your self-esteem. Damage to your enjoyment of sex. The loss of land and livelihood.
Now let us look at whether aggression is good or bad for the aggressor. To begin with, what might an aggressor get out of their aggressive actions?
1. You may be successful in getting what you want by aggression. The armies of England took over the whole of Australia in that way. The American colonists rebelled against England and established a republic. In other words, aggression can be good for the perpetrator, and bad for the victim. 
2. There may be a social reward for certain kinds of aggression. For example, in many horticultural societies, being a brave warrior can establish status and allow influence.  The medals given to the heroes of the Battle of Britain are another example. 
So, what are the potential downsides for the aggressor?
1. Aggression is always risky. You can never be completely certain that you will win the fight. 
2. Less obvious is the way aggressive conduct produces enemies. You cut yourself off from a whole lot of people who otherwise might be your friends.
So, for a typically sociological approach, there is no one answer to the question. Is aggression good or bad? You must work out which party in the situation you are talking about and weigh up the consequences, good and bad, for that party. 
In the next chapter I want to look at the approach of evolutionary psychologists to these questions in more detail. What are the arguments they use to contest the sociological approach?