Theory of Aggression1

Robert Waelder opened the session with a brief discussion of the problems involved in properly evaluating a hypothesis. Experimental verification is a desirable criterion. It is difficult or impossible correctly to judge a hypothesis which touches upon one's cherished beliefs.

Victor H. Rosen offered the first prepared presentation, "Some Problems Incident to the Concept of Primary Aggression." His discussion fell into three sections: terminology, origin of aggressive behavior, and group psychology. Three terms are commonly used in discussing the theory of aggression: death instinct, instinct of aggression, and instinct of destruction. Are they fully synonymous? Are the second and third merely euphemisms for the first? Do the terms create difficulty because they imply social values?

The origin of aggressive behavior, that is, the circumstances which directly evoke an exhibition of aggression, can be explained in several different ways. Frustration is most commonly adduced as the immediate stimulus for aggression; this is the "reactive theory." Instinctual frustration results in physiologic deprivation. The latter in turn causes a disturbance in homeostatic balance, which causes irritation and stimulation, which causes emergency restitutive activity, which causes diffuse motor discharge, which results in aggression directed toward the self or outward. Libidinal frustration may have an effect similar to physiologic deprivation.

The "substitution theory" holds that each specific drive is composed of both libidinal and aggressive elements. When the libidinal drive is frustrated, its energy is transferred to the aggressive component. The latter is thus strengthened and "defusion" is effected.

The "displacement theory" holds that aggression and Eros are independent drives. Hence, when the libidinal drive is thwarted, the aggressive drive may remain active as before. Actually no change has affected the aggressive drives, but the final act seems more aggressive