Bulletin of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis. VI, 1956: Critical Discussion of the Concept of an Instinct of Destruction. Robert Waelder. Pp. 97-109.

The theory of a destructive drive has sometimes been accepted or rejected irrationally. Impressionistic data, ease of applicability, and de-emphasis of sexuality have favored its acceptance. Distaste for the idea of primary destructiveness in man together with a faith in the benevolence of human nature have formed the basis of opposition.

Some destructive activity does not require the assumption of a destructive drive,—for example, reactions against threats to self-preservation and reactions to frustration; by-products of ego activity, such as mastery of the outside world or control of one's own body or mind; and aspects of the libidinal urge that imply aggressiveness toward the object such as penetration or incorporation.

But there are instances of destructive behavior,—in psychosis, in epilepsy, in the personalities of such insatiable haters as Hitler,—that are so intense and inexhaustible as to 'make it doubtful whether the whole of aggressiveness can ever be explained in terms of a reactive behavior. They seem to suggest strongly that allowance must be made for the existence of inner needs of destruction.'

Assuming the existence of a destructive drive, Waelder suggests that destructiveness can be detoxified or neutralized by the influence of the libido or of the maturing ego, as shown by the fact that behavior is likely to become more destructive not only when the libido regresses but also when the ego regresses.