Epilogue

Aconsensus is apparent when the papers in this issue are considered together. The classical formulation that the aggressive drive exists on a par with the sexual drive as part of a dual instinct theory requires reconsideration. Historically, Freud had difficulty in placing aggression within his theoretical models. He originally included aggression within the domain of the life-preserving instincts essentially as a reactive response. Later, as he began to formulate his views on narcissism, Freud emphasized the class relation of aggression to narcissism. Finally, he placed aggression with the purview of Eros and Thanatos when he introduced the dual instinct theory.

Subsequently, the dual instinct theory was worked out in elegant detail by Hartmann (1949, 1953). Since Hartmann introduced the concept of neutralization (1950) the theory has remained essentially intact. The papers you have just read, however, reflect a trend within psychoanalysis—they reflect the increased attention given to the explanatory power of various concepts and metaphors related to aggression other than as a facet of the dual instinct theory. They include the aggressive drive bound to narcissism and the life-preserving instinct; the aggressive drive comprised of psychobiological and environmental components; and social forces effecting the character of the aggressive drive.

In sum, we finish with a variety of concepts and metaphors that are believed to explain aspects of aggression more effectively than does the dual instinct theory. We are, therefore, left with the impression that there exists a need to rethink and rework the place of aggression within the structural theory, to clarify whether minor alteration in the theory is necessary to better accommodate aggression,