Is aggression a positive thing?

SugarHigh

I feel aggression has been vilified a lot mainly due to the pathologizing of maleness but isn't it really the driving force of most progress?

It's often associated with violence but couldn't you also say Steve Jobs was aggressive in the way he drove Apple to dominance, could a wallflower have done the same?

What success stories are there thanks to people being meek and submissive? It's aggressive people who have the drive to make things happen. Society shouldn't be afraid of it and try to hold it back just because it can also have negative manifestations like violence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

slowburner

SugarHigh wrote: »

I feel aggression has been vilified a lot mainly due to the pathologizing of maleness but isn't it really the driving force of most progress?

It's often associated with violence but couldn't you also say Steve Jobs was aggressive in the way he drove Apple to dominance, could a wallflower have done the same?

What success stories are there thanks to people being meek and submissive? It's aggressive people who have the drive to make things happen. Society shouldn't be afraid of it and try to hold it back just because it can also have negative manifestations like violence.

I'm not so sure that aggressive is the right word to describe the way Jobs drove Apple.
Could you not say that he was determined?
That said, I don't think anyone can reach the top without having a strong desire to compete.
Whether or not the desire to compete arises out of aggression, is another matter entirely, but it probably does (Thanatos, perhaps).
If some people are driven to succeed by aggression, it might be just as interesting to think about success driven by the desire to create (Eros).

Zulu

Good question OP. I think though Permabears done a good job summing it up. It can be used to describe negative & positive qualities, but it certainly shouldn't be vilified.

I see it in a positive manner, and I'll be sure to encourage it in my child.

Crucifix

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is that really the case? I read an article about business in Norway a year or so ago, it suggested they had a very high rate of start-ups, and a high rate of success for those start ups. The business owners they interviewed said the social safety net allowed them to take the risk of quitting their job to start their own business, where they otherwise might've played safe.

The Last Emperor

I like to view aggression like it is nuclear power.

In its raw form, it's unapproachable, unwieldy and ultimately dangerous.
But when it's processed it's a fantastic source of power which fuels our societies.

IMO, we must embody aggression.
Those who don't, IMO, you will find to be the most unhappy, temperamental and unsuccessful.

Those who do, you will find to be well developed, well spoken and attractive, provided they can apply it correctly of course.

I guess it's somewhat of a complex issue that hasn't really been explored or even speculated upon much really.

elseanino

Interesting, but I think someone can be driven, determined and focussed without being aggressive. Aggression equals hostility imo and people who are well developed, well spoken and attractive are rarely aggressive. Aggressive behaviour is immature and people need to develop their self-esteem so that they can get what they want without being aggressive.

celticcrash

SugarHigh wrote: »

I feel aggression has been vilified a lot mainly due to the pathologizing of maleness but isn't it really the driving force of most progress?

It's often associated with violence but couldn't you also say Steve Jobs was aggressive in the way he drove Apple to dominance, could a wallflower have done the same?

What success stories are there thanks to people being meek and submissive? It's aggressive people who have the drive to make things happen. Society shouldn't be afraid of it and try to hold it back just because it can also have negative manifestations like violence.

What success stories are there thanks to people being meek and submissive? Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world.

Zulu

passive aggressive? Gandhi was certainly not "meek and submissive"

The Last Emperor

elseanino wrote: »

Interesting, but I think someone can be driven, determined and focussed without being aggressive. Aggression equals hostility imo and people who are well developed, well spoken and attractive are rarely aggressive. Aggressive behaviour is immature and people need to develop their self-esteem so that they can get what they want without being aggressive.

Absolutely.

Referring to surface actions and perceptions of course.

To stick with the nuclear metaphor; electricity, heat, power - I guess we could compare these to the aforementioned behavioral traits, while we compare aggression to the nuclear fission itself.
By products, in a sense.

Well, this is my interpretation of the nature of things of course.
But I'm very confident in that interpretation.

No one wants to be exposed to aggressive behavior, of course not.
The same way one wouldn't want to be exposed to nuclear radiation every time they want to boil the kettle.
But ultimately, one occurring at some point in the course of events is necessary to attain the other.

I think one concept which is not at all prominent amongst sociologists or in the minds of societies, is that aggression, what it stems from and how it's perceived, is a direct product of ones approach and attitude toward sexuality.

In the same way that physics deduces that heat = energy, in this case, sexuality = aggression, and vice-versa.

How we harness that "heat" however, will determine how effectively we can apply it, how acceptable it can be - i.e. "get what we want" without emitting the aggression in it's pure form.

Scanlas The 2nd

elseanino wrote: »

Interesting, but I think someone can be driven, determined and focussed without being aggressive. Aggression equals hostility imo and people who are well developed, well spoken and attractive are rarely aggressive. Aggressive behaviour is immature and people need to develop their self-esteem so that they can get what they want without being aggressive.

Their is a time and a place for aggression both tactically and physically. Barack Obama benefitted from being aggressive, many told him to wait another four years, if he had done that he may have lost his opportunity to become president. He took his chances despite his relative inexperience with bold action trusting he could deal with whatever he had to.

Aggression is most definitely not immature in itself, becoming aggressive in the wrong situations would be immature.

Aggression is a tool that can serve one's interests in the right circumstances.

Mardy Bum

SugarHigh wrote: »

I feel aggression has been vilified a lot mainly due to the pathologizing of maleness but isn't it really the driving force of most progress?

It's often associated with violence but couldn't you also say Steve Jobs was aggressive in the way he drove Apple to dominance, could a wallflower have done the same?

What success stories are there thanks to people being meek and submissive? It's aggressive people who have the drive to make things happen. Society shouldn't be afraid of it and try to hold it back just because it can also have negative manifestations like violence.

Zulu wrote: »

passive aggressive? Gandhi was certainly not "meek and submissive"

I think the word best suited to both Steve Jobs and Gandhi would be courage; courage to think, courage to do. It takes tremendous courage to think for yourself and to act upon it. It is courage which made these both men succeed. It is the enabling factor in humanity.