On the radio this morning I heard some researcher from Washington University talking about how he studies factors leading to human aggression so he can figure out how to eliminate it. I'm not sure that would be possible, but even more importantly I'm don't think that eliminating aggression from the human species would be desirable.
What is aggression anyway? Physical violence -- and the threat thereof -- is major component, but there are also other forms of aggression such as social and economic. The key component of all forms of aggression is an attempt by one person to gain an advantageous position against the will and interest of another person. In order to gain this position, the aggressor signals that the aggressee's cost of resisting his action will be greater than the cost of submitting.
People tend to dislike aggression for two major reasons. First, no one likes having to choose between two bad situations: either you submit to another's will against your own interest, or you fight. Second, the aggressor's signal that he is willing to fight is much cheaper to him than an actual fight would be, but submitting is generally only a little cheaper to the aggressee than would be fighting; therefore the aggressee (rightly) perceives that the aggressor reaps the majority of the profit in the transaction by attaining a valuable position at the aggressee's expense for little cost.
Societal toleration for aggression varies from form to form. Americans tend not to put up with people who are physically aggressive, but we highly prize aggressiveness in our competitive capitalistic economy. Aggressiveness rules the roost in high school society, but adults tend to be less socially competitive and less tolerant of social aggression. Many sports and games foster tightly constrained aggression (physical and otherwise) that only rarely spills out into the real world.
It's certainly true that some people are aggressive in inappropriate or unwarranted circumstances, but as the examples above illustrate our social and economic systems tend to do a good job of punishing harmful aggression (though no one knows why it works.) Condemning all aggression and trying to root it out of human nature is a fruitless and counterproductive task, and reflects badly on the scientific process as a whole. The role of science is not to prescribe, but to describe, despite the fact that many modern scientists cast themselves as social activists or politicians.
That said, how aggressive "should" people be? Take the question two ways: what level of aggression is best for the individual, and what level of aggressiveness is best for society?
Disagreements can be solved in three ways.
1) Ignore it. This is often the best solution for the sat of problems were it is cheap for disagreeing factions to pursue their own ideas separately.
2) Compromise. Where the benefits of collective ownership or cooperation are high enough, people might find that following their exact ideals aren't worth the fight or the cost of going it alone.
3) Confrontation. This is where aggression is useful. In a confrontation, it is not necessarily a benefit to be the most aggressive. Often the aggressive party in a war winds up losing. I guess people the complaints that are made about aggressiveness are often about being too confrontational, Lawyers are often criticised for being too aggressive, but perhaps the root of the problem is the confrontational legal process which does not make room easily for compromise.
So your two questions (best for the individual, best for society) I think are best framed as, how confrontational should you be; and once confrontation has been established, then how aggressive should you be?
It's a little difficult to judge the historical effectiveness of compromise, since it's so difficult to report. History is full of battles, literal and figurative. I guess it's fashionable to prefer compromise by default, and to require extraordinary provocation to finally engage in a confrontation...
I guess a weak confrontation does no-one any good. You bear the cost of the fight but are very unlikely to get rewards. If the decision to confront has been made correctly, then in the interests of a decisive victory, you should be as aggressive as good tactics allow. I agree that eradicating aggression is a bit misjudged.
I doubt that's what he meant. Eradicating domestic violence and bar brawls would be great.
Okay, I'm really stepping out into geek territory here, but the episode of "Star Trek" (Mirror, Mirror?) where Kirk was twinned into the evil aggressive Kirk and the passive, peaceful Kirk illustrated your point as well. One wasn't worth much without the other, it's the balance of all the options that make us effective.
I don't know that there is any such thing as an appropriate level if we're discussing what amount would be needed to "win". If there were a limit, than it stands to reason that two opposing forces would never be able to best the other, resulting in a stalemate, and prompting one or both to assume inappropriate levels.
I'd muse that each individual's conscious will tell them when too much is too much, and the law will have to handle the offenders.
That brings it all down to the individual in the confrontation that is able to get as close as possible to the "limit" without going over, which in my mind, dovetails nicely into the free enterprise model where it often seem to come down to marketing (read: an original, intelligent, and common sense approach to aggression designed to illicit the desired reaction).
Also not to be understated is a healthy understanding of how your "target" will react to aggression, and how much will be required to achieve the win.
Social status also seems to be a factor, in that most people seem to buy in to the belief that fame = better than me, as in the case of those who grow weak in the knees in the presence of a celebrity figure.
I have no idea where I'm heading with all of this.
jez: I think you're right that an indecisive conflict is the worst choice of all.
Jeffro: Star Trek references are always welcome! In some sense, "appropriate" aggression can depend on one's socially sanctioned role... a starship captain might need more aggression than a massage therapist.
wag: If people simply follow their conscience, won't we end up with a society run by the bullies?