The very concept of aggression














Today, things on my mind with this project....




Investigation of the concepts of aggression



Rather then repeating the assumptions that exist of it as a thing itself.  Which can be done. and which will be a part of our research: to learn what these are...

but rather then working to simply seek out 'understanding' -- as if "aggression" is simply a thing to debate and to understand...

I wonder:

What happens if we create a space to reflect on the very concept of it, itself?

How did this concept arise?

Where it is rooted in? Social Darwinism?

Is it a positivist idea (by "positivist" I mean works from and creates an imagination that isolates the 'human' subject from the cultural/political structure).

This then leads to questions of what we mean by "aggression"?

Is it always about a 'foreign' body? Like in: "an aggressive form of cancer".

When is it a good thing? Only in arenas of competition? Like in: "Football player Sean O'Day displayed an aggressive command of the field today", or "He's very a very aggressive player". (also this suggests issues of gender around "aggression")

Because, I am wondering:

perhaps this concept -- the current way of isolating it out, as a thing that simply stands alone, from other relations -- creates in a way, a strange sort of imagination and fantasy structure about how 'aggression' should work? It assumes normalcy.

Perhaps it has implicit in it, certain ideas of what being-normal is?

I.e. a competitive male individual who is transparent and free, who is above history, politics, weird conflicts. Who is perfectly rational. But in a certain way.