If you ask dictionaries and encyclopedias about aggression, they will not tell you anything good. It just so happens and has become entrenched in the modern world that the word “aggression” in different European languages ​​has a negative meaning. Aggression can be, for example, American or Israeli, and from the point of view of the UN Charter means the use of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state .Aggression can be teenage - this is when young people and teenagers hit each other in the face, or break shop windows, or disobey their elders, or vandalize trains. There are male and female too. Auto-aggression also happens - sawing one’s veins is a quite suitable example here. One of the dictionaries defines aggression as an impulse or intention that predetermines human behavior that is characterized by destructiveness. And objectively there is an aggressive environment, aggressive music or an aggressive driving style. And we don’t like the word “aggression” and are not too happy about manifestations of aggression. Showing aggression is not good, being aggressive is unglamorous, falling under someone else’s hand is uncool. Atta her, aggression, out! How wonderful it would be without her! If only we could live in goodness, peace and universal love, right? I suspect that there are very good reasons for such a definition of aggression and such an attitude towards it in our culture. Over the course of the 20th century, we are all frankly tired of falling under it or experiencing it. There has been too much of it over the past 100 years, the destruction is too great. We are tired. We don't need all this now. I want something calmer, not so violent, not so... aggressive. Learn to interact with your own and other people’s aggression and use it to achieve results - international certification program Embodied Facilitator Course Russia But let’s return to the word itself. Dictionaries usually trace the source of the word “aggression” to the Latin aggressio - attack. If you go deeper along this Latin chain, then under it you will find gressus - step, movement and preposition of direction ad - to. That is, we can assume that “aggression” is initially “movement towards”, “movement in the chosen direction”. That’s what writes, in particular, Serge Ginger in the book “International Gestalt Lexicon”: “AGGRESSIVENESS - (from the Latin ad-gressere - to approach another person; close in meaning to rgo-gressere, in meaning the opposite of re-gressere - to move away, go back ). For Perls and for modern ethologists, aggressiveness appears to be a “life impulse” and not a “death impulse”, as it looked for Freud; it is necessary for active assimilation of the outside world and allows one to avoid introjections. For example, in order to digest an apple, you must first gnaw and chew it.” A similar meaning still lives in the English language. In England, “aggressive” is an energetic person. Aggression is expressed not only in anger, but also in energy. And this is extremely important. So the word “aggression” itself and the corresponding “aggressive behavior” are actually much more diverse than a banal beating in the face or shelling of unfriendly territories. Everything is deeper, subtler and more diverse. And it is impossible, it is impossible to throw aggression and aggressive behavior into the dustbin of history. What makes us treat aggression as something bad, as something that we want to exclude from our lives? This happens primarily because in our experience and understanding the word “aggression” is a direct synonym for the word “violence”. These two types of behavior, two phenomena often go hand in hand, feed from a common source and, by and large, both are “ moving towards...” (a fist flying in your face is definitely “moving towards...”). But in essence they are fundamentally different. Let's take a closer look. Let's look at the etymology again. Violence comes from “violare” meaning “to coerce by force”, and “violentus” - “excessive use of force.” “To distinguish between violence and aggressiveness, we have identified three criteria, which are located in this diagram (Fig. 4) .The first criterion is the difference between power, on the one hand, and powerlessness or omnipotence, on the other. Powerlessness or omnipotence is associated with violence, while strength is associated with aggressiveness... The second criterion for distinguishing cruelty and aggressiveness concerns the attitude to the framework within which the action is carried out, namely, to the entire set of social laws or rules that regulate interpersonal relationships. Violence is always accompanied by going beyond the boundaries, while aggressiveness can manifest itself in respect for the boundaries... (Here, in addition to the “social framework,” I would also talk about “personal boundaries” in all the diversity of their manifestations - A.V.) The last criterion is related to the concept of contact : While in aggressive action there is awareness of the existence of another person and a possible meeting, violence is accompanied by a break in the relationship, and the other person becomes an object to be destroyed. Thus, aggressiveness and violence are two differently directed forces, with the first leading to full contact, and the second to breaking contact.” Thus, on the one hand, aggression allows us to be active, to move towards..., but then everything goes depends on how we do it. In this sense, aggression is creative and transformative. But violence, on the contrary, is destructive. This does not mean that we do not have the right to desire destruction or destruction. “We will destroy the whole world of violence to the ground, and then...” This is also a method, as you know. And we know well from our own history all the pros and cons of this choice. So it’s completely normal to experience such a desire; I think everyone is familiar with this state. The only question is whether we will realize this desire in action. In addition, let’s not tear ourselves away from the sinful earth: sometimes we need to punch you in the face (or something more serious) simply because this is an adequate method of defense in a situation of direct threat to life and health. But I propose to put extreme and professional situations out of the equation now, and here’s why. Extreme situations associated with an attack are extreme because they are unusual, not encountered every day in ordinary situations. (Yes, I know, the concept of “usual” is statistical in nature and can vary greatly.) But professional situations are of a different nature. If you don’t have any experience of various types of combat (I don’t), at least remember the movies. The best fighter is the one who fights from a calm “position of strength.” Nothing personal, as you know. It is also useful to watch the Discovery Channel, where they show a variety of hunts of some animals against others. Have you ever seen the face of a predator when attacking a prey? Does a lion attack an antelope get very angry? Does he commit “violence”? Same thing. He just wants to eat. How do these positions differ - strength and powerlessness/omnipotence? Aggression allows you to fight back when attacked, to protect yourself and what is dear to you. Whether this is “violence” or whether it is simply a response to a situation largely depends on the feelings that we experience at the same time. Two instinctive emotions that cause us to actively defend ourselves and attack are anger and fear. They often work together, but sometimes one of them prevails. I repeat - these are instinctive natural emotions. They, like an automatic motor response, arise in a living organism at the moment of threat. Anger makes you fight, fear makes you run. Both fight and flight are normal healthy reactions. If there is nowhere to run, the animal begins to fight fiercely, anger and fear, combining, increase strength. Fear is directly related to powerlessness, while anger gives such a surge of energy that it literally gives rise to a feeling of omnipotence. It is from these extreme and strong emotions that we tend to resort to violent actions. Moreover, in average social circumstances (in which we most often suffer from someone else’s violence or show it ourselves), these two feelings are precisely mixed. If, for example, they yell at you (and this is a threat, an attack), we would be glad to run away from fear, but... We are not children (social attitude), b. often we just don’t have oneopportunities (social circumstances), c. and anyway, what the hell, don't yell at me! And this “don’t yell at me” is especially loud and rude in response - a natural violent response to external violence. Yes, we respond to violence with violence. And either we turn out to be “more active”, more dangerous and generate reciprocal fear in the opponent, forcing him to shut up, or we cause reciprocal anger and the next round of violent iteration. Of course, in each specific situation there are many different factors (status, the division into “friend or foe”, “spatial” factors of proximity or distance of a person and the feeling of threat, etc. play a role here), and if you deal with some familiar reactions, then you need to look in detail. But to a first approximation, emotions decide everything. It is curious that we often do not notice them at all, because the fight and flight response system does not always reach our cerebral cortex; it is triggered in more ancient parts of the nervous system. And in this sense, we are all a little bit not even horses, but rather crocodiles. Here, perhaps, we should also mention the great power of affect. A strong emotion (affect) can completely capture us, absorb us entirely. Being in such an excited emotional state, we practically lose touch with reality: we hardly think anymore (we just can’t:), we don’t notice other people precisely as people, and not as objects threatening us, we have no time to go into details, details, circumstances and generally indulge in reflection. Affect is action. Threat - reaction. Fight, flight or die. Accordingly, what we can do in the field of managing violence is to learn to regulate our own emotions. Not to suppress (!), but to regulate. Observe, understand in each specific case, discover how this feeling of powerlessness or omnipotence arises in us and how it is connected with the natural and basic emotions of fear and anger. It is at this moment that we can change something and move to a position of strength and actions that do not destroy everything around or inside. And what is curious is that this “feeling of strength” often changes the opponent’s behavior. This position is best changed naturally in a bodily way and is best helped by various forms of centering practice. There is actually one more technique, which is also based on physiology: our body is not able to simultaneously be in two opposite states. Therefore, at the moment when you imagine your boss yelling at you naked or, for example, as a hamster, and you feel funny, you immediately become less scared, and your anger subsides. It’s time to understand the amazing paradox that is now observed everywhere. The paradox is that, on the one hand, there is a lot of aggression as violence (coercion, invasion of personal boundaries, physical threat), this is manifested in ordinary communication, and in the organization of the environment, space, communication, and in the norms regulating private and public life . On the other hand, there is somehow not too much “healthy” aggressiveness, such as movement towards a goal, desire, will, manifestation of oneself in actions, work or communication. This amazing combination of accumulated internal aggressiveness and external inactivity, lethargy also has its own explanation. Initially, our body has basic reactions to respond to the challenge of the external environment (they exist both at the level of neurophysiology and at the level of actions and behavior) - fight, flight, freeze The fight response is associated with feelings of anger and develops into violence if anger overwhelms. Flight reaction - arises from fear and can also develop into a violent response if there is nowhere to run (and you need to defend yourself). These two very strong feelings, having no outlet either emotionally or in action, tend to accumulate, turning us into a time bomb. Some manage to carry this very strong tension within themselves for years, restraining themselves with all their might or waging their own internal invisible and continuous war with the whole world. This requires a colossal amount of strength and energy, which certainlyis taken away from something else. Here I remember another old joke about how a young lady chooses a hat in a Parisian store, and the more expensive her choice, the less fancy the headdress turns out to be. To the question “How is this possible?! What am I paying for??” The salesman replies with a smile: “You pay for discretion, madam.” You always have to pay something for restraint. However, so does intemperance. For more often than not, it happens that the lid of the cauldron in which this boiling brew of different feelings, unspoken words, imperfect body movements, exhausting thoughts in a circle is being cooked, sooner or later gets torn off (the expression “The roof is tearing apart” is very suitable here). And all this - words, sounds, emotions, actions, decisions, all this accumulated activity - spills out into the surrounding space. Desperate and unreasonable decisions are made, relationships deteriorate, health is undermined, not creation, but destruction is sown all around. Such outbreaks or even periods of “draining” energy outside, although they provide temporary relief, do not fundamentally change the situation: the explosion only slightly reduces the pressure under the boiler lid. This, of course, slightly reduces the intensity of emotions, can provide a temporary reduction in tension in the body and even correct blood pressure. But only until next time. Alternating such phases—holding the reaction/explosion—looks like a good solution only at first. In the long term, it greatly reduces physical strength, spoils character, reduces productivity, and in addition, the learned skill of relieving tension quickly shortens the periods themselves. Well, do the mechanics work? Here, perhaps, it is also worth adding that violent behavior, in addition to being expressed externally, can also be directed at oneself: punishing oneself for something, getting sick, freezing one’s ears off to spite one’s mother - typical manifestations of violent aggression towards one’s (un)loved self. Despite all that has been said, the described behaviors are quite alert and active. But there is a third type of reaction - freezing, freezing. To pretend that it’s not me, that it’s not with me, that I’m not here at all - maybe it’ll blow by, maybe they won’t notice. This is also a very ancient physiological mechanism that we actively use as a means of protection. The only problem is that, unlike an animal hiding behind a stone or in the bushes, seeming dead and tasteless, merging with the surrounding landscape and not shining (the role of mimicry here must be discussed separately), a person then often forgets to come to life and return to normal functioning . We freeze and remain in that state. And we get used to living in it: going to work, communicating, relaxing, making plans... We may want something like that (including stealing a million and loving the queen), but all the energy that is necessary for this is frozen somewhere very deep inside. We forget to “die off” and continue to live “dead.” There is another interesting pattern. What we do not use in our body gradually atrophies as unnecessary; the function, if not completely lost, is at least greatly weakened. Having loaded friends' numbers into the phone, we stop remembering numbers and numbers in general, having stopped using a foreign language, we forget it, without swimming for several years or riding a bike, we forget how to do it, with a part of the body imprisoned in plaster for several months , the muscles that ensure the functioning of this part of the body weaken, etc. And rightly so: why waste energy on something that is not used? This is all, of course, reversible, but the fact remains: “the function is weakened or lost.” The same thing happens with aggression. If we “cancel” this function in ourselves, cancel this behavior for some compelling reason, we lose the opportunity to use this energy and the habit of aggressively responding to environmental challenges. This can be expressed in the fact that we stop, for example, defending our interests (both in private life - in the family, at work, and in the social aspect), we stop or retreat when we encounter.