From the author: Fragment of the book “Altruism: the so-called good” Altruism and Aggression One of the main provisions that we defend throughout our work is that natural altruism has a direct connection with aggression, more Moreover, from the point of view of phylogenesis, it is its proto-form, evolutionarily preceding it. We have already given the arguments for this position many times, in the materials of both the first and second sections; here we will reveal our position at the level of individual conclusions and generalizations. In this section we will also correlate altruism with other types of natural activity, which, in addition to aggression, traditionally include hierarchical and sexual behavior. The correlations we carry out will allow us to more deeply understand the essence of the most natural altruistic interaction and further explore some modern methods of its cultural ritualization. I. ALTRUISM and AGGRESSION The classical view of altruism contrasts it with selfish behavior and egocentric motivation, at the same time a whole series of data from the field of ethology and ethnography , psychoanalysis and social psychology (see the conclusions of the previous sections) allows us to include aggression as an opposition to this social phenomenon. In addition, based on the material of the first and second sections, as well as as a result of analyzing a large number of examples and a number of conclusions, we have identified the following: Aggression can act as a reaction accompanying certain types of altruistic behavior. As illustrations of this position, we recall that: a number of educational measures are aggressive in nature and have an exclusively altruistic nature (for example, punishing a child for an offense carried out in the mode of education and parental care); moral (and in some cases physical) aggression in response to violation of the norms of reciprocity by one of the partners; the very upbringing of a child in the first years of his life within the framework of a system of altruistic relations has a largely forced form, etc. “Excessive” altruism can be a hidden form of aggression. The main argument for this idea is contained in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.4 of Section 2, where it is studied in detail the unconscious nature of neurotic altruistic behavior, within which motives of dominance and hidden hostility play a central role. Here we will give another example. In educational psychology, the consequences of different parenting styles are well known. One of these styles is overprotection, in which the child becomes the “idol of the family” and is placed in an atmosphere of excessive parental altruism with total control over his behavior. An overprotective parenting style entails a complete loss of initiative in the child, forms an ego with blurred boundaries, leads to social disability and develops many other personality defects. There is a special type of altruism built on aggression - forced altruism. Let us recall that our fundamental position is that any voluntary concession and transfer of one’s own resource to another person, which has as its motive the provision of assistance to this person or is based on the motive of relieving tension in the existing system of relations , we consider it a manifestation of altruism. Here we refer to three statements that illustrate this point. Firstly, a number of scientists (for example, []) consider coercive altruism to be the earliest form of cooperative behavior. Secondly, coercive altruism is built on preventing, mitigating or eliminating probable or “seemingly possible” aggression on the part of the one to whom the “voluntary” concession of a resource is made, and it is aimed at maintaining hierarchical relationships. Thirdly, forced altruism causes the experience of moral (and sometimes physical) pleasure from the very act of concession, as it removes or softens tension in the presence of a higher-status person. All this suggests that forced altruismis one of the archaic forms of altruistic behavior. At the same time, since it is essentially aimed at mitigating aggressiveness in the existing system, it means that it is triggered by aggressive motivation, or rather its wrapping, a reactive formation built on it. In other words, coercive forms of altruism are fundamentally based on aggressive motivation. The motive of altruism can be based on auto-aggression, one of the intrapsychic variants of which is the feeling of guilt. Indeed, the feeling of guilt forces us to perform altruistic acts designed to compensate for it or at least soften it. Most often these actions are of the nature of “disinterested” help in relation to referent others. An interesting feature of the feeling of guilt is that it is often caused not by “real guilt” towards a social partner, but by one’s own auto-aggressive attitude, which begins to rule the roost in motivating altruistic behavior. Altruistic and aggressive forms of behavior have significant similarities in a number of functions.− Altruism, like aggression, influences the migration of the population, thereby regulating its numbers. One of the basal functions of aggressiveness, considered by K. Lorenz, is mutual repulsion, ensuring the dispersal of individuals over the maximum accessible area []. On the other hand, the behavior of such an aggressive species as humans does not fit into Lorentz’s statement. Indeed, since the beginning of the 19th century, the main migration trends have been directed to large cities. Here are statistics for the last two-plus centuries: “In 1800, only 4% of the world's population lived in cities. In 1900, the percentage of urban residents increased to 14% of the total population; By the end of the twentieth century, 47% began to live in cities. Currently, more than half of the planet's inhabitants are city dwellers. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were only 16 millionaire cities. In 1950, there were already 83 of them, and by 2000 the number of millionaire cities increased to 411. In 1800, the world population reached 1 billion people, in 1900 there were already 1.6 billion people, in 1960 - 3 billion, in 1993 - 5.5 billion, on October 12, 1999, the world population was exactly 6 billion people, in 2003 - 6.3 billion, in 2006 - 6.5 billion. On July 1, 2009, the world population was 6,768,167,712 people" (according to UN for 2009). At the same time, the number and number of people in large cities is constantly growing, despite the fact that the level of environmental, psychological and other types of stress, information overload, social tension, etc. in megacities tens of times higher than the same indicators in cities with a smaller population [Barbashin, Pavlenko]. What makes people rush to cities? According to biologists, the earth's biosphere is designed to support a load of 0.5 billion people ([] Dolnik, 2007). The growth of large cities began when the world's population reached 1 billion inhabitants, that is, when humanity exceeded the maximum permissible size of its population by two times. Moreover, this process began to occur more rapidly the higher the population density became. We discover the following pattern: when numbers in a certain geographical area reach twice the critical level, the laws of repulsion weaken and the altruistic forces of rapprochement increase many times over. People begin to be drawn to cities, and the larger the city, the more they are drawn into it. On the other hand, in megacities the birth rate is reduced and does not reach the simple replacement level [Barbashin, Pavlenko], that is, the increase occurs exclusively due to migrants. This “black hole” effect is beneficial for the environment as a whole and is nothing more than a natural stabilizer of the human population. The inhabitants of megalopolises themselves cannot be called anything other than “altruists against their will”, or “forced to altruism”: not only do they somehow manage to fit their natural needs into the rigid social rhythm of urbangiants, so they also leave space for everyone else to live. It is interesting that the results of reflections based on the above statistics are in good agreement with the conclusions of H. von Foerster, S.P. Kapitsa, M. Kremer and A.V. Korotaev, who in their study showed that up to the 1970s the number The world population has grown according to a hyperbolic law, and currently there is a progressive slowdown in the growth rate of the Earth's population. Again, from the above statistical data it is clear that the slowing progression in the growth of the human population began precisely in the sixties, when the rapid growth of megacities began to occur, and the collapsing effect associated with their influence acted as a natural stopper in the growth of the Earth's population.− Altruism is akin to aggression is one of the criteria for sexual selection, setting an alternative program for selecting men based on the principle of greatest altruism, that is, capable of not only carrying out courtship itself, but also being gentle, caring, attentive and “giving” during the entire time of cohabitation. For the human species, selection by signs of strength, a strong, powerful physique have long lost relevance []. These qualities of a man practically do not give him a competitive advantage in modern society. At the same time, in women's choice, preferences are still directed towards higher-status (successful, wealthy, competitive and ambitious) young people. The offspring of such couples becomes even more competitive, which ensures an unlimited increase in competition in our culture. The latter fact was reflected in Lorenz’s reflection: “... the rush that engulfs industrialized and commercialized humanity is an excellent example of inappropriate development that occurs solely due to competition between fellow species” []. A.I. Protopopov writes about the instinctive craving of women to “highly primative” men, that is, to those whose behavior is permeated with instinctive motivation []. Such a choice, time after time, knocks down the intellectual rise of humanity, since it is most difficult for the rationally motivated and most gifted people to pass the female selection. “The thirst for knowledge can be considered unnatural, especially since mastering knowledge often did not help, but rather prevented its owners from surviving, much less leaving more offspring. Individual selection has probably acted in all centuries against those who are overly inquisitive, against those who strive for knowledge” [Ephroim]. In nature, the state of affairs when the female is the choosing figure is called “sexual selection,” and it is far from an isolated, but a widespread phenomenon. For example, in fur seals, 5/6 of all offspring are left by 1/6 of the highly sought-after males; the situation looks even more radical in sea lions, where 4% of males provide 88% of all matings [Protopop]. If the model of sexual selection were directly transposed to female choice, then the collective preferences of all women would guide the development of the human species (in terms of preferred qualities) and “shape” evolution. Fortunately, in human society there are a number of restrictive mechanisms (among which jealousy and a monogamous family structure are of primary importance) that do not allow all women to concentrate around the most preferred men. At the same time, in human society there is an analogue model of sexual selection and it is represented in the form of polygyny in the East, where, on completely legal grounds, one man can have up to four wives. It is interesting that with polygyny the situation seems at first glance reversed, inverted: one gets the impression that the man chooses the wives. Actually this is not true. Under this family institution, despite the recessive position of women, none of them, however, remains unclaimed, while 75% of men are “out of work.” Therefore, polygyny can also be considered a variant of the sexual selection model, in which the female sex is “choosing and more valuable”[Protopop]. In modern society, the significance of polygyny as a special institution of the family is very ambiguous, and researchers emphasize a number of its destructive influences on society: “In any society, polygyny increases the level of violence, leads to an increase in the number of murders and rapes, even when there are modulating factors such as level of economic development, population density, level of democracy, etc.” [Miller, Kanazawa]. In our culture, monogamy is a powerful limiter on the spread of the polygyny model. The institution of monogamy does not allow “alpha egoists” to “spread” their genes to the full extent of the advantages that they have in their generation. S. Bowles calls this situation “reproductive leveling” [Bowles]. In our opinion, monogamy is one of the radical consequences of global natural altruistic processes that occur in our culture and promote group formation. It restrains a number of aggressive tendencies that inevitably arise in the presence of a large percentage of dissatisfied “potential fathers.” The institution of monogamy, due to reproductive leveling, erases all the advantages of “in demand men” (most often alphas), and does not allow a large number of dominant subjects to enter the world. This latter fact further mitigates the likely aggressive escalation that would occur if a high percentage of alpha male offspring were born at the same time. That is why we believe that natural restraining altruistic processes systematically act for the benefit of the entire society. − Altruism, like aggression, supports hierarchical relationships, which leads to an increase in overall stability and relative safety of life in society. Dolnik writes that “strict hierarchy organized the flock, increased the survival rate of individuals” []. In general, the hierarchical structure has many positive aspects. Let's start with the fact that we inherited hierarchy from our direct evolutionary ancestors - primates []. That is, for us it is natural, and we have an intuitive craving for its formation. Our own observations of working training and therapeutic groups show that even when special procedures for working with group dynamics are not carried out, one or another informal group structure is always established. Participants literally gravitate toward leaving the first stages of the group’s life at the mercy of group-forming processes, the central of which is the process of forming a role structure. If in the initially created therapeutic group there is no clear leader (in a training group, such a leader is the lead-trainer), then the role structure is built based on the hierarchical principle. One of the positive aspects of the hierarchy is that, seeing a clearly defined rank, the lower one “without struggle" retreats before his superiors. This state of affairs softens the relationship, has a protective effect and protects both parties to the contact from mutual attack. The inferior acts in a mode of reverence, which causes a patronizing attitude and reduces the aggression of the “senior”. In addition, the superior is also protected, since he is under the protection of rank. Indeed, the highest hierarchs are most often “aged” people and under the unbridled onslaught of the “young and cocky” they could easily lose their place. But the hierarchy protects the alphas, and, therefore, patronizes the experience and wisdom that are characteristic of older age [Protopop]. There are, however, also disadvantages to such a rigid structure as hierarchy. The information in it “goes down” with ease, but with great obstacles it goes “up”. It is not without reason that training managers in the ability to receive feedback from their subordinates is one of the main and sought-after tasks in management consulting, but at the same time it encounters a lot of resistance. Similar conclusions are present in the materials of ethological observations: “Yerkes and his collaborators have long done something extremely interesting,A truly striking observation: chimpanzees, which are known for their ability to learn through direct imitation, fundamentally imitate only their fellows of a higher rank” [Lorenz]. One of the positive aspects of the hierarchical structure is the utilization of the “excess” activity of all its members. In fact, even without any special group activity, one part of the members of the hierarchy is busy increasing their rank, the other is busy defending their existing one. And everyone is “in business.” In other words, the hierarchical structure sets guidelines for growth, thereby structuring the excess activity of its individual members. Altruism, in the context of hierarchical processes, plays a vital function in maintaining these processes. We will look at how this happens a little lower. − Altruism and aggression are alternatives as stereotypical behavior that relieves tension during stress. The latter fact outlines additional ways to correct deviant aggressive reactions, which can naturally be transformed into altruistic ones. Aggression and altruism are ambivalent mental processes and forms of behavior. This conclusion summarizes all previously obtained information and reflects our fundamental scientific position regarding altruism. The meaning of this conclusion is that any altruistic act also has an aggressive component, and aggression always carries an altruistic charge. We could see from the above that altruism in a hidden form also contains some element of hostility conclusions, and from the rest of the text of our work. At the same time, this point is especially clearly presented in the social practice of the potlatch (paragraph 2.1 of Section 2). Indeed, the potlatch is not only a rule of altruistic exchange, but also a way of establishing social dominance. The most “altruistic” also becomes the most influential. The fact that aggression has an altruistic component in its field is well illustrated by various reconciliation procedures, which the aggressor, driven by a sense of guilt, in most cases initiates first. As we wrote a little earlier, we associate the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe ambivalent nature of altruism-aggression with the ambivalent nature of the psyche, which is represented by a whole series of intrapsychic experiences that are systemically combined with each other, such as love-hate, dominance-submission, separation-dependence, etc. In the context of the aggression-altruism dyad, it looks like this: aggression always gives rise to some oppositional altruistic tendencies, and altruism causes opposition in the form of increased aggressiveness. These processes constitute a single dynamic system, which is presented not only as a combination of two differently directed intrapsychic tendencies, but is also realized in interpsychic interaction. This conclusion, as well as a number of the above facts, allowed us to formulate two more generalized statements, which at a deeper level of analysis allow us to understand the basic essence of the “aggression-altruism” dyad. Aggression and natural altruism from the point of view of phylogenesis have a common nature and are not social processes autonomous from each other. Indeed, as was shown in the materials of the first and second sections, these phenomena represent two modalities of one and the same same process of group interaction and can easily transform into each other, that is, invert. Under some conditions, altruism can be no less aggressive than aggression itself, and aversive behavior can be no less cooperative than any altruistic reaction. We have already repeatedly illustrated the first part of the last statement, and as an example for the second premise, it is enough to consider the behavior of a leader in a situation of extreme danger for his team. Often he can behave extremely aggressively towards members of his group, but at the same time all his actions will be aimed at preserving the integrity of the team and its individual members. IN.