For a long time, violence was treated as something that arises due to a person’s loss of self-control. Even therapeutic measures aimed at curbing aggressiveness most often involve the development and strengthening of self-control, so that short-term impulses do not determine one’s behavior more strongly than rational thinking and long-term goals. Of course, in the case of reactive aggression arising as a result of frustration, impulsivity, or an emotional outburst, these are fairly obvious things. But such aggression is far from the biggest problem. As a rule, it is short-term, does not go beyond the specific provoking or conflict situation, and does not pursue any intentional goals. Additionally, some forms of reactive aggression, such as defensive aggression, are completely normal and natural.
The real biggest problem is controlled aggression. A current study, published this month, asserts that a significant portion of aggression is not the result of a loss of self-control. Often, on the contrary, it requires self-control—for example, to carry out a calculated act of revenge. Furthermore, improving self-control in aggressive people does not necessarily reduce their violent predispositions; in fact, it may even make them more effective in committing violence. And psychopathic individuals, who account for the bulk of violent crimes, often experience an enhanced development of self-control starting from adolescence.
Of course, this should not be a particularly great discovery for those who know about the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism and understand why the vast majority of people do not harm others, at least intentionally. A person often commits violence not because of an excess of emotionality and irrational behavior, nor due to an impulsive nature, but on the contrary—because of a lack of emotionality and extremely cold-blooded, calculating behavior aimed at obtaining profit and achieving personal goals, regardless of whether someone will be harmed, or even if it is necessary to personally and directly cause that harm, up to and including murder. However, it is good that such a position is now gaining popularity in scientific circles and is replacing outdated views that emphasize reactive aggression at the expense of studying and understanding proactive aggression.
Self-control and rationality, of course, will stop a person from committing impulsive aggressive acts on emotional grounds. But if one imagines an absolutely rational person capable of making decisions and acting completely without emotion, such a person would be a much greater threat than just some unrestrained idiot, who would most likely stop once they saw and understood that their actions could actually seriously harm someone. In a full and healthy regulation of aggression, it is indispensable that a person experiences strong repulsion and resistance to any attempt to harm someone or commit a violent attack.
There can be no question of somehow restraining, limiting, or controlling such resistance to violence, nor the feelings in whose development it plays a key role, such as empathy and guilt. Therapy for aggressive individuals should, first and foremost, be aimed precisely at the development and restoration of such emotional reactions—that is, the return of the correct functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism. After all, a person who is capable of experiencing such reactions in fairly strong manifestations will certainly not commit violence.
