Editing On Aggression (section)

==Reception==

===Favourable===

J. L. Fischer, reviewing ''On Aggression'' in ''American Anthropologist'' in 1968, called it a "fascinating book by a distinguished animal ethologist" that would "annoy most social and cultural anthropologists" but nonetheless stated "an important thesis", namely that intraspecific aggression was "instinctive in man, as it can be shown to be in a number of other species."<ref name="Fischer 1968">{{cite journal | last=Fischer | first=J. L. | title=On Aggression. Konrad Lorenz, Marjorie Kerr Wilson. | journal=American Anthropologist | volume=70 | issue=1 | year=1968 | doi=10.1525/aa.1968.70.1.02a00890 | pages=171–172| doi-access=free }}</ref> Fischer found Lorenz's account of nonhuman animals at the start of the book, written from Lorenz's own experience, "the most convincing and enlightening".<ref name="Fischer 1968"/> Fischer noted that Lorenz acknowledges the role of [[culture]] in human life but that he perhaps underrated its effects on individual development. Fischer argued that Lorenz's view of the instinctive nature of human aggression was "basically right", commenting that "Lorenz would probably cite the fury of his critics as further proof of the correctness of his thesis".<ref name="Fischer 1968"/>

Edmund R. Leach, comparing the book with [[Robert Ardrey]]'s ''[[The Territorial Imperative]]'' in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'' in 1966, calls ''On Aggression'' "no landmark, but .. modest and wise, while Ardrey's version is only noisy and foolish."<ref name="Leach 1966">{{cite news |last1=Leach |first1=Edmund R. |title=Don't Say 'Boo' to a Goose |work=[[The New York Review of Books]] |date=15 December 1966 |url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1966/12/15/dont-say-boo-to-a-goose/ |access-date=18 May 2018}}</ref> Leach writes that where Ardrey focuses on territoriality, Lorenz aims to demonstrate that "animal aggression is only a 'so-called evil' and that its [[adaptation|adaptive]] consequences are advantageous or at least neutral."<ref name="Leach 1966"/> Leach is however less sure that Lorenz is correct to equate animal and human aggression, the one taking standard ritualized forms, the other far more complex.<ref name="Leach 1966"/>

The mental health researcher Peter M. Driver reviewed the book in ''Conflict Resolution'' in 1967 alongside two by Ardrey and one by Claire Russell and W. M. S. Russell, ''Human Behavior – A New Approach''. He commented that those against the book, especially S. A. Barnett, [[T. C. Schneirla]], and [[Solly Zuckerman]], were specialists in animal behaviour, while most of the favourable reviews came from "experts in other fields". Driver stated that Lorenz had provided a "powerful thesis" to explain the "aggression gone wrong" in humans, mentioning the millions of deaths in world wars, aggression resembling (Driver argued) the unlimited interspecific attack of a [[predator]] on its prey rather than the kind of intraspecific aggression seen in nonhuman animals which is strictly limited. Driver concluded that ethology could contribute, alongside [[neurophysiology]] and [[psychology]], to resolving the problem of conflict.<ref name="Driver">{{cite journal |last1=Driver |first1=Peter M. |title=Toward an ethology of human conflict: a review |journal=Conflict Resolution |date=1967 |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=361–374 |doi=10.1177/002200276701100310 |url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67149/10.1177_002200276701100310.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y|hdl=2027.42/67149 |s2cid=143670557 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

===Critical===

The zoologists Richard D. Alexander and Donald W. Tinkle, comparing ''On Aggression'' with Ardrey's ''The Territorial Imperative'' in ''[[BioScience]]'' in 1968, noted that few books had been reviewed so often "or with as much vehemence in both defense and derogation" as these two.<ref name="AlexanderTinkle1968">{{cite journal |last1=Alexander |first1=Richard D. |last2=Tinkle |first2=Donald W. |title=A Comparative Review {{!}} On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz; The Territorial Imperative by Robert Ardrey |journal=BioScience |date=March 1968 |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=245–248 |doi=10.2307/1294259 |jstor=1294259}}</ref> In their view, this was because both men had tried to write about a sensitive and important question, human nature and to what extent it is determined by evolution. They call ''On Aggression'' a personal commentary from a professional zoologist where Ardrey's book is a well-documented book by a non-biologist. Both, in their view, tend "to rekindle old, pointless arguments of the [[nature versus nurture|instinct vs. learning]] variety"<ref name="AlexanderTinkle1968"/> and both include "some peculiarly nonevolutionary or antievolutionary themes."<ref name="AlexanderTinkle1968"/>

The psychoanalyst [[Erich Fromm]], writing in ''[[The New York Times]]'' in 1972, called Lorenz's theory "complicated and sometimes fuzzy".<ref name="FrommNYT1972">{{cite news |last1=Fromm |first1=Erich |author-link1=Erich Fromm |title=The Erich Fromm Theory of Aggression |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-erich-fromm-theory-of-aggression.html |access-date=18 May 2018 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=27 February 1972 |page=14}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Fromm, Erich |author-link=Erich Fromm |title=The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness |publisher=Holt, Rinehart and Winston |year=1973 |isbn=978-0-8050-1604-8 |url=https://archive.org/details/anatomyofhumande00from_0 }}</ref> Fromm considered that in one way Lorenz had succeeded where [[Sigmund Freud]] had failed, Lorenz's hydraulic theory of aggression, innately programmed, being in Fromm's view a better explanation than Freud's opposed passions, the supposed [[Libido|drives for life]] (eros) and [[Death drive|death or destruction]] (thanatos).<ref name="FrommNYT1972"/> However, Fromm noted that the ethologist [[Nico Tinbergen]] had rejected the hydraulic theory, and that Lorenz himself "modified it" in 1966, but without indicating that in the English translation of ''On Aggression''.<ref name="FrommNYT1972"/> Fromm cites evidence from [[neuroscience]] that aggression is "essentially defensive", arising in "phylogenetically programed brain areas" for [[Fight-or-flight response|fight or flight]] when an animal or person feels threatened. Fromm points out that "self-propelling aggressiveness" is seen in people with brain disease, but not in "normal brain functioning".<ref name="FrommNYT1972"/> 

The biologist [[E. O. Wilson]], in ''[[On Human Nature]]'' (1978), argues that both Lorenz and Fromm are essentially wrong. He lists a variety of aggression categories, each separately subject to [[natural selection]], and states that aggressive behavior is, genetically, one of the most [[wiktionary:labile|labile]] of all traits. He maintains that aggression is a technique used to gain control over necessary resources, and serves as a "[[Density dependence|density-dependent]] factor" in population control. He argues against the "drive-discharge" model created by Freud and Lorenz, where substitute aggressive activities (such as combative sports) should reduce the potential for war, and in support of Richard G. Sipes's "culture-pattern" model, where war and substitute activities will vary directly. Wilson compares aggression to "a preexisting mix of chemicals ready to be transformed by specific catalysts that are added," rather than "a fluid that continuously builds pressure against the walls of its containers."<ref>{{cite book |last=Wilson |first = E. O. |author-link=E. O. Wilson |title=On Human Nature |url=https://archive.org/details/onhumannature00wils |url-access=registration |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1978 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/onhumannature00wils/page/101 101–107] |isbn=978-0674634428}}</ref>

The anthropologist [[Donald Symons]], in ''[[The Evolution of Human Sexuality]]'' (1979), accused Lorenz of inadequately documenting his major thesis.<ref>{{cite book |last=Symons |first=Donald |author-link=Donald Symons |title=The Evolution of Human Sexuality |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=1979 |page=[https://archive.org/details/evolutionofhuman00dona/page/278 278] |isbn=978-0195025354 |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionofhuman00dona/page/278 }}</ref>

The evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]] described Lorenz in ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976) as a "'good of the species' man". He criticises ''On Aggression'' for its "gem of a [[circular argument]]" that aggressive behaviour has a "species preserving" function, namely to ensure "that only the fittest individuals are allowed to breed". In Dawkins's view, the idea of [[group selection]] was "so deeply ingrained" in Lorenz's thinking that he "evidently did not realize that his statements contravened [[Neo-Darwinism|orthodox Darwinian theory]]."<ref>{{cite book| last=Dawkins |first=Richard | author-link=Richard Dawkins | title=The Selfish Gene |title-link=The Selfish Gene | edition=1st | year=1976 | publisher=Oxford University Press | isbn=978-0198575191 | pages=9, 72}}</ref>