By Joe Zamboni
Like so many other inherent characteristics of the male, “positive aggression” has been turned into a sickness, an abnormality, and a deviancy. By the words “positive aggression,” this author means the constructive assertion of the truth, the vigorous expression of the moral high ground, and the explicit identification of a change that must now be made. Of course most people never heard of positive aggression — it is certainly not taught in the schools, religions, governments, or corporations, because it empowers the individual, and draws power away from established hierarchies. And none of these organizations would want people to act up and go against the powers that be.
In history we often learn about, and on holidays we often celebrate, the courageous men (and it is far and away men who express this trait) who have acted with positive aggression. It was with positive aggression that the founding fathers of America said “no” to British rule, and drew-up the Declaration of Independence. It was with positive aggression that Jesus Christ threw the moneychangers and merchants out of the temple in Jerusalem. It was with positive aggression that a group of feudal barons confronted the King of England, with a document known as the Magna Carta, a legal limitation on the rights of kings.
The problem is that according to the popular American culture, all aggression is problematic, deviant, sick and abnormal. All aggression, according to this gross simplification of reality, is violent, destructive, dangerous, and alarming. In truth, what these adjectives describe is negative aggression. Positive aggression is none of these things.
Positive aggression is the taking of constructive action with a sense of being called to a higher purpose, it is the willingness to break through denial and resistance, as well as the energetic movement to a new and more evolved level of understanding. By lumping all aggression in one category, modern culture limits its options unnecessarily. Psychologists for example liken aggression to the defense of territory in response to a threat, as if human beings were simply territorial animals responding to an intruder. That type of aggression is about self-defense, and it is both reactive and instinctual. In contrast, positive aggression is thoughtful, proactive, morally justified, and about not just the individual but also the community at large.
Positive aggression is actually the expression of great courage. Its expression is a vigorous surge into a new domain, for the sake of truth, for the sake of righting a situation that has become an intolerable, harmful, destructive or unjust. Positive aggression is a spontaneous movement, based on a deeper wisdom, based on a deeper knowing that cannot be concealed by the masks of that part in the psyche that refuses to change, that part that uses excuses, explanations, or rationalizations as best it can to maintain the status quo.
In those places where one would have previously submitted or yielded, perhaps just gone along with things as they were, perhaps been in self-denial, in those places the man inspired by positive aggression cannot stand to be inauthentic any longer. In those places his positive aggression must come forward. And the truth and the changes that come from that new truth are terrifying to some people, particularly those who are in power, and those who significantly benefit from repression, slavery, exploitation and other abuses that positive aggression directly confronts and changes. Positive aggression expresses a powerful energy, an electrifying and dramatic energy.
To be clear, positive aggression should be distinguished from rebellion. Rebellion is not free, it is simply the movement to another polar extreme. Rebellion is still linked to and dependent upon the thing against which it rebels. For example, overthrowing a dictatorial government and installing a new dictator takes us nowhere. But using positive aggression to envision a new possibility, like true participative democracy, where all people are genuinely valued as equals, now that is a compelling vision for which positive aggression can be generated.
Positive aggression is coming from a new and more evolved perspective, it is generated by different motives than those who maintain the status quo. Unlike blind rebellion, positive aggression has a vision and a sense of righteousness to confront injustice and abuse. Positive aggression moves out, surges forth, bringing a new masculine creativity forward into the world. Positive aggression moves with those things that must now move, it restores nature’s balance, and it reestablishes the rightful place of things.
Let us also be clear about who would not want men to assert their positive aggression. The government certainly does not wish to foster this expression in males. Men are instead to be trained to be cannon fodder for their country, to be good providers, to fall in line and be working slaves like plough horses. Men who know for themselves who to follow and who not to follow, men who think for themselves, men who are self-responsible, in other words men who have positive aggression, these men are very hard to manage with propaganda, advertising, and the other hypnotic approaches that modern governments employ. Likewise, corporations certainly don’t want men expressing positive aggression because then they would not be good yes-men office drones, dutiful assembly line robot workers, or other mindless cogs-in-the-wheels of the economic system. Schools and universities certainly don’t want males to be expressing their positive aggression because then they would not then be the passive receptacles into which all sorts of brainwashing and conditioning can be poured.
Feminists certainly do not want men in touch with their positive aggression because that would clearly bring an end to the preferential treatment of women in many domains, none the least of which are laws which favor wives over husbands in divorce. Feminists don’t want men to be in their positive aggression because then the men would call foul when they hear the bullshit and nonsense coming out of the mouths of feminist leaders. Feminists don’t want men resonating with their positive aggression for then men would feel good about being a man, and comfortable enough with themselves to express and live their personal truths. Such men would no longer need the approval of women, or for that matter of society at large, and they would thus no longer be readily manipulated or exploited. Feminists do not want men in touch with their positive aggression because men would feel their natural power, their natural constructive natures, and their inherent ability to wield the truth as a terrifying and fearsome weapon against the forces of darkness.
Sure, there are aspects in the souls of all men that need to be evolved (as of course is the case with women). But within there is also the wellspring of positive aggression that so many of us men are not currently resonating with, a wellspring that so many of us men are not using out in the world. It slumbers deep down inside, but can be called upon and brought forward. As a thought experiment, over the next 24 hours, what if you the reader were to embrace and accept this inherent male attribute, this positive aggression? What if, over this same 24-hour period, you were to move with it, feel it, and accept the realizations that come forth? To what new place would it bring you? Try it.
