Download (5Mb) - Victoria University Institutional Repository (VUIR)

2.3.1 A range of definitions
The meanuig of aggression m every day language has not altered significantly
since Johnson (1755, cited in Farrell, 1996:15) pubhshed his dictionary, m which
aggression was defined as "the fust act of injury; commencement of a quarrel;
commencement of a quarrel by some act of iniquity."
The term lends itself to many usages and is frequently interchanged for more
pejorative words such as assault, abuse, hostility, challenging or threatening behaviour
and violence. Although these words are generally perceived with negative
connotations, on other occasions aggression is viewed in a more positive light, for
example in complimenting some valued characteristics of a male sales manager or
sporting hero. Tutt (1976, in AusUalian Institute of Criminology Report, National
Committee on Violence, 1988:3) stated that "the community may be more inclined to
view physical aggression on a sporting field involving punching and kicking as
acceptable, whereas if these actions occurred in the sUeet they would be condemned
and their perpetrators liable to criminal prosecution".
Webster's New World Dictionary of American Enghsh (1994:1490), defined
violence as "physiccd force used to injure, damage, or destroy" and indeed most
definitions utilised in the nursing field are consistent with that of Webster and focus
on three aspects of aggression. The physical aspect of aggression which results in
physical injuries (Rosenberg, O'Carroll & Powell, 1992). The second aspect is the
means of communicating that the perpeUator's point of view is correct (Harper-
Jacques, & Rimmer, 1992), The final aspect is the threatened or actual abuse of power
against individuals, groups or communities (Foege, Rosenberg & Mercy, 1995).
An important limitation witii the definition offered by Webster's New World
Dictionary (1994) is that it implies a simplistic distuiction in responses to aggression.
20