I have a Reichian take on this, in that I don't think the id's aggression is as primary as it seems. I'll quote myself
Firstly, I’d like to look at a model of Reich’s which I find has much explanatory power. He broke out character down into three “layers”. The first of these is a “social” layer, a veneer of good behaviour and politeness with which we interact in the social world. If we see this layer as partially a product of armouring and learnt restraint, we can see that underneath it might lie a second layer — of frustration, anti-social impulses, rage and so on. Where Reich really showed his insight was that he posited another layer beneath this, a part of us which is open, loving and vulnerable. Reich argued that this “core” is naturally decent and moral. It is the suppression and suffocation of this layer, through the events of our birth and childhood that produces armouring. I only have to think about which emotions I have easiest “access” to, to see the validity of these ideas ÿ real openness and tenderness seem much more affecting and come from a much more guarded place.
Often one finds expression of the second layer touted as somehow iconoclastic. Anything one has been told not to do — be it violence, promiscuity, substance abuse or shitting on someone’s doorstep — any acts which break the social veneer prove how “liberated” or “crazy” one is one. Sometimes these impulses are presented as our “true” inner self, which everyone would act out if only they weren’t so repressed. From a Reichian perspective, a lot of these acts, rather than being “liberated” are simply one more layer of our defences, a way of warding off deep feeling. I’m much more interested in the first layer — that point of surrender, openness and vulnerability. A lot of occult practises – and the “outsider stance” one often encounters in occultists — seems to me to be a shield from this openness and simply another way of armouring.