As Kuhn (1970) has noted, most scientific fields go through processes of paradigm change, painful periods in which old theories no longer fit available data and are placed by new theories. Such periods typically create strife and debate as ideological differences emerged between proponents of old and new theoretical approaches. In the current paper, we argue that such a period has been reached within the field of aggression research. Over the past half-century, social cognitive and social learning paradigms of aggression, exemplified in the General Aggression Model (GAM) have retained dominance, particularly in areas such as media violence. We contend that data to support the GAM and social cognitive approaches to aggression have never been conclusive, and newer evidence increasingly suggests that the GAM and social cognitive theories of aggression more generally are not adequate to explain aggressive phenomena. We discuss weaknesses and problematic, sometimes hidden assumptions of the GAM and how these reduce the utility of this paradigm. Current evidence suggests that the GAM and the social cognitive paradigm of aggression should be retired, and approaches which focus on diathesis-stress hold greater promise.