This is a super-interesting article about the modern view on bullying. Contrary to what everyone was told 20 years ago about bullying, the current (emerging) view is that the bully is not really at fault. Instead, the one that caves in and reacts to being bullied is really culpable for the potential harm. The premise is that bullying is a pervasive human activity, a form of social play, and the only way to lose at this activity is to not play at all (e.g., get mad, tattle, run away, become physically violent). Note that extensive research shows that bullies generally don't know that they are bullies. Since bullying is everywhere, and occurs without a need for outright malice or corruption of the bully, kids should be taught how to defuse it instead of trying to avoid it or stop it. It goes on to say that "bully free zones" are actually counterproductive and exacerbate the situation, since they put pressure on all the wrong points to modify the behavior.
This is the sort of turn-it-on-its-head thinking that moves things forward. While the article is a little bit fluffy, there is some substantial content.
I think the lesson that the target, rather than the bully, is in control of the situation and the outcome is a very good thing to teach children. In most situations, I think this is probably true. Further, bullying follows you into adulthood, in the form of subtle intimidation at work, bad bosses, competition, etc. Learning to be an agent (and not a target or bystander) in socially adverse situations is the lesson- at least bullies serve some useful purpose.
See WonderTime magazine (which Whitney loves):
Posts
2 comments:
I am assuming that my "Montexpensive" post had a little to do this one. While I agree that the "Bully free Zone" of Jake's public school obvioulsy did not work, I have to say that I am pretty skeptical of this way of thinking. When two boys are throwing rocks at your child on the playground, that child should not retaliate by throwing rocks back at them.
Perhaps the article has some good points about VERBAL bullying of children 8 and up, but I don't think it holds water when you are talking about 5 year olds or about bullies giving other kids wedgies and swirlys.
I agree that learning how to effectively deal with bullies is a life lesson that we need even when we are adults. However until our children can really evaluate a person and a situation with the benefit of experience, I don't think we should jump to the "bully them back" kind of mentality that this article hints at.
It should be said that the article doesn't advocate "fighting fire with fire," by having your kid out-bully bullies. That is part of the object of the bully, i.e., making the target lose their composure.
Also, I did try to hint that the main limitation of their theory is pointed out by Bethany. What if your kid is being beaten by a gang, which has no interest in his attempt to prevent or mitigate it? No positive reinforcement will improve that situation. I'm not sure where to draw the line between preventing bullying through positive anti-victim behavior and leaving your kid vulnerable to physical violence by encouraging them to stand up against bullies.
If this weren't ambiguous, there would be no more bullies.
Post a Comment