The discussion on bullying largely transcends any discussion on organizational structure. Before we can discuss the problems lying within the societal organization and within schools, we must first ask the question: are humans born good and influenced by their environment (Tabula-Rasa, blank slate theory http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/childrens_lit/Educationalist_Theory.html )? Or, are humans born bad in their nature? For me the answer is quite simple: humans are born innately bad. A simple example is my 3-year-old cousin. Her parents are married, she's never been hungry, and the kid has experienced more love than can be possibly measured. Still, before she could begin to talk, she took on to hitting people. This is a practice that was not modeled for her, but she just started to do it. Also, look at any child in a store throwing a tantrum. Children are self-centered beings. They don't have a concept of the world outside of them, and they certainly don't have to "learn" how to be bad (its called the terrible two's for a reason, I suppose).
When it comes to bullying, I think this becomes even more true. There is nothing about school that "promotes" bullying, and I don't see much that can be done to eliminate it. Children don't need formal instruction or direct influence to learn to be bullies. As long as there is a constructed norm and a child who breaks that norm, as long as there are the athletes and the artists, as long as there are the A-students and the kids in the back-row, there will ALWAYS be "the other."
Dr. Glassman posed the question, "Do cliques need to have the other?" And I unfortunately think that, yes, the other is part of the social construction of cliques. I don't think the presence of the other always leads to bullying, but I do think there must be "the other" in order for a clique to work. (Also, I want to note that cliques are not exclusive and membership of cliques is fluid as far as the blog post is concerned) One example is religion. If people are cliqued into their religion, they unite of A) their common interest and even if its not discussed there's a unity in the face of B) the people who believe differently. We've seen religious wars, but not every religious difference is met with intolerance. So these cliques are operating tangential to "the other."
In schools we might see the skinny kids unite against the fat kids, or the "normal kids" against the kids with something "abnormal" about them, in addition to socially constructed groups (sports, music, academic). Often students can unite without bringing another student pain. Obviously, that does happen in every instance. But I do not think there is a way to end the cycle of bullying. The best thing we can do is bring awareness to it by defining it, and supporting those who have been victimized.
This is really interesting. I had never really thought about bullying within the vein of the Tabula-Rosa before this. You definitely have an intriguing take and example for your side. But I will say that there are many stories and studies on the empathy that is ingrained in human beings from the point of birth, the relatedness that small children feel, and the simple truths on injustice that sprout from the mouths of babes.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about the necessity of the "other." For some, the "otherness" is indeed their own clique.
Really cool post. Thanks for sharing!