Is it possible to stop bullying?

[Traitorfish]

I think they're extremely prone to prey upon each other in order to establish some sort of social hierarchy and institution. (Which is the simplest form of anecessity that a society, even a small one, has.)

The preponderance of modern social anthropology would tend to disagree with you on this. Hierarchy and institutionalisation are understood as particular developments, tied to a growing social complexity, rather than something that all humans invariably participate in. A good read for this is Marshall Sahlins' Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief (pdf), which compares the non-hierarchical societies of Papuan hunter-gatherers with the heirarchical societies of Polynesian agriculturalists, with particular reference to the development of institutionalism.

 

[Angst]

The preponderance of modern social anthropology would tend to disagree with you on this. Hierarchy and institutionalisation are understood as particular developments, tied to a growing social complexity, rather than something that all humans invariably participate in. A good read for this is Marshall Sahlins' Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief (pdf), which compares the non-hierarchical societies of Papuan hunter-gatherers with the heirarchical societies of Polynesian agriculturalists, with particular reference to the development of institutionalism.

Thanks, I'll read into it.

 

[RobAnybody]

I think you'd need some sort of "trial" or something.
Three strike & yer out only works if you define really clearly what a strike is & can prove the strikes happened.

Schools don't use due process as it is. School is not a democracy. (I'm sure you've had some heavy-handed teachers tell you that.) It is the teachers and administrators who tell the students what to do, who have to fall in line. These rules are left up to their discretion to enforce, but at least if they are given this power, they can use it. That's the same with other rules in schools. If a student misbehaves for anything, it is the teacher's discretion as to what to do. Only if an outright crime is committed is the school obliged to do something.

I think that by leaving out part of my post, you misrepresent what I was saying. I don't disagree with anything you said, but here's the full quote, which I believe shows something completely different than just the parts you quoted:

I think you'd need some sort of "trial" or something. Some sort of evidence, like a teacher who saw it or a recording. Otherwise you risk students making it up. A sort of "reverse bullying" where one student threatens to report another student (who may or may not have ever bullied anyone) & get them expelled unless they do as they're told.

Three strike & yer out only works if you define really clearly what a strike is & can prove the strikes happened.

I'm saying you have to have a way to verify that the claim is true. It's the whole reason I put "trial" in quotes. Not that there should be due process, but there needs to be a way to confirm that an accusation is true, maybe more along the "preponderance of evidence" standard that civil courts use. If you accept any accusation of bullying without evidence, with the punishment being expulsion with 3 accusations, you risk causing a problem that's just as bad - the "I'll report you if you don't give me your lunch money" threat.

 

[Narz]

I think they're extremely prone to prey upon each other in order to establish some sort of social hierarchy and institution. (Which is the simplest form of anecessity that a society, even a small one, has.)

Well our society is extremely hierarchical. And not only that hierarchy is considered healthy & the normal state of man.

In Bushman society it was considered shameful to brag about bringing home the largest kill or trying to argue you deserve more meat because you killed an animal & a fellow hunter did not. Lots of other cultures has similar mores, shaming individuals who try to appear better than their peers (even if they truly earned it). Whereas in our culture advertisers & the culture at large encourage us to "be envied" or be superior.

Obviously in any culture there's going to be some competition for mates & whatnot but not the same obsession with status, celebrity & being "#1" as seen in the West.

So my point is just that we can't necessarily extrapolate on the nature of children from observing only the children of our own culture.

 

[Flying Pig]

In Bushman society it was considered shameful to brag about bringing home the largest kill or trying to argue you deserve more meat because you killed an animal & a fellow hunter did not. Lots of other cultures has similar mores, shaming individuals who try to appear better than their peers (even if they truly earned it). Whereas in our culture advertisers & the culture at large encourage us to "be envied" or be superior.

I'm not sure you've got it entirely right - our culture promotes being the best, but most definitely not saying that you are. Certainly over here we reserve a particular place in our esteem for those who are understatedly excellent, and particular hatred for people who are arrogant. I don't doubt that those same bushmen quite valued being able to bring home the largest animal, in much the same way as we do today.

 

[Traitorfish]

The important point seems to be that the Bushmen draw no status or material advantage from their superior hunting, not simply that they aren't boastful, which can hardly be said of even the most self-effacing businessman. Capitalism would hardly work if that was the case.

 

[Flying Pig]

I quite like the idea of good people rising to the top, actually; it would be interesting to see how that tribe was governed and reflect on whether such a system would work with a larger society.

 

[Narz]

I'm not sure you've got it entirely right - our culture promotes being the best, but most definitely not saying that you are. Certainly over here we reserve a particular place in our esteem for those who are understatedly excellent, and particular hatred for people who are arrogant.

Not really, people love arrogance, look at the Charlie Sheen obsession & Madonna certainly thinks she's hot ****. 100% of popular hip-hop songs nowadays are self-aggrandizing. Granted Brit culture may be a bit more reserved.

I don't doubt that those same bushmen quite valued being able to bring home the largest animal, in much the same way as we do today.

I'm sure they did but they realized celebrating the biggest provider & humiliating the worst provider of the day was unlikely to do much of anything except provoke resentment & division.

I quite like the idea of good people rising to the top, actually; it would be interesting to see how that tribe was governed and reflect on whether such a system would work with a larger society.

It's not necessarily the best who rise to the top but the most competitive (who may not necessarily be the most talented or likable). People willing to work their fingers to the bone, step on their peers to get to the top, etc. Sure, there are people not like that who succeed but for every Bob Marley there are hundreds of Kenneth Lay's.

It's like that saying, anyone eligible to become president is probably not someone you'd want in charge.

 

[Yeekim]

The preponderance of modern social anthropology would tend to disagree with you on this. Hierarchy and institutionalisation are understood as particular developments, tied to a growing social complexity, rather than something that all humans invariably participate in. A good read for this is Marshall Sahlins' Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief (pdf), which compares the non-hierarchical societies of Papuan hunter-gatherers with the heirarchical societies of Polynesian agriculturalists, with particular reference to the development of institutionalism.

That was a good read indeed, thanks.
However, how you could come away and describe Papuan societies as "non-hierarchical" is beyond me. Yes, the social order there is less complex. Doesn't mean social hierarchy as such does not exist. There is still a "bigman".

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, certainly, those societies are far from the best example of an egalitarian society, it was just the best comparative study that I had to hand. However, I would contest the equation of "inegalitarian" and "hierarchical". Hierarchy, I think, implies structures of domination and subordination, rather than simple inequalities of status and influence. The Big Man is in a position of social prominence, even primacy, but it's one based on a series of varied and individual relationships which are upheld by individual charisma, with no assumptions of duration, as contrasted to the explicit hegemony of the Chief, which is supported by institutional forms (and by violence) and which are assumed to endure on an indefinitely. It's a less than completely egalitarian social order, that's true- I don't think that humans are all natural Kropotkinites- but it's not an hierarchical order.

 

[warpus]

Western culture values winners, no one wants to be a loser, so they try to dominate each other.

I recently read about the Norwegian (or maybe it was Swedish? Danish? Scandinavian?) value system as far as winners are concerned.

They look down on people who excel individually and put a lot more value in people who contribute to the community instead.

They even have a word for this mentality, but it escapes me at the moment. And I hope somebody from the region can clear up anything I got wrong here.

 

[Flying Pig]

I recently read about the Norwegian (or maybe it was Swedish? Danish? Scandinavian?) value system as far as winners are concerned.

They look down on people who excel individually and put a lot more value in people who contribute to the community instead.

They even have a word for this mentality, but it escapes me at the moment. And I hope somebody from the region can clear up anything I got wrong here.

Sounds very idealised - we like to think we do that as well!

 

[Yeekim]

Oh, certainly, those societies are far from the best example of an egalitarian society, it was just the best comparative study that I had to hand. However, I would contest the equation of "inegalitarian" and "hierarchical". Hierarchy, I think, implies structures of domination and subordination, rather than simple inequalities of status and influence. The Big Man is in a position of social prominence, even primacy, but it's one based on a series of varied and individual relationships which are upheld by individual charisma, with no assumptions of duration, as contrasted to the explicit hegemony of the Chief, which is supported by institutional forms (and by violence) and which are assumed to endure on an indefinitely. It's a less than completely egalitarian social order, that's true- I don't think that humans are all natural Kropotkinites- but it's not an hierarchical order.

Oh, fair enough.

 

[Takhisis]

I recently read about the Norwegian (or maybe it was Swedish? Danish? Scandinavian?) value system as far as winners are concerned.

They look down on people who excel individually and put a lot more value in people who contribute to the community instead.

They even have a word for this mentality, but it escapes me at the moment. And I hope somebody from the region can clear up anything I got wrong here.

Sounds very idealised - we like to think we do that as well!

This could be why their football teams are never very successful, if they don't encourage individual talent.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do Scandinavians like football very much? I was told they preferred hockey, for which they've produced a number of world champion teams. (Maybe hockey is more cooperative than football? I don't really know much about either sport. Rugby family, ken? )

 

[Takhisis]

Of course you don't, you Septic-supporter. But if the Finns have somehow managed to produce 'Kuningas' Litmanen then how come they've got no player that comes anywhere near him?

(After what the Welsh did you houldn't be in a rugby family)

Still, they have ice most of the year which makes ice hockey traditional, which it isn't in most other countries.

 

[GoodGame]

Probably it can be stopped with proper adult guidance and role models.

Also violence begets violence, so bullies and vigilantes beware.

 

[Angst]

I recently read about the Norwegian (or maybe it was Swedish? Danish? Scandinavian?) value system as far as winners are concerned.

They look down on people who excel individually and put a lot more value in people who contribute to the community instead.

They even have a word for this mentality, but it escapes me at the moment. And I hope somebody from the region can clear up anything I got wrong here.

We try to pass values down in generations that promote helping each other and being solidary. A recent example of community contribution as a value is our public transportation system, whose commercials value helping each other out of generosity and doing small things for the common good, even if its ridiculous things such as stomping off snow before entering the train. (Because the doors can't close if there's too much melted snow in the entrance. Design error.)

There are things like this all the time. Small socialist propaganda pieces by the ruling parties about everyone sharing a country and doing their part, from the garbage truck driver to the monopolist, guided by a caring state. From time to time, the image isn't true, but most of the time, we like it that way.

Doing well and bragging about it is quite frowned upon, although it has gotten better during the recent years. (Jante Law.)

Doing well and sharing with everyone makes you prized. Doing well and keeping things for yourself makes you selfish and rude.

Do Scandinavians like football very much? I was told they preferred hockey, for which they've produced a number of world champion teams. (Maybe hockey is more cooperative than football? I don't really know much about either sport. Rugby family, ken? )

Danes love football, Swedes love hockey, no idea about Norway. Denmark vs. Sweden football games are national events seemingly more important than anything. I'd argue the average Dane cares more about Danish-Swedish football games than the war in Afghanistan.

 

[Aroddo]

I got bullied several times in my life. Or rather harrassed, nothing too vile, I suppose.
One guy surrounded by his gang would regularly bother me during lessons by throwing wads of paper at me from behind.

Then one day he snipped my ear, which was more startling than painful. I rather calmly turned around and in the same fluid motion gave him a loud open handed smack to his face, which caught him rather off guard.
He grabbed my hand immediately and looked at me with a raging face, fully prepared to floor me if I followed through with another one. I didn't. I merely looked at him with a kinda bored expression, my caught arm limp in his grip. After a few seconds he forcefully gave me my hand back, I turned around heart beating. Of course, everyone in class saw this, teacher included, and all was silent for a few seconds more. Then the teacher resumed class like nothing happened.
He never bothered me again and strangely no one ever mentioned this episode to me or with me hearing about it. Also, most of the bullying from others faded away thereafter, too. I assume it was because I lost the easy-target label. But honestly I don't think that I was that high a priority in their lives either, so I got away easy. I was about 16 to 18 when that happened.

Another episode after this involved a classic bully - big, stupid, loud nasty laugh, racists, more fat than muscle but height and mass to back up his antics. He had his social cirlce but i didn't get the impression that they feared him because of his power or all that cliche nonsense. He simply had his friends, end of story. No crappy Stephen King novel here, move on.
This guy had his sights on me for all the time since he came to my school. Could be because he was a big racists german and me a smaller asian, could be because I was just smaller and under scrutiny of the whole gang anyway (he hung out with the aforementioned guys).
One day I entered class, he and friends were already there, he says something stupid and insulting to me while I was starting a quick game of cards (we play Skat in germany ... card game of kings) and I flip him off.
He acts insulted, pulls himself up and marches over to me and grabs me by the front of my shirt to scare the holy terror out of me. Now, I am smaller than him, but I necessarily weak. I was good at sports and had some Judo lessons in the past, so I wasn't a stranger to physical confrontation either ... I just don't like confrontations - physical or otherwise.
Anyway, I grabbed his wrist firmly, looked at him and talked at him like "Go on, throw a punch. I'm just waiting for it." and wait I did. Eventually he released me with a disdainful laugh and got back to his friends, his mission of scaring me accomplished.

After that episode no one bothered to bother me like that.
I know that my situation won't translate well for everyone out there that gets bullied, but I think some lessons apply to most situations:
1. don't take their abuse forever. be prepared to eventually confront the bullys.
2. challenge them in a controlled environment of your own choosing. witnesses. don't let them choose the place.
3. preferably act after they visibly bullied you: they are the guilty ones!
4. give them a way out of physical confrontation. encourage it, actually, although not through begging. this creates the impression that you scared them away.
5. when they relent, give them as much face as you can. if you humiliate them too much, they'll choose the place for the next meeting.
6. don't be afraid of getting a few solid smacks in your face if your courage fails to impress them the first time. it smarts, but it will go away. it's a small price to pay for standing your ground.

--
Hope that helps. Cheers!