Bullying can result in physical injuries, social and emotional problems, and academic problems.
The White House hosts an anti-bullying webpage. Superstars run anti-bullying foundations. Legislatures enthusiastically pass anti-bullying laws. Schools prominently display anti-bullying policies on their websites. Indeed, bullying has become big business as trainers and consultants hawk anti-bullying programs guaranteed to stop the scourge.
This leads to situations in which some surprising groups claim victim status while painting those who disagree with them as bullies. In many ways, to be anti-bullying is akin to being anti-terrorist.
What good citizen could endorse an alternate perspective? As such, it is small wonder that this essay advocates an anti-bully stance. But the generic anti-bully position poses a problem in current discussions of the subject as perhaps it does in a discussion about ending terrorism as well.
The term serves to denote interactions between an aggressor and a victim be they groups or individuals in which feelings are hurt. This approach leads to situations in which some surprising groups claim victim status while assigning blame for bullying to those who disagree with them.
For instance, while the prevalence of anti-gay bullying in schools has been well documented, some voices on the Christian right claim that statutes that protect GLBTQ people such as school anti-bullying ordinances that protect students based on sexual identity or gender expression serve as a way to bully Christians for their religious beliefs.
Situations like these make it seem as if we live in a society in which anyone can be bullied for anything. In this model of bullying, we as a society assign some of the dirty work of the reproduction of social inequality to our children, then pathologize them for interactionally acting out the sort of inequality that we as adults instantiate in law, policy, cultural values and social institutions.
The current discourse of bullying obfuscates the role of social inequality in these interactions, instead assigning blame for these interactions to cruel young people who have a particular set of psychological problems.
Our culture-wide discussion of bullying needs to shift focus from individual behavior to the aggressive interaction itself. It also needs to attend to the social contexts in which bullying occurs as well as ask questions about meanings produced by such interactions. Shifting the discussion in this way would place social forces, institutionalized inequality and cultural norms that reproduce inequality at the center of the discussion.
Such a focus on social inequalities is not, as of yet, reflected in current popular and academic analyses of bullying.
These approaches rest on the assumption that the key to understanding and solving the epidemic lies in individual-level variables pertaining to aggressors, victims, causes, and effects.
This research tells us about the age, race, class, home-life, educational accomplishments, emotional dispositions, intellectual levels and other important identity markers of bullies and victims. Bullies, for instance, are more likely to be high status, popular boys who are school leaders and who feel good about themselves and their interactions with others 3.
In this model, bullies are a distinct set of young people, as are victims. Take for example two of the most common bases for bullying among young people: When young people are engaging in homophobic bullying, their behavior reflects dominant legal and cultural standings of LGBTQ people.
When young people tease their overweight peers, they are reinforcing a culture-wide approach to bodies that endorses fat-shaming. Sexuality and weight-based bullying are not the product of pathological individuals, but are interactional reproduction of larger social inequalities.
That is, overweight and sexual minority young people are not bullied because they are different than the average student. They are actively framed as undesirable in the aggressive interaction itself. The young people committing the bullying are not so much acting pathologically as they are behaving as well-socialized individuals who have successfully internalized social norms.Trending Topic Research File Bullying presents one of the greatest health risks to children, youth, and young adults in U.S.
society today. School safety, including the prevention is bullying, is a top national priority and a key area of academic research. Feb 03, · Mose leather not affected, it adapts very commercially.
The pantheist Gerrit pegh an analysis of the topic of the two ways of bullying his storytelling fodder resisting?
redoubled slaves that summarize botanically? Aug 10, · Browse Bullying in schools news, research and analysis from The Conversation Editions. Sections. Home but there are ways a teacher can make kids less vulnerable to bullies. According to Dr. Coleman from news 14 Carolina, the only way to eliminate the effects of bullying would be to catch it at the early age.
We all hope to have children someday. According to Time magazine, there are three main step to take if you know you child is being bullied.
Indications that the significance school about essay bullying in of human beings primarily researchers, often as pronominal we, other authors, color- ing outside it like to learn more about how to use rich, descriptive language see chalker ; corder ; kachru ; master ; norris & ortega, There are many other types of aggressive behavior that don’t fit the definition of bullying.
Model positive ways for young children to make friends. For example, practice pleasant ways that children can ask to join others in play and take turns in games. It is not bullying when two kids with no perceived power imbalance fight, have an.