Posted by Adam on April 14, 2001, at 23:54:17
In reply to Re: ADAM, WOW, I will strongly consider that!, posted by Noa on April 14, 2001, at 12:37:28
> Identification with the agressor---it is probably pretty common, don't you think?
Perhaps, I don't know. I guess, in reviewing my whole recollection of the events at that time, I'm not certain if the typical high school scene is a useful analog for, say, the social hierarchies of the workplace (both those officially imposed, and those that develop more "organically"). If it is, heaven help us all. I'm guessing (hoping?) it's a bit more complicated than that, though.I think the very basic dynamic of bullying is the key to understanding: Why do some people seem to enjoy hurting other people? Why do they almost seem to seek out a vulnerable person or persons, and then systematically abuse them? What does the bully get out of it? Are bullies just the erstwhile bullied who, once empowered, unleash their feelings or self-loathing on others in some kind of replay of the trauma? Perhaps that's what most psycologists, etc., would tell you.
I guess the author of the SciAm article felt that this paradigm, and the means of healing the bully that it informed, are simply erroneous and cause more harm than good. His idea of a real bully was a person with what I can only sum up as a personality disorder, a narcissist who regards him or herself as, put in prosaic terms, better than everyone else. So much better that if you end up on the receiving end of their hostility, you must deserve it. Anyone who challenges this distorted self-image is seen instantly as an infuriating threat, and could be the victim of murderous acts of retribution in extreme circumstances. In this view, bullies are sick, plain and simple. The author didn't buy the line that the way to reform a bully was to bolster his self-esteem. In fact, he felt that the bully was in very bad need of a reality check, one that the bully would very much object to, at least at first: You behave in a deplorable manner. Victimizing other people is very wrong, and your persistant use of agression against those weaker than yourself for self-gratification is a clear indicator that you are not the wonderful person you think you are. In fact, you behave like a terrible person, and if you don't improve, you are not worthy of the trust and frienship of others. Rather, you deserve every punishment you may get for your actions.
So, hows that for radical! Perhaps what I find so fascinating about this hypothesis could be its lack of conformity. What should we think about a theory stating that "bullies", rather than being victims acting out of their own inner pain, are narcissists who enjoy the pain of others? What's more, this tendancy may be fundamental to the individual, who is possibly unregenerate, and certainly not always associated with a childhood of being bullied. What agressor is the "bully" identifying with, then? And if others emulate him or her (as either prior victims or accomplices), are they bullies, or sheep?
poster:Adam
thread:5366
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010404/msgs/5672.html