Ed Week online recently published this article on school bullies in which two researchers studied the social web of social structure at school to learn more about bullies and victims. (The task alone is mind-blowing.) They found that bullies are not who most people think they are. Instead of being the students on either extreme of the social structure (the most or least popular), the majority of bullies are the kids in the middle who are looking for an edge to maintain or upgrade their social status. The research indicates that this transcends race, class, age, grade, etc.
This makes absolute sense to me when I think of how adults act, especially when it comes to upward mobility. Often the very wealthy (who have had that wealth for generations) are comfortable with it and don't really flaunt it. However, the recently wealthy are often the ones who use their newly found social position to bully others into doing what they want.
Bullying seems not to be about actual rank but about underlying insecurity. The top feel sure they will stay on top, while the bottom are sure they will stay at the bottom, but the middle are not sure how they fit in and use a variety of tools at their disposal...including violence.
Excellent analogy. Some, though, would argue that the whole point of schooling is filtering for social rank. Rather than embed future generations in a caste system or serfdom, schools permit a meritocratic process of social stratification.
ReplyDeleteHow do you respond to that idea?
@ Neil - As I understand it, the concept of a meritocratic process is selection based on ability. I'm not entirely sure what sort of ability is being assessed in a school setting through bullying. My concept of education is that we should arm students with the skills to decide what they want for themselves. Social stratification through bullying seems to smack in the face of that, since some students may be deciding the fate of other students.
ReplyDelete