Group Characteristics of Bullying 1

Transcription

1 Group Characteristics of Bullying 1 The themes of individual submission to group pressure, the conflict of conscience and authority, and the constructive role that groups have on the individual seem to be central to an individual s experience with the social world (Milgram 1992, 198). On several levels bullying can be characterized as a group process. Brown et al., referring to the extensive literature on peer relations and social group processes, outline the importance of crowds and their effect on group and individual identity and interaction. Crowds refer to collections of adolescents identified by the interests, attitudes, abilities, and/or personal characteristics they have in common (Brown et al. 1994, 123). Crowds, they continue, have two major functions: They structure [an] individual s development of identity or self-concept, and they structure social interactions (1994, 124). Hence, crowds structure who adolescents interact with, who they are separated from, 2 (and the nature of those interactions), as well as how they come to see themselves. Once group membership is established a significant importance is placed by members on similarities and differences between their group and others. The exaggerated images, Brown et al. continue, of the in-group s strengths and the out-group s shortcomings are worked out and reinforced through ingroup interactions; that is, they are consensually validated. Their expression reaffirms group membership and builds the solidarity of the group as a whole (1994, 129). Hence, it is through the othering of other groups that in-group membership is solidified. The status of one s own crowd is established through degenerating outside crowds and, thus, individual outsiders. Crowds, then, structure student relationships. Brown et al. contend, these crowd dynamics channel adolescents into relationships with certain peers and away from interactions with others (1994, 133). Additionally crowds not only involve the demarcations of who is in and who is out and who relates to whom, but also formulate hierarchies of status and desirability. Brown et al. contend, 1 Jacobson, Ronald B. (2007). Understanding, desire and narrated subjectivity: A philosophical consideration of the phenomenon of school bullying. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. 2 Brown et al. s research analyzes the permeability of the barriers between crowds, finding that teenagers are able to move more easily between certain crowds ( normals to trendies ) than others ( normals to headbangers ) (1994). 1 P a g e

2 To be sure, desirability is related to status: the higher a crowd is on the status hierarchy, the more desirable it is... Thus students efforts to avoid associating with its [a crowd of lower status] members could be interpreted as more evidence that desirability simply reflects peer status (1994, ). 3 In sum, four constructs become critical to understanding inter-crowd peer relations: First, crowds are an inherently relational construct. Second, adolescents use crowds to construct a symbolic road map of prototypic peer relations. Third, a teenager s crowd affiliation and understanding of the crowd system affect the choice of peer associates and the features of peer relationships. [Fourth], the crowd system is a dynamic phenomenon that is sensitive to contextual features of a social milieu (Brown et al. 1994, ). Crowds, then, create a hierarchy of groups; one crowd is of higher status when compared to another, thus making inter-crowd movement difficult if not, at times, nearly impossible. Long & Pellegrini (2003) help us to consider not only inter-group hierarchical status, but in-group hierarchies within peer social networks. Drawing on the literature on social dominance, they contend: From a group-level perspective, social dominance is a relational variable that orders individuals in a hierarchy according to their access to resources... Dominance, or group leadership, is established when groups are newly forming (e.g., when groups form in new schools) or when extant groups are in a state of flux (new members are added or some members grow in size). Individuals compete with each other using both aggressive and affiliative strategies to gain status (2003, 402). Dominance, accordingly, is not an end in and of itself. It is focused on the securing of certain resources. In young children this may be a toy. In older adolescents it may be popularity or access to the opposite sex. Dominance may be a move to secure status itself. Bullying is viewed as an agonistic strategy used to obtain and maintain dominance (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). There is evidence that bullying is a successful strategy for attaining and maintaining dominance as individuals who get the better of their peers are often leaders of peer cliques and are found to be more attractive to the opposite sex (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2003; Prinstein & Cohen, 2001; Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Further, dominant individuals use affiliative strategies, such as reconciliation and alliance building, after status has been exhibited (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Strayer, 1980) (Long & Pellegrini 2003, 402). Thus, a bully may bully his friends or outsiders to prove he is a leader (or to establish his leadership), but then seek to reconcile with the victim to retain status and leadership in the eyes of his peers and in the eyes of the victim. Hawker and Boulton, referring to the social rank literature, draw on Chance s (1988) description 3 Eckert (1989) argues that these groupings are also influenced by economic status and family dynamics. For example, a blue collar family and the typical economic and relational dynamics that typify its interactions train adolescents to mimic those structures in the forming of crowds with their peers (cited in Brown et al. 1994, ). 2 P a g e

3 of group behavior. Some groups, they argue, operate on an agonic mode or style of establishing intragroup peer hierarchies. In the agonic mode, they assert, social power is determined by an individual s resource-holding potential. In other words, the dominant animal is the one who is toughest and wins the most fights (2001, 382). Hence, students who are physically dominant have high resource-holding potential, affording them privilege and status. Some groups operate on more of a hedonic mode. In the hedonic mode social power is determined by social attention-holding power. For example, Gilbert (1992) has argued that humans tend to achieve status by showing that they are talented, knowledgeable, attractive, and so on, and that the highest-ranking humans... tend to receive the most attention from others (in Hawker and Boulton 2001, 382). Simply put, both agonic and hedonic modes are operationalized within peer circles in order to establish rank, underscoring the importance of the group in establishing individual status. Yet, do we see evidence more commonly of mobbing (Olweus 1993) groups bullying an individual (e.g., the bump crowd targeting Matthew) or of individual bullying dyadically bullying another (e.g., Sammy and Matthew in a one-on-one bullying encounter)? In a 1997 study by Ken Rigby aimed at understanding the prevalence of group versus individual bullying, it was reported that 44% of those interviewed were not bullied in anyway during the school year. 22% - the next most common experience indicated that they had been bullied (though not often) by individuals, but never by a group. Some 16 percent reported that they had been bullied sometimes by both (1997c, 59). This research indicates that, unlike the Southside incident, it is more common for an individual bully to bully an individual student. 4 Yet, while research asserts that bullying individuals may be more common than bullying groups, bullying seldom takes place apart from the view of peers. Underscoring the group dynamics inherent in the phenomenon of bullying Sutton and Smith, though affirming that bullying is a dyadic process (i.e., between the bully and the victim), also contend that bullying is collective in its nature, based on social relationships in the group (1999, 97). Pepler and 4 Rigby, though, tempers this finding with the notion that many victims may not be aware of the larger circle involved in their victimization. In fact, when bullies were asked if they bullied alone or in groups, group bullying seemed to be more prevalent. Again, this may be due to that fact that bullies, rather than taking the blame solely, answered so as to spread their activities to the larger group (2002, 59-60). Here, the research seems to indicates that bullying is both a dyadic and group phenomenon. 3 P a g e

4 Craig reported that peers were present in 85% of bullying episodes (cited in Sutton & Smith 1999, 97-98). Referring to this group presence during the bullying episode, Sutton & Smith report that, One fifth of pupils report that they might join in if they saw someone being bullied, and it seems that this reported attitude is often translated into actual support for the Bully. Do they reinforce the bullying, either by actively encouraging the Bully (perhaps by shouting or cheering when someone is being picked on [as was the case with Matthew and the bump game]) or by implying passive acceptance of the behavior (perhaps by usually being present when someone is picked on, without doing anything to stop it)? Twenty-tree percent of children report being amused by bullying scenarios. Peer onlookers joining in or reinforcing the bullying in these ways may be important to the Bully in that they inflate the Bully s self-esteem. Indeed, it is perhaps unsurprising that the most common reported motivations to Bully are to feel powerful or to look cool... Similarly peer onlookers may also spread the word that the Bully is powerful, thereby raising the Bully s social status (1999, 98) Interestingly, perhaps because many victims are cast as outcasts by the school social community, most schoolmates see the victim as deserving the bullying that he or she is experiencing (Juvonen & Graham 2001, 61). Owens et al. suggest that in their research there appeared to be two main categories of responses that concerned the perceived characteristics of victims: first, that it was the victim s own fault, and second, that the victims were vulnerable or easy targets (2001, 223). Sutton & Smith concur with the work of Salmivalli et al. (1996) regarding the social roles involved in the bullying phenomenon and their importance regarding both status and intervention. This research surfaces the following roles within the bullying dynamic: Bully (14%): starts bullying; gets others to join in bullying; always thinks of new ways of picking on the victim; leads a gang. Reinforcer (6%): is usually there; even if not doing anything; laughs at people getting bullied; encourages the bully by shouting; says things to the bully like show him! ; gets others to watch. Assistant (7%): helps the bully, maybe by catching or holding the victim; joins in the bullying if someone else has started it. Defender (28%): tells some adult about the bullying; tries to make others stop the bullying; tries to cheer the victim up; gets others to help; sticks up for the victim. Outsider (12%): isn t usually there, stays away; pretends not to notice what is happening; doesn t do anything or take sides; doesn t even know about the bullying. Victim (18%): gets bullied No Role (15%) (1999, appendix, percentages cited in Sutton and Smith and based on Salmivalli et al. 1996). This research, then, underlines the fact that bullying is not only a dyadic phenomenon, involving the individual characteristics of and relations between bully and victim, but that bullying also involves a host of secondary roles within the larger peer structures of the school. O Connell elaborates: Bullies had a direct effect on peers: peers spent more than one-fifth of their time (21%) in actively joining with the bully to abuse the victim. This relatively high frequency of actively reinforcing the bully can be understood if we acknowledge that the playground context is ripe for modeling: the bully is powerful, 4 P a g e

5 teachers and peers seldom intervene, and peers can share in the bully s status and power by becoming accomplices (1999, 447). I conclude that bullying is situated within insider/outsider dichotomies, crowd and interpersonal hierarchies and moves to secure group status among crowds and individual status within groups. Salmivalli is pertinent here: The concept of social role seems to capture something essential here. Social roles have been defined as clusters of socially defined expectancies that individuals in a given situation are expected to fulfill. Seen from this point of view, participant roles, as roles in general arise in social interactions and are determined by both individual behavioural dispositions and the expectations of others (1999, 454). In some ways peer relations become policing agencies within school culture. Peers, in association with the bully (or bullies) create an insider/outsider dynamic. In fact, one of the most damaging aspects of bullying in the victim s life comes from his or her isolation. Being cast outside by a peer group seems to be part and parcel of the bullying experience. The bullying encounter is situated in social interactions involving a wide variety of people within the school, many of whom use the encounter to gain status. Peer perception, both toward the bully and the victim, seems to play a significant role in the bullying dynamic. Again, research shows that friends are perhaps the greatest deterrent to becoming a victim. Perhaps this is because the bully is less likely to attack a victim whose friends will stand up for him or her (the victim becomes a less easy target), or because the status of the victim is raised by friendship with acceptable people, or perhaps because the connection within a friendship circle allows for ongoing development of relational skills within the victim, thus insulating him or her from social awkwardness. Friends, by definition, share a warm and helping reciprocal relationship (Boulton et al. 1999, 466), thus constructing a wall of protection against victimization by the peer community. It is important here to add that not all victims follow the same relational path. The victim may begin as part of a crowd and then be cast from that crowd or smaller peer circle 5. The victim may be an outlier (i.e., an outcast from the outset), having never been included in the bully s crowd, becoming a target for any number of reasons (physical appearance, reactive aggression, etc.). The victim may also be a part of a certain crowd or smaller peer circle and, in the course of bullying, remain within that peer 5 Such as a small group of friends (e.g., Jake, Sammy, and Jeff) within the larger peer crowd. 5 P a g e

6 crowd or circle. The bullying here, rather than casting the victim out of the group, simply is employed to establish hierarchy within that crowd or smaller peer circle. One might argues that the policing of the victim by the peer culture is bent on more than the annoying habits of the victim or a propensity to cry. In the insider/outsider dynamic, power and status are at play and the peer community becomes, at the beckon call of the bully, the enforcer of the borders of privilege. Before we consider what might motivate bullying, a brief discussion regarding the implications of gender on bullying will help to highlight the ways bullying is normed within specific subject positions (such as male and female). 6 P a g e