Almost every place has some kind of bullying. But this masks important differences that shed light on the societies in question.
In Japan and Korea, bullying is a pervasive and serious problem in schools and workplaces. But there bullying is characterized by bullies abusing power that comes with higher socio-economic status, that authorities overlook, in part for that reason, against victims with lower socio-economic status. In England, the same thing is true, or at least was true prior to very recent history, although perhaps not quite as intensely. Notably, all of these societies have a lot of school discipline dispensed by deputized students - typically a student council disciplinary committee in Japan and Korea, and historically, at least, prefects in British boarding schools.
The U.S. has bullies too, but the character of the bullies is different. The typical U.S. bully is socio-economically marginal and picks on victims who are in some way defenseless getting one up on them so that they aren't at the bottom of the social hierarchy entirely. Bullies in the U.S. in schools and workplaces are also much more likely to have biologically based mental illnesses and/or learning disabilities. While in Japan, Korea, and England bullying is an abuse of privilege, in U.S. primary and secondary schools, bullying is an act of losers. U.S. primary and secondary schools rarely vest disciplinary authority in students, with student councils being more social event organizing committees than bodies with any power.
This kind of crass bullying by losers is mostly absent in higher education in the U.S. (the losers don't go to college), where there is instead there is some "abuse of power" bullying although much more limited, mostly within fraternities and sororities, and by professors abusing students who are especially dependent upon them such as graduate students dependent upon their thesis advisors.
Crass bullying is also largely absent from middle class workplaces in the U.S., although there is some "abuse of power" bullying by superiors over subordinates in the workplace, most typically characterized as sexual harassment. Still, the "me too" movement has produced swift and severe consequences for every C-suite executives in both big businesses and academia, for those caught doing so, and even the anomaly by U.S. standards, of abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic church has come to roost and to be addressed, although it is less clear that change has occurred in other, more fragmented religious institutions, non-Catholic private schools, and in various youth oriented groups.
The crass bullying by losers seeking to be not quite at the bottom seen in elementary schools and high schools in the U.S. does manifest, however, in other institutional settings, especially in the prisons often leading to prison gangs and prison rape, and in abusive hazing in the U.S. military, mostly in the enlisted ranks. This accompanies institutions like internal management of prisoners by prison "trustees" and by limited authoritative self-governance within military units by non-commissioned officers.
In contrast, in Scandinavia and much of Northern Europe, prisons are quite tame by comparison, practically free of prison gangs and bullying of one prisoner by another.
Extreme bullying appears to be pervasive in the Russian military and to a great extent in other military forces built on the Soviet model. It also appears to be not uncommon in other facets of society, like schools, workplaces, and prisons, although I don't know that society well enough to distinguish the extent to which it involves "abuse of power" bullying or crass bullying by losers. Perhaps both area present.
I have the same perception of Latin America, although "abuse of power" bullying seems to be a very real thing there, in addition to crass bullying by losers.
One of the things that is admirable about England and Japan is how remarkably good that people in these societies are at being self-organizing, which manifests particularly in wartime and in natural disasters. But the institutions of self-governance from a young age and internal hierarchy that make this possible also fosters abuse of power bullying.
In contrast, Americans are horrible at self-organizing, but also much more free of abuse of power bullying as a result.
Hi Andrew, So many confounding factors. So many of the societies that are nice to each other are also very homogeneous. Very true in Japan and Norway, and only recently not true for Sweden. Russia on the other hand, like the USA, is an empire. By definition collection of different peoples.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, small town rural America is very white, mainly poor and should reflect high levels of _togetherness_. My recollection is that bullying was pervasive in the '60s and '70s, at least in high school. Mainly by upperclassmen. In addition fist-fighting was also prevalent (usually after school behind the bleachers, and almost always one-on-one). And of course corporal punishment was a daily event. But so many confounding factors.
Cheers,
Guy
You do not see the cancel movement by the self identified 'disadvantaged' undergraduates as a form of bullying?
ReplyDelete@Morris
ReplyDeleteNo. And, if the movement were only by "disadvantaged" undergraduate it would go nowhere. The cancel movement is powerful because it harnesses collective outrage by a large subculture of the U.S. that reaches conclusions as a vox populi of the nation.
Bullying is something that as I am talking about is a pattern of sustained improper mistreatment in the context of an ongoing series of interactions or relationships between particular individuals the victim of which usually has reasons that leaving the situation is difficult or impossible - not necessarily face to face, cyber bullying is a thing, but still in some sort of sustained relationship.
Whatever the "cancel movement" is, it is not bullying in the sense that I am using the term, and is instead "something else". The cancel movement involve collective non-legal sanctions or official complaints about someone that one individual may instigate, but that calls on the collective individual actions of a large group, many of whom have no real sustained relationship with the target of cancel action.