Bullying and Anti-Bullying in Politics and Society – Pt. 1

My last post about how Democrats can gain a lead over the Republicans on issues of national security started a chain of thoughts that led me to think more about the concept of bullying. Applying the label of “bully” to George Bush’s and the Republican’s domestic and international policies triggered in me a strong emotional reaction that led me to think more about what that word and concept meant to me and to others. I had after all been subject to bullying during a couple phases of my life and the label had personal resonance.

Bullying has until recently not been the subject of much intelligent discussion or study. Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, there has been something of an upsurge in interest in the concept of bullying as the two teenage perpetrators of those killings were known to have been bullied and that bullying was apparently rampant in that school. Still I believe the concept of “bullying” is something that tends to recede into the background unless one is immediately involved in being openly bullied or knows someone who is openly suffering from the effects of bullying.

I believe bullying however is a powerful term and metaphor for more general concerns that most of us share and that animate a sizeable portion of our political and social life. Bullying is about the exertion of power informally to establish dominance and to “cow” (bull, cow…get it?) or humiliate others. If we accept that there are informal status/dominance hierarchies between people and between social groups, bullying is the “shadow” or alternative method to attain status. Bullies are using their relative strength/power and/or willingness to fight to improve their social position, at least in their own minds if not in reality.

Bullying can be contrasted with legitimate or socially sanctioned status competitions that can highlight physical strength but also can highlight an unbounded number of socially recognized goods but that usually comprise: age and maturity, beauty, youth, likeability/charm, endurance, intelligence, knowledge, physical gifts, risk-taking, unusual and exemplary possessions, amount of possessions. Those who succeed at one or more of the socially sanctioned status competitions attain a higher informal status than those who resort to bullying to achieve status or rewards but the two strategies may be intermingled in any one person. Fair, regulated competition is the rough opposite to bullying; fairness governs legitimate status competitions but is completely absent from bullying. Bullying is by its nature opportunistic, exploiting an existing or exposed weakness for either pleasure or unclear gain other than self-aggrandizement. In the boxing ring or other sporting competition, this opportunism is part of the game but in bullying this is not legitimized.

Bullying can be seen on a variety of social levels from the molecular to the macro. One can find areas of bullying within longstanding relationships where one partner in the relationship is able to bully the other though otherwise the relationship runs along without much coercion. Of course there are the obvious bully-bullied relationships you find in schools and workplaces. Organizations can through superior economic or legal muscle bully other organizations for economic or political gain. Nations of course can bully other nations with superior military strength or through various economic and political means. What makes these activities bullying rather than simply exertion of power is that the exertion of power in bullying is repeated and is viewed by most third parties as not having a sanctioned goal. The actual activities that comprise the bullying usually straddle the boundary between legal and illegal but not so illegal as to be without justification for the bully.

As the foregoing discussion indicates, bullying happens most concretely and clearly on the individual and small group level. When the metaphor of bullying is extended to larger organizations of people, the exertion of power becomes part of the mission and goal of the organization, so it is less clear cut what is bullying and what is legitmate exertion of power, i.e. what is fair to do. Nevertheless, the attitude and appearance of bullying is important in our understanding of what happens between corporations, legal entities and nation states. The emotionally laden metaphor of the bully as well as actual systematic use of force for unclear or conflicted ends animates the political sphere

Politics in democratic societies are largely concerned with issues of fairness, refereeing legal status competitions, and creating a polity (political body) out of the naturally and historically diverse group of people that live in any given country[ I left out some big ones here: self-defense and international relations - zoon]. Unlike in court politics or dictatorships, democratic politics is the place where natural and historically given imbalances in power between individuals and groups of individuals are either regulated, excluded or attempted to be leveled. So the issue of bullying is a pivotal one in defining how different political actors think of the role of politics.

In contemporary American politics, one way to define the two main political camps is in relationship to bullying as an orientation to the world not necessarily to the schoolyard or workplace practice of it. Liberals typically are anti-bullying; are against the opportunistic exploitation of power differences and are willing to make laws that outlaw or marginalize it. The conservative right is largely for the use of power differences if not their actual preservation. Conservative political commentators generally are less restrained also in using tactical verbal bullying in arguments with their liberal opponents. The advocacy of unregulated or minimally regulated markets also opens the door or turns a blind eye to the potential for economic bullying or at least the unrestrained exertion of economic power in competition. Bush and his administration post 9/11 represent most clearly the notion that unrestrained use of power has positive benefit for the United States.

While I am loathe to invent or re-invent another “ism” it appears as though there might even be a case to be made that there is something called “bully-ism” which accepts that bullying is a tool and way of life on all levels of society. Bully-ism as a life strategy suggests that the only way to avoid being bullied is to become a bully. George Bush seems to have traversed this path in his own life in that he was bullied as a child and has now become a bully on an international scale. Bully-ism suggests that the first step is to exploit a transient or longstanding advantage rather than acting in the common good or according to social rules.

I think it is abundantly clear that on the global stage, acting and playing the bully has gotten the United States into a mess. We have exploited our strengths without regard to what other people in the world would want from us in the way of leadership and protection. Israel has, in part with the encouragement of the US government, also played the bully and is now in a very difficult situation with regard to its neighbors.
In this account, it would seem difficult to see how someone could ever subscribe to “bully-ism” who wasn’t sadistic and power-mad; I do think that non-sadists have supported this political orientation for a variety of reasons. Within “bully-ism” is the recognition of non-ideal disparities in the world that are real and cannot be attuned to all of our ethical notions. There is also the ethical standard of Rabbi Hillel: “If I am not for myself, then who will be with me?” Within bully-ism is a fundamental anxiety about taking care of the self, a self that will be abandoned by the collectivity and by ethical standards themselves. The Reagan revolution and right wing movements have built their political following on these perceived and real lapses within liberal thought and political practice in the 1960′s,70′s and 80′s.

More on this in a later post

Advertisement