Defining 'bullying' down
CHICAGO — Several years ago when I was enrolled in a teacher training program, we were taught that bullying was when one person intentionally, aggressively and consistently intimidated another. It was understood to mean habitual cruelty by a strong person to a weaker one.
After several cases since 2010 where young people appeared to have committed suicide after suffering from prolonged bullying, and those cases made national headlines, everyone has been on high alert.
This is a super-hot topic in kindergarten (yes, kindergarten!) through high school. An entire cottage industry has grown up around charging schools kingly sums of money to put on student assemblies, teaching faculty and staff how to deal with bullying, and selling lesson plans to teach students about every conceivable aspect of the problem.
All this, in addition to zero-tolerance policies, has resulted in "bullying" meaning nearly anything: getting "a look" from another student, interpreting a remark as a thinly veiled insult, eye rolling, witnessing a student lean over to another and whispering.
It's also, of course, a huge issue on college campuses and increasingly being made one at work. I got an email the other day about how to tell if you are a workplace bully. One warning sign is "ignoring your employees' suggestions."
Now, I'm the first person to say that true bullying -- whether in schools, workplaces or anywhere else -- is a deadly serious issue that requires awareness, meaningful prevention and organized and effective responses and interventions.
But we've watered down the way we use the word to the point where it's almost meaningless.
For instance, last week there was a national outpouring of emotion for a Wisconsin television reporter who got an ungentle email from a member of her community.
The author sent an indecorous -- but not abusive, threatening or foul-languaged -- message to news anchor Jennifer Livingston with the subject line "Community Responsibility." He said, "Your physical condition hasn't improved for many years," referring to her weight. "Surely you don't consider yourself a suitable example for this community's young people, girls in particular. ... I leave you this note hoping that you'll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle."
Livingston took to the airwaves with an emotional rejoinder and became a viral Internet phenomenon. She acknowledged her obesity and rightfully pointed out that she is "much more than a number on a scale" -- a sentiment everyone in our weight-obsessed culture should internalize.
But she described this one man's "cruel words" as a "very hurtful attack" and invoked National Bullying Prevention Month and her fear for her three daughters' exposure to bullying in school and on the Internet.
Livingston closed out with an impassioned "thank you" to the people who sent their sympathies to her by way of social media and gratitude "for taking a stand against this bully. We are better than that email, we are better than the bullies that would try to take us down."
"To all of the children out there who feel lost, who are struggling with your weight, with the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your disability, even the acne on your face," she said, "do not let your self-worth be defined by bullies. Learn from my experience that the cruel words of one are nothing compared to the shouts of many."
I don't think that many lost and struggling children will benefit from a TV personality with a large social media following watering down the definition of bullying to mean sending a blunt email.
More and more scientific evidence is pointing to resiliency -- the ability to overcome adversity by using learned personal strengths such as independence, initiative, creativity and humor -- as a key factor in reducing risky behaviors and increasing academic achievement in adolescents.
But we don't teach resiliency in schools. Instead, society consistently reinforces the notion that every slight, every discomfort, every put-down or rejection is worthy of an outpouring of sympathy for a wronged victim. We're teaching that mantra in schools and in workplace harassment seminars, and it encourages people who feel uncomfortable to turn on a perceived oppressor.
Guess who this harms? Not those who crave attention, sympathy or the spotlight, but the quiet among us who haven't yet found a way to stand up to the honest-to-goodness bullies in their lives.
Esther Cepeda's email address is estherjcepeda@washpost.com.
Oct 16, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
By the way, "community responsibility," the way you claim Krause used it, is a variation of a Far Left trope: "It takes a village....."
Oct 13, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
For precision, you should have used a modifier such as "some" rather than "more likely" to describe people who use the term "political correctness" as coded language. And I should have said that "political correctness" predominantly resides in the "Far Left" but isn't exclusive to it. Wherever it is, I am against the chilling effect it has the First Amendment.
And, the standard of superficiality of which you complain is ramped-up exponentially by the very industry that Livingston chose to work in -especially in the matter of how women look. The competition is fierce for attractive women in the TV news industry. So much so that the organizations with the most money and most status get the most attractive women. Livingston benefits from being available to a much smaller and less lucrative market. Peruse the appearance of women from the networks down to the smallest TV markets. Again, Livingston chose to work in the very industry that ramps-up the very superficiality that made her the object of an email that I've already described as impolite.
Bullying (ostracism) is as old as our species. Obesity is not. And how does diet become a social problem? Controlling caloric intake and caloric burning are individual responsibilities. To generalize the problem onto the social milieu is being overly sensitive to the over eater, an excessive sensitivity that relieves the individual as the source of the problem. That misdirection is akin to political correctness.
Every kind of criticism can't be regarded as bullying. That false equation is of the mentality that has Livingston living under the horror of racism. Come on.
Oct 13, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
The left is hardly the only group to employ social pressure to change behavior. People who use the term "political correctness" are more likely to themselves be trying to silence criticism.
.
Simply because our understanding of how bullying is an endemic problem in our society has evolved, this does not mean we are "defining it down" to meaninglessness. Livingston was responding to a widespread public perception that the bodies of women in general, and those in the public eye in particular, are public property. Before television one did not need to have a perfect body to succeed in public life, but now it appears that especially women are being told that they are bad examples and poor role models because they're among the 7 in 10 Americans with a weight problem. That's sexist for starters, and when it comes wrapped in a little bow called "community responsibility" it implies that Livingston and other news personalities owe the public something other than professional reporting. It also unfairly limits the news profession to 1/3 of the population.
.
The American diet is a social problem. Bullying those who, like the MAJORITY of their fellow citizens, "fail" to control their weight will not change this and is a way to blame the victims of our food epidemic.
Oct 13, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, then your claimed semantic problem has been dismissed. And your characterization of bullying for what Krause did no longer applies.
Political correctness resides in the Far Left. If you are not in the Far Left, you, until your recent comment, have been employing political correctness to the Livingston problem. That is, you were overly and negatively sensitive to Livingston's accusations at the expense of clear thinking.
Oct 13, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
No to both. Still interested in learning about my supposed ideology.
Oct 13, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Are "criticism" and "bullying" synonyms?
Is one time equal to many times?
Oct 12, 2012 at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Please elaborate on the ideology that you think I abide by. By virtue of my many posts here and elsewhere, I am obviously a huge First Amendment supporter and defender, so not quite sure wha' cho talkin'bout willis. :) I think you're getting a little hung up on semantics.
Oct 12, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave, after reading the above article you might want to consider the possibility that you abide by an ideology that is having a corrosive effect on the First Amendment. An ideology that if in total power in this country would not allow you to criticize it. Last night Joe Biden was incredibly rude and obnoxious (much more so than Krause/Livingston), yet, what he did was not bullying.
Cepeda clearly makes a distinction between bullying and criticism (and non-vocal body language). You should make an effort to understand that "differing types and degrees" many times, for precision, require different definitions for various phenomena and behaviors.
Oct 12, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
BTW - Thanks for writing a whole column without using the words "Hispanic" or "Latino/Latina" :)
Oct 12, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
I disagree. The fact that there are different types and degrees of bullying does not define it down. And it all starts somewhere (usually verbally abusing someone in-person or online), and escalates from there. Authority figures want to either minimize it / explain it away, or not deal with it at all. Therein lies the problem.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.