1. His story is similiar to Michael Atherton's--about bullying back ending the bullying. There's something very interesting about this.
2. I wonder whether the students agree that bullying needs to be addressed by each individual school, and if so, how they would see that happening.
3. His point about trust was very interesting-- that bullying not only is perpetuated by mistrust, but it breeds more of it that may be very harmful long term for the student.
Stacy, I find #1 to be especially interesting also. I mentioned something similar in another post about my son.
I am not sure that "bullying back" sits quite right with me. I've had similar experiences myself. Not in the physical...but as soon as I spewed my piece with the perpetrators and spoke my mind it ended.
I agree with Shanaye that it makes you stronger to a degree...but, I would rather get stronger through positive experiences than negative and while bullying provides plenty of moments for one to speak out and develop that skill I still think of bullying as a symptom of a larger societal problem.
People will seek power in any way they can get it. If they are feeling powerless at home or in the world, they will try and find it. If they cannot get the attention they seek or need they will demand it. That is why it is so helpful when working with young children to help the bully find some healthy power while reminding them that they will be accountable for the unhealthy kind. Bullys need hugs and forgiveness along with that accountability.
"Bullys need hugs and forgiveness along with that accountability."
I think this is a false Humanist assumption. I think it assumes that people are basiclly good and are somehow corputed by bad influences and that kindness and forgiveness will somehow "heal" them.
I think it is wiser to assume that bullying is functional and that there's isn't anything necessarly wrong with bullies. This does not imply that bullying is an acceptable behavior, but it does assume that love and acceptance are not always solutions.
A humanist believes that a person can become whatever he or she desires.
The assumption isn't that people are basically good and corrupted by bad influences and that kindness and goodness will somehow "heal" them. The belief is that a desire to be better, to be all that one can be, can be inspired by people that believe in the potential of an individual,guiding an individual to want to change.
Certainly there are people that are more severe and corrupt and want to remain so, but are we talking about this dimension right now?
There isn't anything necessarily "wrong" with bullies, but they sure are a sad lot. Love and acceptance of the bullying *behavior* is not a solution. But there is someone with a heart behind the mask. I have seen some pre-k/early elem turn around with unconditional love. Being cared about through the tough times, really, is it so much to ask?
I am familiar with Humanism...term paper research in college on Renaissance Humanism.
Anyway, let's work with what we've got. I certainly don't agree that a person can become whatever they want. Each of us has a range of genetic potentials that limit what we can become or do. I also don't believe that everyone has a desire to be better and I don't think that people can necessarily be inspired by others. All of these assumptions are characteristic of "goodness" in one sense or another.
I also think that there is something "wrong" with bullies, at least in an ethical sense. I also believe that there isn't necessarily a heart behind the mask; to assume so is to assume that there is inherent "goodness."
Lastly, unconditional love is both unrealistic and dysfunctional.