Bully Nation makes it crystal clear why we must end our anti-bully crusade.
I am excited to inform you about a book that is hitting the market this month:
Bully Nation: Why America's Approach to Childhood Aggression is Bad for Everyone, by Susan Eva Porter. Dr. Porter has also granted me an interview, which will be presented below.When I say
Bully Nation is the most important book ever published on
bullying,
I am not exaggerating. Why is it so important? Not because it brings
great new revelations about the evils of bullying and how we need to
protect kids from bullies. There are countless books like that. It is
important because it is the first published book wholly dedicated to
fundamentally challenging the very basis of the anti-bully movement,
explaining in the clearest of terms why it is a mistake and why we need
to abandon it. For the past fourteen years, since the Columbine
shooting, the modern world has been waging a well-intentioned crusade
against bullies that has been causing far more harm than good. This
movement will eventually collapse from its own weight because it is
built on a faulty foundation.
Bully Nation is the biggest step yet in catalyzing the reversal of this misguided war.
The reasons for the failure of antibullyism should be obvious
to any serious student of interpersonal dynamics. It is contrary to
almost
everything we learn in psychology and the psychological helping professions,
yet it has been eagerly embraced by all the major psychological
organizations. It has amazed me that so few professionals have noticed
what’s wrong with the anti-bully field despite its obvious failure. A
few years ago, the first book to have a chapter criticizing the
anti-bully movement was published. That book was
Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear,
by British developmental psychologist Helene Guldberg. Now, thanks to
Dr. Porter, there is an entire book dedicated to exposing the damage
caused by this destructive movement.
Porter is a PhD clinical
psychologist and educator with two and a half decades experience working
in schools. She has perceptively recognized that all
childhood
aggression has been redefined as “bullying,” effectively throwing in
the trashcan the entire body of accumulated knowledge on aggression and
how to deal with it. Because the bullying paradigm of aggression has
been mandated by law, all schools are now required to treat every act of
aggression as a drama in which all children are cast in the roles of
bully, victim, bystander or ally. With plentiful real-life scenarios,
Porter demonstrates how anti-bullying policies are hurting the very
students,
parents and schools they are meant to help. As the subtitle accurately indicates, they are
bad for everyone.
Not only do these policies intensify hostilities, they actually hurt
children’s emotional development, depriving them of the conditions they
need to develop coping skills and raising them to be lacking in
resilience, vulnerable to the most minute insults.
The
most disturbing revelation of the book is how the anti-bully movement
has legitimized free expression of hatred towards anyone labeled bully. A
news article reported a story in which a teenage boy, labeled a bully
by the writer without explaining how it was determined he was a bully,
was stabbed to death by his “victim.” In response, many adults left
comments expressing their perverse satisfaction with the murder,
declaring that the bully "got what he deserved." Indeed, all it takes to
justify murder is to label its victim a bully.
Bully Nation
is an overdue call for society to throw out the detrimental Bully
Language and instead help children develop the resilience needed to
handle the social challenges of life. It is essential reading for all
parents, educators and mental health professionals. Before your school
staff continues to squander precious time and resources on
counterproductive anti-bullying efforts, they must read this book. Our
children deserve no less.
Interview with Susan Eva Porter, PhD
IK: How did it occur to you that there was a problem with the anti-bullying movement?
SEP:
A number of years ago, I started to notice that adults were getting
really angry with the kids labeled as bullies. Because I have spent my
career
working in schools, when I deal with incidents of childhood aggression I
tend to know all of the children involved. As such, I know that the
dynamics are never clear-cut and that blame can’t be as easily
assigned--there isn’t one good kid and one bad kid. Nevertheless, adults
had started using what I call Bully Language, and things had started to
seem simple: a victim and a bully and no chance for another
interpretation of events. Adults had become furious at the “bullies” and
never seemed to pause to examine their own reactions—the bully label
gave them license to unleash a great deal of their own
rage upon the children, and to remain unrepentant in their stance as accusers.
This
lead me to think more deeply about how we are seeing kids, especially
the ones we call bullies, and whether our language—the labels, in
particular—shape our perception. As I investigated anti-bullying
education
and literature, I was struck by how concrete and definitive the
concepts are, which gave me pause. I would watch my colleagues try to
deal with bullying incidents according to the received anti-bully
“wisdom” and remain feeling stuck, but this state of being stuck made
sense to me given how rigid our conceptual framework about childhood
aggression had become.
So, from my own experience working in
schools as an educator and a clinician I knew something wasn’t working,
and I wanted to figure out why.
IK: Have you encountered any resistance to your ideas? If so, who has been the most resistant?
SEP:
Yes, I have met with resistance, although it seems to soften once
people understand that I’m not suggesting children can’t be mean and
behave inappropriately. In fact, I’m a firm believer in consequences, so
once people understand that I am in favor of
discipline they seem more open to hearing my ideas.
I
sense the greatest resistance comes from those who feel like victims
themselves, and also from those who might not understand childhood
development.
IK: Do state mandates affect the way the school(s) you work in deal with bullying?
SEP:
Absolutely, both directly and indirectly. Obviously schools are eager
to follow the rules, and this makes sense, but beyond the actual
policies, no school wants to be seen as being soft on bullying. As such,
many educators are wary of using their own common sense practices to
deal with situations of childhood aggression for
fear
they will be called onto the carpet for ignoring bullying. This is
really unfortunate because it limits the degree to which schools can be
responsive to children in need. For many, the priority has become to
comply with a regulation rather than to educate children.
IK: What kind of popular response do you expect to your book?
SEP: I strongly believe that if people actually read it, it will resonate with a large number of them for a number of reasons.
First,
the conversation about bullying is stalled, and people are looking for
hope. They want to understand why they feel so scared and frustrated,
and why the anti-bullying policies we have in place don’t work.
And second, people are looking for permission to question the received
wisdom.
Many people I know are afraid to challenge the anti-bullying movement
for fear of being misunderstood or of being seen as “blaming the
victim.” This keeps them silenced, and I believe my book will allow them
to participate in a broader conversation.
IK: What do you think about anti-bullying laws?
SEP:
Laws are enacted by legislators, not educators, and as such they are
not tools of instruction, which is what children need when it comes to
learning about their own aggression and how to manage it productively.
So, on this score I think the laws are unnecessary at best and very
harmful at worst. In addition, we haven’t paused to ask ourselves what
it means for our future as a society to legislate our children’s
behavior. In doing so, we’re making outlaws of many children, and this
is extremely troubling in so far as it negatively shapes our view of
children and their potential.
We have enacted anti-bullying laws
because we are angry with children and feel frustrated that we can’t
control their behavior. We also see laws as a means to prevent children
from feeling pain, and for punishing kids who cause pain. This isn’t a
very effective way to address any of these issues, and yet we believe
that laws will finally put a stop to our suffering. They won’t, they
will only make us feel worse—less in control and even angrier.
Given
that children haven’t changed in the past generation, it is odd that
we’re walking down this legalistic path, and it tells us much more about
us than it does about our kids. Why do we feel the need to deal with
these developmental issues in the courts rather than educationally or
therapeutically? Would we teach kids about any other subject by
legislating against them when they made mistakes? It just doesn’t make
sense if what we want to do is help and guide children.
IK:
Your arguments against the anti-bullying movement make so much sense.
Have you wondered why the major psychological organizations have been so
eagerly promoting this movement?
SEP: I am a
licensed mental health professional, so I am a member of this group, and
I think the reason the anti-bullying movement gets so much support is
threefold.
First, psychologists and other clinicians are very
interested in pain and suffering, and there's no doubt that children
experience pain and suffering at each other's hands. This is undisputed,
and clinicians are trained to take this very seriously, which is a good
thing. Because the anti-bullying movement focuses so much on pain and
suffering, it makes sense that clinicians have rallied around.
Second,
most clinicians do not work in schools, so they naturally hear just one
side of the story when they deal with bullying situations. It’s akin to
hearing just one side of the story of a troubled
marriage.
It’s not until you have both spouses in the room that you get the whole
picture. Those of us who work with kids in schools necessarily have a
broader perspective and know that the simplicity with which the
anti-bully movement assigns blame just doesn’t bear out in the real
world of childhood.
Finally, I think clinicians feel as helpless
as the rest of us, and so they’ve embraced the movement without thinking
about it too critically. Most clinicians are just that—they are
practitioners—and they aren’t necessarily interested in the larger
issues that are at play.
I hope clinicians can entertain my ideas
with an open mind because I truly believe that when they think
differently about childhood aggression they will be able to do their
jobs more effectively. A sea change in thinking will enable clinicians
to empower their young clients and give parents better tools to support
their children.
IK: Do you think the anti-bullying movement is a fad, or is it here to stay?
SEP: I am working hard to make it a fad, as I know you are. If it’s here to stay, then I think we’re in real trouble.
IK: How did you come up with the title, Bully Nation?
SEP:
For starters, I think bullying is affecting the whole nation—we’re all
in this muck together. And I also believe we’re doing a great disservice
to children at the moment. We are not behaving well, and although we
have our children’s best interests at heart, we’re not using our heads
to deal with their challenges. Our feelings have swept us away and at
the moment we are quite off base as a society. Bully Nation seemed to
capture for me the momentum that’s out there, and the rage.
IK: Is there anything else you would like to let the readers know?
SEP: I think your work is groundbreaking. It has greatly informed my own
understanding
of this whole issue. I believe all of us can work together to empower
children but we have to be smarter about it, and I think you’re being
smart.
I hope you continue to get the message out—it’s an
important one, and I want to recognize your efforts to help kids,
parents, and educators to deal with our current cultural frenzy in a
sensible and effective manner.
IK: Thanks, Dr. Porter, for the kind words!