Of course we should not lose sight of the economical restraints of media reports. Even if all media cover the same, this does not necessarily mean a social trend independent on its covering. Still, they draw our attention towards issues. Like bullying. In the last ten years the term has conquered any fairly well sophisticated party chat - displaying the rapidity of social dicourse agenda.
One remark beforehand: How ever innovative we believe to be, the most effective inventions are ancient, altering at best their label. This means, bullying has been practiced at all times. The prototypical example can be found once again in the Bible telling us about the strained relationship between Jospeh and his brothers - admittedly calling it sin, not bullying. But since these times are over, and we like to explain everything to avoid Judgement Day, we inquire reliably into the function of bullying. So does the author.
Bullying is a typically institutional phenomenon, which distinguishes it from such popular private forms as pub brawls with all thrashing a single person. That means bullying particularly happens at the working place or at schools. Like scheming bullying responds to a forbidden conflict; all are to pull together without losing any time, so fruitless controversies are not allowed - profit is to be made, subject matters are to be ticked off the curricula. But while scheming is secretly carrying a concealed conflict, bullying proceeds in a breathtakingly open manner. This is because the victim and the culprits are symmetrically related, whereas the schemer and the victim are asymmetrically linked. In short: Colleagues bully, the boss is denounced to his boss. So just where there is no way of scheming, we console ourselves with bullying.
Bullying is so popular because it imitably links the functional working role with the psychic personal image. Working relations are organized by demanding full identification with the company - but only to a certain degree; how ever relaxed the manners might be, only one person is entitled to fire another if he thinks it opportune. So there is a gap between the employees' identification and his personal motivation. The latter only plays a part insofar as it regulates the achievement, not the way of life. So being emotional when working is always controlled by constraints which condensate emotion as working motivation. And it is exactly here bullying can serve to ventilate the emotional surplus. The individual is frustrated? His or her reasoned suggestions for improvement have been rejected by disgruntled superiors? Well, it helps to let off steam to a colleague. And since the rest of the department will develop a taste for it, the bullying group will become homogeneous, for cruelty based on guilt unites.
Like a detected scheme bullying is an extraordinary emotional strain. But while scheming makes the victim feel paranoid (you never can be sure if just the friendliest colleagues are not the meanest schemers) bullying celebrates itself in a manner of brazenness which continues to be surprising. The victim is ostentatiously degraded, the self-esteem wanes. The more desperate the defense, the longer and more brutal the bullying. Until the management cannot help noticing the victim achieves less and wondering if to sanction the bullied or the bullying - a rhetorical question indeed.
Like every system, bullying unfolds a dynamic of its own; the bullying persons virtually compete as to who can humiliate the victim the most mercilessly. And who does not want to take part in it, runs the risk of becoming the next scapegoat, as soon as the predecessor has quit.
Although inviting it is nonetheless misleading to look for characteristics typical of the bullying victim - being an outsider is no trait of character but indicates a relational inconsistency. That means the victim occupies the wrong palce at the wrong time. There is a certain quality which does not fit into the typical image the group has of itself. Maybe it is a policewoman among frustrated policemen. Possibly a pupil wears no branded clothes. Perhaps the new colleague has not quite got used to work-to-rule yet. In any case he emodies a potential threat to the group's trivial self-image. So first of all both the under- and the overachievers are true candidates for being victims - for in both cases the cozy group faces more work - either to compensate for the shortcomings or to emulate the new shining example. It is exactly this difference which triggers off irritation and is ventilized in psychic, sometimes physical violence.
Even though it is quite arrogant to give abstract lectures on the victim's situation - highly probably physical violence is decisive. It may be the awareness to be isolated while facing a compact front of opponents which involves the most serious psycho-social consequences. For what distinguishes bullying from ordinary conflicts in the work place is its strictly secondary factual implication. Incompetence is merely a easy accusation which is conventionally applied, but rejection is focused upon the person respectively his or her image.
Accordingly, there are many unfortunate predecessors in history; politically correctly they are called minorities which of course is much too imprecise, since powerful elites are a minority, too. Rather than that, one type of minority is suppressed because the other having a say is out of reach. Bullying victims are typical substitutes. Since they have been found, things have changed for ever.
One remark beforehand: How ever innovative we believe to be, the most effective inventions are ancient, altering at best their label. This means, bullying has been practiced at all times. The prototypical example can be found once again in the Bible telling us about the strained relationship between Jospeh and his brothers - admittedly calling it sin, not bullying. But since these times are over, and we like to explain everything to avoid Judgement Day, we inquire reliably into the function of bullying. So does the author.
Bullying is a typically institutional phenomenon, which distinguishes it from such popular private forms as pub brawls with all thrashing a single person. That means bullying particularly happens at the working place or at schools. Like scheming bullying responds to a forbidden conflict; all are to pull together without losing any time, so fruitless controversies are not allowed - profit is to be made, subject matters are to be ticked off the curricula. But while scheming is secretly carrying a concealed conflict, bullying proceeds in a breathtakingly open manner. This is because the victim and the culprits are symmetrically related, whereas the schemer and the victim are asymmetrically linked. In short: Colleagues bully, the boss is denounced to his boss. So just where there is no way of scheming, we console ourselves with bullying.
Bullying is so popular because it imitably links the functional working role with the psychic personal image. Working relations are organized by demanding full identification with the company - but only to a certain degree; how ever relaxed the manners might be, only one person is entitled to fire another if he thinks it opportune. So there is a gap between the employees' identification and his personal motivation. The latter only plays a part insofar as it regulates the achievement, not the way of life. So being emotional when working is always controlled by constraints which condensate emotion as working motivation. And it is exactly here bullying can serve to ventilate the emotional surplus. The individual is frustrated? His or her reasoned suggestions for improvement have been rejected by disgruntled superiors? Well, it helps to let off steam to a colleague. And since the rest of the department will develop a taste for it, the bullying group will become homogeneous, for cruelty based on guilt unites.
Like a detected scheme bullying is an extraordinary emotional strain. But while scheming makes the victim feel paranoid (you never can be sure if just the friendliest colleagues are not the meanest schemers) bullying celebrates itself in a manner of brazenness which continues to be surprising. The victim is ostentatiously degraded, the self-esteem wanes. The more desperate the defense, the longer and more brutal the bullying. Until the management cannot help noticing the victim achieves less and wondering if to sanction the bullied or the bullying - a rhetorical question indeed.
Like every system, bullying unfolds a dynamic of its own; the bullying persons virtually compete as to who can humiliate the victim the most mercilessly. And who does not want to take part in it, runs the risk of becoming the next scapegoat, as soon as the predecessor has quit.
Although inviting it is nonetheless misleading to look for characteristics typical of the bullying victim - being an outsider is no trait of character but indicates a relational inconsistency. That means the victim occupies the wrong palce at the wrong time. There is a certain quality which does not fit into the typical image the group has of itself. Maybe it is a policewoman among frustrated policemen. Possibly a pupil wears no branded clothes. Perhaps the new colleague has not quite got used to work-to-rule yet. In any case he emodies a potential threat to the group's trivial self-image. So first of all both the under- and the overachievers are true candidates for being victims - for in both cases the cozy group faces more work - either to compensate for the shortcomings or to emulate the new shining example. It is exactly this difference which triggers off irritation and is ventilized in psychic, sometimes physical violence.
Even though it is quite arrogant to give abstract lectures on the victim's situation - highly probably physical violence is decisive. It may be the awareness to be isolated while facing a compact front of opponents which involves the most serious psycho-social consequences. For what distinguishes bullying from ordinary conflicts in the work place is its strictly secondary factual implication. Incompetence is merely a easy accusation which is conventionally applied, but rejection is focused upon the person respectively his or her image.
Accordingly, there are many unfortunate predecessors in history; politically correctly they are called minorities which of course is much too imprecise, since powerful elites are a minority, too. Rather than that, one type of minority is suppressed because the other having a say is out of reach. Bullying victims are typical substitutes. Since they have been found, things have changed for ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment