In this issue:Columbine Anniversary – State of Bullying in the World
James Garbarino (Unwittingly) Declares the Failure of Psychology to Deal With Bullying |
Dear Reader:
Hope you have been enjoying Spring and the holidays it brings.
This April 20 will mark the eighth anniversary of the Columbine shooting, the event that put school bullying on the world map and changed the focus of my professional life. Therefore, I will be focusing in this issue of the newsletter on why society is doing so poorly in its war against bullying.
Feel free to reproduce this or any of the articles in previous newsletters for your own publications, as long as you cite the author and source.
This year, I have mostly been presenting my Anger Control Made Easy seminar with Cross Country Education, but we have scheduled several of my Turning Bullies into Buddies seminar in some Southern states, as you can see on the right-hand sidebar.
Columbine Anniversary – State of Bullying in the World
For eight years, the Western world has been carrying on a war against school “bullying,” that all-purpose term that encompasses the entire gamut of negative behavior. And where have these efforts brought us? The researchers continue producing repetitive, predictable studies that try to outdo each other in documenting how incredibly prevalent and devastating bullying is, and - regardless of their actual findings - present as their conclusion the sacred premise that bullying happens because schools aren't doing enough to make it stop and therefore schools need to do more. Every country that has officially embraced the mission to eradicate bullying is experiencing an escalation of bullying. (Next month I will write specifically about Japan). Anti-bullying laws are forcing schools to throw large sums of money into anti-bullying efforts that for the most part have no benefit or make the problem worse. A growing number of parents are suing schools for failing to stop their children from being bullied and/or are home-schooling their children to shelter them from bullying. Many school counselors have come to detest their jobs because their anti-bullying responsibilities have turned them from mental health professionals into security officers, detectives and judges.
And how have the child recipients of these programs fared? Talk to college guidance counselors, and they will tell you that the current generation of students doesn’t know how to handle interpersonal difficulties and expects the school staff to do it for them. From the time they were in pre-school they have benefited from anti-bullying, conflict resolution, and peer mediation programs, so why haven’t our young adults become expert at solving social problems by the time they enter college?
It’s quite simple. Throughout their entire school career, students have had adults jumping in to protect them from each other and mediate their disputes while instructing them not to tolerate anyone bothering them. As a result, they have become intolerant of the ordinary kinds of interpersonal problems that inevitably come from living with people and learned that they are not expected to be able to handle these difficulties on their own, but require and deserve the help of adults and other students! The students grow up having no idea how to handle aggression without assistance and being terrified by the prospect!
James Garbarino (Unwittingly) Declares the Failure of Psychology to Deal With Bullying
A simple way to assess the current state of anti-bullying efforts is to hear what the country’s most revered expert on childhood aggression has to say. I came across a revealing article about psychologist James Garbarino in the latest edition of the New York School Psychologist (NYSP). Dr. Garbarino practically became a household name following the Columbine shooting, as the public media constantly enlisted him as commentator. (Yes, I admit it, I’m jealous. I was hoping they would turn to me!) Author of Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them and See Jane Hit: Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It and keynote speaker at this year’s annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Garbarino has made a career promoting hysteria regarding our nation’s children. (I can’t help wondering why, if our boys and girls are indeed becoming so much more dangerous, has violent crime been declining in recent decades?) He has recently been promoting hysteria regarding bullying in schools, with the help of his book, And Words Can Hurt Forever: How to protect adolescents from bullying, harassment, and emotional violence.” (Notice the term, “emotional violence.” Can you get more frightening than that?)
The NYSP article reports Dr. Garbarino as saying that the zero-tolerance policies that were adopted as a response to the rash of school shootings have no value and “may actually increase violence” (and I agree wholeheartedly). So what is Garbarino’s alternative to zero-tolerance? He “stresses that bullying should be viewed as a human rights issue, comparable to sexual harassment or bullying among adult work colleagues. No employer would stand for such behavior among adults, so why do we let it persist among children?”
So what exactly is Garbarino suggesting we preplace "zero-tolerance" with? Nothing other than ZERO-TOLERANCE!!! Violations of human rights are not things to be tolerated. "We wouldn't stand for such behavior among adults," he says. Violators of human rights must be punished and/or rehabilitated. So Garbarino simply replaces zero-tolerance with zero-tolerance, but calls it “a human rights issue” instead. But what the heck - “human rights issue ” sure sounds better than “zero-tolerance”!
By calling for the treatment of bullying as a human rights violation, Dr. Garbarino is admitting that he does not know how to solve the problem of bullying by psychological means. We need to turn it into a crime and make the legal system solve the problem for us. In other words, our country's most revered expert is declaring the failure of psychology! (More about this later.)
Garbarino and Bullying Among Adults
Garbarino thinks bullying doesn’t go on in the workplace? “No employer would stand for such behavior among adults”? What planet does he work on? There is more bullying going on among adults in the workplace than there is among kids in school, and employers are often the ones accused of doing it. If bullying in the workplace isn’t a widespread problem, why was a recent issue of the APA Monitor dedicated to bullying in the workplace? Why are there websites on workplace bullying? And why are we being bombarded with books and seminars on dealing with difficult people at work?
Furthermore, the most frequent and intensive bullying of all goes on right in the home. The divorce rate is at least 50%. Why? – because couples are nice to each other? Adults - even soulmates - have a lousy track record in getting along with each other. Does Garbarino expect kids to possess more mature social skills than adults? And, as my surveys have shown, children of mental health professionals and educators fight much more at home than they do in school. Why don’t the experts fight for the “human rights” of people not to be bullied by their family members? Is it because they don’t want their behavior at home constantly monitored and punished by the government? Are they afraid to be discovered as hypocrites who want schools to accomplish what they have no idea how to accomplish in their own lives?
Garbarino also recommends “reaching a point where every single person in a school setting can sincerely say that everything that is done in the school setting will be evaluated and does matter.” Wow! What happened when President Bush was pushing for more power to monitor civilian communications without a warrant in order to fight terrorism? Widespread condemnation! But our mental health experts think it’s all right for a school to become a Big Brother that monitors and controls all interactions between kids! Is Garbarino a psychologist or a warden? How does he think that kids are going to develop social skills if they cannot interact freely with each other and learn from their experiences? How are they going to develop resilience if adults are constantly protecting them from each other? And how are they going to manage when they grow up, get married and have children of their own, and discover what abuse is really like?
The Real Reason for the Failure of Psychology
Why is psychology's track record in dealing with bullying so dismal? (See what the research shows.) It's happening because when it comes to bullying, psychology is no longer practicing science. Allow me to explain.
I recently discovered the philosophical term to describe what I have been talking about for years: "category mistake." I encountered this term in the latest (March/April 2007) issue of Psychotherapy Networker. Jay Efron explains in a marvelous, eye-opening article, Defining Psychotherapy, that philosophers talk about making “category mistakes.” Efran claims that one reason it is so difficult to define and evaluate psychotherapy is that we have made the category mistake of calling psychotherapy a medical treatment when it is really something very different. While this was the first time I came across the concept of “category mistake,” the debate on the nature of psychotherapy is not new. I remember it even from my days as a student three and a half decades ago.
However, there is another category mistake that no one seems to be aware of. “Bullying prevention ” is being treated like it is a field of psychology. But it’s not. It is a branch of law enforcement. When you think you are doing one thing but are doing something else – especially something you are not qualified for – it will be difficult to succeed and you are likely to make matters worse. And that is why so many school mental health professionals are becoming miserable. They are acting as law enforcement officers. They are performing roles of security officers, detectives and judges – and to their chagrin the bullying is increasing.
The truth is that some mental health professionals love the role of law enforcement officer and are excited by the constant pursuit and prosecution (and frequently persecution) of bullies. I believe it gives them a great sense of power (something that is said to be sought by bullies), and I suspect they may be enjoying vicarious revenge against the bullies in their own lives. However, most science-oriented mental health professionals detest playing the role of law enforcement agent. It is not why we went into the field.
Virtually all the psychological organizations assert that children have “a right to go to school without being bullied.” The belief that democracy gives people the right to be free from bullying by other people is the foundation of the work of Prof. Dan Olweus, the father of the anti-bullying “psychology” and has been enthusiastically reiterated by everyone else, including Dr. Garbarino.
When did “rights” become a scientific concept? It is strictly a legal or political concept. Rights only exist once there is a government of people, and the government decides what rights its people will have. When did psychologists become experts in law and politics? Is it part of their training? Philosophers have always known that morality can’t be legislated, but our psychologists, who don’t receive academic training in philosophy, law, politics or morality, don’t realize this. It seems as though they believe all you need to do is declare that kids have a “right” to be free from bullying in school and the government will magically transform the school into a place where children are always nice to each other. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get rid of psychological problems by making their causes illegal! Unfortunately, making schools legally responsible for getting rid of bullying does not make bullying magically disappear. It only makes it easier for parents to sue schools for failing to make the bullying disappear!
Defining an issue in terms of “victims” and “bullies” is not a scientific approach. It is a legal one, in which the “victims” are considered innocent, with no responsibility for what happens to them, and the “bullies” are the guilty ones who are to blame for the victims’ misery and need to change. Scientific psychology does not see human interactions in terms of guilt and innocence. It is about understanding what really goes on between people and how they affect each other. It recognizes that whatever an individual does will affect the way s/he is treated. Today, about the worst thing one can do is suggest that a "victim" has anything to do with being abused/bullied. The idea that victims have nothing to do with the way they are treated is not a psychological idea. It is a legal one. Scientifically it is nonsense. But if you want to stay out of trouble, you had better not challenge it.
“Bully” is not a scientific diagnosis. It is an insult. It is on the order of jerk, wimp, slut and loser. We wouldn't dare insult kids by referring to them in such terms. Scientists have no business calling people bullies, either.
Psychology teaches us not to judge people but to understand them. “Bully” is not a diagnosis but a judgment. Once you call someone a bully, you have passed a verdict on that person – a guilty verdict. This is a legal justice function, not a scientific one.
Psychologists are trying to protect victims from bullies, and make students safe from bullying in school. Since when is “school safety” a function of psychology? It is a law enforcement role. Psychology is supposed to promote the development of traits like wisdom, resilience, emotional maturity, self-confidence and self-esteem. These qualities can only be acquired through the experience of adversity and learning how to handle it. Creating an environment is which children are “safe” from bullying prevents them from developing these traits.
Science doesn’t look at a universal phenomenon and simply decide, “This is bad; let’s get rid of it.” If bullying goes on in all groups of living creatures, human and otherwise, both in nature and in civilization, the scientific approach should be, “This goes on in all social groups. It must serve a positive biological purpose. Let’s try to understand it better,” not “There is something wrong when kids do this in school; let’s make a policy against it.” This is a law enforcement mentality.
Scientists propose hypotheses and then do research to test them. They are not supposed to be married to their hypotheses. If the results of the research do not support their hypothesis, they are supposed to reject their hypothesis. But when it comes to bullying, psychologists become decidedly unscientific. They present the hypothesis that bullying happens in school because the school “lets” it happen, and that if the school implements an anti-bullying program, bullying will decrease. Despite the scientific evidence showing that the overwhelming majority of whole-school anti-bullying programs are ineffective and likely to make the bullying increase, psychologists refuse to divorce themselves from this hypothesis and continue stubbornly insisting that schools need to do more to make bullying stop.
Whatever happened to the idea that counseling/therapy is supposed to teach people how they are causing their own problems and to lead them to a solution? Now it is about blaming someone else. The nature of the bullying psychology is that someone else - the bully - is responsible for your misery. This is a legal idea, not a psychological one.
Whatever happened to the "drama triangle", or "triangulation"? It is well known in human dynamics that when a person plays "rescuer" to a victim/persecutor pair, it makes the situation worse. The victim acts more like a vicitm, the persecutor (or bully, in our discussion) becomes more abusive, and they are both prevented from figuring out how to solve their problem. The anti-bully psychologists are encouraging - even demanding - bystanders to become rescuers of victims. What is a cardinal psychological mistake has now become the recommended thing to do. It's because we are practicing law, not psychology.
Whatever happened to the well-established psychological theory of "locus of control"? People who are happy and successful tend to have an internal locus of control, which means they believe that their own behavior influences what happens to them. People who are miserable and failures tend to have an external locus of control. They believe what happens to them is determined not by themselves but by external forces. So what are we teaching people today? "If you are a victim, it is because of bullies. Please don't think it has anything to do with you or your behavior." We are fostering an external locus of control. It's because we are acting like lawyers.
Whatever happened to the concept of "learned helplessness", which leads to depression? We are teaching kids today, "If you are a victim of bullying, you are helpless. The bullies are too powerful. You can't deal with them by yourself. The school staff and the other students have to help you." We are teaching helplessness today. It's because we are practicing law, not psychology.
Whatever happened to self-confidence and self-esteem, those twin sacred personality traits that psychology has been trying to enhance in children for the past few decades? How are children supposed to develop self-confidence and self-esteem when we tell them that it is not in their power to stop bullies by themselves, but everyone in the environment has to help them? But this is what we get when we trade a scientific for a legal approach to interpersonal problems.
Why Did Psychology Trade Science for Law?
What has led to this development? Why has psychology abandoned the scientific approach for the legal?
The psychological helping professions have discovered over the years that it is not so easy to help victims. We counsel and do therapy with victims, and they continue to be victimized. So we figure, “But why should the victim have to change? The victim is the good one. Their problems are caused by abusers and bullies. Let’s promote mental health by fighting for laws against abuse and bullying.” In other words, our psychological approaches to reducing aggression don’t seem to be working very well, so let’s get the legal system to do it for us!
In the comfort of our offices, we get the impression that all emotional problems are caused by abuse, because just about everyone who comes to us for help presents themselves as a victim - they are abused by their parents, spouses, bosses, children, etc. But what we are not noticing in the comfort of our offices is that the people who don't come to us for help - because they are functioning well and don't need it - were also victims of abuse! How many people have spent a whole life only being treated nicely by people? Some of the happiest, most resilient people were victims of terrible abuse, but they learned how to handle it, stopped being abused, and became happy. And some people never learn how to handle abuse, so they stay miserable and come to us for help. But we get this lopsided idea that all psychological problems are caused by abuse, so we figure we'll promote mental health by making abuse and bullying illegal.
But in case you didn’t notice, making abuse and bullying illegal does not make abuse and bullying disappear. It just changes whom we deal with and how we deal with them. So today, we are trying to do therapy with abusers and bullies. And what do we discover? It is not so easy to help abusers and bullies either! But rather than admit we're failing because there is something wrong with our methods, we preserve our own self-esteem by declaring the reason it's so hard to help bullies and abusers is that they are personality disordered and have no conscience. But our conscience sure feels a lot better failing to help evil abusers and bullies than failing to help poor, innocent victims!
The Difference between Psychology and Law
We are behaving as though the goals of the legal profession and the psychological profession are identical. But they are not. In fact, they are diametrically opposed. The psychological profession is supposed to get clients to take responsibility for their own problems and lead them to a solution. The legal profession is supposed to take responsibility away from the client and put it on someone else!
If I am your psychotherapist and I am holding someone else responsible for you problem, how can I help you? I should be working with the other person and trying to make them change. On the other hand, if I am your lawyer, my job is to hold someone else responsible for your problem, and let’s go sue them and make them pay! If I am your lawyer and I am holding you responsible for the problem, you should fire me and get yourself a good lawyer!
The psychological profession is supposed to teach people that they are not victims, and that their lives are in their control. The legal profession tries to convince people that they are victims so they'll have someone to sue. Lawyers coach their clients to maximize their appearance of victimhood so they both make as much money as possible.
Law Trounces Psychology
When you combine the legal profession with the psychological profession (or any other profession, for that matter), there are two things that happen. One, the psychological profession loses scientific objectivity. It becomes less about understanding what's really going on between people and more about who is the victim and who is the abuser or bully.
The second thing that happens is that the legal profession takes over. It makes the laws. It decides what we're allowed to do and how we should do it. Remember, we are not talking about immutable laws of physics. We are dealing with man-made laws resulting from the lobbying efforts of victim advocacy groups. Even when a law makes the situation worse - and many laws do so - you still have to follow the law. If you need to decide between doing what you believe is psychologically correct and doing what's legal, you had better do the legal thing or you are going to get in trouble.
The legal profession is the most reviled of all professions. There are worse jokes and insults about lawyers than even prostitutes. So we invite them to help us, making our profession less scientifically objective, and then they take over. And in case you haven't noticed, lawyers tend to make more money than psychological professionals.
And that's why the mental health sciences are so stuck today. We have tied ourselves to a legal approach to human relationships that thinks in terms of innocent victims and guilty abusers and bullies. We are forcing ourselves to abandon the psychological knowledge we have gained from decades of experience - as well as the wisdom of thousands of years - and turned ourselves into security officers, detectives and judges.
Psychology will never promote mental health as long as it continues advocating a "human rights” approach to problems. We will simply continue creating a society that encourages people to blame others (bullies and abusers) and to expect society to solve their problems for them. And our schools will spend more time and effort on anti-bullying activities and less on teaching academics. In the name of “human rights,” we will continue practicing zero-tolerance, which increases bullying. (But it will continue to be good for the people who make a living by fighting bullying.)
Movie Recommendation: Idiocracy
Laughter is the best medicine, as Reader's Digest has made everyone aware, and Idiocracy (2006; directed by Mike Judge) provides a powerful dose. Few movies have had me laughing as much as this one.
Humor shows us how stupid people are, and Idiocracy fulfills this mission nicely. It is a "science fiction comedy" about an average man and a less-than-average prostitute who take part in a government program in which they are put into hybernation and supposed to be woken up one year later. Unfortunately, the program gets closed in a hurry and our protagonists are forgotten about. They find themselves waking up 500 years in the future. Meanwhile, humanity has been continuing to get dumber, and our average man is now the smartest person in the world.
The film is actually a commentary on today's society, for the futuristic society is essentially a conglomeration and exaggeration of the stupidity that we see in our own culture.
Idiocracy is a good complement to a movie I recommended a few months ago, Akeelah and the Bee. That terrific movie shows that it's cool to be smart; this one shows that's it's uncool to be stupid.
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman
email: izzy@bullies2buddies.com
voice: (718) 983-1333
web: http://www.bullies2buddies.com
