Psychology assignment

Bullying has been a vice that has existed in every social setting. There are different types of bullying. The main type of bullying is the everyday juvenile bullying that takes place in schools where students are usually bullied by their peers. Bullying is, however, not reserve of the young. Adults also engage in bullying. An example is a work place setting were the rest of the workers have a tendency of ganging up on a coworker and throwing verbal slurs on them. Bullying has adverse side effects on the victim. These include issues with self-esteem as well as a long term socialization crisis. This vice also has an effect on its perpetrators. This is a vice that is evolving with modern times. The most recent and perhaps most outreaching form of bullying is cyber bullying which basically involves all the vicious forms of traditional bullying but on a digital platform. This form of bullying is a lot more dangerous because it adds an element of anonymity to the bullies as well as expanding their reach. Bullying still exists in schools due to the poor measures taken by authorities to completely eliminate this vice.

There has been extensive research on the subject of bullying in schools. The issue of whether or not bullying has been completely eliminated from schools is a divisive one among scholars in the field garnering as many opponents as it does proponents. Wightwick (2009) clearly asserts that bullying still exists in schools. This researcher claims that the authorities are clearly to blame for the persistence of bullying in schools. The researcher notes that the authorities are taking a back seat when it comes to the implementation of regulations that tend to curb the development of bullying in the school setting. This research, however, has gaps that will definitely be covered in my paper. The fact remains that authorities are not doing all that they can to curb the vice of bullying. The pertinent question, however, is exactly why are authorities not doing enough when it comes to bullying. There are three main scenarios which come into mind when considering bullying. Either the authorities are not aware that bullying is going on in their institution or they are simply ignoring it or in some cases they are encouraging it as a form of social conditioning for the students. This research completely overlooks these three major components of the psychological disposition of authority figures that are tasked with leading the battle against bullying.

Members of the gay community are among the biggest victims of instances of bullying. They are reprimanded for their sexual preference in schools and even on a national and international level. The Republican Party, for example, has openly stated its stance against gay and lesbian marriages. Rivers (2011) claims that effective measures have been put in place to curb instances of bullying against members of the gay and lesbian community. This research claims that bullying and stigmatization against members of this community exist because of societal psychological disposition as opposed to lack of proper legislation which would ensure equal rights for all citizens. These claims are in complete contrast to the thesis statement. Authorities tasked with the tackling of bullying instances amongst minority groups are not just legislative authorities. Any individual in position of power such as a religious leader or any member of society is tasked with ensuring that members of minority groups are not victimized against. Despite laws existing ensuring that members of the gay and lesbian community are granted equal rights, there are still some huge gaps which need to be filled in order to ensure that these laws are enforced.. A good example is the lack of legislation barring religious leaders from openly condemning members of the gay and lesbian community in their public forums. The laws do exist but they simply provide the basic rights for members of the gay and lesbian community. They are not holistic in nature and therefore create loop holes which can be used to ensure that instances of bullying of members of this community go unpunished and in some cases are even encouraged. This points to a failure in the dispensation of authority figures tasked with the formulation of air tight laws that would ensure that bullying among members of this community is completely eliminated.

Elame (2011) asserts that bullying is very dynamic in nature. This research paper asserts that instances of bullying are never random. There is a certain pattern which bullies ascribe to and there are certain characteristics in individuals which bullies find enticing. We are thus introduced to the concept of discriminatory bullying. This discriminatory bullying is not a reserve of the bullies but also stretches to the authority figure. A good example can be extrapolated from the school setting. If a child is bullied on the basis of their race they might report this occurrence to an authority figure such as a teacher. If the teacher also happens to ascribe to racist philosophies then the teacher might not handle this issue with the seriousness that it requires. In fact, the bullies might gain a reenergized form of impunity with which to carry out their bullying activities. Thus, an element of impartiality when dealing with instances of bullying might not exist in the authority figures tasked with ensuring that bullying does not occur within their jurisdiction. The implication of this is that the authority figures are themselves contributing to the vice as opposed to curbing it and completely stomping it out. The paper, however, fails to examine measures that can be taken to ensure that authority figures do not involve their personal prejudices when handling cases of bullying. Such measures include training of these authority figures on the exact dynamics with which to handle cases of bullying. The major controversy in this paper is that it creates an impression that most authority figures openly intertwine their personal perceptions with decision making scenarios of cases of bullying. This might not be entirely true. The implication would be that these authority figures are lacking in integrity and due diligence with which to carry out their mandate of impartiality. There are some authority figures who in deed handle cases of bullying with the seriousness that these cases deserve. Despite the fact that authority figures are not doing as much as they are expected to when it comes to tackling cases of bullying it cannot be exclusively argued that this seeming laxity is based on their personal prejudices against some of the victims of the bullying incidents. There are many more factors at play including the level to which these authority figures are empowered to tackle cases of bullying.

References

Elamé, E. (2011). Discriminatory Bullying. : A New Intercultural Challenge. (2013). Milan: Springer.doi:10.1007/978-88-470-5235-2

Durr, S. (2011). Rivers, Ian. Homophobic bullying: research and theoretical perspectives. CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, (12). 2358.

Misawa, M. (2015). Cuts and Bruises Caused by Arrows, Sticks, and Stones in Academia: Theorizing Three Types of Racist and Homophobic Bullying in Adult and Higher Education. Adult Learning, 26(1), 6-13. doi:10.1177/1045159514558413

What is bullying? (2015, Feb 26). Belfast Telegraph Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1658375179?accountid=32521