A student told a teacher that he had no reason to bully someone.
The student who bullied responded. There is no reason to do so, although it is
possible to analyze and imagine the reason. The victim of the student did not
do anything with him. He said that he did not want to school because the
student might bull again, and he articulated that his feelings were filled with
fear and uneasiness.
The teacher told student that bullying was bad, and not to bully
again. There was no reason. This is a lie. He just did not understand the
reason and did not make any effort to understand it. A victimized student was a
student who had a lot of experience in foreign country. He was outstanding in
the class because he asserted his opinion unflinchingly. The student who
bullied this student might feel a kind of threats; however, this student could
not understand why he felt the threats. Yet, he had emotion to express his
state of mind by any means. This emotional state was so strong that he bullies
the student. Bullying is his means to express his strong emotion.
Anyway, what the teacher said was unsophisticated. The student could
understand bullying is bad or violence is bad. The problem is not why bullying
is bad either. The problem is why this student could not understand his emotion
by reason and language. The teacher’s duty was not only tell students knowledge
what was prohibited but also should help students to develop their cognitive
ability to understand their emotion as language. Moreover, that teacher would
have understood the feelings and emotions of him. The teacher might be
responsible for not telling him how to develop patient attitude toward
outstanding people.
Despite, someone might argue that understanding some situations by
emotion is more significant than by reason. This person even may argue that the
victim has responsibility to be bulled and the victim could have had more
cooperative attitudes toward students. This is undoubtedly unreasonable. The
modernism presupposes the ego with thinking thing (cogito) but not presuppose
the ego without thinking thing (cogito).
This presupposition is neither truth nor absoluteness of the human
beings, but it was widespread consensus and promises among modern citizens.If
someone rejects this consensus, then he/she also will reject modernism. The
person who argues the problem based on this kind of reasoning is an enemy of
the modern civilization. I was lamented by seeing the book written by this kind
of silly logic. The example which I pointed out is a typical bullying case. It
is not seemed to be paid special attention.
Yet, I think this example can provide a lot of interesting points
to be analyzed seriously. That case can light shed on the numerous points; the
role and duty for teachers, the limitation of acceptance to cultural
differences, whether seeking for the identity of the classroom or not, and what
is the definition of bullying? If I analyze all of these problems, I can write
a book for this topic.
Anyway, let me
focus on the definition of bullying. Bullying is often done by several persons
to one person or a few persons. The problem I point out is whether there are
qualitative differences between a quarrel and a bullying. How these are
different? Is it possible to say that a
bullying is bad but a quarrel is not?
Take into consideration of the case; it is obvious that
there was no quarrel but a bullying. A quarrel requires for at least two people
to have the will to start a quarrel each other. In that case, no will was found
from the victim. He did not have any will to quarrel. There was only violence.
This was asymmetry conflicts; rather it was completely unidirectional conflicts
and there is also found in the world as well.
How to cope with this
situation for the victim?
In this specific case, the victim can avoid injured if
he transfer into another school. He also can adapt to this environment by
exposing more corporative attitudes or playing such kind of behavior. It can
also be alterative to cope with this situation by discussing in class.
This specific case
exemplified the immature and emotional conflicts. It is; however, these kinds
of conflicts are observable in the society where immature adults live. If this
is true, and criticize and disrespect its immaturity, then it cannot change
this immature conflict structure. If people want to change the structure of
superiority, then they must change the conflicts structure. What does it mean?
I will be back this problem light after analyzing other examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment