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.