Can there be bullying without a bully?
Many years ago, in a book entitled Sexuality, learning difficulties and doing what’s right (David Fulton, 1995) I explored, with my friend Denis Rowley, the idea that there could be sexual abuse without an abuser, and also the idea that an individual could be a sexual abuser without sexual abuse being experienced.
Sexual abuse without an abuser: For example, a person with severe learning difficulties might act in ways that sexually abused another without being a sexual abuser, because he or she was unaware that the other person was not a willing participant in the sexual activity in question.
A sexual abuser whose actions do not involve the experience of sexual abuse: Consider, for example, a situation in which a dreadful person abused another sexually by making use of that person in a depersonalised way for sexual purposes, without their consent (because for example, in the case of a person with very severe learning disabilitis, they were unable to understand enough to be able to consent). The protagonist in such a situation would clearly be a sexual abuser, even if that other tolerated the activity (or even enjoyed it) without its being the case that the other was sexually abused, at least in the sense of having experienced what hapned to them as abusive.
So could there be bullying without a bully? (And could there be a bully without bullying?)
Gavin’s question is pertinent, although the example is very specific and something I am not really qualified to comment on except in the legalistic sense of affirming that the law would not be able to convict someone of an offence if they ’suffer from such defect of mind or reasoning as not to know the quality of the act they perform’ (sorry, a quick resume of the McNaughten rules from memory see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/McNaghten+rules ). Of course this is legal culpability, it does not say that there is no harm from the actions or that inappropriate behaviour must not be acted upon to protect vulnerable others - whether anyone is individually culpable is not always the issue; systems can be culpable…
In respect of bullying without a bully, it might depend how specific we are being. As in the paper I presented at the conference, I believe that a potential for bullying is an aspect of the human psyche and contributes much to the generalised sense of oppression in the environment. In effect there are many times and ways that I feel bullied by chance and circumstance as I experience or perceive life unfold before me. I related to systems theory that shows how systems can be bullying in themselves, even when set up by people who would never engage in personal acts of oppression. We are always at the mercy of the unintended consequence of even well-meaning actions. A simple example is the effect that in-humane performance targets can have, causing stress in unsupported environments and leading ‘managers’ to pressure people. Ok they should know they are bullying when they act excessively as an individual, but are they being ‘bullied’ by the performance expectations of the system. Is this bullying without a bully? Well, corporate culture will be set by the executive and systems will mirror the expectations made of them. But are they individual bullies, or responsible for creating a corporate bully?
For me it is clear that the experience of being bullied is far more widespread than the number of identifiable people who could be said to bully. The issue therefore is what do we do about it when we recognise that this is what is happening. The difficulty and danger for the individual is that when they speak up and say, “I am being bullied” is that the system looks either a) for a scapegoat to blame and sacrifice and/or b) blames the victim for being weak, queries their ability to cope and perform and sacrifices them, instead of taking a responsible non-blaming look at the systems involved.
If anyone wants specific examples I have a bucket-load to give, but I will bet most people know exactly what I am talking about.
Such questions are very testing for a clinician like me I start to jump about and think about the huge archives of literature on disassociation and post-traumatic stress and sexual abuse. I think about the different perspectives for everyone in the context and how to make the best systemic analysis or intervention. I remember reading in one of Yalom’s case studies his description of how he supervised a male psychologist who slept with his female patient. The female patient still insists to this day this was the best thing that ever happened to her….but as the reader one could see her point of view but one was still left unsure…It reminds me too of exploited children put to work at a young age, who say later in life, it was not a hardship but gave them character….so this opens the idea that bullying is inherent to the system and context…
Both perspectives given above are highly thought provoking, relevant and very interesting indeed. I would like to pose a question for consideration. How far can coercive supervision or at its mildest, condesending of the supervised work with apt justification for such behaviour go before it can be deemed to be bullying behaviour?