Multiperspectivity on School Bullying

One Pair of Eyes is Not Enough

Ken Rigby

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315454436
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Consejería educativa

Multiperspectivity on School Bullying is unique in providing a comprehensive account of school bullying from the perspectives of schools, teachers, parents, students and institutional authorities. It identifies diverse viewpoints and discusses their implications for addressing bullying and thereby improving the mental health and well-being of children.

Drawing on findings from studies conducted in a wide range of countries, including those undertaken by the author in his own country, Australia, this book examines experiences of bullying and debates around how bullying can be best understood, managed and discouraged. It outlines what is needed before an agreed understanding of the problem can be reached and more effective anti-bullying programs devised and implemented. The book examines both historical and cultural factors relating to bullying and violence; major theoretical and research perspectives on bullying; views of different social groups affected by bullying; and how different institutional authorities view school bullying. It highlights the need for a multiperspectivity approach to bullying, taking into account and evaluating a variety of viewpoints that are currently held.

This book will be of great interest to academics, researchers and students in the fields of bullying, wellbeing and mental health in schools. It will also be valuable reading for educational leaders around the globe.

Chapter 1

Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315454450-1

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a remarkable rise of interest in bullying; first bullying in schools, then in other places. Open today’s newspaper and the chances are high that there will be news of bullying – among schoolchildren or among men and women in the workforce, or in the home, perhaps among politicians. It has become common to describe bullying as an epidemic, desperately needing a solution.

Research into bullying since 1990 has repeatedly confirmed that the prevalence of bullying in schools is unacceptably high. Drawing on all available survey results across 71 countries it has been estimated that approximately 32% of school children between the ages of 9 and 15 years were bullied for one or more days during the previous month (UNESCO, 2019). Further, research has shown that bullied children tend to experience emotional distress and in some cases mental health consequences that can last for a lifetime (Arseneault, 2018; Rigby, 2003).

Numerous anti-bullying policies and programs have been devised and applied in schools. Ttofi and Farrington (2011) identified 622 reports concerned with bullying prevention. Of these 44 provided data from which the effectiveness of program implementation could be calculated and on average a reduction in prevalence of being bullied between 17% and 20% was found. From these and other studies it can be inferred that well-conducted interventions in schools can have some positive effect, but the reported reductions in prevalence have been modest in size and some reported interventions had no positive effect. In some countries there have been reports of reductions in bullying prevalence over time (see Rigby & Smith, 2011); but in general, the reductions, though statistically significant, have been small. The problem of what to do to make substantial and enduring changes in bullying in schools remains much as it has been for generations and the grievous harm suffered by many victimised students at school continues.

Why is it then that despite the sustained attention to the problem of bullying in schools over the last 20 years or so, and the application of mandated anti-bullying policies and intervention strategies, we have made so little impact in promoting more positive interpersonal behaviour among students? The first and most obvious reason is that bullying behaviour is deeply embedded in human nature and extremely resistant to change. This accords with the observation that aggressive and violent behaviour has for many centuries been a prominent feature of how humans have treated one another. Evolutionary psychologists insist that this tendency is inevitably present in varying degrees in everybody. It may be pointed out that serious violent behaviour between people in most countries has become less common with the increasing practice and acceptance of the rule of law (see Pinker, 2011). But legal remedies for non-criminal – and non-criminisable – forms of bullying, which make up the vast majority of acts of bullying in schools, are severely limited. Not surprisingly, many educationalists have turned for an answer to educational and non-confrontative methods of intervention.

A second reason for the relative failure of schools to address bullying effectively lies in the complexity of the problem and the difficulties that arise in seeking to appraise and take into account the range of possible explanations for acts of bullying and the suggestions and proposals on what to do. There is an understandable tendency for educators to look for a simple answer. Too often this results in the rejection and sometimes the denigration of perspectives that challenge the way one prefers to look at the problem. This results in not being exposed to points of view that others may hold and a reliance on people who support one’s own point of view, such as colleagues or employers. The outcome is that one is only partially informed; one’s prejudices are reinforced. Moreover, the opportunity to work together with stakeholders who see things differently is lost or jeopardised. The development of a truly agreed whole school approach and its implementation becomes uncertain or even impossible.

The thesis of this book is in fact simple. We must listen far more to what other people are saying and why they are saying it. The application of this proposition is not simple. We need to learn from history. We need to learn from research, also recognising that researchers do not, as a rule, speak as one; indeed, frequently disputing and contradicting one another. We need to identify differences within groups; for example, between children who are bullied at school and those who are not; and between parents of children who are bullied at school and parents for whom this is not the case.

What I am advocating is the adoption of what has been called multiperspectivity. This may be roughly defined as the practice of seeing things as other persons or some groups see them. It will be suggested that in the last analysis this is impossible because our perceptions of other people’s perceptions are always in a sense our own perceptions. Very well then. It is an ideal to which we can strive: in effect, a deliberate attempt to minimise subjectivity, to put ourselves (and our cherished disciplines) aside and attend non-judgementally to what others say.

This entails a much more broadminded approach to understanding bullying than has often been the case in the past. As Yoneyama (2015) has argued, the study of bullying has in recent years moved on from an extreme reliance on one source of information, for example, on inference from quantitative analyses generated mainly by social psychologists, important though this may be, especially in the testing of hypotheses. Horizons need to expand to accommodate insights from a range of disciplines, including theoretical sociology, cross-cultural studies, philosophy and history. This book provides a step in that direction.

In essence, I am asking the reader to accept the reality of the perceptions of others – as perceptions. Emphatically, it does not mean that they are necessarily right in the views they hold. Commonsense and moral judgement do not go out of the widow. What is claimed is that in engaging in this activity one may become aware of facts and viewpoints of which one would not otherwise have been aware; be led into considering a perspective one would not otherwise have sought to understand; and, often most importantly, enter into a relationship in which unforced cooperation is possible. Only then, I suggest, can we approach an optimum situation in which agreed and effective anti-bullying plans can be formulated and put into action.

This book is organised into two parts. The first is concerned with providing a background to what is understood by multiperspectivity, how bullying is commonly defined and how it may be understood, taking an historical and cultural perspective.

The second part examines the way bullying is viewed by people according to particular groupings. This includes first the researchers and scholars who have contributed through studies of bullying in schools. In addition, there are those who are closely connected with the process of acting and responding to what goes on in schools as far as bullying is concerned. These include teachers in schools as well as students and parents of children who are attending school. I have also included those who may be called authorities, those who influence how schools respond to bullying, either as institutional or other kinds of authorities. The last chapter consists of personal reflections.

The reader will observe that the content of much of this book is based on research undertaken, mostly in Australia, over the last thirty years, and also on personal observations as a schoolboy, ex-school teacher in England and Australia, and as a university researcher in the field of bullying. My own perspective is limited by these experiences, but in addition, it is limited by the selectivity of what I have chosen to examine and comment upon, not to mention the personal biases to which I am prone. I constantly remind myself that in this book I am trying to tell you how I think other people have viewed bullying and are now viewing bullying, in the hope that such awareness will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding and a greater determination to try to see and appraise the other person’s point of view in order to work together.

In substance, the purpose of this book may be summed up in words attributed to Pablo Picasso: ‘There is only one way to see things, until someone shows us how to look at them with different eyes.’

Part I

Multiperspectivity, bullying and history

Chapter 2

Multiperspectivity

DOI: 10.4324/9781315454450-2

There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective ‘knowing’; the more affects we allow to speak about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes, we are able to use for the same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’ Nietzsche (1887).

One year when I was in England, I went to see a cup tie between two fiercely competing soccer teams. By chance, I found myself in an enclosure reserved for the fans of the visiting team. Before long I was amazed at the observations that were being made around me. The game was, as expected, a rather brutal affair, with numerous stoppages for fouls and injuries committed or caused entirely (so it was claimed) by the members of the home team. Worse still, the referee was (so I was continually informed) in league with them, awarding numerous free kicks to the wrong team and stupidly admonishing members of the visiting team for serious fouls that they had not committed. It was an occasion on which I kept my opinions to myself.

Some years later, I discovered that two American social psychologists Hastorf and Cantril (1954) had documented a similar experience. Following a particularly heated football match between Dartmouth and Princeton in 1951, the researchers arranged for student supporters of the two teams to view a movie recording of the game and answer a questionnaire about what they saw happening. In particular, they were asked to say which side started the rough play. Among the Princetown supporters, 86% reported that the Dartmouth side started it. Only a minority of Dartmouth supporters saw it that way. The researchers concluded that ‘it seems the “game” was actually many different games and that each version of the events that transpired was just as “real” to a particular person as other versions were to other people. In brief, the data here indicate that there is no such “thing” as a “game existing out there” in its own right which people merely “observe.” The game “exists” for a person and is experienced by him (sic) only insofar as certain happenings have significances in term of his purposes’ (Hastorf & Cantrill, 1954, p. 129).

Really, was there no game? Here I think subjectivism is pushed beyond its reasonable limit. But clearly, something had happened to the perceivers in order to account for the strikingly different perceptions. I reflected on whether I would have become aware of entirely different judgements if I had been standing in a different place, say in the enclosure for fans of the home team. How things may be perceived if you are standing in different places is cleverly portrayed below. Things can look different depending on where you are standing as in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Different perceptions of the same things.

I have called the gathering and interpreting of different perspectives multiperspectivity. We can never have ultimate knowledge of a ‘thing in itself (Ding an sich)’ as the philosopher Kant (1783) was at pains to point out. We can never know ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’ Yet we can gain some understanding of a phenomenon by inquiring into how a thing is perceived. In other words, we can reduce, if not eliminate, the subjectivity of our perceptions and the related judgements we make.

For the most part, the term ‘multiperspectivity’ has been used in studies of historical events drawing upon multiple sources of information rather than relying upon a single account which may be at variance with others and therefore open to question and subject to bias. Multiperspectivity may also refer to a literary or dramatic device employed to deepen one’s understanding of characters and events in a novel or play. In this book, multiperspectivity refers to the examination of multiple perceptions of a particular subject, namely bullying behaviour. There is nothing mysterious about it. We may do it – or fail to do it – every time somebody expresses a point of view on the subject. It does not imply that we agree with the point of view being expressed. If we are wise-we listen carefully and seek to understand and appreciate it.

Psychologically, a perspective may be conceived as a distinctive way of regarding and considering things. It is a point of view held by a person or by a group. As is the case of a social attitude, a perspective is relatively enduring and tends to be resistant to change. It implies an interpretation, a belief or judgement. It is different from a fleeting impression or a reaction based upon a transitory mood. A person may be clearly aware of the perspective they are taking and able to articulate what it is. Alternatively, the perspective holder may not be aware or fully aware of the view being taken. There may be unconscious bias or prejudice, in which case the nature of the perspective may be inferred from behaviour rather than from overt self-disclosure. Beliefs underlying a perspective may be internalized and relate to strongly held values and well-considered evidence; otherwise, a perspective may be relatively shallow and derive from conformity to the largely unconsidered views of others.

In seeking to understand bullying and in addressing situations in which bullying occurs we must take into account the diverse points of view. By pooling information from such sources, a more comprehensive and more useful understanding can emerge. How knowledge of perceptions from different sources can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon is suggested by the well-known story of the six blind boys and the elephant recorded in the ancient Jain literature (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Six blind boys and the elephant.

One version of this story is as follows:

A group of blind boys heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: ‘We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable.’ So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said ‘This being is like a thick snake.’ For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kin...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Series editor’s introduction
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• PART I: Multiperspectivity, bullying and history
• PART II: Diverse perceptions of school bullying
• References
• Index