I was ambivalent about President Bush''s statement that a school shooting in California was a "cowardly act" - a boy reported killed someone who had bullied him. Of course, it is more courageous to restrain one''s anger and direct it to more constructive activities, yet I imagine the boy involved felt his deed was a brave one when he finally struck back after years of abuse from bullies. It appears there was no relief forthcoming from adults except from his parents, who reportedly relocated to another town to protect him. But that did not work: he was apparently the type of boy bullies like to pick on, the diminutive type who does his best to restrain his anger and not fight back. Does anyone see the paradox here?
I don''t believe the governor of California called the shooter a coward; he more circumspectly and wisely condemned instead the unmitigated evil of the random, arbitrary aspect of the killings, the killing of innocents. But it appears this shooting was not as random as he thought. Of course, he did not advise anyone to kill bullies, to retaliate directly against them when no other help is availing.
Our society is tending towards a sort of "Run To Mama" attitude when something goes wrong, But when Mama doesn''t come running, what then? Well, we are not supposed to strike back, to take the law into our own hands even if it does not protect us. And the bullies do take advantage of that. Yes they do. And here is a well-guarded secret: because the bullies can get away with personal harassment, the bully population is growing geometrically. But here is another even more carefully guarded secret: punch them in the nose and they will fold. But then they will run to Mama. And, ironically, the Mama who did not protect us embraces bullies!
When I was a boy, Run To Mama was a minority politic. Most boys were taught by their fathers to fight back. I was astonished when I punched a bully in the face in front of the Junior High School after he called me "fatty." He sat right down on the pavement. So I continued on home; waiting at the usual corner for me were the two bullies who had been harassing me since school started. Before they said anything to me, I walked up and knocked one boy out; the other fellow ran. From that time forward, I decided to fight back with my fists - unless the bully was too big or had help.
Yes, fists were the weapons of choice then. We had a communal zip gun we made in shop; Jim had his grandpa''s .22 caliber pistol; I had a switchblade knife, brass knucks and a motorcycle chain. But all that was usually for show. I did use the chain on a bully who was too big for me, and I threatened to cut a boy''s throat from behind in study hall because he shoved me around a couple of times. But never did I or anyone else for that matter entertain the idea of killing innocent children at random. Yes, we had our gangs, but the gang wars were mock wars, except in a couple of neighborhoods where a rival gang member would sometimes get killed. We were civilized back then! Years later, when speed and coke became the rage, some kids up on the West Side started killing almost anyone for the fun of it. We were not into that. In fact, the most violent episode I was involved in was when I kicked in a car window to get at bully who was loading his rifle to shoot me out at the town dump because I had given him a licking for pinching girls in the buttocks - I had to drag him out of the car and knock him out, breaking two of my knuckles in the process.
We were indoctrinated with the saying, "Sticks and stones break my bones, but words can''t hurt me." Nobody reall believed that. Besides for food and women, males have been killing each other over words since day one; we are more civilized now, yet that is no excuse for intentionally provoking someone, especially a stranger who has done you no harm.
Today it seems the rule rather than the exception is to go around criticising people at random, to arbitrarily vent resentment at the nearest target. And this is done not only behind the victims'' backs: putting people down "politely" with hackneyed phrases, usually the projection of one''s own self-contempt learned from being put down by others, is the daily ritual. If we feel the resentment and hatred underneath the cute remarks, we are not supposed to take it personally, you know. We should take it impersonally, or else. Or else somebody will Run To Mama and complain that we cannot take criticism, that we cannot take a joke.
This brings to mind something St. Louis (King Louis IX) said: Never disagree with anyone unless it would be dishonorable not to disagree, for harsh words provoke murder. That is good advice, subject to various interpretations. But still it might be sinful not to disagree with someone who makes it a pastime to harass and intentionally dishonor people without provocation. And we should keep in mind that St. Louis made sure blasphemies such as cursing the cross were severely punished; as far as he was concerned, the only good infidel was one with a sword run through him. Yes, sir, we know only too well, harsh words of bullies do provoke murder.
Sometimes I believe the legalization of duelling would restore common courtesy, first of all to the young men who are more violent than the rest of the population; too many of them tend to vent their resentment by picking on other kids instead of having it out with their real enemies--maybe in this dumbed-down, impersonal society they don''t know who their enemies are.
Be that as it may, with the advent of the Internet and its chat facilities and open publishing sites, virtual bullying is running rampant where everyone can see it. Therefore anyone interested in the psychology of bullying should pay very careful attention. There have been attempts to clamp down on it, but some of the attempts, which amount to the Run To Mama policy I previously mentioned, actually aggravate bullying, just as it has in the real world. Bullies are protected by the site''s Abuse Mama. This makes for a bad situation. People on the Internet think they can hide behind virtual identities and go around bullying anyone they want - little do they know.
Anyway, it seems to me that if we want to do something about the bullying in our society, insteading of Running to Mama we are going to have to get downright personal. Instead of dumbing down, abuse departments in both the real and virtual worlds had better wise up quick, and so should the bullies!
San Diego, March 5, 2001
