Oor 'n bedekte vorm van geweld. Nog 'n keer oor boelies.

Ek bly verbaas oor die reaksie op die blogs wat ek ‘n paar keer oor boelies geplaas het. Daar is telkens weer mense wat hierdie ouer inskrywings lees en daarop reageer.

Een van die belangrikste van hierdie blogs was die een waarin uitgewys is dat die grootste slagoffer van enige geboeliery, die boelie self is. Navorsing het gewys dat die kriminele syfer onder boelies hoër is as onder ander kinders. Boelies maak dikwels mislukkings van hulle lewens. Daarom moet ‘n mens eintlik meer bekommerd oor die boelie wees as oor die een wat geboelie word.

Dit bly maar boeiend, tussen hakies, om te sien hoe geweld hom wreek op die geweldenaar.  In die geval van geboeliery, sou ‘n mens ook kon sê: Boontjie kry sy loontjie – as dit nie so tragies was nie.

Ek lees graag oor die kwessie van boelies omdat dit deel is van my belangstelling in geweld. Boeliery is ‘n vorm van geweld, waarin die menslikheid van die ander een deur verbale en selfs fisieke geweld ontken en geminag word. Dit vertel ook van die onmag wat kinders en mense het om ander met empatie en respek te behandel. En iemand wat as boelie sy of haar sin kry, gaan nie oornag as grootmens verander nie. Hy of sy bly ‘n boelie tot aan die einde van sy dae.

Tensy hy of sy professionele hulp kry, natuurlik. Dit was ook die strekking van die artikel: skole kan nie net optree teen boeliery nie. Hulle moet op ‘n georganiseerde manier vir ‘n boelie professionele hulp kry om vir haar of hom uit te wys dat boeliery ‘n geestesgebrek is wat ernstige langtermyn gevolge het.

In my eie konteks dink ek oor boeliery binne die konteks van spiritualiteit. Spiritualiteit het ontferming as ‘n sleutelwoord. En in ‘n geboelie is daar niks ontfermends nie. Inteendeel. En wanneer ‘n mens ‘n kind of ‘n mens wat ‘n boelie is, raaksien, is dit voorts jou verantwoordelikheid om so iemand te ondersteun. Dit bly immers tragies dat ‘n mens dink ander kan deur sy of haar geweld bygekom word. Dit is ‘n teken van ‘n brok onmenslikheid wat in daardie boelie teenwoordig is en leef.

Hieroor kan byvoorbeeld veel meer in die kerk se jeugwerk gedoen word. En wanneer die kerk tereg preek oor mans wat hul vrouens slaan (en moenie vergeet van gewelddadige vrouens nie), doen die kerk niks anders as om met goeie reg vir mans wat dit doen te wys daarop dat hulle boelies is. Hieraan het ek gedink toe ek onlangs oor die radio 'n preek van 'n VGK leraar oor huweliksgeweld beluister.

Toe lees ek nou vandag weer ‘n artikel in die New York Times oor boeliery. Ek lees die artikel vanuit ‘n veronderstelling dat nie net kinders boelies is nie, maar dat boeliery ‘n siekte van ons samelewing is en op baie vlakke voorkom. Groot mense kan boelies wees. Die media, politici, dokters, predikante, kerke, belange-groepe, verenigings kan ook diep betrokke by boeliery wees. ‘n Boelie is immers iemand wat ‘n magsposisie inneem om deur brute of deur bedekte geweld ‘n ander een te verneder, uit te skakel, skade aan te doen.

Die probleem is nou dat baie mense nie besef dat hulle boelies is nie. Ook kinders sal met oortuiging vertel dat hulle nie sal droom om ander te boelie nie. Hulle deel selfs, sê hulle, die afsku aan boeliery.

Maar wat hulle nie besef nie, is dat hulle op sekere maniere optree wat niks anders as ‘n geboelie is nie. Hierdie artikel wys die probleem helder uit. Kinders sal vir mekaar vertel: jy gooi al weer drama. En daarin kan ‘n geboeliery weggesteek wees.

‘n Pa wat vir sy kind vertel: Staan tog jou man. Moenie ‘n swakkeling wees nie, kan in werklikheid niks anders as ‘n boelie wees nie. Hy help nie die kind nie, maar verkneg hom aan ‘n situasie waarin hy reeds aan die verloorkant is. 'n Mens wonder amper: is so 'n pa, sonder dat hy self weet, ook besig om sy kind te boelie? Daarom is dit so belangrik dat ouers baie versigtig moet oplet hoe hulle hul kinders begelei as die kinders geboelie word. Kinders is juis daarom baie versigtig om te gaan sê dat hulle geboelie word. Hulle wil nie as swakkelinge of as slagoffers beskou word nie.

Ek sou graag wou sien dat ‘n mens meer nadink oor vorme van geboelie. Waar sien ‘n mens dit oral raak? En dan, in die lyn van die artikel hier onder: Hoe fyn word ‘n geboelie weggesteek deur daaraan “goeie” name te gee.

Byvoorbeeld: wanneer sou “tug” niks anders wees as ‘n geboelie nie? Dit was nie verniet dat die kerk deur die eeue beklemtoon het dat die tug 'n liefdeshandeling moet wees en nie 'n harde strafmaatreël nie.

Nietemin, hier is die artikel – werd om versigtig gelees te word:

Bullying as True Drama

By DANAH BOYD and ALICE MARWICK

Published: September 22, 2011

THE suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, the 14-year-old boy from western New York who killed himself last Sunday after being tormented by his classmates for being gay, is appalling. His story is a classic case of bullying: he was aggressively and repeatedly victimized. Horrific episodes like this have sparked conversations about cyberbullying and created immense pressure on regulators and educators to do something, anything, to make it stop. Yet in the rush to find a solution, adults are failing to recognize how their conversations about bullying are often misaligned with youth narratives. Adults need to start paying attention to the language of youth if they want antibullying interventions to succeed.

Jamey recognized that he was being bullied and asked explicitly for help, but this is not always the case. Many teenagers who are bullied can’t emotionally afford to identify as victims, and young people who bully others rarely see themselves as perpetrators. For a teenager to recognize herself or himself in the adult language of bullying carries social and psychological costs. It requires acknowledging oneself as either powerless or abusive.

In our research over a number of years, we have interviewed and observed teenagers across the United States. Given the public interest in cyberbullying, we asked young people about it, only to be continually rebuffed. Teenagers repeatedly told us that bullying was something that happened only in elementary or middle school. “There’s no bullying at this school” was a regular refrain.

This didn’t mesh with our observations, so we struggled to understand the disconnect. While teenagers denounced bullying, they — especially girls — would describe a host of interpersonal conflicts playing out in their lives as “drama.”

At first, we thought drama was simply an umbrella term, referring to varying forms of bullying, joking around, minor skirmishes between friends, breakups and makeups, and gossip. We thought teenagers viewed bullying as a form of drama. But we realized the two are quite distinct. Drama was not a show for us, but rather a protective mechanism for them.

Teenagers say drama when they want to diminish the importance of something. 

Repeatedly, teenagers would refer to something as “just stupid drama,” “something girls do,” or “so high school.” We learned that drama can be fun and entertaining; it can be serious or totally ridiculous; it can be a way to get attention or feel validated. But mostly we learned that young people use the term drama because it is empowering.

Dismissing a conflict that’s really hurting their feelings as drama lets teenagers demonstrate that they don’t care about such petty concerns. They can save face while feeling superior to those tormenting them by dismissing them as desperate for attention. Or, if they’re the instigators, the word drama lets teenagers feel that they’re participating in something innocuous or even funny, rather than having to admit that they’ve hurt someone’s feelings. Drama allows them to distance themselves from painful situations.

Adults want to help teenagers recognize the hurt that is taking place, which often means owning up to victimhood. But this can have serious consequences. To recognize oneself as a victim — or perpetrator — requires serious emotional, psychological and social support, an infrastructure unavailable to many teenagers. And when teenagers like Jamey do ask for help, they’re often let down. Not only are many adults ill-equipped to help teenagers do the psychological work necessary, but teenagers’ social position often requires them to continue facing the same social scene day after day.

Like Jamey, there are young people who identify as victims of bullying. But many youths engaged in practices that adults label bullying do not name them as such. Teenagers want to see themselves as in control of their own lives; their reputations are important. Admitting that they’re being bullied, or worse, that they are bullies, slots them into a narrative that’s disempowering and makes them feel weak and childish.

Antibullying efforts cannot be successful if they make teenagers feel victimized without providing them the support to go from a position of victimization to one of empowerment. When teenagers acknowledge that they’re being bullied, adults need to provide programs similar to those that help victims of abuse. And they must recognize that emotional recovery is a long and difficult process.

But if the goal is to intervene at the moment of victimization, the focus should be to work within teenagers’ cultural frame, encourage empathy and help young people understand when and where drama has serious consequences. Interventions must focus on positive concepts like healthy relationships and digital citizenship rather than starting with the negative framing of bullying. The key is to help young people feel independently strong, confident and capable without first requiring them to see themselves as either an oppressed person or an oppressor.

Danah Boyd is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and a research assistant professor at New York University. Alice Marwick is a postdoctoral researcher at Microsoft Research and a research affiliate at Harvard University.