Introduction
The practice of bullying has probably been a part of human culture since its very origins. It is a problem that affects not only the victims but also the organization within which it occurs and the wider community. (Cooper & White, 2004, p. 55) Monks & Coyone suggest that the practice of bullying is not limited to schools but can also occur within many different social contexts and in a variety of relationships such as families, dating relationships, prisons, the workplace and more recently in the cyberspace (2011, p. 1-2) While bullying has long been recognized as an issue that warrants concern and action, empirical research on the topic only began in earnest in the late 1970s in the Netherlands. During the ensuing three decades researchers have assessed and identified multiple theories rooted in areas such as biology, socio-economic conditions and developmental issues that might give a reasonable explanation for bullying. (Kuykendall, 2012, p. 73) The idea is not only to understand the practice but also prevent its occurrence. The purpose of this paper is an effort in furthering research in the area of the causes of bullying and makes use of conflict theory to explain the practice of bullying.
Research background
Bullying
As mentioned earlier, studies in the practise of bullying began in 1970s in the Netherlands. Hence, the phenomenon was initially known by the Norwegian term ‘mobbing’. As the name suggests, the terms referred to an attack that starts and stops immediately and is by a group against an individual deviating from what is considered ‘normal’. The term ‘bullying’ came into existence in 1978 when it was used to describe the phenomenon in a school setting where physical or mental aggression was used by one or more children against a peer. Mishna, 2012, p. 4-5) Researches have disagreed on the exactly definition of bullying, especially to differentiate it from issues like harassment and abuse. However, there is some consensus about certain elements of the definition, specifically that bullying is essentially a form of aggression both direct and indirect, and includes physical, verbal, psychological and relational acts. Further, the act of bullying is repeated over time. It is intentional and is seen in settings where there is a power imbalance. (Mishna, 2012, p. 5)
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Bullying And How The Conflict Theory Could Explain This Practice".
Systematic research into bullying in many of the different context discussed above is relatively new, some of them merging only in the 1990s. Event the research into school-age bullying began in the 1970s, though the research has been both immense and intense in this particular context. It is important that the research in this area continues at its present phase and also includes for newer forms of bullying such as cyber bullying. (Monks & Coyone, 2011, p. 2011) As discussed earlier, the practice of bullying has been assessed from several different perspectives biological, psychological, and socio-economic conditions. One such theory to explain the practice of bullying in different social settings is the conflict theory
Conflict Theory
According to Quigg, conflict theory argues that society is not about solidarity of social consensus as suggested by interactional and functional theories. According to conflict theory, society is about competition and members of the society are in constant conflict over resources. As such inequalities based on one’s position in the social system exist in all social setting, even in schools giving rise to situations of potential conflicts. (2011, p. 24)
Researchers Hoel, Rayner and Cooper (1999, p. 221) were the first to view bullying as conflict and severe bullying as destructive conflicts going beyond the point of no return. In the same tone, Zapf and Gross (2001, p. 499) has described bullying as series of long-lasting and badly managed conflicts. Taking the description one step-further, Einarsen (1999) used conflict theory to divide bullying into two types – predatory, where no prior conflict or provocation is prevalent; and dispute related, where bullying arises from a conflict between two groups one more dominant than the other.
It has also been argued that in all the achievement of children in schools is not always based on merit. Further the presence of powerful, dominant groups create an unfair competition space where everyone is aware of the need to succeed and in consequence prove their importance over others. This naturally gives rise to conflicts. (Ballantine & Spade, 2008, p. 13-14)
Research thesis statement
As discussed, most of the research conducted in the area of bullying is in the school and workplace settings. It has emerged that the practice of bullying is prevalent in other settings such as families, dating relationships, prisons, and the cyber space. The purpose of the present research is to assess whether bullying in all contexts can be explained by conflict theory satisfactorily in all these contexts.
- Ballantine, J.H., Spade, J.Z., (2008), Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education, 3rd edition, London: Pine Forge Press
- Cooper, K., White, R.E., (2004), Burning Issues: Foundations of Education, Oxford: R&L Education
- Einarsen, S., (1999), The Nature and Causes of Bullying at Work, International Journal of Manpower: International Manpower Forecasting, Planning and Labour Economics, 20 (12), p. 16-27
- Hoel, H., Rayner, C., Cooper, C., (1999), Workplace Bullying, International Review of Industrial Organizational Psychology, 14, p. 195-229
- Kuykendall, S., (2012), Health and Medical Issues Today: Bullying, California: ABC-CLIO
- Mishna, F., (2012), Bullying: A Guide to Research, Intervention, and Prevention, Oxford: Oxford University Press
- Monks, C.P, Coyone, I., (2011), Bullying in Different Contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Quigg, A.M., (2011), Bullying in the Arts: Vocation, Exploitation and Abuse of Power, Surrey: Gower Publishing Ltd.
- Zapf, D., Gross, C., (2001), Conflict Escalation and Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and Extension, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), p. 497-522
