A Place to Stand: Intersubjectivity and the Desire to Dominate

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Research indicates that upwards of 80% of our students experience the devastation of bullying during their school years. To date, research on bullying has mainly employed empirical methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches. This research has largely concluded that bullying is situated in a lack of skill, understanding, or self-control and involves intentional action directed toward status dominance. Based upon these assumptions current anti-bullying strategies focus on training students toward more appropriate avenues of status acquisition and social interaction. Against the backdrop of an actual bullying encounter this paper employs a psychoanalytic philosophical lens to offer a fresh perspective on this enduring educational issue. Employing the philosophical work of Adam Phillips, Jessica Benjamin, and Emmanuel Ghent I ask the question: What is the desire to bully a desire for? Here I consider what is sought and what is at stake in the typical bullying encounter. Through careful analysis I argue that the domination represented in bullying is not simply situated in a lack of social skills or in disregulated aggression––skill deficiencies that require training. Instead, or perhaps in addition to these possibilities, I contend that bullying is foundationally a move toward establishing identity, a self. On this view bullying becomes an activity of self construction through attempted omnipotence. I argue that the status dominance inherent in bullying should be seen not as an end (a tool to secure resources or privilege), but as a means to something more foundational. I conclude that status dominance becomes a means toward the end of providing a secure place for the self to stand. Hence, instead of advocating that we train students to get along better this paper outlines the futility, as well as the insatiability of bullying, opening up new territory focused upon a re-construction of the bully through the relational bonding and differentiation available in the concrete Other.

Keywords

School bullying Self-construction Domination Preferred self Status Intersubjectivity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis feminism, and the problem of domination. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  2. Espelage D. L., Swearer S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.Google Scholar
  3. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Ghent, E. (1990). Masochism, submission, surrender. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26, 108–136.Google Scholar
  6. Girard, R. (1978). Things hidden since the foundation of the world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying prevention handbook: A guide for principals teachers, and counselors. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.Google Scholar
  9. Horne, A. M., Orpinas, P., Newman-Carlson, D., & Bartolomucci, C. L. (2004). Elementary school bully busters program: Understanding why children bully and what to do about it. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S., et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kazdin, A. E., Esveldt-Dawson, K., French, N. H., & Unis, A. S. (1987). Problem-solving skills training and relationship therapy in the treatments of antisocial child behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. McNay, L. (1992). Foucault and feminism: Power gender and the self. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ollendick, T. H., & Hersen, M. (1979). Social skills training for juvenile delinquents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ollendick, T. H., & Winett, R. A. (1984). Primary prevention of child behavior problems. In P. H. Bornstein & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Handbook of clinical behavior therapy with children (pp. 805–832). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  16. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying and victimization in middle school: A dominance relations perspective. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary to secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2004). Part of the solution and part of the problem: The role of peers in bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Phillips, A. (2002). Equals. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Rigby, K. (1997). Manual for the peer relations questionnaire (PRQ). Point Lonsdale, VIC: The Professional Reading Guide.Google Scholar
  22. Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, P. K., Sutton, J., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Socially undesirable need not be incompetent: A response to Crick and Dodge. Social Development, 8, 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sutton, J., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying as a group process: An adaptation of the participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swearer, S. M., Grills, A. E., Haye, K. M., & Cary, P. T. (2004). Internalizing problems in students involved in bullying and victimization: Implications for intervention. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Warff, J. (2007). Bernard of Clairvaux and Rene Girard on desire and envy. Cistercian Studies Quarterly, 42, 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationNorthwest UniversityKirklandUSA

Personalised recommendations