Early on in my college education I remember taking my first psychology course. The focus was on child development, something I looked into further with a family friend who specializes in that area. We spoke about violence as it relates to punishment, I guess really we were speaking about what to do when a child does something 'bad'. After you get past the existential definitions of violence, badness, and whatever else, you get to a strange place. See, as a group we had varying backgrounds and memories. We spoke about bullies, about how our parents enforced their teachings, and how these types of experiences shaped us. What marked me was how clearly our studies reflected reality. The texts did not blatantly disagree with some level of violence in parenting or in response to bullying, but it paid a lot of time on the repercussions. When we are taught with violence the difference from wrong and right we develop associations. We learn that if we're going to take a cookie without asking, we should sneak that, that doing wrong is deserving of physical pain, and of course my favourite, that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. The fact is that when you're raising a small child you probably aren't going to convince them why eating a dozen cookies every day is bad for them. You snap them and they stop -- great. But all too often we respond by sneaking around to achieve what we desire. Worse, the actual reasoning for what's right and wrong only comes after years upon years of conditioning. People will believe, but not really understand [I]why[/I]. I see a few problems there.

Basically, I don't agree that violence is a great way to teach, because it develops too many ill-associations. The idea that power determines right and wrong and that those who defy this are reminded with physical pain seems very crude. As a young parent with experience with many other families, I really do believe that the best way to raise a child is with love -- that's it. Whether you spank or deny treats or favour a reward system, as long as your child knows they're safe and loved you'll probably do just fine. I choose to avoid violent behaviour, though, because it doesn't match who I am. Before my mother left our family, I remember being hit when I did wrong. I also remember my half-brother's father beating my mother before he was born when I'd come to visit. He beat her because she defied his idea of what she should and should do. The examples are very drastic, I admit, but the reasoning is too close in my mind. 

So that was parents-to-child, what about child-to-child? That's really tough, isn't it? For a long time I was down with kids settling their scores personally. My buddies and I used to box from our pre-teens until the middle of our high school experience. We enjoyed the rush, feeling like you were in Fight Club didn't hurt either. But some guys came into it because they needed something. When they took a hit they'd walk away very deeply frustrated, probably more with themselves than us. I saw the same mentality with the bullies. We had a few fights outside of the boxing break out, which I saw in this tribal-justice sort of way, but that changed when knives came into play. Weapons are equalizers, and in this country, we all seem to feel like the underdog. We lived in a pretty standard, tamed, white suburban area, yet we had youths coming away with serious wounds that should be avoidable. We assume civility and communication, [I]because[/I]. We don't really teach youth how to descalate or humanize themselves to the aggressor. As a visible member of our Queer community in high school I also received a lot of attention, good and bad. The 'fragile' among our ranks, chiefly the young, female minorities got the worst of the bullying. Our response came in a few ways. First, our group swelled to 75 members in a school of 2000. We were big enough to cause one to look over their shoulder, that's for certain. Second, we started trainings on how to handle perpetrators and invited figures with experience from local colleges to help give us these skills (Washington State University, Portland State University, for example). Finally, we approached our school's staff and did not just note the issue, but made it clear we would not stay quiet. For the most part, this worked for us.

My point here isn't to say that the threat of violence is a solution to bullying. We live in a time where the world may be large physically, but virtual mediums have made it a rather small thing. Relatively little effort is required to speak out for those being victimized. Even better, resources to help deal with these situations are at our fingertips. Now I agree that if someone seen as weak is being bullied for that reason, and in the fray they give the bully a hearty whack, I wouldn't see them as in the wrong. In the same way that someone might shoot a robber, crippling them for the rest of their life. The victim is still the victim, but it's really clear that there must be a better way. Just because the answer isn't easy, or isn't in our minds right now, that does not mean we should settle. The best way to end bullying is to find the roots of the problem and do what we can to create change. Answering with violence promises a pent up resentment and, in all likelihood, will reap violence in return. It isn't a wild thought today that whacking that bully could mean tomorrow the bully comes with a knife. There is no end to bullying if we answer the same way, because bullies are people and can arise in anyone, anywhere.