The article has a rather convoluted definition of 'bullying':
> "Bullying, a form of peer victimisation, can take place between children, between adolescents or between adults. It is not bullying when a parent or a teacher is abusive towards a child. While the terms peer victimisation and bullying are often used interchangeably, peer victimisation is not equivalent to bullying. For example, it is not bullying when two people of about the same strength quarrel or fight, but it is peer victimisation. An especially important feature of bullying is the power imbalance between those who perpetrate bullying behaviours and their victims..."
The notion that parental or teacher abuse can't be called bullying is nonsensical, as it produces the same kind of behavior in children (fearful, submissive, avoidance, etc.). The general psychological concept is 'operant conditioning', essentially brainwashing by authority figures enforced by violence, humiliation, and so on. It's a key feature of all authoritarian systems. There's little doubt that schoolyard bullies are merely aping the behavior of adult authoritarian figures:
The best literature on bullying (and also a criticism of the British school system) IMO is "Lord of the Flies" (William Golding, 1954). Note it was not a critique of so-called 'human nature' in general but of a particular societal construct.
> "Virginia Woolf drew a very clear line between the brutalisation of little boys in a loveless environment and their assumption as adults into the brutal institutions of colonialism. It’s long been clear to many that the UK is ruled by many people who think their damage is a strength, and who seek to perpetuate it."
People are often reluctant to discuss this, because it exposes the fact that "free Western democracies" employ these authoritarian tactics (perhaps with heavier emphasis on psychological control vs. physical control) just as often as communist or theocratic states do.
> "Bullying, a form of peer victimisation, can take place between children, between adolescents or between adults. It is not bullying when a parent or a teacher is abusive towards a child. While the terms peer victimisation and bullying are often used interchangeably, peer victimisation is not equivalent to bullying. For example, it is not bullying when two people of about the same strength quarrel or fight, but it is peer victimisation. An especially important feature of bullying is the power imbalance between those who perpetrate bullying behaviours and their victims..."
The notion that parental or teacher abuse can't be called bullying is nonsensical, as it produces the same kind of behavior in children (fearful, submissive, avoidance, etc.). The general psychological concept is 'operant conditioning', essentially brainwashing by authority figures enforced by violence, humiliation, and so on. It's a key feature of all authoritarian systems. There's little doubt that schoolyard bullies are merely aping the behavior of adult authoritarian figures:
https://www.thoughtco.com/operant-conditioning-definition-ex...
The best literature on bullying (and also a criticism of the British school system) IMO is "Lord of the Flies" (William Golding, 1954). Note it was not a critique of so-called 'human nature' in general but of a particular societal construct.
https://crookedtimber.org/2019/11/07/englands-ruling-patholo...
> "Virginia Woolf drew a very clear line between the brutalisation of little boys in a loveless environment and their assumption as adults into the brutal institutions of colonialism. It’s long been clear to many that the UK is ruled by many people who think their damage is a strength, and who seek to perpetuate it."
People are often reluctant to discuss this, because it exposes the fact that "free Western democracies" employ these authoritarian tactics (perhaps with heavier emphasis on psychological control vs. physical control) just as often as communist or theocratic states do.