All the talk of bullying vindicates a central insight of Marxism - that people have developed mechanisms, maybe inadvertently, which prevent them from seeing the reality of inequality*.
Take this from the Times:
However, this answer is missing from the pop talk of bullying. Instead of attributing bullying to inequalities in power, it’s blamed upon personal traits. This is exacerbated by what Frank Furedi called “therapy culture” - the tendency to regard increasing numbers of behaviours as the result of (perhaps mythic) personality disorders.
What we have here, then, is an example of how ideology** - the fundamental attribution error - distracts us from the realities of unequal power relationships.
This has a pernicious effect. It leads us to regard bullying not as an intrinsic aspect of class relationships, but rather as an accidental by-product which could be eliminated by better therapies or human resources policies. In this way, we fail to appreciate the true costs of hierarchies - that they contain inherent tendencies to being dehumanizing and demoralizing.
* I do not use the word “capitalism” here, because bullying exists not just in private firms, but in the public sector and non-profits too. And, of course, it was a feature of feudal societies. The key thing is inequalities of power, and real rather than merely formal legal power; it's possible, of course, for groups of people to bully individuals in situations (such as among schoolkids) where formal power is equal .
** “Cognitive biases” are just another word for “ideology.” It’s insufficiently appreciated that the cognitive biases research is a vindication of Marx’s theory of ideology.
Take this from the Times:
What makes a bully? [Cary] Cooper believes that the majority behave so because they themselves are overloaded with work and pressure…In many cases bullies suffer issues common to many — feelings of insecurity, inadequacy in their own abilities, and a lack of sensitivity.There is, though, another answer here which is unsaid. What makes a bully? Opportunity, that’s what. The overwhelming majority of cases of bullying arise from inequalities of power. It is bosses who bully underlings - rarely vice versa. Quite simply, as Phil says, class matters.
However, this answer is missing from the pop talk of bullying. Instead of attributing bullying to inequalities in power, it’s blamed upon personal traits. This is exacerbated by what Frank Furedi called “therapy culture” - the tendency to regard increasing numbers of behaviours as the result of (perhaps mythic) personality disorders.
What we have here, then, is an example of how ideology** - the fundamental attribution error - distracts us from the realities of unequal power relationships.
This has a pernicious effect. It leads us to regard bullying not as an intrinsic aspect of class relationships, but rather as an accidental by-product which could be eliminated by better therapies or human resources policies. In this way, we fail to appreciate the true costs of hierarchies - that they contain inherent tendencies to being dehumanizing and demoralizing.
* I do not use the word “capitalism” here, because bullying exists not just in private firms, but in the public sector and non-profits too. And, of course, it was a feature of feudal societies. The key thing is inequalities of power, and real rather than merely formal legal power; it's possible, of course, for groups of people to bully individuals in situations (such as among schoolkids) where formal power is equal .
** “Cognitive biases” are just another word for “ideology.” It’s insufficiently appreciated that the cognitive biases research is a vindication of Marx’s theory of ideology.
"“Cognitive biases” are just another word for “ideology.” It’s insufficiently appreciated that the cognitive biases research is a vindication of Marx’s theory of ideology. "
Got to love the delightfull deliberate provocation.
But I shan't rise to it today, as i've too much to do.
Posted by: Paul Sagar | February 23, 2010 at 01:58 PM
I don't think you can treat class and hierarchy as the same.
There is no class difference in a couple of managerial grades.
Posted by: alanm crisps | February 23, 2010 at 02:39 PM
"It’s insufficiently appreciated that the cognitive biases research is a vindication of Marx’s theory of ideology."
Write the book, please.
Posted by: Chris Williams | February 23, 2010 at 03:24 PM
But errr... some bosses aren't bullies. I agree with you on the therapy front, but the problem is that some people are just arseholes for whatever reason (they can change, but you can't medicalise the issue). Doesn't matter what environment you put them in either. They would be the sort of people who would mess up even a substantively egalitarian environment.
Some people just have remarkably little to contribute to a co-operative venture, regardless the of the structure on offer. Only a totalising social science theorist would try and find a 'cause' for every form of bad behaviour. Bad behaviour is just what you have when people lack the ability to co-operate on reasonable terms.
Posted by: Nick | February 23, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Nick - of course, not all bosses are bullies. My point is merely that having the power that comes from being a boss allows some people to indulge bullying instincts that would otherwise not be manifested, at least not outside the home.
Where there are inequalities of power, arseholes have more opportunity to do damage. A big task of the social sciences is to ask what social structures minimize arseholeness or even (and this is what markets often do)turn it to general advantage.
Posted by: chris | February 23, 2010 at 06:45 PM
But yes, because central to the concept of all ideology is that we can't ever know that we're "in" it (although the idea of the prison of ideology is attributable to Althusser rather than Marx, and I always thought that was far too close to Weber's iron cage to be considered wholly Marxist) and so ideology is insidious and infects us from the outset; and the idea of cognitive bias is that it's a bias that offsets our way of thinking from the very beginning of the process.
Ideology does that, and it's a trick of ideology - and one of cognitive biases - that makes us think we can be outside any particular moment, or outside any particular error. It's why you'll hear left wingers and right wingers throw charges at each other that they're all guilty of, but because they consider themselves to be above ideology, neither of them can see their own mistakes.
Ideology is the cognitive bias to end all, because if they're right about ideology then it underpins even the biases you're trying to avoid.
Posted by: chris c | February 24, 2010 at 02:49 AM
"Where there are inequalities of power, arseholes have more opportunity to do damage."
I don't think Nick was disagreeing with that claim. What he seemed to be disagreeing with was this:
"Instead of attributing bullying to inequalities in power, it's blamed upon personal traits."
What you've now just said in reply, undermines that statement. "Arsehole" is after all a "personal trait".
I doubt there's anyone, "pop talk" or not, who claims that you don't need "opportunity" to bully. That's a strawman. But you also need to be an arsehole. No arseholes, no bullies.
Posted by: Alex | February 24, 2010 at 03:27 AM
That's fine to understand the bully and all that, BUT STOP THE BULLIES. Let's not let innocent children and adults suffer at their hands while all the no death penalty like groups try to "understand" the bully's problems
Posted by: Sensei J. Richard Kirkham B.Sc. | February 24, 2010 at 06:10 AM
"There is no class difference in a couple of managerial grades."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Posted by: Tom Miller | February 24, 2010 at 03:50 PM
False causation Tom? But I don't get how that relates to my statement.
I am saying class and managerial grade are not necessarily related.
Posted by: alanm crisps | February 24, 2010 at 04:45 PM
I think the class/power relations described above encourage authoritarianism, or perhaps authoritarian people are more likely to become bosses. I see authoritarianism as keeping a whole workplace in a cowering state and bullying as singling out an individual. Can we say that bullying is a natural outcome of the class/power relations or just authoritarianism? If these distinctions are not accepted the question falls, but I think we do make that difference.
Posted by: Bialik | February 26, 2010 at 06:07 PM