Ive been reading a lot of late about the differences between conflict and bullying. Everything Ive read has stated that one thing that needs to be present in a bullying situation is that there needs to be an imbalance of power. The problem is that every example that is used in each of these articles is an example of/scenario where an exceedingly simple and exceedingly conventional imbalance of power (smaller kid vs a larger, physically stronger kid, a person with obviously more social capital than another person, etc.) is present. In other words there are sweeping assumptions that are being made, at the outset, that are not always true nor always the case. There is no acknowledgement of unconventional, unexpected, counter intuitive imbalances of power nor of complex constructions of power. For example, in the smaller kid/larger kid scenario there could be multiple layers of power present that are complex. Each of these needs to looked at and reviewed and weighed carefully because it could be a situation where the smaller kid has other levels and degrees of power that actually collectively outweigh the simple fact that he/she is simply physically smaller than the bigger kid. And again with the social capitol example, the same could be true. One person could have more social capitol and therefore more power, in one sense. However, the other person could have all kinds of other forms of power, some of them extremely subtle or not culturally understood though nonetheless very real that clearly trumps, when carefully examined, the other persons social capitol. It is very clear to me that, at least based on the scholarship I have been exposed to in this exercise of mine, there is a huge amount of work that still needs to be done is teasing out the whole concept of power differentials.
Posted on: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:20:11 +0000