Social Deviance: Bullying - Research Paper Example

 Social Deviance Research: Bullying Introduction Contemporary societies have encountered diverse challenges through external factors that impinge on individuals, groups and social structures. Despite being immensely acquired theoretical frameworks and studies which aimed to solve problems of society, some intricately entrenched social dilemmas prevail. Most of these problems stem from factors that contribute to social deviance. Adler and Adler (2012) had defined deviance as “behavior that violates the norms” (p. 33). As such, in a traditional social setting, the norm is considered behavior that is expected to abide by moral, ethical, and legal standards. The social deviance issue one intends to pursue in greater depth is bullying. Bullying is defined as “as a systematic abuse of power (Rigby, 2002), and more specifically as intentional aggressive behaviour that is repeated against a victim who cannot readily defend him- or herself (Olweus, 1999)” (Smith, 2004, p. 98). As such, it clearly manifests a violation of normal behavior through asserting intentional violence on hapless victims. There are two sociological theories which could be used in analyzing bullying, such as: social structure theory and the differential association theory (Adler & Adler, 2012). These would be used to identify the factors that lead to perpetuators to engage in aggressive and violent behavior. In this regard, the current research aims to present, summarize, and analyze bullying from the perspectives of social theories and determine the manner which current policies and interventions are designed to control and punish this social deviant behavior. Likewise, in addition to presenting a brief historical overview of bullying, some proposed policy changes would also be expounded in terms of recommending more effective approaches to ultimately minimize or even potentially prevent bullying. A concluding portion would highlight the main points which were discussed; as well as present current and future implications of the current research. Historical Overview of Bullying The history of bullying was identified by Donegan (2012) to have originated from as early as the 1530s when the word ‘bully’ had allegedly started to evolve. As disclosed, its emergence stemmed from the survival instincts of man; which apparently prompted to react, respond, and ward off competitive forces. Concurrently, within an academic environment, Donegan (2012) asserted that “students often learn corrupt ways to get ahead in the highly competitive educational and social environments that grade school presents. These bullying tactics may include pressuring others for answers on assignments to attain higher grades, which leads toward better college opportunities, or spreading social rumors about fellow students” (p. 34). The issue is important to sociology of deviance because despite the evident harm inflicted on victims, proposed interventions which aim to prevent bullying have apparently failed even in contemporary times. In fact, the latest statistics show alarming rates and patterns in bullying, such as: “(1) 1 out of 4 kids are bullied; (2) 77% of students are bullied mentally, verbally, & physically. Cyberbullying statistics are rapidly approaching similar numbers, with 43% experiencing cyberbullying; and (3) of the 77% of students that said they had been bullied, 14% of those who were bullied said they experienced severe (bad) reactions to the abuse” (Ambassadors 4 Kids Club, n.d., p. 1). In fact, as asserted by Donogan (2012), current technological advancements have proliferated bullying through the Internet and telecommunication gadgets and devices which includes the cellphone, personal computers, and smartphones. There had been alarming numbers of students being victimized through cyberbullying. Statistics revealed that “one million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year” [Eno13]. The more alarming information on current trends and statistics on bullying include the increasing number of deaths or suicides which have been linked to bullying [Bul13]. Therefore, urgent interventions need to be proposed to minimize these trends and ultimately find an effective solution to this social dilemma. Sociological Theories and Perspectives related to Bullying Bullying was extensively analyzed using sociological theories. One theory that was examined was the social structure theory. According to this theory, “people's places in the socioeconomic structure influence their chances of becoming a criminal. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes because they are unable to achieve monetary or social success in any other way” (Siegel: Abstract, 2000, par. 1). In applying this theory to bullying, as a social deviant behavior, social practitioners and scholars have examined the factors that make perpectuators more preponderant to this aggressive behavior. Studies conducted by Olweus (1980) reportedly revealed that significant factors from the family or caregiver provide increased tendencies for exhibiting this deviant behavior, to wit: “a primary caregiver’s (most often the mother) emotional attitude characterized by lack of warmth and involvement, the primary caregiver’s permissiveness toward the use of violence by the child (lack of clear limit setting), and the use of power-assertive parenting techniques such as physical punishment were associated with the development of an aggressive behavior pattern associated” [Dul06]. Conclusive evidence also provided information that included authoritarian parents; manifestations of poor relationships with parents; being subjected to forms of child abuse; and “bullies perceived their families to be less cohesive, less expressive, less organized, less socially oriented, to exert less control, and to have more conflict than other children” [Dul06]. These results have clearly established that social structures and relationships, especially among family members (parents, caregivers, and among siblings) influence and affect the tendencies to manifest aggressive behavior leading to bullying. If and when parents and caregivers who are expected to provide care, nurturing, guidance, and holistic support, fail to provide the needed discipline through the manifestation of expected behavior, the more that their untoward conduct are likewise emulated by children and accepted as norm or regular part of life. On the other hand, the differential association theory was described as “deviant behaviors are learned and that the principal part of that learning occurs within the context of intimate personal groups. It goes further to explain that deviant behavior will develop when the individual is exposed to an “excess of definitions” favorable to the deviant behavior, or, in other words, when the majority of norms to which an individual are exposed supports deviant behavior” [Dul06]. This theory could thereby explain the development of aggressive and deviant behavior through the practices and experiences being encountered and observed. Bullying have been noted to have continually exist in contemporary times without effective mechanisms that should prevent it. As emphasized by Dulli (2006), “adolescents who bond to deviant peers are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors than adolescents who do not bond to deviant peers, and this relationship is dominant over the relationship between the influences of the family or the school” (p. 17). Some teen-agers who were surveyed regarding cyberbullying, for instance, were reported to have witnessed the deviant behavior; but openly ignored or remained indifferent to it [Eno13]. Thus, when left unabated or unchecked, adolescents would continue to be exposed to this social dilemma without receiving any concrete assistance to help the victims, stop the perpetuators, or guide the observers in the process. Control and Punishment There is no doubt that society has acknowledged bullying as a continuing social deviant problem that needs to be urgently addressed. Control and puncihsment mechanisms need to be instituted at various social institutions, starting from the family, to the school, community, state, and federal levels to identify the causes and to design strategies that would address this. The current exacerbating problem that apparently make finding a definitive solution to bullying is the lack of information regarding laws which are enacted to stop this dilemma. As emphasized by Donegan (2012) in the attempt to find a solution for cyberbullying, for instance, ““25 percent of the school resource officers and over 40 percent of the traditional law enforcement officers did not know if their state had a law specific to cyberbullying” (Patchin, 2011). These statistics are alarming considering that the number of states without some kind of bullying or harassment specific law can be counted on one hand (HI,MI,MT,SD) and the number of states with cyberbullying specific laws are increasing” (p. 39). A good and effective approach to address bullying was noted to have been proposed by Olweus through the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program [Haz07]. The advantage of this program is that it is deemed applicable from various academic levels and for children whose ages range from 5 to 15 years old. Likewise, it was also noted to effectively deal with bullying “at the schoolwide, classroom, individual, and community levels” [Haz07]. In addition, the program provides guidelines for parents to implement and assume the most appropriate courses of action, if and when their child is being bullied or if the child is the identified perpetuator of this social deviant behavior. The perceived disadvantage of this program is the level of awareness that all identified levels are noted to have regarding its existence. As abovementioned, a problem in addressing bullying is the insufficient knowledge towards programs, policies, and prevention approaches that have been disseminated to the public or to the vulnerable population. Another approach to prevent bullying was disclosed to include a mixed methods approach which included information, integration in the course curriculum, student-centered programs and productions focusing on awarness and addressing bullying, focusing on preventive techniques, more effective punitive methods, and a closer evaluation of technological advancement applications that continue to perpetuate the social deviant behavior [Don12]. The advantage of a mixed methods approach is it caters to the distinct needs of the user (the school, the family or local community). Likewise, it takes into consideration various factors that need to be incorporated in addressing the dilemma; such as the familial background of the perpetuator and victims; as well as any social factors in the community which tend to contribute to the problem. In addition, the resoures, skills, and competencies of administrator in the academic and community level would be duly considered to effectively apply the needed preventive strategies; as well as the power and authoritative governance of promoting state agencies with regard to enforcing anti-bullying policies and programs, as needed. The only disadvantage noted for this approach is that it could be tedious and time consuming to identify the most effective intervention that would prevent any drastic or damaging impact of the bullying incidents that are to be reported. Finally, the most effective evidenced based practice to address bullying was identified as as following a multitiered behavioral framework [USDnd6]. As emphasized, this approach would exhibit the following advantages: “Using a comprehensive multitiered behavioral framework for making decisions on identifying, implementing, and evaluating effective evidence-based practices helps schools to: (a) organize evidence-based practices, including those that will be used to address bullying of students with disabilities; (b) support the use of evidence-based practices according to the practice guidelines; and (c) monitor the outcomes for students to determine the effectiveness of the evidence-based practices and need for any additional instruction and intervention” [USDnd6]. Like the previous proposed approach, this could be extremely challenging, tedious and time consuming considering the amount and extent of collaborative efforts between schools, the local community, and the state policy makers and practitioners; as well as the training of staff members to effecively address bullying incidents, on a case-to-case basis. Concurrently, the role and control of power are vested with the parents, school administrators, local community leaders; as well as state and federal legislators. It is therefore a quandary that until now, despite the magnanimity of studies and policies that aimed to prevent and address bullying, this social deviant behavior seems to have strengthened its foothold in social structures globally. Policy Recommendations There are a host of federal and state agencies that have been identified to work regarding preventing and addressing bullying including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through their official website StopBullying.gov; PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center through PACER.org/bullying/; the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS); FindYouthInfo.gov; and the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments which is reportedly funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Healthy Students, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) through its website Safesupportiveschools.ed.gov [USDnd6]. Despite the number of agencies asks to address the social deviant behavior, it is alarming to note that the problem still continues to exist in current times. One strongly believes that a more cohesive and collaborative strategy, in terms of unifying these divergent and disparate policies from the noted agencies would be required to send a more unified set of policies regarding prevention and addressing the dilemma. Even school administrators are encouraged to design a set of antibullying policies that are consisent with local, state, and federal laws. As such, the fact that there are so many laws and regulations which propose separate recommendations and guidelines could contribute to the ineffectiveness of designed policies. A unified federal antibullying policy proposed by the Department of Education should form the basic theoretical framework that must be the standard structural guideline for schools, local communities and state agencies that must be adhered and followed for consistency and clarity in implementation. Conclusion The current research has revealed relevant facets regarding bullying as a social deviant behavior. Since the problem had been traced to have transcended since the 1530s, or for almost five centuries, it remains a persistent social enigma that remains to be solved. The fact that the current statistics on bullying continues to exhibit increasing numbers of victims, as well as manifestations of the damaging effects to society, are clear indications that the current policies and programs for anti-bullying are virtually insufficient or ineffective. The current implications of the research findings include the realization that those in power and within roles of decision-making to address the problem: parents, caregivers, school teachers and administrators, community leaders, as well as state and federal policymakers, must be cognizant of the fact that their respective proposals for anti-bullying need to be re-assessed and re-designed according to the suggested proposal to unify their structural framework and guidelines. Likewise, empowering schools to design their respective policies using different guidelines could add to a confusing and superficial program. Thus, future research on this particular social deviant behavior could focus on identifying how divergent school anti-bullying policies are; as well as those proposed by different state and federal agencies to determine and pinpoint the potential cause of confusion or any conflicting guidelines that apparently lead to their ineffectiveness. Bullying is a serious social deviant behavior which was identified to have stemmed from the natural competitive nature of man and in the instinctive reaction for survival. With all the studies, proposals for preventions, suggested interventions and policies implemented for anti-bulling, this social dilemma still persists in contemporary societies, now on a global sphere. It is therefore high time to re-evaluate these policies for intervention to ensure that children would not be victimized in an already extremely harsh and challenging social environment. References Eno13: , (Enough Is Enough, 2013, p. 1), Bul13: , (Bullying Statistics, 2013), Dul06: , (Dulli, 2006, p. 7), Dul06: , (Dulli, 2006, p. 8), Dul06: , (Dulli, 2006, p. 13), Eno13: , (Enough Is Enough, 2013), Haz07: , (Hazelden Foundation, 2007), Haz07: , (Hazelden Foundation, 2007, p. 1), Don12: , (Donegan, 2012), USDnd6: , (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.), USDnd6: , (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., p. 2), USDnd6: , (U.S. Department of Education, n.d., pp. 6-7), Read More