[HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 43213

Cindy wrote:
> My guess is that the reason we don't label someone a bully the very 
> first time they victimize a weaker person is because of Real World 
> proof problems.  If there's a scuffle on the playground, perhaps you 
> can't easily be sure who is the perpetrator or even whether one 
> individual is necessarily weaker.  It takes a number of observations 
> to be sure that you're seeing bullying behavior and not something 
> else, perhaps.  Fair enough.

Well, no - or rather, not necessarily (-8

As I've said earlier, this is something I am involved in, and I'd like to address this 
'one bite of the apple' thing - only briefly, because if I go into too much detail, I will 
veer even more wildly away from canon than you feared (though I am happy to 
discuss this on OT-Chatter, if anyone wants to). Briefly though, just because some 
definitions of bullying (in the work I do, we don't use Olweus that much - we regard it 
primarily as a definition for academic discussion, rather than for practical use) don't 
regard something as bullying *unless* it has occurred multiple times, doesn't mean 
bullies get a free bite of the apple. To use Fred and George as an example, while 
the hissing of the Slytherin boy might not get them labelled as bullies, that doesn't 
mean it's be regarded as appropriate. Just because a single incident isn't labelled as 
bullying, doesn't mean it wouldn't be regarded as something that needed to be dealt 
with.

The reason behind viewing things in this way, behind making those distinctions, is 
that dealing with bullying is difficult, and many of the actions that are needed to deal 
with bullies, have the potential for significant negative impacts on the person they ar 
used with. They may be appropriate when dealing with a bully - but 
counterproductive and inappropriate when dealing with somebody who has 
committed only one offence. That doesn't mean they have to get away with it - it 
may still have to be dealt with - but it will probably be better dealt with differently.
  
Cindy:
> So then.  Here's my question:  In analyzing the text, is it really 
> possible to use Real World definitions of bullying that require the 
> observance of a *pattern* of bullying behavior?  Or, given that we 
> have no reason to question Harry's perceptions of the circumstances 
> of the alleged bullying behavior, should we dump the requirement 
> that bullying requires more than one occurrence?  Should we adjust 
> our definition of bullying to account for the point of view 
> limitations in the text, given that we are limited only to what 
> Harry is positioned to observe?

Well, not all definitions of bullying require a pattern to be observed - the one we use 
in my work doesn't for example - partly because of the point of view problem - 
teachers only have a limited POV as well, and if you require a pattern to be 
observed before you deal with it as bullying, clever bullies may never let you see 
enough.

The fact is, if I was viewing Fred and George as a casefile, and all I had knowledge 
of, were the incidents described in the books, I would classify them as bullies 
(probably with a note that that classification is based on limited information, and 
should be viewed as subject to change if more infomation became available - 
there's not enough there to say they are *definite* bullies, in my opinion, but it is 
likely.) They don't seem to be particularly bad cases (as I said earlier, they seem to 
fall into the 'non-malicious' category) but in many ways, you want to catch them 
*before* they become bad cases - because that can make it easier to deal with 
them, without needing to resort to draconian, make-or-break measures.

I'm not a PC type of person - I often upset people within the anti-bullying 
committees I work on, because I don't subscribe to the dominant politically correct 
views. What I am is someone who regards bullying in any form as a blight that 
needs to be removed from schools whenever possible. I don't expect the HP books 
to be PC - somebody in the thread seemed to me to link viewing Fred and George 
as bullies, to wanting a PC school - not the case at all, for me. I want the bullies 
there - if they don't exist in a school story, it a sign of unreality in my opinion. And I 
like the presence of bullies who aren't as obvious as most - the 
Flashman/Gripper/Draco type, the obvious ones - are everywhere, I think people 
need the subtle ones.

Bear in mind, also, that most modern definitions of bullying are part of ideas that 
regard bullies as people who need help (that doesn't make them innocent, it doesn't 
mean they don't deserve to face justice - hey, I believe bullies are the best 
argument for corporal punishment available), so labelling Fred and George as 
bullies under those definitions isn't necessarily a slam of who they are. A lot of 
people regard bullies as some form of pond-scum - and may be upset to see Fred 
and George labelled in that way. And some are (IMHO). But when using these 
modern definitions, it might help to realise they often aren't intended to be that 
severe.

JKR may not have intended Fred and George to appear as bullies - and certainly, 
my viewpoint on it could be wrong. But bullies or not, I like the fact that fairly minor 
characters *can* have that level of complexity - whether deliberate or because I 
read too much into it, it makes the books and the characters seem more real.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately |webpage: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       |email: drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in
common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter
the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen
to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who:
The Face of Evil | Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia