I've mentioned a number of times before the sociologist Randal Collins's excellent diagnosis of the inflation-of-bullying phenomenon, a key part of the New Infantilism that has gripped parts of academia and the culture at large. Like other cases of "concept inflation," the aim is a kind of Stevensonian "persuasive definition" in which the "inflaters" piggyback on the negative emotive valence of the original concept, but change the concept's referent as a way of weaponizing it for different purposes--in this case, for purposes of speech suppression (or making the speech too costly for the speaker by associating it with the negative valence of the original concept).
Recently, I was corresponding with a rather effete academic about this topic, and he pronounced the Collins analysis unconvincing, and pointed me to this analysis instead. The relevant bit reads as follows: "Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance." Tellingly, Mr. Effete Academic had to omit "among school aged children," since he wanted to inflate the concept to apply to me for criticizing the public speech and actions of (brace yourselves) adults who happen to be graduate students.
Of course, there can be "power imbalances" among adults, for example, when the bully and the bullied share the same workplace. It would be a massive inflation of the concept of "bullying," however, to apply it to cases where there is no shared vocational space, when people are simply speaking in the general, public sphere. And even if we thought the public sphere were a shared space in which bullying were a conceptual possibility, how are we to understand "unwanted, aggressive behavior"? Surely it can't be that criticizing someone's public essay counts as unwanted aggression, since most people would prefer not to be criticized. If public criticism is "aggressive behavior," then public discussion would come to an end. Pointing out in writing someone's hypocrisy, or their misrepresentation of their opponent, is simply not "aggressive behavior" that should be considered improper: it is essential to debate about matters of public interest and concern. The inflated misuse of the term "bullying" in a context like this is just another tactic of the New Infantilists for trying to shut down discussions they do not like.
Of course, in a Stevensonian spirit, there's another response to this persuasive redefinition, namely, to change the emotive valence of the concept. If the inflation of "bullying" proceeds apace, then soon we shall have to say, "Three cheers for bullying, a vital public service!"
Recent Comments