Bullying is intentional, sustained physical or psychological mistreatment carried out asymmetrically between schoolchildren. It appears in 10 case files in this archive, almost always at a villain's origin rather than in their adult conduct, and it is the most misused term in this glossary: it has become the word for anything unpleasant that happens at a school.
A conflict between equals
The operative definition set out by Dan Olweus requires three simultaneous conditions, and the third is the one almost always forgotten. Intent: the harm is sought, not an accident or a misunderstanding. Repetition: not an isolated episode but a pattern sustained over time. And a power imbalance: the victim cannot defend themselves effectively, because the aggressor has more strength, more status, more allies or more information. If the imbalance is missing, what exists is a conflict between equals —unpleasant, perhaps violent, but symmetrical— and it is resolved differently: mediation between parties of comparable capacity. Treating a conflict as bullying makes an official aggressor out of a child who is not one; treating bullying as a conflict sits the victim down to negotiate with whoever dominates them. Both confusions do harm, in opposite directions.
// In the archiveAlmost always in chapter one
What stands out on seeing these case files together is where bullying appears: it almost never describes what the villain does, but what was done to them. It is origin material, which is why it connects to general strain theory —sustained noxious stimuli generating anger with no legitimate outlet— and to labelling. The other side shows up too: the school bully as a character in his own right, whom fiction usually explains with a broken home behind him. Both readings are in the literature, and neither works as an alibi.
Where it appears in the archive
10 case files, grouped by the theory each one is analysed with.
// The crackBullying explains the anger, not the choice of victim
Here is the most important crack in this whole glossary, because the story "he was bullied and that is why he became a monster" is comfortable and false in its strong form. The vast majority of those who suffer school bullying do not go on to offend: the association exists in the data but is modest, and is mediated by other things —family support, mental health, whether anyone intervened—. Having been harmed explains the presence of anger; it does not explain who gets chosen to receive it, and that is where responsibility lives. Using bullying as a total explanation also does collateral damage: it suggests to the millions who suffered it that they carry something dangerous inside, which is not true. To explain is not to excuse, and it is not to predict either.
Three key ideas
- Bullying requires three conditions at once, on Olweus's definition: intent, repetition and a power imbalance. Without the third it is a conflict between equals, and it is resolved differently.
- The two confusions harm in opposite directions: treating a conflict as bullying makes an aggressor of someone who is not one; treating bullying as a conflict sits the victim down to negotiate with whoever dominates them.
- In this archive bullying is almost always at the villain's origin, not in their conduct. But most who suffer it do not offend: it explains the presence of anger, not the choice of victim, which is where responsibility lives.
Sources · further reading
- Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Blackwell.
- Ttofi, M. M. & Farrington, D. P. (2011). "Effectiveness of School-Based Programs to Reduce Bullying". Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27-56.
- Agnew, R. (1992). "Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency". Criminology, 30(1), 47-88.
Theory questionsFrequently asked questions
What exactly is bullying?
Intentional, sustained physical or psychological mistreatment carried out asymmetrically between schoolchildren. Olweus's definition requires three simultaneous conditions: intent to harm, repetition over time, and a power imbalance that prevents the victim from defending themselves effectively.
What is the difference between bullying and a conflict between classmates?
The power imbalance. If both parties have comparable capacity to defend themselves, what exists is a conflict —it may be unpleasant and even violent, but it is symmetrical— and it is addressed through mediation. Without asymmetry it is not bullying, however much harm there is.
Does being bullied turn someone into an offender?
No. The association appears in the data but is modest and mediated by other factors: family support, mental health, whether anyone intervened. The vast majority of those who suffer school bullying do not go on to offend. It explains the presence of anger, not the decision to harm someone else.
Why is it dangerous to use bullying to explain a villain?
Because it explains the anger but not the choice of victim, which is where responsibility lives. And it does collateral damage: it suggests to the millions who suffered it that they carry something dangerous inside, which is false. To explain is not to excuse, and it is not to predict either.