I am still concerned with complex ideas and simple minds so forgive me for revisiting this topic so soon.

Friday, December 16, 2011 is anti-bullying day in Canada. I am not in favour of bullying but then, I doubt that anyone is.

According to Bullying Canada one of the four most common forms of bullying is verbal. It is characterized as: name-calling, sarcasm, teasing, spreading rumours, etc. Unpleasant behaviours to be sure, but they sound much like the elements of a political campaign.

Surely name calling and teasing are always wrong. It seems simple until I remember that my brother always called me names – some quite inventive (and yes it annoyed me). I tease my friends. Teasing is sometimes a gentle way of correcting behaviour. Close groups, families and friends, often use teasing as a verbal-shorthand to shape group norms.

I do not want to diminish the good intentions of Bullying Canada. It is very difficult to criticize anyone or any group who wants to improve the lives of children.

But it is complex. Young children must learn about personal strength, sharing and empathy. As part of that process they are quite physical with each other. I hesitate to differentiate between exploring the world in a physical way and bullying behaviour. I agree that there is room for intervention and guidance but how much, how soon and how intense are difficult to determine.

As children get older some adopt bullying behaviour as part of their coping mechanism. There is evidence that some successful business people use bullying tactics to move agendas. The difference between tough and bullying is sometimes one of perception. And to make things more complex we know that sometimes the bully has a very difficult back story.

When we talk about bullying we illustrate using horror stories of torment leading to death and despair. But that is at one extreme. At the other are tears that quickly dry and lessons in how to cope and adjust. But groups that are against bullying make no distinction. Why? Because at the extremes it is easy but in the muddy middle it is difficult. The muddy middle is hard work.

We can stop an instance of bullying. But we cannot stop bullying. We can be aware of the issues. We can educate parents and teachers and even children.  I am not in favour of bullying. And I am not opposed to those who try to reduce the worst impact of this behaviour.

But when organizations are formed they create a dynamic that requires action. At the start, compiling and filtering information and then sharing with likeminded people serves a purpose. Organizations can raise awareness, influence changes and encourage discussion. The danger starts when conflicting information is discarded or ignored. The danger increases when –  in a desire to increase the sphere of influence – an organization manipulates messages to create a sense of crisis. This attracts dollars and energy to the cause but can have unintended consequences. The danger manifests in simple solutions to complex problems.

Zero tolerance policies are simple and unambiguous. They usually read along the lines of: “[insert school name] has zero tolerance for bullying. Students who bully will be suspended.”

Good luck with that.

A day dedicated to anti-bullying only serves the organization. Bullying is complex. It does no good to be against it. Instead, seek solutions to the underlying and resulting problems and spend your time and money there. Teach tolerance and acceptance. Acknowledge and explain differences rather than pretending that everyone is the same.

This discussion uses Bullying Canada as an example of the inherent difficulties of dealing with complex problems. I could have easily, and might yet, talk about MADD or other groups who stand against social ills. I feel compelled to say again – I am not pro-bully. But then who is?