Yes, Virginia, There Really Are Bullies

Certain topics seem to wax and wane. Bullying is one. It has come around again, which is fine with me since it is a topic I care a lot about. But what I have noticed is that it is rare to come across a balanced handling of the issue. There are two extremes: those who see bullying where it is not, and those who refuse to see it where it is.

Let me explain. The first category consists of people who use the allegation of bullying to silence freedom of thought and expression. Another name for it is political correctness, and it consists of commandeering the means of discourse so as to mold the way people think. With this strategy, certain words or points of view become synonymous with hate so that the mere expression of them is seen as proof of guilt. Thus, if you disapprove of homosexuality it must follow that you hate homosexuals. There is no acknowledgement of the distinction between an opinion regarding a certain type of behavior and the people who engage in that behavior.

The second category consists of those who deny that there is such a thing as bullying or who broadly dismiss its significance. The attitude here may be that one who alleges bullying is a wimp or crybaby who just needs to buck up and learn how to handle the bully. Or it may even be said that people who level the charge of bullying are bullies themselves, falsely accusing as a means of attacking their opponents or avoiding a substantive discussion. I find this argument to be amusingly circular since it denies the reality of bullying by labeling those who allege bullying as bullies. Huh? With this argument also comes a different kind of political correctness wherein the very use of the word "bully" is pointed to as proof that whoever used the word ought not be taken seriously.

I think the truth of the matter is somewhere between these two extremes. In the same way that I believe there is such a thing as a hate crime, I think there is such a thing as a bully. But in the same way that the concept of "hate crime" can be misapplied and abused, so can the charge of bullying. A hate crime is a crime that is motivated purely out of animosity for a specific group. So if someone targets a black person because he or she is black, that is a crime motivated by hate. It does not follow that every time a black person is targeted it is necessarily a hate crime. Similarly, there are marks of bullying that, in isolation, may not mean bullying is happening. Bullies may call people names; it doesn't mean that everyone who gets called a name is being bullied. But the fact that some allege bullying where it has not occurred does not mean therefore that every charge of bullying is spurious.

I have met a few bullies in my day, both in my youth and in my adulthood. I have personally been the target of bullies, and I have seen people I love be bullied. I have researched the topic rather thoroughly and think I know a bully when I see one, especially if it is one I have known and watched for a very long time. Here, for those interested, is a list of behaviors that in my opinion are highly indicative of bullying behavior. The more these behaviors are repeated by the same person in a continuing, systematic way, the more likely it is that you have a bully on your hands.

Bullies . . .

. . . engage in serial name-calling. Sometimes the names may not be obvious insults but may masquerade as lighthearted nicknames or teasing. But the ongoing refusal to use a person's proper name and to replace it with a carefully selected nickname is a means of dehumanizing and objectifying the person whose name is not being used and of elevating the nickname user.

. .  . intentionally keep people off balance. They run hot and cold. Think of how an abusive husband treats a battered wife. Some days he makes her feel like dirt. Other days he showers her with affection and gifts. This is done to make her feel insecure and to maintain the abuser's position of power in determining the state of the relationship. This may happen in the workplace or in personal relationships, but the common denominator is that the relationship is always on the bully's terms and never on the other person's.

. . . run in gangs. If you're in the gang you are made to feel as though you are special, part of the bully's inner circle. To maintain that favored status, absolute loyalty is required. If you question the bully or do anything that he deems a threat to his power, you become the object of a whispering campaign whereby you are marked and marginalized and eventually thrust out of the inner circle. You are then one who must be avoided, and those who are still on the "inside" will be threatened and intimidated into not associating with you for fear that they, too, will be punished.

. . . like witnesses. Bullying can happen in private. But bullies thrive on an audience because it significantly enlarges the scope and effect of the bullying. The target of the bully feels embarrassed and ashamed; the bully's assistants feel empowered; and onlookers or bystanders are terrorized: "That's what will happen to me if I cross this person." So bullying often happens in public or in a situation that has been previously determined and set up to achieve the maximum levels of shock and awe.

. . . are great judges of character, and they will analyze yours to see how best you will serve their purpose. Will you be more useful as a target or as a member of the gang? A bully may test the waters by name-calling or making fun of others in your presence; if you tolerate the behavior, you have proven that you may serve well as an accomplice. Object to the behavior, and you may suddenly find that you have become a target.

. . . are often people who were bullied themselves. Formerly victims, they have decided that the best defense is a powerful offense. In the same way that victims of child abuse may themselves become abusers, victims of bullies may grow up to themselves become the bullies or, at the very least, to align themselves with the bully. Better to be on his side than to become the target. This strategy is not only psychologically unhealthy and morally wrong, but it usually has a limited period of success. One who lives by the bully usually ends up dying by the bully.

You can expect future posts. I have more to say on this topic.

Bullies

I think many people can relate to having been teased or made fun of as children. In my opinion that is not the same thing as being bullied. Bullying is a prolonged form of torment, either physical or mental, that can lead to serious and lasting repercussions in the one who is bullied. I spent about three years of my adolescence (ages 11-13) being regularly bullied by not just one but many people in the junior high I attended, and I have long realized as an adult that in many ways I am still suffering the consequences. That kind of treatment skews a person's perceptions, perverting how he sees himself, others, and the world.

But what I have only recently come to realize is that bullying is not just something that happens to children. It is also unfortunately all too common among adults. Two of the most common environments for adult bullying are cyberspace and workplaces. Yet even though the settings are different, the tactics are the same. Consider these passages on bullying from Wikipedia:

Of bullies and bully accomplices
Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. . . .

It is often suggested that bullying behavior has its origin in childhood. As a child who is inclined to act as a bully ages, his or her related behavior patterns will often also become more sophisticated. Schoolyard pranks and 'rough-housing' may develop into more subtle, yet equally effective adult-level activities such as administrative end-runs, well-planned and orchestrated attempts at character assassination, or other less obvious, yet equally forceful forms of coercion.

Of typical bystanders
Often bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion that he or she has the support of the majority present that instills the fear of 'speaking out' in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the 'bully mentality' is effectively challenged in any given group in its earlier stages, it often becomes an accepted norm within the group.

In such groups where the 'bully mentality' has been allowed to become a dominant factor in the group environment, a steady stream of injustices and abuses often becomes a regular and predictable group experience. Such a toxic environment often remains as the status-quo of the group for an extended period of time, until somehow the bullying-cycle should eventually come to an end. Bystanders to bullying activities are often unable to recognize the true cost that silence regarding the bullying activities has to both the individual and to the group. A certain inability to fully empathize is also usually present in the typical bystander, but to a lesser degree than in the bully. The reversal of a 'bully mentality' within a group is usually an effort which requires much time, energy, careful planning, coordination with others, and usually the undertaking of a certain 'risk'.

It is the general unwillingness of bystanders to expend these types of energies and to undertake these types of risks that bullies often rely upon in order to maintain their monopolies of power. Until or unless at least one individual who has at least some abilities to work with others, opts to expend whatever energies may be needed to reverse the 'bully mentality' of the group, the 'bully mentality' is often perpetuated within a group for months, years, or even decades.

As I read this I can't help but think about behaviors I have seen--and I'm talking from adults, not children--in online places like Facebook, blogs and email lists as well as in real life locations such as workplaces and churches. I know that opposition to bullying seems to have become the latest politically correct cause and I have seen the backlash against that in the argument that we all need to not take it so seriously because, after all, it's just bullying and those who get bullied should simply learn to buck up and deal with it. I disagree with that. I think bullying is a serious problem in our culture. It happens to people of all ages. It is not limited to those whom society has identified as marginalized by their ethnicity, socio-economic background or sexual preference. Sometimes it happens to people you would never expect, in places you would never imagine. And as long as the majority stand by silent, it will continue.

Rudolph and Bullying

Recently a new children's book came out entitled No More Bullies at the North Pole. You can read more about it here. It is a politically correct revision of the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer story (as it was told in the old television special) that is currently receiving a lot of well-deserved ridicule. If you do a web search for "Rudolph" and "bullying" you will find all kinds of stories on the topic, both pro and con.

I do not think that children's stories are appropriate vehicles for the advancing of political agendas, and the things that I have read about this updated Rudolph make me roll my eyes in exasperation. At the same time, I seem to have a different take on this story than many of my online friends. I have always been bothered by the unkindness and bullying that are a part of the old Rudolph television story, going all the way back to when I watched the program as a child. I remember being horrified at Rudolph's treatment at the hands (hooves?) not only of the other young reindeer but also of the reindeer flying instructor, of Santa, and even of his own father, Donner. After Rudolph is born and his nose first lights up, Donner expresses deep shame and embarrassment at his new offspring and quickly fashions a covering of mud that makes it hard for Rudolph to talk and breathe. When Santa visits and sees the nose, he chastises Donner for having such an offspring and applauds Donner's efforts to keep the nose a secret. And when Rudolph goes to school, the teacher is the one who leads the other young reindeer in ostracizing Rudolph. The grownups in Rudolph's life, who ought to be helping and supporting and protecting and defending him, set the example for how others should mistreat him. Even Santa!

In the articles I have read on this story it is usually pointed out that Rudolph overcomes his bullying and that is what makes it ultimately a positive story. But the fact is that none of those responsible for mistreating him have any second thoughts about their behavior until it becomes clear that Rudolph might be useful to them. Then they change. I'm not sure if that counts as true remorse.

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that people should not let their children watch Rudolph or that they should go out and buy the new, politically correct version. Maybe I am oversensitive because I was severely bullied as a child. But I think the old Rudolph includes a level of bullying behavior that is rather shocking for a children's story. Not just the other "children" but Rudolph's teacher, father, and even Santa (who is always the one who is supposed to make everything right in secular Christmas stories) are terribly cruel to him. No wonder the poor little dude ran away.

UPDATE: More discussion of this topic (including further opining by Yours Truly) here.

Just Putting This Here

Not too long ago I wrote a #neverTrump article that has yet to find a home. At this point I don't think it ever will unless that home is here. Apparently the market for such articles is saturated and the articles that are getting published seem not to be having any effect on the people for whom they are intended anyway. Sigh. I thought with the second election of President Obama I knew what it was to be discouraged about our country's future. I am now experiencing that on a whole new level.

Anyway, I don't think I can move on unless I go ahead and post this somewhere. But I totally I understand if you skip it.

A Bully Too Far

One of the most puzzling aspects of the Donald Trump phenomenon, at least to me, is the extent to which my opinion has diverged from that of people with whom I typically have a great deal in common. There are many in my friend and family circles who see him as I do, as a dangerously volatile individual lacking in the personal characteristics I seek in a President. But there are also those who take a different view, seeing in Trump someone who offers the hope they so desperately seek. These are smart, conservative, patriotic and God-fearing people who largely share my values and world view. How did we end up so far apart?

It's a question that many have tried to address, and certainly there is no single answer. A few months ago in The Federalist A.D.P. Efferson took a stab at it with an analysis based on crisis theory. Efferson likens Trump supporters to those who have reached such a profound level of desperation that they experience a kind of breakdown, acting in ways they might otherwise not. Yet I think I have reached that same point of desperation, and Trump makes me feel more, not less, desperate.

Another theory focuses on Trump’s supposed appeal to the “authoritarian personality.” But the definition of authoritarian as someone who values order, the upholding of tradition, good manners and respect for authority fits me, and I am frightened by, not attracted to, “authoritarian” candidate Trump. I think the definition of authoritarian utilized by these pieces is faulty, too closely equating it with conservative Christianity, and I agree with this piece in the Washington Post that suggests it is less authoritarianism than populism driving Trump.

Instead, the psychological explanation to which I find myself repeatedly returning (because it’s gotta be psychological, since it is most assuredly not logical for conservatives to be supporting Trump) is Laura Ingraham's identification of Trump as the anti-bully. Here is the gist of Ingraham's argument:

"But the truth is that most, if not all, of the folks supporting Trump don’t care who he offends, as long as he’s standing up for them. They feel like they’ve been bullied for years. For them, Trump is like the savior kid in the schoolyard who takes on the bully by popping him right in the eye. The kids who have been ridiculed or roughed up suddenly have a champion."

Ingraham goes on to enumerate some of the ways Americans have been bullied in recent years. She is spot on that Americans, especially those of my ilk, are increasingly frightened of and angry at the reach of big government and deeply troubled by our seeming inability to combat it via the system that is in place. Why, then, do some of my like-minded friends look at Trump with hope while others such as myself recoil in fear? I think one determiner of how people react to Trump could be the bully factor: an individual's past experience, or relative lack thereof, with bullies.

There was a time in my adolescence when I was regularly bullied by schoolmates. It wasn't just a few scattered instances of teasing. It was day in, day out systematic targeting for several years. That sort of thing does a number on a person, affecting the way he looks at others, and the world, for the rest of his life. Among other things, it can result in making one 1) more skeptical and less trusting of others, 2) more sensitized to the marks of a bullying personality, and, ironically, 3) more vulnerable to falling under the spell of a bully in a misguided effort to align oneself with the axis of power.

In addition to my childhood experience of being bullied, I have several times gotten tangled up with an adult bully. The bullying done by an adult is much more covert than that done by a child. Whereas a child will bully another child in a very obvious way via physical abuse or overt verbal attacks, adult bullies are sneaky, utilizing psychological games and passive-aggressive behaviors. Sometimes the one who is bullied may not even realize what is going on until the pattern is well established. Adult bullying goes hand-in-hand with narcissism, since adult bullies are those whose arrested development leads them to never get beyond looking at others as objects to be used for their purposes. We all essentially begin life as narcissists, seeing ourselves as the center of the universe and others as extensions of ourselves, but the healthy person grows beyond that, developing empathy and an awareness of the inherent worth and otherness of those around him. The narcissist never makes that leap.

Interestingly, in Megyn Kelly’s recent make-nice interview with Trump, The Donald himself brought up the topic of adult bullying but then dismissed it as something people just need to get over. It might seem surprising that the one at whom so many have leveled charges of bullying would raise the topic, but it is actually characteristic of narcissists to criticize others for the very behavior in which they are engaging. It’s an element of the technique known as gaslighting, by which an abuser keeps a victim constantly off-balance by employing a number of strategies to make the victim doubt his own perceptions and thinking process. (Trump’s facility with gaslighting has been highlighted by more than one observer.)

Today as I find myself faced with the choice of whether to once again put my trust in someone who has so many of the marks of a bully, I have sometimes wished I could ignore all the alarm bells ringing in my ears and join my friends who have already jumped on the Trump train. His paternal, “trust me and I’ll take care of it” approach is admittedly tempting. Yeah, he’s a bully, but he’s on my side. It would be so easy to just give in and quit worrying about everything and leave it all up to Papa Trump to fix. But I am always caught up short by the little voice inside me screaming with all of its might, “No. Stop. You have been there, done that, and you have gotten burned. You can’t count on the bigger bully to take care of it for you, because some day the bigger bully will take the power you gave him and use it against you.”

It is for this reason that as much as my present self might be attracted to the defender-hero Trump says he will be, my past self is not falling for it this time around. I have seen too many Trumps in my day. I have, I am ashamed to say, sometimes stood by silently while they have wreaked their havoc on others. As a result I have learned a few things. When it comes to bullies, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander. A bully is not in it for anyone but himself. His promises all come with an expiration date. You are either for him or against him, and if you question him in any way or give any indication that you are not 100 percent loyal to the “cause,” whatever it is, you are punished or summarily banished. Having been there, done that one time too many, I refuse to willingly open myself up to it again, and I refuse to be a party to the bullying of anyone else, in this case, the country I love. In the words of Huck Finn: "I can't stand it. I been there before."

Photo Credit. 

Perplexed

At the risk of being labeled "insensitive," I just have to say that I don't get this:

Day of Silence

The website says that the point of the observance is "to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in their schools."

Well, for several of my adolescent years I was the victim of extensive name-calling, bullying and harassment that had nothing to do with my being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (I am none of those things). Why wasn't there a Day of Silence back then for me and others like me? Why doesn't this Day of Silence focus on raising awareness of ALL kinds of bullying and condemning those who do it, whatever the reason (which in truth just boils down to sin, like all meanness)?

The answer is because at its core the Day of Silence is not about bullying but about promoting a political agenda in the same way that hate crime legislation is. I don't get that either. Sin is sin, evil is evil, and hatred is hatred, no matter the motivation. Why is it somehow inherently worse to harm someone because of his race, sexual identity or religion than it is to harm him just because you can?

Unbelievable

I just saw a segment on Fox News about the problem of kindergarten bullying. Yes, you read that right. We're talking about 5-year-olds. Instead of fighting over Legos, in many cases they are forming cliques for the purpose of ostracizing and tormenting selected individuals who don't dress the "right" way or possess the latest status symbols. Here's a recent New York Times article about the phenomenon.

But as disturbing as it is to hear about kindergarteners being so systematically cruel to their peers, that's not the part that I found unbelievable. Humans in their fallen, unredeemed state are nasty creatures. Hurting one another, unfortunately, is what we do. Children are no exception. So no great surprises there.

No, what I found mind-blowing was the mom who recounted her decision to let her 5-year-old daughter fight off the bullies herself so that she could learn "valuable" lessons about getting along with difficult people.

IS THAT MOM OFF HER ROCKER?

I was the target of bullies for most of my junior high years. When I was in sixth grade we moved to a rural area of Texas that was populated mostly by families that had lived there for generations. I was a buck-toothed, red-headed, fair-skinned, book-wormish outsider and that made me ripe for bullying. And it wasn't just the occasional, random comment. It was large groups of girls going out of their way to make my life miserable. I was called "bleached legs" and "rubber lips" (because of the way my protruding teeth made my lips look) and I don't know what else. I remember one particularly painful episode in home economics class when several girls in the class enacted my wedding day. They opined that instead of "Here Comes the Bride" the processional song would have to be "Here Come the Lips."

I don't know where the teacher was that day. It amazes me in retrospect how often it seems there was no teacher around.

I was 11 or 12 years old at the time, naturally shy, and the product of a family background that had already taught me the value of staying out of people's way. I was not able to defend myself against those girls, nor did I learn anything worthwhile about handling difficult people. What I learned was how to cocoon myself up into an even tighter little ball and put up a bunch more walls in an effort to keep from getting hurt again. Some of those walls are still there and I doubt they will ever come down.

But enough about me. I did not get the name of the mom on the Fox News program who was promoting letting 5-year-olds fight their own battles, but I searched online and found this recent column that sounds very similar to what I heard on television: "Sometimes It's OK to Let Your Kid Be Bullied." The author talks about not wanting to be "that" sort of mom: the one every teacher dreads because she is the ever-present "helicopter" hovering around, wanting to control and micro-manage every aspect of her child's life. Well, I've got news for you, lady: 5-year-olds need to micro-managed. They NEED their parents. No one else is going to look out for them the way we will. No one else cares that much. If we abandon them, they might as well be wandering alone in the forest, with a Big Bad Wolf hiding behind every tree.

The author of the "Sometimes It's OK" column says that when things finally got out of hand, she did step in. The verbal bullying finally turned into physical abuse on the next-to-last day of school. Nice going, Mom. But if you had done something sooner maybe your little girl wouldn't have had to go into her summer vacation with scratch marks.

Here's the deal. Children are little sinners. They are selfish and want their way. When you put several of them in a room together they are bound to have disputes. But a dispute between children who are on equal footing is one thing. The terrorizing of one who is weak by one (or more) who is more powerful, either physically or emotionally, is an altogether different thing. I don't care whether we're talking about children, or middle-aged men, or little old ladies. When the weak are being victimized, the strong are called to help. And when that happens, our children really do learn a valuable lesson.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

A Noble Task

I keep seeing this post getting shared on Facebook. Every time I do, I cringe anew. I have a very difficult time understanding how anyone could find it to be helpful.

The author begins by asking a few questions. I would like to answer them.

Would you go to the church on the corner knowing that the pastor is an ex-con? 

Yes. 

What about the congregation three streets over, where the pastor is prone to lying? 

No.

The pastor at the store-front church who’s always questioning the truth about what the Gospels say about Jesus? 

No. (Really? This needs to be said?)

What about bad language? If the new pastor has a potty-mouth, would you still regularly attend church? 

And risk my children hearing their pastor saying things for which they would be punished? Um, no.

What if he’s kind of a thug too? 

No, no, no.

Here's the deal. "Ex-con" means that the man has repented of his previous sinful lifestyle. We are all sinners, pastors included. Someone who has repented and been forgiven and now rejects the sinful behavior should not have it held over his head the rest of his life or be prevented from using his God-given gifts and talents to serve a suffering world.

The problem with the rest of the questions is that they indicate ongoing behavior. One who is "prone" to lying is one who does so habitually. One who is "always" questioning the truth about what the Gospels say has no business teaching those Gospels. Someone who "has a potty-mouth" (as opposed to occasionally slipping and saying a bad word) demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to attempt to moderate his habit of speech out of love for his flock. Someone who is (not was) a thug is one who repeatedly acts in thug-like ways, bullying people, lording over them, running his church like a mob boss.

So to answer the broader question, no. Assuming I had a choice, I wouldn't go to a church like that. Yes, we all sin. We all fail every day. By the grace of God we repent and are forgiven. Sometimes even then we fall into the very same sin again. Again we turn to our Lord and repent and again He forgives. But if we get to a place where we don't see the sin as sin or where we view ourselves as prisoners to sin, hopeless to ever stop it, constantly throwing ourselves on God's mercy again and again because He forgives again and again, we are to my thinking in a very dangerous place. "It's just the way I am. But God will forgive me."

Yes, He will. But at what point have we quit being truly sorry, telling ourselves before we even commit the sin, "I can do this because afterward God will forgive me"? It is extremely treacherous territory, and when it is institutionalized into the life of a congregation because that congregation's shepherd is constantly hiding behind the Gospel, never truly repenting but constantly excusing and rationalizing bad behavior, that is not a church I could feel safe at. I am frankly dumbfounded that this sort of thinking is being promoted as something good.

I don't know--perhaps I am extra sensitive on this matter because I have in the past been hurt by my church and pastor. But my suggestion to anyone reading and sharing this piece is to go study 1 Timothy 3 and think long and hard about the ramifications of going to a church with a pastor who does not appreciate the seriousness of the calling with which he has been entrusted. The spiritual and emotional damage that can be done by such a man is real and long-lasting. 

(P. S. And don't tell me there's no such thing as a perfect church or a perfect pastor. God disabused me of that notion a long time ago and I am very thankful He did. But there is such a thing as a safe and healthy church, and there is such a thing as a faithful, upright, and loving pastor. And when you seek out a church home you are justified in looking for both.)

Google+

I recently received an email from a friend inviting me to join Google Plus and be in one of her "circles." (For those who may not be aware, Google Plus, or Google+, is Google's version of Facebook.)

I love the lady who sent me the invite and if anyone could get me to join Google+ she could. But although I have been hearing about Google+ for a while I have so far resisted joining and have no plans to change my mind. I have a feeling if I were to join Google+ I would find myself just getting more of what I already get on Facebook:

1) More time spent in cyberspace instead of real life

2) More interacting with the same people I already interact with on Facebook (most of whom are lovely, but hey, there's a limit to how much loveliness I can fit in between all the normal stuff of daily life)

3) More opportunities to witness passive-aggressive, bullying, mean and clique-ish behavior by people who seem to time-warp back to junior high whenever they log into their account. No, wait, I take that back. My teenagers never behaved the way I see some people behaving on Facebook.

4) More opportunities to read someone's "vaguebooking" and scratch my head and say "Huh?"

5) More off-color jokes, weird and scary pictures, profanity, vulgarity, and pointless quizzes and games.

6) More opportunities to experience personal rejection in the form of getting unfriended and blocked by people I really shouldn't even care about.

7) More opportunities to grapple with the dilemma of who my "friends" are and to what extent I can keep up with their lives

Don't get me wrong--there are some very good things about social media. I wouldn't be on Facebook otherwise. But there is a lot of ickiness, too, and more ickiness is one thing I do not need in my life. So I'll see you here and I'll see you on Facebook and I'll maybe even see you in real life. But unless all of my close friends completely disappear from Facebook, Google+ will continue to be a minus in my social accounting book.

The Overratedness of Snark - Updated

I read something in a blog post the other day that surprised me a little. The article was about the difficulty of repenting--of saying we are sorry when we have done something wrong. One of the examples given of behaviors for which we should repent was being snarky in our online interactions. I found this statement surprising because I more frequently encounter the viewpoint that snark is something to be admired and cultivated than I do the view that it is something to repent of. After all, snark is cool, isn't it? And smart and clever and fun? I have held the same view, envying those who do snark well and wishing I could be similarly witty and quick to the draw (I'm not). No wonder, then, that snark (or snarkiness) has become so cutting edge that you can now purchase a how-to book on the topic: The Snark Handbook: A Reference Guide to Verbal Sparring. That book was apparently so popular that the publisher quickly followed up with two more: The Snark Handbook: Insult Edition and The Snark Handbook: Sex Edition. And why not? Who wouldn't want to learn how to increase his snark savvy?

Such used to be my thinking. But the more I see snark at work (and it's everywhere in cyberspace), the more I wonder why people are so enamored of this phenomenon.

Here is Amazon's product description for The Snark Handbook:

It’s impossible to go a full day without using snark, so why fight it? Snark is everywhere, from television to movies to everyday life. This lively collection provides hours of entertainment—better than an Etch A Sketch, and more fun than Silly Putty! At the heart of it, being in a state of snark can be one of the most useful tools at one’s disposal and hence (yes, I used “hence”), a powerful way to get what you want. With snark, you can catch people completely off-guard, and royally p*** them off.

Included here is the Snark Hall of Fame, the Best Snarky Responses to Everyday Dumb***ness, and much more. It’s a book that will make you laugh. It’s a book that will make someone else cry. It’s a book every student of the American psyche (that’s all of us, Sparky) needs to have. Let loose. Let your inner anger become a positive rather than a negative, but most of all, have fun. (Yeah, like that’s something you know how to do.) 50 color illustrations.

The description itself is a great example of snark. There's a certain contemptuousness of tone that is typical of the genre. But what I think is even more noteworthy is the message. It is assumed that the reader wants to catch people off-guard, to "royally p*** them off" and even to "make someone else cry." The reader is further encouraged to "let loose" and channel his "inner anger." These are good things? Is this truly how people should be encouraged to approach others?

Now, you may be right now rolling your eyes at me and my lack of a sense of humor, and that's fine. It won't be the first time I've been called a wet blanket. But the more I think about it the more I think the problem with snark is that sometimes it is hard to tell where the humor ends and the anger and contempt begin. And I simply don't think that encouraging the latter is in the long run a positive or helpful thing. I have seen too many people, in both real life and cyberspace, be hurt by those who were "just kidding." Not only that, but as with most hurtful behaviors, it's not just the receiver that is hurt, but the perpetrator as well, because when we harden ourselves to hurting others we end up hurting ourselves just as much.

In considering this topic I did some research and was struck by the common thread running through many sources that snark has at its core a basic aggressiveness that is exclusive and inherently unkind:

From David Denby, Snark: A Polemic in Seven Fits, 2009:

Snark attacks individuals, not groups, though it may appeal to a group mentality. . . . Snark is a teasing, rug-pulling form of insult that attempts to steal someone's mojo, erase her cool, annihilate her effectiveness, and it appeals to a knowing audience that shares the contempt of the snarker and therefore understands whatever references he makes. It's all jeer and josh, a form of bullying that, except at its highest levels, beggars the soul of humor. . . . Snark often functions as an enforcer of mediocrity and conformity. In its cozy knowingness, snark flatters you by assuming that you get the contemptuous joke.

From Richard Telofski, Insidious Competition: The Battle for Meaning and the Corporate Image, 2010:

Snark is considered cool, hip. Just listen to any late night comedian. They use that style liberally and with great effect. Listen to college students speak among themselves and you'll hear the same sly, knowing, condescending invective used by them in attempts to: 1) separate themselves from the mainstream; and 2) declare to each other that they are all part of the same contemporary group.

And finally from Elizabeth Svoboda in Psychology Today:

So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

Albert Katz, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, has recently looked at the wisecrackers' focus on one-upsmanship from a biological perspective, showing that people whose brains are best equipped to understand sarcasm tend to have aggressive personalities. Subjects who scored high on aggression tests showed different patterns of brain activity in response to sarcasm than those who did not. The differences suggest that the aggressive subjects were processing nonliteral meaning more quickly. "Sarcasm is definitely a dominance thing—it's related to being top dog," Katz says, both for initiators of sarcastic banter and those who catch on and offer a retort.

I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. I think there is such a thing as lighthearted, fun snark. But I also think snark can easily turn mean and destructive, and it seems that more and more these days I run into an attitude of arrogance and contempt and cynicism that is not conducive to understanding. So often the door is slammed shut by snark before the conversation even starts, and that makes me sad. What ever happened to being earnest and giving the other person the benefit of the doubt? Call me an idealistic, foolish Pollyanna, but sometimes I wish we could all be a little nicer and a little less snarky. Couldn't the world use a little more peace, love and understanding?

Updated--Here's another essay on the topic that says it way better than I and fleshes out the point that snark actually hurts the purveyor of derision as much as or more than it hurts the object: My Month of No Snark.