An innovative psychodynamically influenced approach to reduce school violence.

Child and adolescent psychiatrists who consult to school systems are likely to be confronted with the problem of violence. Feeling unsafe not only alters the quality of life for children in schools, but also influences their academic performance. Unfortunately, individual treatment of disturbed children does not help schools deal with more far-reaching problems that affect the school climate because many children who influence that climate may not have identifiable illnesses. This psychodynamic model suggests that in all schools experiencing violence, a covert power dynamic (PD) is present. This PD refers to a conscious or unconscious coercive pattern in which an individual or group controls the thoughts and actions of others. At times, this dynamic may be subtle and unconsciously motivated, but usually the school climate reveals this PD through high levels of disciplinary referrals and poor academic achievement (Twemlow et al., 1996, in press-a). In this PD model, a bully is described as a child, teacher, or other staff member of the school who abusively coerces others repeatedly through humiliation and mockery. Bullying usually involves a stronger, more dominant personality coercing a weaker, more submissive personality in what is rarely significant physical injury. Instead, the major injury is emotional humiliation. The victim of this power dynamic is a child, or any other school member, who feels dominated or abused by this bullying. The bystanding audience has been shown to be significant in supporting bully–victim relationships. There are a variety of bystanding roles that can be adopted by individual students. We found through our study of more than 10,000 children in an East Coast city that 10% to 20% of children from third through ninth grades experienced a vicarious thrill when watching others being bullied. Such bully bystander children may act as “puppet masters” to set up victims to commit crimes for which they do not wish to be blamed. A number of recent school shootings have clearly demonstrated this dynamic. For example, in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old boy who killed his mother and two students was “coached” by six other boys who were later charged with conspiracy to commit murder. A similar dynamic operated in the shooting at the school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, where a 14-year-old boy shot and killed a teacher and injured several others after a school dance. The “puppet master” bystander turned up to watch the outcome of his plan. Victim bystanding, from children who are too frightened to resist the recruiting bully, is usually present but to a lesser degree. Avoidant bystanding is often present in school personnel who, often for political reasons, deny the existence of problems in their school. Ambivalent bystanders, being uncommitted to roles that facilitate PDs, have the potential to help others resist the pathological roles. The school consultant can assist counselors and teachers to appeal to children in this less disruptive role, perhaps using the programmatic approach to be described. Our experience has been that if all children learn the language and skills to handle PDs, they will help each other shift out of the pathological roles into more productive relationships. Without a passively supportive bystanding audience, the actors have little motivation to continue reenacting the bully–victim roles. It should be noted that the bully, victim, and bystander roles are interchangeable, with children adopting a kaleidoscopic array of roles at different times. It is when these roles become fixed that serious violence can be imminent. An example is the tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, where available evidence suggests that both student shooters were in fixed enraged retaliatory victim roles for about a year before the incident, after a considerable prior period of bullying back and forth with groups of school athletes (Twemlow, 2000). The deeply regressive, shame-based, severe narcissistic wounding of the “victims” resulted in a loss of reality testing and insight that led to homicide (retaliation/revenge), followed by suicide (submission/despair) of these “victims.”