Background Information :

About NLP

Choosing a provider

Features :

Competitions
NLP Articles
NLP Exercises
Newsletters
Top Tips
Podcasts

Learner's Resources :

Members discussion forum

NLP Practitioner Quizzes

NLP Master Practitioner Quizzes

Poetry and Metaphor

NLP Book Reviews

Useful links

Confession time. For those of you who don’t already know it, Derek and I are Big Brother watchers. We justify this by saying that people watching is our business. We know that BB has its many detractors who regard the likes of us as sad voyeurs with the intellectual capacity of snails.

However no body could be unaware of the programme that has just finished. A national and international furore broke out over the bullying of one housemate by three others. At the time it was billed as being racially based – a view with its own racial bias. It certainly was a distressing and distasteful enactment of vicious bullying.

And of course Channel 4 was pilloried. Talk Talk removed their sponsorship. The great and the good were jostling to give opinion. This medieval feeding frenzy of disapproval and the subsequent public humiliation of the three, pilloried to appease the baying hordes, may have gone some way to redress the balance of goodwill for the programme. And possibly in a few months time it will all be a memory for most of us.

However it is essential that we keep what happened alive. We were treated to a rare publicly displayed campaign of bullying and assault of power. Normally such dynamics happen in secret, behind backs of hands, empty corridors, no external witnesses, and only the victim’s account to go on.

Thanks to the peculiarities of this programme, every action and spoken thought was recorded. We could see how the bullying developed, how the bullies became bolder, how social restraints were dissolved and how the overall system appeared helpless to intervene. This horrible story unfolded rapidly over 4-5 days, until Channel 4 intervened and the leader was evicted through public vote.

(The next target emerged. “I just like to push him to the edge to see what happens. It’s what keeps me entertained.” said one. Another subjected him to extreme sexual harassment, and when he chose not respond, was accused of having no sense of humour. This time Channel 4 stepped in smartly and repeatedly asked him if he wanted to register a complaint that they would follow up. There was little or no comment from the outside world.) In the publicised case, it was argued that the irrational dislike was fuelled by the contrast between the gang’s individual status and the target’s abundant beauty, talent, breeding and success. Surprise, surprise, to overcome any sense of personal inadequacy, her differences were picked upon – her accent, her food preferences, her ability to stay polite. More significantly, this response operated at an unconscious level, with all comments delivered with a sense of justification. It was fascinating and gruelling to watch this distorted perception grow, take root and become an accepted reality. How many times does this happen in the playground, in the workplace, in the family where scapegoats are needed to make the weak feel better?

Equally and arguably more importantly, was the parallel development of non-intervention by the passive bystanders. Only one recognised the emerging process as bullying, taking him back to being a victim at school, and reactivating unhappy memories. He was the only one who named it – in the privacy of the Diary Room. No one, male or female, stepped in to square up to the Leader and nip the nastiness in the bud. Even when the situation reached its inevitable crescendo and the ugliest row erupted, none of the onlookers felt able to intervene. The pacifist of the group was fetched to lead the target away, following this up with a homily about loving and respecting each other, with no specifically directed references. Support was offered on a one-to-one basis, while there was a tacit collusion not to take on the perpetrators. This didn’t stop these bystanders from talking amongst themselves however, with all the hopeless helplessness of victims in a situation beyond their emotional control.

Subsequently on leaving the House when they were asked why they didn’t step in, all four variously said they were afraid of conflict, didn’t want to get involved, it wasn’t ‘their’ fight, or it was a totally alien situation that they didn’t know what to do with it.

Each of us could ask ourselves what we would have done if we had been there. How would living under such conditions, being filmed 24/7 and transmitted to all viewers influence our behaviours and choices. We have to confront our own responses to conflict. What role would we have taken, the Bully, the Victim, the Bystander or the Interventionist? From our experiences as trainers and coaches, the skill of managing conflict is universally underdeveloped. Most of us have unresolved past experiences, leaving us vulnerable and open to exploitation. Most of us have developed coping strategies. As a result most of us are highly incongruent when conflict arises, displaying displacement behaviours and unworthy responses. We are inevitably left feeling distressed, inadequate and uneasy.

Few are able to come alongside conflict, dealing with the perpetrators dispassionately, authoritatively and compassionately. If we are to stop the acceleration of the insecure minority riding roughshod over the mores of the majority, then we all need to develop this dispassionate ability. We need to know how to step off the sidelines, safely and congruently to save our own souls and those of others. Otherwise we will all be swept away in a moral apocalypse.

To this end I am exploring sources of suitable training. I urge the trainers, teachers, carers and parents amongst you to consider bringing this knowledge into your repertoire. I’m talking about developing individuals who can stand up and speak out, as opposed to developing policies and procedures to theoretically prevent or contain bullying behaviours. I’m talking about recognising and responding to the early warning signs before the abuse escalates.

This is not just assertiveness. This is not about matching force with force. It is about recognising the moral imperative, sponsoring the bully, and finding a way of diffusing and deflecting with the minimum damage to all involved.

I was appalled by what I witnessed in Big Brother. I was shocked at the rawness of the nastiness. I was ashamed because I fear that that could have been any one of them. Big Brother has offered us an enormous lesson.

© 2007 Fran Burgess January 2007