Interest in school violence (bullying) remains high. Yet, I’ve felt it difficult to speak easily about this “sad problem.” This is because it’s not simply a matter of dividing people into perpetrators and victims, “good guys” and “bad guys,” and then sweeping away the bad guys. In some ways, it’s a problem where all our children are certainly victims.
Now, as always, I want to first ask those who, lured by media sensationalism, are flailing like fish out of water: “Do you hate school violence itself, or do you hate the perpetrators?” If you hate the tragedy of school violence itself, you would want to concentrate maximum resources on delving into its root causes and eradicating them. But if you hate the perpetrators, then the root causes become a secondary concern; you just want the catharsis of “punishment in the name of justice.”
No one would refuse “punishment in the name of justice.” However, since it is done in the name of justice, the punishment itself must be just. It cannot be called justice if only celebrities, the wealthy, or the powerful among the perpetrators are punished. True justice would require finding and equally punishing all past perpetrators, regardless of how pitiful their current circumstances might be. The sentiment of “I can’t stand to see them doing well” is neither fair nor just. If victims and bystanders alike do not temporarily suspend their feelings of anger, they will not only stray far from “fairness” but also fall into unforeseen traps.
The biggest trap is discarding “the rule of law” before the eyes of children, swayed by emotions. During the impeachment of Park Geun-hye, this country already abandoned “the presumption of innocence” and “the principle of evidence,” and since then, the number of areas where guilt is established based only on “circumstance” or “testimony” has been increasing. In the case of “Me Too,” there were at least detailed testimonies from multiple victims about relatively recent events, and evidence such as text messages or motel CCTV footage was sometimes presented. Even so, there were several cases where “innocent defendants” were driven to suicide by exploiting the fact that guilt was established solely on testimony. In the case of school violence, it has evolved several steps further than Me Too. It basically presumes guilt based only on testimony about incidents that occurred several years ago, and it is developing into extrajudicial punishment where individuals are forced out of their livelihoods and socially ostracized, rather than receiving legally defined punishments. An environment is being created where anyone can be socially buried in the name of justice with just a few witnesses and a few lines in a news article. The power of money to buy witnesses and the power of the media to control public attention are now becoming monstrous. What issue will the media present after school violence? And who will be designated as the new demon, and what extrajudicial punishment will they receive? Will there be an end to this pattern? It seems it will not end until everyone’s “natural human rights” disappear. (In the constitution, when “sacred rights,” that is, “God,” disappears, all the rights of the people fall into the hands of humans, that is, members of the National Assembly.)
Another trap is the conclusion that “virtual reality is better than this.” If we have non-face-to-face classes, school violence might disappear. But along with that, most other things would also disappear, and teachers would be replaced by AI. Online, both humans and AI are merely equal “faces.” Issues like “school violence” or “ostracism” that occur in adolescent peer groups reflect the social landscape they belong to.
In fact, whether a child develops an “antisocial personality,” that is, problematic tendencies, is almost determined around the age of four. A child learns to walk and talk in their parents’ arms. After that, the child can converse with family and relatives, and around the ages of three to five, they communicate for the first time with people outside the family, especially with peers. And at that point, a child who fails to learn how to be loved by people will carry an antisocial personality for life. To be loved by others, a child must first receive love from their parents and have a sense of stability, be able to understand others’ feelings, and be able to exchange positive feedback through conversation and play. It is paramount to impose definite punishment for selfish behavior and lies. This period is the only short time in life when “tough love” can guide a child to become a loved child. But if parents give a child only “love” or only “tough love,” or fail to provide either, the child becomes a person with a personality that struggles to socialize. Also, a child learns their parents’ values in unspoken language. There is nothing a child wants that their parents want for them. A child knows instinctively and desires the most secret desires of their parents. In that respect, a child’s life can be called their parents’ self-portrait.
A peer group where these “self-portraits of parents” gather is, in some ways, closer to a jungle than that of adults. This is because they live as beings not bound by law, in a place that belongs neither to the home nor to society. Especially as they go through puberty, a clear hierarchy forms in the children’s jungle. Children with so-called “well-off” parents or children who “look like they will be successful in the future” are positioned at the top of the hierarchy. Children with money, strong children, top students, pretty and handsome children, etc., have power. This directly overlaps with the parents’ enthusiasm for the rich, athletes, judges, prosecutors, celebrities, etc. Children who are honest, responsible, and share what they have do not gain power, unless that child is the class president or the top student. Children whose fathers are apartment security guards, children who live in “SH rental apartments,” children who have speech impediments, small children, etc., often cannot assert themselves and, as a result, become victims of school violence. Children who become victims of school violence, or children who haven’t been directly victimized but live suppressed by powerful children, think, “I will definitely succeed, make money, gain power, and wash away this humiliation.” In this way, they grow up as hypocrites who hide their longing for power and resentment behind gentle faces.
Then, are the lives of the children who lived with power happy? Can we simply call those children perpetrators when they become people whose lives are about having more and climbing higher, and who would sell both their bodies and souls for that greed?
Who created this jungle full of power-oriented, money-oriented, and appearance-oriented junior materialists? Who else but the parents and adults? People who raise their voices in anger at school violence news, while at the same time being filled with thoughts of “I have to make money,” “I have to be pretty,” “I have to be handsome,” “I have to be successful,” “I have to be superior.” People who ask how they can believe in things invisible to the eye, like souls, saying that livelihood comes first. People who enjoy the natural human rights given by God but ask where God even is. All such people are the culprits. While adults live lives of materialist ranking with all their being, how can they expect children to be even slightly different? If anyone should be fired and ostracized, it is those adults first. As long as such people lead the nation, corporations, and families, it is stranger for school violence not to exist. Compared to such people, the still immature elementary, middle, high school, and university students are rather closer to victims.
Leave a Reply