The tragedy of Phoebe Prince, the 15-year-old Massachusetts high school student who committed suicide after being tormented by her classmates, has brought much attention to the subject of bullying, and rightfully so. We all know how wrong it is, yet it’s a phenomenon that doesn’t seem to be going away. In fact, in this age of high-speed electronic communication, it only seems to be getting worse.
Hearing the details of the extreme harassment unleashed upon Phoebe Prince by her classmates, it is easy (and accurate) to simply categorize the bullies as terrible people, the kind of kids who have no empathy or compassion for others, as mean-spirited, “bad” kids who deserve severe punishment. Most of these conclusions are no doubt true, but such conclusions alone do little to provide a real understanding of what happened, why it happened, and how to avoid similar occurrences in the future.
In fact, such conclusions alone amount to little more than simplistic, “good and evil” thinking. Such simplicity is how many conservative religions would approach the problem. Those kids are bad, and that’s all there is to it. Such an analysis is black-and-white, suggesting the problem can be understood as little more than bad kids, lacking the proper moral foundation, making bad decisions.
The problem is much more complex than that, of course, and from a naturalistic standpoint we can embark on an analysis that would provide a much more complete picture. Though not comprehensive, consider the Phoebe Prince tragedy through the following naturalistic, humanistic observations:
Understanding bullying requires first that we understand humans as social animals. We evolved as social animals because organizing socially proved to have survival value in the natural world. Our social nature results in group activity wherein there is much competition for rank within the group. It’s noteworthy that this is not unique to humans. Social animals, from wolves to apes to lions, commonly compete for rank, with alpha males and females dominating the group and enjoying the benefits of that higher rank.
For all social animals, one of the primary activities is the competition for mates, and enormous amounts of time and energy are commonly invested into such activity. This social competition can be especially intense as animals first start entering the age of fertility, as they are jockeying for position among competitors.
Phoebe Prince’s downward social spiral resulted mainly from a relationship with a popular boy who had been in a relationship with a popular girl. Phoebe was ostracized because she had threatened, perhaps unwittingly, the social position of the well-connected, popular female, and she therefore became the target of fierce aggression from the girl and her network. Such hostile reaction is common within the competitive environment of most social animals.
Even the behavior of the boy in question can be understood from a naturalistic standpoint. His pursuit of multiple mates is, as we all know, a common trait among almost all male mammals, which are biologically hard-wired to seek such opportunities. Whether Phoebe was just a ruthless conquest for him or something more is irrelevant – his willingness to leave one girl in pursuit of another is common.
The notion of tribalism is also present here. Humans and other social animals organize in an “us against them” way, which has many benefits from an evolutionary standpoint. Phoebe, who was from Ireland and clearly not an insider in her community, was up against the popular insiders of the community, or tribe – an unenviable position.
Males have little problem pursuing females who are outside the tribe, so it’s not surprising that the boy here pursued Phoebe, even though he was an insider and she was not. But males who stray outside the pack for pleasure will nevertheless tend to come back, and that appears to be exactly what he did. Very predictable. Then, upon rejoining the pack, he submitted to groupthink and joined in the bullying of the Phoebe.
Also, the aggression that accompanies bullying in teens can of course be understood biologically, as the surge in testosterone that drives the journey from boyhood to manhood (and is present in females to a lesser extent as well), also drives much of the aggression that we find at that age. Is it any wonder that young men make the best soldiers?
Despite all the above, it is still difficult to comprehend how poor Phoebe could have been driven to suicide, and no answer will be satisfactory to those who loved her. Yet, to the extent an answer can be found, a naturalistic understanding of the psychological and sociological factors is needed. The intense pressure of being perpetually abused, the terrible feeling of being socially ostracized, the helplessness of having nowhere to turn - all these and innumerable others were no doubt factors.
This is just a quick rundown of some of the aspects of Phoebe’s tragedy that can be understood through a naturalistic analysis. We have social animals, entering their reproductive age, wired to compete for social position and mates, with clearly defined insiders and outsiders. With any species, whether lions or humans, the situation is explosive.
Are good and evil present here? Perhaps, but as soon as we simplify it as being nothing more than good and evil we do a disservice to all the Phoebe Princes out there. By understanding the psychological, biological, and sociological aspects of this phenomenon, we can begin to consider solutions. We begin to control our destiny when we understand our internal workings.
In fact the naturalistic, humanistic analysis helps point to solutions. Understanding the underlying causes of bullying, educators and others have tried to design materials that will help diminish it. While one could suggest a religious approach to the problem (the Golden Rule isn’t a bad start) there are several problems with traditional religious approaches. For one, traditional religions often tend to fuel tribalism, not diminish it, because they divide the world into “us” and “them.” Your religion may tell you to love everyone (even those outside your religion) but nevertheless “they” are seen as nonbelievers, infidels, and probably not “saved.”
Moreover, traditional religion also tends to be judgmental, and will almost certainly fail to embark on a thorough, scientific analysis of the problem. Should religious institutions strive to teach tolerance and respect? Of course. But should we expect them to solve the problem? Doubtful.
In fact the practical solutions that have been put forward to combat bullying tend to be humanistic, even if they don’t call themselves such. One approach now being taught to some kids in Massachusetts, for example, is called RAISE (which is an acronym for Respect, Achievement, Inclusion, Service, Empathy). By emphasizing such values, the designers of RAISE have essentially laid out a list of humanist values as the solution to bullying.
Indeed, humanism doesn’t just suggest that we put tribalism aside and see each other as brothers and sisters – it actually provides a scientific basis for viewing the world that way. (A humanist knows that genetically we are all brothers and sisters, so we don’t have to "pretend" that’s the case.) While religion was justifying slavery and dividing the world into “us and them,” humanists were looking at the world for what it really is, finding real solutions.
Humanists strive to understand human nature scientifically, without reliance on supernatural explanations that were written down in the Iron Age. Doing so, we can understand what drives kids (and some adults) to bully. Moreover, we can hopefully help kids to understand themselves, to understand their own natural tendencies (good and bad). And we can encourage values that view the notion of inflicting pain on fellow human beings as unthinkable, especially when the urge to do so arises from a primal instinct over mating competition. (After all, in this electronic age, mating opportunities are not that hard to find.)