The influence of mass media to conflict resolution in the school and what to do about it?

To write about a person is easier than about a method
In Spring 1994 I was on a successful tour to United Kingdom. After a workshop in Bornemouth a journalist from  Times Educational Supplement came from London and invited me for a marvelous lunch for an interview with me, as he said, about my method on tackling bullying. During two hours I explained what the SCm was about. He did not take notes. When our talk had ended and he was waiting for a taxi he put me some questions about my personal background. His interview in the world’s most famous journal on education consisted of six columns. Five of them contained stuff on my background I had left during five minutes. Just one column contained information on the SCm I had given during two hours.

The same experiences I have met with other journalists. They seem to understand my answers upon their questions. A good atmosphere prevails. When I see the article I see they have missed the point. During the latest years I have begun to encourage them to put critical questions. They do and I explain but when I read their interview article I get the impression that they write in accordance with they expected.

I have begun to say to journalists who want to interview me: read my book first and prepare questions about passages you have not understood. None of them has come back again.

 Meantime I am working hard on improving my clarifications of SCm. (Teams of critical readers were reading several experimental editions of the last book.) Other examples about meetings with journalists.
 

“Marketing the message” makes mass media and school similar
I presume that every thinking person has already discovered that journalists have to do their job on a competitive market. The vital nerve of their marketing is gaining attention. They share this with the popstars and ? the teachers in the classroom

In the hot attention market the rapid emotion triggering messages  win. In this market a method aiming to elicit shared concern for shared solutions is a looser. Conjuring up the enemy images is a winner.

A teacher who wants to catch the attention of the pupils hangs on the themes in mass media.  The human propensity to demonize the alleged culprit is accentuated in the anti-bullying teams in schools; any “shared concern” with "them" is excluded.

I have not seen the opposite story in mass media: the banned villain or alleged bully is innocent or misinterpreted. Sometimes teachers see examples of it but hesitate often to act after own judgement. The inculcated pattern of goodies and baddies takes over. A method for eliciting shared concern with "them" seems unsocial. 

Theories on evolution shed light on the educational task as to promote the social contract
I think that a really deep understanding of the mechanisms relevant here may be helpful. It is achieved when we for a while consider the components  in our biological background.

Contemporary theory of evolution has a dialectical construction. It starts with a statement (theses) which is opposed by a contradiction (antitheses). In their encounter the best parts of the two create a new statement (synthesis). 

Thesis: All human interaction is based on competition to promote the individual’s genes. Those who best fit in to the competing environment survive. (The idea of Shared Concern appears nonsensical and pathetical.)
Antithesis: Individuals cannot survive if their society would be  based on survival of the fittest individuals. Compassion and forgiveness are essential ingredients in the survival of collectives and hence also of individuals in the collective. (The idea of Shared Concern appears as a product of tenderness for survival.)
Synthesis: Neither Thesis nor Antithesis are wrong but (at least one) more principle must be added. The following A is cynical and B altruistic.: A. Hypocrisy. Everybody promotes others to follow the group morals of co-existence but cheat or manipulate, as individuals, the public morals and preserve their individual genes by deception. (The doctrine of “the selfish gene”). B. Social contract Those individuals survive whose societies institute laws and control effectively the ego-expansion of the individuals. Law reinforcement is the executor of the public will and Journalism is the alarm clock and watch dog for revealing deceptions.

Journalism handles well all evolutionary models. Best of course the competition theme of course but also its opposite ? consideration together with sentimentality is an attention eliciting instrument. Newspapers are wonderful watch dogs as to disclose hypocrisy and are, therefore, also perceived to be good at looking after the citizens’ following of social contract.

What journalism is bad at is to guide or foster the public into shared solution. This kind of task is intended for the schools. The progressive education is not bad to promote team work for dealing with usual school subjects. This could be extended also to solving conflicts unless the hot and rapid attention-seeking communication culture of mass media would accentuate the stereotypes of bully and victim.

Or in terms of evolution: the primitive approaches (thesis and antithesis)  are hindered to arrive at a long-term synthesis.

My statement about the role of journalism is the following: 

These mass media which stick to their alarm clock function without taking interest in long term alternatives of conflict resolution become counter productive to the survival.

A gradual move from the short term PCm to the long term SCm is the instrument of quality improvement.

The Persuasive Coercion method, (PCm) is my first primitive method of 1975 which can be seen as serving the first primitive survival mechanisms. The teacher-therapist is relying on his or her charismatic qualities or implied threats  when persuading the bullies to quit bullying.

Why the Shared concern approach is needed and how the SCm works is hopefully explained at this web-site. If you are lost reconstruct the method by asking yourself “what makes  it tick”  . SCm in a nutshell  Origin and development of the SCm

When the reader is a beginner in practicing SCm he or she will often resort to the easier PCm. To that I say: this is very natural, I myself had to rely upon PCm in the beginning. You still aim at SCm because in you aim at PCm you cannot pass over to SCm in the same case. (If you start with suggestions and persuasion you will distort the Shared Concern ? for the actual treatment) In the beginning the elements of PCm are so natural that if you have not noticed them I would become suspicious about your capacity of self-analysis. The elements of PCm vanish gradually if you realize that the more of SCm elements you can include the more autonomous will the co-operative reactions in the former bully become. The main thing is always that you accomplish your task ? ceasing of bullying.

In my publications elaborated guidelines of transfer from PCm to SCm in bully therapy are given and illustrated with examples from practice. And as you see from other links on this home-page an other important transformation occurs: course participants who through role-playing have acquired insights in SCm say spontaneously that SCm can be used also in other areas of conflict resolution. SCm-courses on bullying Origin and development of the SCm

This Home Page is aimed as a connecting link between people who are acquiring understanding of the SCm. None of us would load schools with demands what they "should" do. We will, instead, have a dialogue where the teachers tell us what they cannot do and then, by and by, discover what lies within the reach of some of them to do -- and get even pleasure out of it.

 If Scandinavian-speaking readers of this Home-Page are interested to take contact with them, please write to my e-mail address anatol.pikas@ped.uu.se Tell me about your own work and reactions when reading this and if I can forward your address to the others. Please let me know; are my conclusions right? 
A kind of escapistic indifference?

E-mail addresses to  some collaborators: