Sex Res Soc Policy
DOI 10.1007/s13178-016-0238-9
The Gentle Neoliberalism of Modern Anti-bullying Texts:
Surveillance, Intervention, and Bystanders in Contemporary
Bullying Discourse
Doug Meyer 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract The author argues for the concept of "gentle" neo-
liberalism to account for how discourse in anti-bullying texts
has increasingly presented itself as gentle and kind, while
simultaneously reinforcing systems of surveillance and con-
trol. Results, based on a grounded theory analysis of 22 anti-
bullying books, reveal that the texts generally decoupled bul-
lying from power relations based on sexuality, overlooking
homophobia and heteronormativity and marginalizing the ex-
periences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
youth. Further, findings demonstrate a shift over time in the
texts from an explicitly harsh description of the bullies to a
seemingly kinder emphasis on reporting and intervening on
behalf of the individual being bullied. This shift to interven-
tionist discourse potentially expands mechanisms of control
and reinforces inequalities based on race and social class, as
bystanders are increasingly held accountable and students are
encouraged to report their peers to authority figures. In re-
sponse to neoliberal anti-bullying discourse, the author argues
for scholarship and policy solutions that undermine unequal
power structures and yet also oppose surveillance strategies of
monitoring, reporting, and intervening.
Keywords Bullying . Neoliberalism . LGBT studies .
Lesbian . Gay . Queer . Surveillance
A small but growing body of scholarship focusing on violence
against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) ado-
lescents has examined popular anti-bullying discourse
* Doug Meyer
dom6e@virginia.edu
1
Women, Gender, & Sexuality, The University of Virginia, 227 Minor
Hall, P.O. Box 400172, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
(Foreman 2015; Green et al. 2015; Paceley and Flynn 2012;
Smith et al. 2012). This work has found that media discourse
tends to individualize and decontextualize bullying, some-
times reaffirming rather than repudiating the shame associated
with deviating from gender and sexual normativity (Davis
et al. 2015; Foreman 2015; Thornberg 2011; Wayne 2013;
Weaver et al. 2013). In this article, I build on these analyses,
examining through a sociological lens anti-bullying discourse
in adult, adolescent, and children’s books. Most scholarship
examining anti-LGBT, or anti-queer, bullying has used a psy-
chological perspective and explored the traumatic effects of
the violence (Cohen and Brooks 2014; Collier et al. 2013;
Formby 2013; Pascoe 2013). While this research has drawn
attention to the negative psychological consequences of bul-
lying, sociological scholarship has pointed to the many costs
of individualizing bullying, as social power and privilege have
been rendered invisible and aggression among youth has been
constructed as emanating from familial and individual pathol-
ogy (Bansel et al. 2009; Pascoe 2013). Individualistic analyses
have often reinforced a good/bad binary, whereby bullying is
positioned as Bbad^ adolescents perpetrating violence against
Bgood^ youth, implying that successful intervention involves
reforming or rehabilitating the troubled bully (Formby 2015;
Ringrose and Renold 2010; Walton 2005b). As a result, ado-
lescents may be pathologized under frameworks that focus on
behavioral factors rather than cultural ones (Payne and Smith
2013; Ringrose 2008; Walton 2005a). In this sense, individu-
alistic constructions have drawn attention to the characteristics
of adolescents perpetrating or experiencing the violence, rath-
er than the power relations—including the cultural privileging
of heterosexuality and gender normativity—that produce such
acts (Pascoe 2013; Payne and Smith 2013; Ringrose and
Renold 2010).
While this sociological scholarship has revealed much
about the negative consequences of individualizing anti-

LGBT violence, more research is needed to examine the rela-
tionship between anti-bullying discourse and individualistic or
structural accounts of inequality (Foreman 2015; Oppliger and
Davis 2015; Paceley and Flynn 2012; Wayne 2013). To that
end, this article examines the representation of inequality, as
well as the depiction of bullying more broadly, in best-selling
texts, expanding our understanding of changes and consisten-
cies in anti-bullying discourse over time. This empirical anal-
ysis, using a grounded theory approach, reveals that the texts
consistently overlooked homophobia and heteronormativity,
defining power in individualistic ways rather than pointing
to group-based differences with regard to power. Further, over
time, the texts increasingly underscored the importance of
reporting and intervening, with bystanders playing a more
significant role in the narrative and adolescents being encour-
aged to Btell an adult^ when witnessing or experiencing
bullying.
In charting this increasing emphasis on intervention, this
research situates anti-bullying discourse in the context of
expanding systems of surveillance, which a long line of
research has shown to expose marginalized groups to great-
er control and punishment (Fine et al. 2003; Hirschfield and
Celinska 2011; Kupchik and Monahan 2006; Taylor 2013).
In particular, as this scholarship has demonstrated that low-
income people of color are disproportionately likely to con-
front surveillance and to face harsh consequences when
encountering it, expanding surveillance regimes likely re-
inforces rather than undermines unequal power structures
based on race and social class (Browne 2015; Fine et al.
2003). In the context of queer theory, and sexuality studies
more broadly, critiques of surveillance have most influen-
tially been made by Foucault (1977), whose work in
Discipline and Punish pointed to the Panopticon prison
design, in which the possibility that one could be observed
at any moment results in individuals operating under the
assumption that they are always being observed. Foucault
argued that disciplinary techniques of surveillance were not
limited to prisons, but have become the model for other
modern social institutions, including educational settings.
Moreover, in charting the historical shift from public exe-
cutions to imprisonment, Foucault argued that this shift was
not a more humane or enlightened approach toward crimi-
nals because the punishment became less brutal but more
intrusive, resulting in the expansion of surveillance and
disciplinary control. In this article, I similarly question
whether the increasing emphasis on reporting and interven-
ing in anti-bullying discourse has resulted in a kinder ap-
proach or has allowed for expanding mechanisms of con-
trol, ultimately arguing that this seemingly gentler dis-
course has encouraged more monitoring and surveillance,
which potentially subjects individuals, particularly those
belonging to disadvantaged groups, to heightened disci-
plinary measures.
Sex Res Soc Policy
The Economic, Cultural, and Punitive Components
of Neoliberalism
As this article focuses on changes and consistencies over time
in anti-bullying discourse, this research is situated in debates
over how neoliberalism has evolved (Comaroff 2011;
Mirowski 2013; Peck et al. 2012). Considerable debate exists
over the meaning of neoliberalism, yet a dominant line of
research has characterized neoliberal processes as principally
related to economic structures that promote laissez-faire mar-
ket reforms, with privatization and deregulation (Harvey
2005; Soss et al. 2011). Another substantial body of scholar-
ship has focused on the cultural elements of neoliberalism,
which emphasize self-mastery and personal responsibility
(Elliott 2014; Gershon 2011; Gill 2008). These economic
structures and cultural components remain deeply linked; in-
deed, to justify neoliberalism’s economic policies favoring the
rich, corresponding cultural elements have pathologized the
poor, constructing poverty as the outcome of personal failure
rather than structural conditions (Centeno and Cohen 2012;
Soss et al. 2011; Wacquant 2009).
In privileging the free market, neoliberal norms of subjec-
tivity reward individuals who align their actions and identities
with market standards, favoring those who present themselves
as rationally weighing costs and benefits (Gershon 2011; Ong
2006). This neoliberal subject has been referred to as the Bdis-
ciplined entrepreneur,^ a constantly calculating and self-
regulating actor (Soss et al. 2011, p. 22). In this sense, neolib-
eralism encourages individuals to describe their experiences
as freely and deliberately chosen, bearing full responsibility
for their choices, regardless of the degree to which social
forces constrained their behavior (Gill 2008; Soss et al.
2011). Scholarship focusing on these cultural elements has
been instrumental in revealing the wide reach of neoliberal-
ism, showing that market norms have not merely been
contained to economic matters but have pervaded many areas
of social life (Bay-Cheng 2015; Elliott 2014; Meyer 2014;
Peck et al. 2012).
In addition to these cultural elements, punitiveness remains
deeply linked with neoliberalism (Harvey 2005; Spade 2011).
As the focus of the neoliberal state is on disciplining the poor
rather than ending poverty or removing structural barriers to
economic security, punitiveness compliments these goals, as
the state concerns itself not with reducing the economic causes
of crime but with punishing individual offenders (Spade 2011;
Wacquant 2009). Neoliberal policies shrink social welfare
benefits while expanding punitive measures (Soss et al.
2011). Certainly, the incarcerated population in the USA has
rapidly expanded with the rise of neoliberalism, growing from
fewer than 350,000 people in 1972 to over 2 million people by
2010 (Alexander 2010; Enns 2014). Due to strain on state
budgets, as well as rising resistance to mass incarceration,
the incarcerated population has decreased slightly in the last
Sex Res Soc Policy
several years, albeit nowhere near the 1972 levels (Gerlinger
and Turner 2015).
Debates and Analyses Concerning How
Neoliberalism Has Evolved
While a significant amount of research has explored the var-
ious components of neoliberalism, most of the debate regard-
ing changes in neoliberal processes has focused on the eco-
nomic structures (Duménil and Lévy 2011; Hilgers 2013;
Mirowski 2013). This growing body of scholarship has debat-
ed the degree to which neoliberal economic arrangements
have recently endured or declined (Comaroff 2011;
Mirowski 2013; Peck et al. 2010, 2012). This research has
addressed how in the wake of the 2008–2009 global economic
crisis, neoliberalism was potentially vulnerable to alternative
economic projects (Comaroff 2011; Hilgers 2013). Despite
this moment in which the destructive consequences of neolib-
eral capitalism appeared starkly exposed, one line of research
has emphasized how neoliberal arrangements, rather than de-
clining, have remained relatively intact (Mirowski 2013; Peck
et al. 2012). As global financial institutions have continued to
direct nation states to privilege their interests over the needs
and concerns of workers, neoliberal structures have not nec-
essarily subsided, much less vanished, but remained firmly
entrenched in US and global economic policy, albeit in some
redesigned ways (Comaroff 2011; Duménil and Lévy 2011;
Mirowski 2013). At the same time, other scholarship has
pointed to how regressive class redistribution has been scaled
back in some societies, even if it appears Bmore like a quali-
tative transformation than a terminal event or reversal^ of
neoliberalism (Peck et al. 2010, p. 105). Moreover, social
movements have increasingly organized to combat neoliberal
economic policy that results in an expanding wealth divided
between the rich and the poor; these forms of advocacy, in the
USA most notably represented by Occupy Wall Street, have
drawn attention to declining tax rates on the wealthy and rising
costs of living for the poor and the middle class (Calhoun
2013; Peck et al. 2010; Soss et al. 2011).
During this time, scholarly analysis of neoliberalism has
also rapidly expanded, pointing to the costs of governmental
policy that advances the interests of big business and de-
creases the social safety net (Hilgers 2013; Peck et al. 2010).
These critiques have pointed to the ways that global financial
institutions continue to advance austerity on the world stage,
with spending cuts and tax increases imposed on debt-ridden
economies that have already high rates of unemployment,
resulting in even greater deprivation among the general pop-
ulation (Mirowski 2013; Peck et al. 2012). Although the fed-
eral stimulus act in the USA mitigated some of neoliberalism’s
destructive consequences, a BNew New Deal^ never devel-
oped and US governmental policy has repeatedly been
organized around advancing corporate interests rather than
protecting the public from the negative effects of the free
market (Comaroff 2011, p. 144). Scholarship critical of neo-
liberalism calls for ways to redirect state policy, or reorganize
the state, to benefit a wider range of people, with greater reg-
ulation of the American financial sector and a more progres-
sive tax structure that redistributes taxes from the wealthy to
the poor and the working class (Peck et al. 2012; Spade 2011;
Wacquant 2009).
While these critiques have revealed a considerable amount
concerning the persistence of neoliberal economic policy, this
analysis has not always extended to the role of surveillance
and intervention, which some scholarship has pointed to as
increasing as neoliberalism has evolved (Ferguson 2010; Ong
2006; Peck and Tickell 2002; Weston 2016). Peck and Tickell
(2002) have characterized the evolution of neoliberal process-
es as one from Broll-back neoliberalism,^ implemented most
notably during the Reagan/Thatcher era of the 1980s and char-
acterized by a scaling-back of the welfare state, to Broll-out
neoliberalism,^ in which neoliberal governance involves more
invasive social policies, including increased surveillance, that
construct and consolidate regulatory regimes rather than sim-
ply curtail governmental regulation. Peck and Tickell argue
that with this shift Ba deeply interventionist agenda is emerg-
ing around ‘social’ issues^ (p. 389).
This article provides empirical evidence of an increasing
emphasis on intervention in anti-bullying texts. Although a
small body of scholarship has explored the relationship be-
tween bullying and neoliberalism, the role of surveillance
and intervention has remained underexplored in research on
anti-bullying discourse (Galitz and Robert 2014; Grzanka and
Mann 2014; Quinn and Meiners 2013). In contrast, this study
points to a shift from explicitly harsh discourse to ostensibly
kinder language that emphasizes the importance of reporting
and intervening, ultimately arguing for the concept of Bgentle^
neoliberalism to describe discourse that presents itself as ad-
dressing a social problem—bullying, in this case—in a pur-
portedly humane way, while simultaneously encouraging
more surveillance.
Methods
Sample
The sample consists of 22 texts, 8 of which were published for
adults and 14 for adolescents and children. Among the books
for adolescents, the suggested age range was always 13 or
younger; thus, these books were written for children or ado-
lescents in junior high, not high school. For this reason, I have
collapsed the adolescent and children’s books, as they were all
aimed at relatively young readers. The authors of the 22 texts
were generally not journalists or academics but full-time

writers, 14 of whom were also motivational speakers. The
authors’ descriptions of their motivational speaking on their
websites varied considerably, but these presentations did not
typically focus on bullying, as only two of the writers adver-
tised giving talks on this topic; the other 12 authors described
giving motivational speeches on more general topics such as
educating and empowering youth, parents, or teachers. The
writers of seven texts led or founded an organization that
focused on adolescents or education, two of which addressed
bullying. Authors of four texts held a Ph.D., but the writers of
only one book were currently employed as professors; none of
the authors were journalists. Two authors were involved in
conservative Christianity, as one of these writers advertised
on their website giving anti-abortion talks and another de-
scribed giving speeches at conservative Christian schools such
as Liberty University. In general, however, the typical profile
of the authors was one of a full-time writer, almost two-thirds
of whom gave motivational speeches and almost one-third of
whom led or founded an organization focusing on adolescents
or education.
The sample consists of 12 texts published between 1993
and 2004 and 10 texts published between 2009 and 2014.
After data analysis revealed differences over time in the texts,
I categorized the former texts as Bolder^ because they were
published before any anti-bullying books had become best
sellers, as I describe below. In contrast, the 2009–2014 texts
were categorized as Bnewer^ because they were published
during a period when anti-bullying books had begun to in-
crease in popularity, sometimes making best seller lists in
Publishers Weekly or The New York Times. These time periods
also reflect the differences found in the sample, as the books
published from 1993 to 2004 differed in some significant
ways from those published from 2009 to 2014.
Data Collection
The books were chosen based on their best-selling status as of
March and April of 2015. Data selection criteria required that
the word Bbully^ or Bbullying^ had to appear in the title of the
book, given that I wanted to examine texts focusing explicitly
on bullying. To select best-selling books, the Amazon.com
Bbest sellers^ rank was used to narrow my selection to the
30 highest selling texts focusing on bullying. Given that this
measurement remains imperfect, as it changes daily, I
monitored and recorded the sales ranking of anti-bullying
texts over a 60-day time period from March to April 2015;
this approach captured the texts’ best seller status better than
choosing the highest selling books on a particular day. After
this 60-day time period, the 30 highest selling texts were cho-
sen for my analysis, yet 8 of these books focused on
cyberbullying; I eliminated those texts from my sample, be-
lieving that cyberbullying deserved its own analysis rather
than being included in a study focusing predominantly on
Sex Res Soc Policy
in-person rather than online bullying. Thus, the final sample
included 22 currently best-selling books that focused on inter-
personal bullying.
The strength of this method for choosing texts is that it
captures high selling anti-bullying books purchased during
this time period, allowing for analysis of currently popular
texts, which may have been published recently or many years
ago. An analysis of currently popular anti-bullying texts re-
veals not only the discourse that consumers find appealing but
also the narratives that circulate around bullying, which may
affect how readers view such events. Nevertheless, despite
these strengths, this method of focusing on currently popular
texts suffers from several limitations, providing a better sense
of anti-bullying texts popular in 2015 than books that may
have been appealing in the past. It is possible that the books
included in this study published during the 1990s and early
2000s are popular with consumers in 2015 but would not have
been appealing to consumers at the time they were published.
Still, given that book publishers regard how many copies of a
specific book have been sold as proprietary, information re-
garding whether anti-bullying texts sold well is limited by
whether these books made best seller lists such as those in
Publishers Weekly and The New York Times. To determine
the selling status of the older books included in my sample, I
searched these lists every week from January 1980 to
May 2015, including all of Publishers Weekly’s top 25 cate-
gories—children’s fiction, children’s picture books, hardcover
fiction, hardcover nonfiction, paperback trade, and mass mar-
ket paperback—and the first time a book with Bbully^ in the
title placed on any of these lists was on June 15, 2009. Anti-
bullying books did not appear regularly, for longer than a
month, on any of these lists until 2013. Indeed, The New
York Times in 2013 noted a Bsurge in antibullying books,^
with Bpublishers revel[ing] in youthful cruelty,^ as Bnobody
likes a bully—but these days the book industry loves having
them to kick around^ (Kaufman 2013, p. C1).
The results of this study focus in part on comparing 1993–
2004 and 2009–2014 anti-bullying texts. Given that older
anti-bullying books were not placing on best seller lists, cau-
tion must be taken with regard to making too much of the
popularity of previous anti-bullying discourse, yet this limita-
tion must not also prevent analysis of older texts, as these
books, although not selling well at the time, may differ from
current anti-bullying texts in some important ways. Indeed,
although this research can speak with less certainty regarding
anti-bullying discourse that past readers may have found ap-
pealing, findings revealed significant differences between the
older and newer texts.
Data Analysis
Following Abrahamson’s (1983: 286) guidelines for inductive
analysis to begin with researchers Bimmersing^ themselves in
Sex Res Soc Policy

the documents, I first read and took notes on all of the books to
gain a sense of their general structure and common topics
discussed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze
transcripts of the texts, with open, axial, and selective coding
employed using the qualitative data analysis program ATLAS.ti
(Corbin and Strauss 2008; Miles et al. 2013). Grounded theory
methods are particularly useful for developing theory, offering
detailed procedural steps for generating categories inductively
from the data (Charmaz 2014; Corbin and Strauss 2008; Glaser
and Strauss 1999). As a result, grounded theory helps to build
theoretical explanations instead of generating description or
verifying an existing theory (Böhm 2004; Glaser 1978). Data
analysis began with open coding, including line-by-line analy-
sis of each transcript to identify initial concepts (Corbin and
Strauss 2008; Schreier 2012). This process of Bbreaking down^
the data yielded a wide variety of concepts concerning the
narrative arc of the texts and the representation of the bully,
the bystander, and the individual being bullied (Böhm 2004;
Glaser 1978; Marying 2004). Following Corbin and Strauss’s
(2008) suggestion for axial coding, whereby connections, cat-
egories, and relationships are made among the concepts gener-
ated from open coding, broad axial codes were created such as
Bdescriptions of power and inequality^ and Bnarratives of by-
standers and intervention.^
Through analysis of these codes and the writing of theoret-
ical memos, core categories emerged, as the axial codes re-
vealed changes and consistencies over time among the texts,
with some of these codes indicating similarities across the
books and others revealing important differences between
the older and newer texts (Böhm 2004; Charmaz 2014;
Marying 2004). The axial codes were broad at first, but be-
came more specific through the process of selective coding, as
the core categories that emerged resemble the data presented
in this article, including Boverlooking homophobia and
heteronormativity,^ Bdescribing power in individualistic
ways,^ and Bencouraging reporting and intervening.^ After
establishing these core categories, I analyzed the transcripts
again, selectively coding any data that related to these

Table 1 Texts included in the

sample Book title Year
published

Adolescent and Children’s books (1993–2004)

The Berenstain Bears and the Bully 1993
Pinky and Rex and the Bully 1996
Bullies Are a Pain in the Brain 1997
Jake Drake, Bully Buster 2001
Bye-Bye Bully!: A Kid’s Guide for Dealing with Bullies 2003
My Secret Bully 2004
The Bully from the Black Lagoon 2004
Adult books (1993–2004)
No More Bullies: For Those Who Wound or Are Wounded 2000
The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job 2000
Take the Bully By the Horns: Stop Unethical, Uncooperative, or Unpleasant People from 2002
Running and Ruining Your Life
Girl Wars: 12 Strategies That Will End Female Bullying 2003
The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander: From Preschool to High School – How Parents and 2003
Teachers Can Help Break the Cycle
Adolescent and Children’s books (2009–2014)
Stand Up for Yourself & Your Friends: Dealing with Bullies and Bossiness, and Finding a 2009
Better Way
Bully B.E.A.N.S. 2009
Confessions of a Former Bully 2010
The Juice Box Bully: Empowering Kids to Stand Up for Others 2011
Tough!: A Story on How to Stop Bullying in Schools 2012
Tease Monster: A Book About Teasing vs. Bullying 2013
Llama Llama and the Bully Goat 2013
Adult books (2009–2014)
Little Girls Can Be Mean: Four Steps to Bully-Proof Girls in the Early Grades 2010
8 Keys to End Bullying: Strategies for Parents & Schools 2014
Stand Strong: You Can Overcome Bullying (and Other Stuff that Keeps You Down) 2014
 Sex Res Soc Policy

categories (Corbin and Strauss 2008; Miles et al. 2013;
Schreier 2012).
After qualitative analysis revealed similarities and differ-
ences among the older and newer texts, frequencies were tab-
ulated based on whether a book included particular descrip-
tions (see Tables 2 and 3); these tabulations add further weight
to the qualitative data presented below. Throughout this arti-
cle, with regard to word choice, I sometimes use the term
Bbystander^ differently than common usage, as a way of being
consistent with how this word was used in the texts. Although
the word Bbystander^ is typically meant to signify an onlooker
who witnesses an act but does not participate, the books some-
times used the word interchangeably with someone who ac-
tively intervenes to stop bullying. Throughout this article, I
use the titles of the books rather than abbreviating, although I
have omitted their subtitles, which can be found in Table 1.
Similarities Among the Texts
Overlooking Anti-LGBT Bullying
Findings reveal that the texts generally overlooked violence
facing LGBT youth, as only one book—The Bully, the Bullied,
and the Bystander—included the word Bhomophobia^ and
only two of the texts—8 Keys to End Bullying and The
Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander—referred to anti-
LGBT bullying (see Table 2). These two texts were also the
only books in which the words Blesbian^ and Bgay^ appeared;
the words Bbisexual^ and Btransgender^ only appeared in 8
Keys to End Bullying, when defining the LGBT acronym.
Both of these texts address violence confronting lesbian and
gay youth: 8 Keys to End Bullying explains that these adoles-
cents Bexperience bullying at exceptionally high rates^
(p. 20), while The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander states
that Bkids of [a] different sexual orientation from the majority
are likely to be bullied^ (p. 35). Further, the former text
describes the potential consequences of this violence:
BLGBT teens are four to seven times more likely to attempt
suicide than their peers. This extreme rate of victimization and
self-inflicted violence among LGBT populations screams for
schools and communities to reach out to LGBT youth in more
effective ways^ (8 Keys to End Bullying, p. 20). Similarly, the
latter text mentions homophobic language and masculinity-
related harassment with the following sentence: BThe words
used to bully boys tend to be derogatory terms defining them
as ‘less than a boy’—that is, a girl (sissy, wuss, pussy, bitch,
‘you run like a girl’)—or homophobic terms (gay, fag, queer,
homo, ‘light in his loafers’)^ (The Bully, the Bullied, and the
Bystander, p. 35).
Despite these descriptions, the texts did not devote much
space to addressing violence against LGBT youth, as 8 Keys to
End Bullying includes one paragraph on the topic and The
Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander devotes less than one
page to the issue. Heterosexuality also remains unaccounted
for throughout, as both texts point to lesbian and gay youth
who experience bullying, but do not mention heterosexuality.
8 Keys to End Bullying, for example, includes BLGBT youth^
under the subheading BWho Is Bullied?,^ yet the words
Bhomophobia,^ Bmasculinity,^ or Bheterosexuality^ do not
appear under the subheading BWhy Do Kids Bully?^
Indeed, none of the texts referred to the role of heterosexuality
or heteronormativity in structuring homophobic violence,
thereby maintaining the normalizing of heterosexuality.
While homophobia generally went unaddressed and het-
erosexuality undoubtedly remained normalized, three of the
books referred to masculinity-related harassment, including
The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander, as shown with the
quote above. Two of the children’s books also included de-
scriptions of masculinity-related harassment. Llama Llama
and the Bully Goat involves a goat bullying a llama and in-
cludes on one of the pages a reference to the bully goat teasing
the llama for playing with dolls (np). Gender policing plays an
even more prominent role in Pinky and Rex and the Bully,
which involves a boy named William who is called BPinky^
by everyone because pink is his favorite color. The very first

Table 2 Trends in the texts with

percentages (N = 22) Trend Number (%)

Sexuality and Gender related trends

Does not refer to homophobia 21 (95.5)
Does not refer to anti-LGBT bullying 20 (90.9)
Does not refer to masculinity-related harassment 19 (86.4)
Power-related trends
Refers to bullying as involving power 16 (72.7)
Describes power as something an individual possesses 16 (72.7)
Describes bullies/the bullied as coming in Ball shapes and sizes^ 12 (54.5)
or states that anyone can bully/be bullied
Describes bullying as involving an imbalance of power 3 (13.6)
Sex Res Soc Policy
line of the text is Byou’re a sissy, Pinky^ (p. 1), as one of
Pinky’s classmates pushes him off his bike and makes fun of
him for liking the color pink. The next day at school, the bully
mocks Pinky for playing with girls; this action leads two other
boys to laugh at Pinky. As a result of this harassment, he
decides that he no longer wants to be referred to as Pinky
and he gives all of his pink stuffed animals to his sister.
When his elderly female neighbor, Mrs. Morgan asks him
why he no longer wants to be called Pinky, he responds, BA
boy shouldn’t have a pink bike. And Pinky is a dumb name for
a boy. And a boy shouldn’t play with girls^ (p. 28). This
narrative, which points to Pinky’s learning of gender roles,
transforms into a story of resisting social pressure when Mrs.
Morgan describes how her adolescent peers made fun of her
for being an artist:
They stuck their noses in the air and called me Bthe
artist.^ That hurt. Because as much as I loved to paint,
I hated feeling different….It’s hard to be different, isn’t
it, Billy? And have other children make fun of you. But,
believe me, it’s worse not to be yourself. Don’t change
for other people, Billy. Other people will come and go in
your life. Do what’s right for the one person who will
always be with you – yourself (p. 30, 32).
The story ends with the boy wearing pink sneakers to
school and deciding that he wants to be called Pinky again;
when the bully mocks his sneakers, he stands up for himself
by saying, BIt’s none of your business what I like….I’m not a
sissy and I’m not a girl. And if you think so, it just shows how
dumb you are^ (p. 36). This book was the only one in which
the policing of masculinity norms played a predominant role.
Still, an openly gay male adolescent was not the protagonist in
any of the texts, and among the two books that mentioned
anti-LGBT violence, more attention was devoted to violence
against gay male youth than against lesbian, bisexual, or trans-
gender adolescents.
Individualistic Conceptions of Power and Inequality
Consistent with the lack of attention to homophobia,
heteronormativity, and anti-LGBT violence, most of the texts
used an individualistic conception of power. Sixteen of the
texts referred to bullying as involving power, and yet all of
these texts also described power as something an individual
possesses, as in the following examples:
Bullies like the feeling of power they get from making
other people feel bad. (Bye-Bye Bully!, np)
What’s Bullying? Teasing. Taunting. Being mean. No
matter what you call it, one thing is for sure: it’s all about
power. People who bully are trying to take your power -
the strong, smart, confident part of you. (Stand Up for
Yourself & Your Friends, p. 4)
Bullies love power. The more they get, the more they
want. If messing with electricity wasn’t so dangerous,
bullies would probably put their fingers into light
sockets to get even more power. (Bullies Are a Pain in
the Brain, p. 24)
These narratives define power as an individual posses-
sion rather than a cultural or structural arrangement that
serves to privilege and disadvantage adolescents in differ-
ent ways. Three of the texts defined bullying as involving
an Bimbalance of power,^ yet even those books devoted
more space to this individualistic conception. For in-
stance, although Little Girls Can Be Mean points to Bpow-
er imbalances^ in bullying (p. 157), the individualistic
framework remains predominant, as power is positioned
as something Bgirls feel^ (p. 62) and individuals are de-
scribed as Basserting^ and Btrying out their social power^
(p. 87, 95). Moreover, 8 Keys to End Bullying defines
bullying as involving an Bimbalance of power^ (p. 4),
yet the text most frequently reinforces the individualistic
framing, such as describing bullies as Bmaking a deliber-
ate choice to assert power^ (p. xiv) and as tending Bto
enjoy the sense of power and control they get from dom-
inating interactions and manipulating others^ (p. 13).
Twelve of the 16 texts that described power as an individ-
ual possession also emphasized that youth who confront or
commit bullying do not fit a singular profile. These texts stated
that bullies or adolescents experiencing bullying come in Ball
shapes and sizes^ or asserted that Banyone^ can perpetrate or
encounter this violence, as these examples indicate:
Kids who get bullied could be anybody!…Just like the
kids who bully, targets come in all shapes, sizes, and
ages. (Confessions of a Former Bully, np)
In reality, bullies come in all genders and ages, shapes
and sizes. They come from troubled families and nur-
turing ones, wealthy backgrounds and those of low so-
cioeconomic status….Much as we cannot paint all kids
who bully with the same brush, there is no single profile
that pinpoints kids who will be victimized by their peers.
(8 Keys to End Bullying, p. 10, 17)
Bullies come in all different sizes and shapes: some are
big, some are small; some bright and some not so bright;
some attractive and some not so attractive; some popular
and some absolutely disliked by almost everybody….
Just like bullies, kids who are bullied come in all sizes
and shapes. (The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander,
p. 11, 41)

These texts characterize bullies and individuals experienc-
ing bullying in broad terms, as Bkids who get bullied could be
anybody^ and Bbullies come in all different sizes and shapes.^
In part, this conceptual work serves to broaden the scope of
the problem—if adolescents who are bullied Bcome in all sizes
and shapes,^ then the violence appears as a large-scale prob-
lem, as something any youth could potentially confront. This
emphasis, however, also undermines consideration of power
relations, as the texts generally overlooked that youth may
confront violence and harassment to different degrees depend-
ing on their social standing. Even the two texts that mentioned
homophobic violence undermined the idea that adolescents
confront bullying to different degrees throughout the rest of
the text; as shown with the quotes above, both 8 Keys to End
Bullying and The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander char-
acterized bullying broadly, emphasizing that adolescents who
face or perpetrate this violence do not fit a singular profile. Ten
of the other texts, such as Confessions of a Former Bully
above, did not mention that LGBT youth may confront vio-
lence and harassment disproportionately and then character-
ized adolescents who experience bullying in broad terms.
Overall, given that the texts focused on bullying, the absence
of attention to social inequality based on sexuality remained
striking.
Differences Between the Older and Newer Texts
Findings below reveal several important differences between
the older 1993–2004 texts and the newer 2009–2014 books. In
particular, the older texts more frequently used classist lan-
guage when describing bullies, often characterizing them as
lazy, unintelligent, or irresponsible; these texts also more fre-
quently associated bullies with gangs, crime, or penal institu-
tions. Conversely, the newer texts focused significantly more
attention on intervention, advocating for Bstepping in^ or
Bstanding up^ to stop bullying. These texts were also more
likely than the older books to encourage adolescents to tell an
Table 3 Differences between the texts with percentages (N = 22)
Trend in the Texts
Trends more common in the older, 1993–2004 texts
Characterizes bullies as lazy, unintelligent, or irresponsible
Associates bullies with gangs, crime, or penal institutions
Trends more common in the newer, 2009–2014 texts
Encourages adolescents to tell an adult about bullying
Advocates for intervention, “stepping in” or “standing up” to stop bullying
Refers to bystanders
Refers to a “good” or “hero” bystander or includes a bystander as the protagonist
Suggests that the reader could potentially become a bully
Sex Res Soc Policy
adult about bullying. Together, these results indicate a signi-
ficant shift in the texts, from a comparatively harsh approach,
in which characterizing bullies in overtly negative ways was
rendered unproblematic, to a seemingly kinder and gentler
approach in which the value of reporting and intervening
was underscored.
Trends More Common in the Older Texts: Negative,
Pathologizing Descriptions of Bullies, Including Classed
and Racialized Discourse
The older books frequently characterized bullies in overtly
negative ways. In part, this negative discourse included lan-
guage historically used against marginalized race and social
class groups, particularly low-income people of color, as most
of the older books referred to bullies as lazy, unintelligent, or
lacking responsibility, and associated bullies with crime, gang
activity, or penal institutions (see Table 3). In addition to this
classed and racialized discourse, the older texts frequently
included pathologizing language, describing bullies in overtly
harsh ways, as in the following older text:
Granted, some bullies are not the reasonable type. They
pick on you because they are warped and maladjusted.
For any number of reasons – a dysfunctional family, low
self-esteem, low achievement, too much lead in their
drinking water, or some other malady, real or imagined
– they think they have to push their weight around in
order to feel better about themselves. Unless they have a
major turnaround in their lives, they’ll either wind up in
prison or become DMV license examiners. (No More
Bullies, p. 136)
Other examples in the older texts of this comparatively
harsh discourse include The Bully at Work referring to bullies
as Bthe devil personified^ (p. 47) and Take the Bully by the
Horns stating that bullies Bhave no incentive to change their
evil ways^ (p. 16). At times, these negative characterizations
Percentage of the older books to Percentage of the newer books to
which this trend applies (N = 12) which this trend applies (N = 10)
58.3 % 10.0 %
58.3 % 10.0 %
41.7 % 100.0 %
25.0 % 80.0 %
33.3 % 70.0 %
0.0 % 50.0 %
33.3% 80.0%
Sex Res Soc Policy
of bullies included classist or racist discourse, as evi-
denced by the statement above that bullies may Bwind
up in prison or become DMV license examiners.^ The
title of the books reflect this shift as well, with several
of the older texts using aggressive language to address
bullies, as Bye-Bye Bully!, No More Bullies, Take the
Bully by the Horns, and Bullies Are a Pain in the
Brain signify this earlier, harsher approach. The newer
book titles more frequently emphasize empowerment
and strength, such as Stand Strong, Tough!, and Stand
Up for Yourself & Your Friends; Little Girls Can Be
Mean is perhaps an exception here in that its title aligns
closer to the texts highlighting the cruelty of bullies, yet
its emphasis on aggression seems relatively muted in
comparison to its earlier counterpart, Girl Wars.
This emphasis on the negative characteristics of bullies was
also reflected in five of the older texts that constructed bullies
as lacking responsibility. At times, this language was quite
definitive in the older books, as The Bully at Work states that
bullies are Bnever personally responsible^ (p. 76) and The
Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander contends that Ball^
bullies Brefuse to accept responsibility for their actions^ (p.
20). Moreover, Bullies Are a Pain in the Brain constructs
bullies as the antithesis of responsibility:
If these bullies would stop and think for a moment, they
might realize that they are responsible for what happens
in their life. (Did I say responsible? Sorry! I forgot that
you can’t say Bbullies^ and Bresponsible^ in the same
sentence. The two just don’t go together.) (Bullies Are a
Pain in the Brain, p. 37)
This mocking of bullies as irresponsible was present in
other older texts, as the author of No More Bullies sardonically
comments, BAs if our tormentors have no choice (or respon-
sibility) in the matter^ (p. 124), and Take the Bully By the
Horns contends, BInstead of taking the mature, responsible
route to improve themselves so they become better, they take
the immature, irresponsible route^ (p. 11).
Other examples of class-based language were present in the
older texts, as The Bully at Work states that Bbullies are lazy^
(p. 61) and Jake Drake, Bully Buster comments that Bmost
bullies don’t seem so smart^ (p. 9), also later referring to the
bully in the narrative as a Bmoron^ (p. 48). Further, No More
Bullies and Pinky and Rex and the Bully refer to a bully as
Bdumb.^ None of the newer texts constructed bullies as lazy or
unintelligent; in fact, the only one of these texts to refer to a
bully’s intelligence was Bully B.E.A.N.S. In this newer text,
when the protagonist asks her mother, BWhy don’t teachers
stop kids who are bullying?,^ the mother responds, BTeachers
do stop them when they see it happen. The problem is that
most bullies are very smart, and they just don’t get caught.^
This characterization of bullies as Bvery smart^ contrasts
sharply with several of the older texts that constructed bullies
as unintelligent.
The older and newer texts differed not only in the
extent to which they referred to bullies as lazy, unintel-
ligent, or irresponsible but also in the degree to which
they associated bullies with gangs, crime, and penal
institutions. Most of the older texts used this discourse,
often implicitly linking bullies with stereotypes that
have historically been associated with, and used to stig-
matize, low-income people of color. For instance, No
More Bullies, in addition to suggesting that bullies
may Bwind up in prison^ (p. 136), referred to a bully
as a Bdumb thug^ (p. 9). Seven of these older texts
included references to gangs, crime, or penal institu-
tions, as in these examples:
There is one thing worse than a bully – a group of
bullies. What do you call a group of bullies? A gang.
Gangs are dangerous….The safest thing to do is avoid
gangs altogether. Gang members may try to persuade
you to join them. Don’t believe that you’ll be more cool,
popular, or tough by belonging to a gang. Many gang
members end up in jail, in the hospital, or dead. (Bullies
Are a Pain in the Brain, p. 26)
The gang of bullies is a scary lot drawn together not as a
group of friends, but as a strategic alliance in pursuit of
power, control, domination, subjugation, and turf. (The
Bully, The Bullied, and the Bystander, p. 19)
More and more, suburban kids are tuned in to the same
information as the urban kids and are getting the same
nonsense in their heads….They end up getting into trou-
ble because they are easily led and follow people who
will take them to jail. (Girl Wars, pp. 40-41)
In the first book, the page opposite the description of
gangs—page 27—has a picture of three students, two of
whom appear to be of color and one as white, with one of
the students of color holding a sign that says, BNew Recruits
Wanted, Great Benefits,^ implying that they are attempting to
recruit new gang members. This text reproduces discourse
associating people of color with gangs, danger, and criminal-
ity, contending that Bgangs are dangerous^ as many of their
Bmembers end up in jail, in the hospital, or dead^ (p. 26). The
second text refers to a Bgang of bullies^ as one of seven
Btypes,^ also using discourse that emphasizes danger when
characterizing the gang as Ba scary lot^ (p. 19). The third text
drops the discourse of Bgangs^ but uses implicitly racialized
language in contrasting suburban and urban kids, suggesting
that the former have become Btuned in to the same
information^ as the latter, ultimately following Bpeople who
will take them to jail^ (pp. 40-41).

Only one of the newer books, Confessions of a
Former Bully, included any reference to crime, gangs,
or penal institutions, with the following sentence: BKids
who bully others are more likely to go to jail, use
alcohol or drugs, have eating disorders, or drop out of
school when they’re older^ (np). This text, which focus-
es on a former bully Bconfessing,^ is also the only one
of the newer texts to construct bullies as irresponsible,
when the narrator declares, BSome kids DON’T like
taking responsibility for their mean behavior. I know I
didn’t. I figured the kids I picked on somehow deserved
it.^ Despite these references to jail and irresponsibility,
this text includes relatively muted language in compar-
ison to many of the older books, with fewer of the
lengthy negative descriptions of bullies commonly found
in the older texts. Indeed, this book focuses most of its
attention on providing guidance on how to report and
respond to bullying, advising the reader Bto help kids
who are being bullied^ because Bit’s not good to ignore
it.^ In this sense, as the newer books emphasized the
importance of intervening, the pathologizing discourse
of bullies largely subsided, as did the more obviously
classed and racialized language associating bullies with
crime, gangs, and penal institutions.
Trends More Common in the Newer Texts: Bystanders
and the Emphasis on Reporting and Intervening
The newer texts were more likely than the older texts to ad-
vocate for intervention, with more references to bystanders
and Bstepping in^ to stop bullying (see Table 3). Five of the
newer books emphasized the importance of intervening by
referring to a Bgood^ or Bhero^ bystander, or including a by-
stander as the protagonist, such as in the following newer
texts:
Being a good bystander: A person who sees someone
else being bullied is called a bystander. One way to be a
good bystander is to say out loud to the bully that you
don’t agree with her and you want her to stop. (Stand Up
for Yourself & Your Friends, p. 44)
Be a hero bystander. Notice it and care. Imagine what it
would be like to be in the shoes of the kid who is being
bullied. How would you feel?…Tell the kid who is bul-
lying to stop. (Confessions of a Former Bully, np)
Empower kids to stand up for each other and teach and
encourage good bystander behavior….Imagine the im-
pact bystanders could have on bringing an end to bully-
ing if they intervened at higher rates. It is our job, as
adults, to figure out how to get them to do so. (8 Keys to
End Bullying, p. 55, 130)
Sex Res Soc Policy
None of the older texts included this discourse of a Bgood^
or Bhero^ bystander. In contrast, although the newer books
never overtly referred to Bbad^ bystanders, these texts often
implicitly distinguished between Bgood^ and Bbad^ onlookers.
Most obviously, this distinction involved Bbad^ bystanders
doing nothing about bullying. For instance, Stand Up for
Yourself & Your Friends constructs Bstanding up,^ as the title
of the book implies, as superior to a bystander who does not
intervene: BWhen you see someone being bullied, you have an
important choice to make. You can stand around and watch, or
you can stand up for that person^ (p. 42). The book ends with a
Bpledge^ that readers are encouraged to take, including a
promise to Bhelp those who are being bullied^ and Bencourage
my friends to stand up against bullying^ (p. 61). Similarly,
Stand Strong commends onlookers who intervene: BI cheer
for the champions of children who never take ‘no’ for an
answer when it comes to stepping in to stop bullying^
(p. xv). The discourse in these narratives varied slightly from
one book to the next, as Stand Strong uses Bstepping in^ rather
than Bstanding up,^ yet the advice was consistent in advocating
for intervention.
The children’s books also placed more emphasis on inter-
vention over time. While none of the older children’s texts
featured a bystander as a protagonist or even as a character
affecting the plot, five of the seven newer children’s books
involved bystanders playing an instrumental role in the narra-
tive arc of the story. Two of these newer texts—The Juice Box
Bully and Bully B.E.A.N.S.—are instructive of this trend, as
the narrative of these books involves peers who intervene and
stop the bullying. In The Juice Box Bully, the story begins with
a student, Pete, arriving at a new school and suggesting to
Ralph, one of the students at the school, that the two of them
should steal a soccer ball from their classmates. When Ralph
says, BI don’t think so, that’s not how we do things around
here,^ (np) Pete then steals the ball on his own. Two other
classmates—Ruby and Lucy—then approach Pete, with
Ruby explaining the following:
It’s your first day here, so there is no way you could
know this. In Mr. Peltzer’s class, we made a promise.
We promised to take care of ourselves, each other, and
our classroom, and to solve problems peacefully. We
promised that in this class, no one would stand by and
accept bad behavior. When someone acts hurtfully, we
all speak up. We want you to be a member of the class
and to make the same promise.
After Pete refuses to make the promise—referring to it as
Bdumb^—the next day, he squirts liquid from a juice box onto
Ruby’s shirt. Ruby, upset that her shirt has been stained, then
wants to alienate Pete, the Bjuice box bully,^ from the rest of
the school, declaring that he Bwon’t have any friends here!^
Ralph, however, helps Ruby to remain calm and encourages
Sex Res Soc Policy
her to be nice by asking, BRemember our promise?^ Pete, the
bully, then expresses surprise, asking Ralph, BWhy did you
stand up for me?^ Ralph replies, BI’ve been in your shoes, and
I learned being a bully doesn’t work. And, I’m not a bystander.
I don’t stand by and let mean things happen.^ The text ends
with Pete deciding to Bgive this promise thing a try^ and re-
conciling with Ruby, as they apologize to one another and
return to class together. In this narrative, the peer group plays
a prominent role, as the students prevent further bullying and
resolve the conflict. Indeed, the bully arrives at a school where
the students have already established a culture against bully-
ing, promising not to be bystanders.
The narrative of Bully B.E.A.N.S. is similar to The Juice
Box Bully, but involves a girl bullying a boy. The protago-
nist, also a girl, witnesses this harassment. Bully B.E.A.N.S.
emphasizes the importance of bystanders, as the protago-
nist and her friends come together to stand up to the bully,
telling her to BBack Off!^ and BLeave us Alone!^ (np). The
title of the book comes from the protagonist’s mother tell-
ing her to eat BBully Beans^ before approaching the bully;
the beans are regular jelly beans that the mother presents as
having magical powers. The mother describes the beans to
her daughter as Bmagic jelly beans that when chewed up,
remind kids that THEY have the power to stop bullies. The
‘beans’ in Bully Beans stands for Bullies Everywhere Are
Now Stopped [B.E.A.N.S.].^ After the children eat the
beans and stand up to the bully, the mother tells her daugh-
ter that Bthey’re just regular old jelly beans,^ as the Bonly
magic is that they helped you find the courage inside your-
self to stand up to [the bully].^ Again, the narrative of this
book involves bystanders ending the bullying.
In contrast to these narratives from the newer children’s
books that involved a peer group stopping harassment, the
older children’s texts were comparatively simple and straight-
forward, in that the central drama of the book focused on the
bully and the individual being bullied. In all of the older chil-
dren’s texts, either the protagonist was an adolescent being
bullied or the book was addressed to a reader who had expe-
rienced bullying. At times, the characters in these older texts
also Bstood up^ to the bully, but the key difference was that the
individual experiencing the bullying always engaged in these
acts, not bystanders. For instance, among the older texts, My
Secret Bully ends with the protagonist standing up to her bully,
who then leaves her alone; similarly, The Berenstain Bears, in
which Sister Bear is being bullied, involves her ending the
violence by physically fighting the bully. The climax of Jake
Drake, Bully Buster occurs when the protagonist, Jake, de-
bates whether he should get revenge on his tormentor, Link,
by being mean—in effect, the book implies, by bullying his
bully. When Jake decides to be nice rather than mean to Link,
the reader is left with the message that the bully’s cruelty has
been softened through kindness. In these older texts, the bully
changes because of the actions of the adolescent being bullied;
bystanders are absent from the narrative, as they were in all of
the older children’s books. In contrast, the newer texts more
frequently involved the peer group intervening to prevent fur-
ther bullying.
Along with the increasing emphasis on intervention, all of
the newer texts encouraged adolescents to report bullying to
an adult, as in the following examples:
It’s really important to report what happened to grown-
ups you trust so they can make sure everyone gets the
help and protection they need….Whenever you’re deal-
ing with bullying, it’s ALL about reporting.
(Confessions of a Former Bully, np)
If you’ve tried speaking up and that’s not working, get
help from a parent or another adult you trust….If you’ve
given the bully fair warning and the bullying continues,
it’s time to make a full report to the teacher or principal.
Ask your parents to go with you. (Stand Up for Yourself
& Your Friends, p. 32-33)
It’s always a good idea to tell a teacher or a counselor
when you see bullying. If you are too scared to tell them
in person, write them a note and don’t sign your name.
(Bully B.E.A.N.S., np)
The possibility that adults would be unhelpful or respond
negatively was written out of these narratives, as none of the
newer texts emphasized that the situation might not improve
after reporting the violence or harassment. This emphasis
contrasted with some of the older texts, as three of these books
emphasized that the violence could escalate after telling an
adult. For instance, among the older texts, the narrator in
The Bully from a Black Lagoon contends, BIf I tell Mrs.
Green, he’ll ram, slam, jam, and bam me after school^ (np)
and the protagonist in Jake Drake, Bully Buster declares, BThe
second rule about bullies is that if you tattle to the teacher,
things might get a lot worse^ (p. 17). No More Bullies attri-
butes this possible escalation of the violence to norms
concerning Bsnitching^: BIf you say anything about the bully-
ing you endure, you’re a snitch or a wimp, and you only
compound the problem. At least, that seems to be the univer-
sal, unwritten code of conduct^ (p. 63). Five of the older books
also encouraged adolescents to report bullying, yet the newer
texts were more likely to do so, as all of these texts suggested
speaking to an adult and omitted any reference to how this
action could make the situation worse.
The Bully in You: the Reader as a Potential Bully
In emphasizing the value of reporting and intervening, the
newer texts were also more likely than the older books to
implicate the reader in potentially becoming a bully. This

suggestion was most predominant in the newer text Stand
Strong, as an entire chapter, titled BDefeat the Bullies Inside,^
is devoted to managing this Bbully in you^ (p. 121). To take
one example, the author of the text explains, under the sub-
heading, BThe Bully in You,^ that Byour negative emotions
can be like bullies inside you^ (p. 129). Indeed, here, Stand
Strong warns the reader about giving in to these negative
emotions and becoming a bully: BIf you simply do what those
bad feelings stir you to do, you are just giving in to another
bully in your life^ (p. 129). Other texts implied that if readers
were to intervene on behalf of the individual being bullied,
they would have to be careful not to become bullies them-
selves. For instance, newer texts such as Little Girls Can Be
Mean, Stand Up for Yourself & Your Friends, and 8 Keys to
End Bullying suggest that the reader should strive for an ideal
calibration of being Bassertive^ without becoming Baggres-
sive.^ The narrative of Tease Monster adopts a similar ap-
proach, as the subtitle of the book is Ba book about teasing
vs. bullying^ and much of the text instructs the reader on how
to tease without becoming a bully, contending that Bsome-
times when you nice tease, your words go too far^ (p. 23)
and advising the reader to Blaugh with and not at any one
[sic]^ (p. 29).
Other newer texts implicated the reader when describing
individuals who may bully, as Stand Up for Yourself & Your
Friends states, BAnyone can bully, even you^ (p. 10), while
Confessions of a Former Bully claims, BKids who bully can
look a lot like you^ (np). Tough! includes an activity that
readers can do to reflect on—and, presumably, improve up-
on—any Bbullying behavior^ they may have participated in
recently, as this activity asks the reader, BAre you worried
about the way you’ve been acting toward others lately?^
(p. 35). These statements potentially implicating the reader
in bullying were not entirely absent from the older texts, as
they appeared in four of those books as well, but these narra-
tives appeared more frequently and carried more weight in the
newer texts because of their emphasis on reporting and inter-
vening, which implicitly encourages readers to be on the look-
out for bullying. Given that the newer texts urged readers to
intervene and report bullying they witness, this emphasis
could logically extend to the reader, who was encouraged
not only to monitor the bullying of others but also to manage
and control their own potential to become a bully.
Discussion and Conclusion
The shift described in this article from relatively harsh descrip-
tions of bullies to caring bystanders who intervene suggests
that the discourse in these texts has increasingly presented
itself as kind. The outwardly harsh language of the past—
referring to bullies as lazy, unintelligent, or irresponsible, for
example, and linking them with gangs, crime, and penal
Sex Res Soc Policy
institutions—has largely disappeared from the recent texts.
The new discourse appears gentler, less harsh, and more for-
ward thinking, yet now reporting and intervening are encour-
aged, which continues rather than diminishes punitiveness
around bullying. Indeed, the shift toward reporting, interven-
ing, and monitoring better conceals this punitiveness, as ex-
plicitly kinder language is used, and yet more individuals—
now, bystanders—may be punished and more students are
encouraged to report their peers to an adult. Authority figures,
particularly teachers and school administrators, are potentially
given more disciplinary power, as reporting and intervening
often depend on those in powerful positions to stop bullying.
At the same time, mandatory reporting laws—which institute
disciplinary measures against individuals who do not report
events such as bullying that they have witnessed or been made
aware of—permit more punishment of authority figures
(Brank et al. 2012; Cohen and Brooks 2014). Thus, the shift
in the texts from characterizing bullies in overtly negative
ways to encouraging adolescents to report and intervene po-
tentially expands the scope of control, allowing for the pun-
ishment of more people, as individuals beyond the bully are
increasingly held accountable. This gentle neoliberalism, then,
in current anti-bullying books appears more humane than out-
dated, harsh descriptions of the past, while simultaneously
expanding systems of surveillance, which have historically
had more negative consequences for disadvantaged groups
(Browne 2015; Fine et al. 2003; Taylor 2013).
Given the similarity with which the texts individualized
power and inequality, this shift toward reporting and interven-
ing is likely not a serious attempt to reduce homophobia,
much less alter heteronormativity, in US schools. In the texts,
the lack of attention to structural dynamics was apparent when
bullies and adolescents experiencing bullying were described
as groups that Banyone^ could be or as groups that come Bin all
shapes and sizes.^ This discourse ignores structural dynamics
favoring youth in institutionally supported positions, as a pop-
ular and wealthy heterosexual adolescent bullying an unpopu-
lar, low-income queer student is likely to cause greater psy-
chological harm than the opposite dynamic, given these stu-
dents differing locations in the hierarchy of the school and the
wider society. Pascoe (2013) has persuasively argued that re-
search cannot merely assume that homophobic harassment
among adolescent boys only operates in the context of power
imbalances, as it often occurs among relatively equally posi-
tioned peers. At the same time, scholarship also needs to ac-
count for systems of oppression, as students are likely to re-
ceive unequal institutional support based on hierarchies of
race, class, gender, and sexuality. In this sense, research can
explore patterns of gender and sexuality in interactions among
similarly positioned students, while simultaneously examin-
ing power imbalances. Examining unequal power arrange-
ments remains important, even while not assuming their ubiq-
uity in aggressive interactions.
Sex Res Soc Policy
Although the older and newer texts generally overlooked
homophobia, heteronormativity, and anti-LGBT violence, the
emphasis on intervention in the newer children’s books re-
vealed a cooperative undercurrent in these texts, where the
adolescents work together to establish a culture against bully-
ing. While this representation appears more about reinforcing
the monitoring and reporting goals of surveillance regimes
than about challenging systems of inequality, social move-
ments and policies designed to reduce violence against queer
youth frequently require a significant amount of cooperation
to achieve structural change. As a result, the cooperative ele-
ments of the recent texts can be built upon to resist institution-
al power structures, rather than simply advance surveillance
strategies. Nevertheless, given the concerns presented in this
article in which anti-bullying texts have remained implicated
in neoliberalism, policy solutions that address violence against
LGBT youth must resist surveillance approaches of monitor-
ing and reporting, given their disproportionate effects on mar-
ginalized groups.
As anti-bullying discourse has frequently been used to re-
inforce rather than challenge regulatory systems, new dis-
course is needed that places violence against marginalized
queer youth at the center of analysis. Of course, narratives
linking LGBT sexuality with negative consequences can be
problematic as well, given that this discourse may be used to
essentialize queer identities as inherently dangerous (Fields
et al. 2014; Foreman 2015; Payne and Smith 2013). At the
same time, it remains necessary to balance discourse focusing
on the value of queer sexualities with analyses that underscore
the effects of institutional power structures. To that end, em-
phasizing that LGBT youth experience violence and harass-
ment disproportionately more than their non-LGBT counter-
parts can serve to undermine neoliberal anti-bullying dis-
course that attributes social inequality to differences in indi-
vidual will. Undoubtedly, these differences are not merely a
matter of sexuality, as gender-nonconforming youth who
identify as heterosexual experience this violence as well, and
multiple marginalized LGBT people who experience racism,
sexism, and economic insecurity confront anti-queer violence
in different ways, and often at higher rates, than their more
privileged counterparts (Ahmed and Jindasurat 2014; Meyer
2015; Paceley and Flynn 2012). Thus, discourse and policies
are needed that forcefully emphasize and address social in-
equality, based on not only gender and sexuality but also race
and social class.
Neoliberal norms related to race and gender can be seen in
the results outlined in this article. In some of the newer texts,
the advice to stop bullying was to be Bassertive^ without be-
coming Baggressive.^ This privileging of assertiveness relies
on a neoliberal model of subjectivity, in which perfect calibra-
tion is considered possible through weighing costs and bene-
fits (Bay-Cheng 2015; Gershon 2011; Gill 2008). In this
sense, market norms that mandate rational calculation remain
implicated in the anti-bullying texts, as the narratives suggest
that a perfectly calibrated subjectivity can be achieved.
Further, given that students of color are more likely than their
white counterparts to be labeled as aggressive, this ideal cal-
ibration of assertiveness is also undoubtedly easier to achieve
for white students, whom authority figures are likely to view
more positively when they perform assertiveness (Ferguson
2001; Pascoe 2007). Although the gendered dynamics of
these narratives are outside the scope of this article, the
privileging of assertiveness was often implicitly linked with
neoliberal ideals of femininity and empowerment; assertive
girls were presented as empowered. This assertive feminine
subjectivity is most frequently positioned as upper-middle
class and white, as Bettie (2003) also found that best-selling
books such as Reviving Ophelia (Pipher 1994) associate these
empowered femininities with whiteness and upper-middle
class positions, reinforcing existing race and social class hier-
archies. The anti-bullying texts in this study increasingly ad-
vanced these neoliberal norms of feminine empowerment, and
future research is necessary to examine these gendered
dynamics.
In addition to the shift outlined in this article toward inter-
vention, peers appear to be increasingly represented as helpful
in preventing bullying. These representations have led to a
shift away from the traditional narrative of bullying, where
adolescents being bullied largely experienced pain, isolation,
and neglect from their peers. Now, the peer group in anti-
bullying texts is generally presented as providing support
and opposing bullying. This new discourse becomes problem-
atic to the extent that less attention focuses on adolescents who
experience a lack of institutional support. Adolescents isolated
from their peers, experiencing unsupportive reactions perhaps
even harassment from their teachers, have primarily been re-
moved from these new narratives. Classic stereotypes of bul-
lying such as a popular male adolescent – Bthe jock^ – pushing
an unpopular boy – Bthe nerd^ – against a locker, while sim-
plistic and problematic in many ways, pointed to hierarchies
in the school and sometimes even constructed the peer group
as cruel or unhelpful.
Now, the onlookers in anti-bullying texts are generally pre-
sented as Bgood^ and implicitly compared to Bbad^ bystanders
who ignore or condone the violence, which may be viewed as
progress if one views this shift through the lens of individual-
istic intervention, yet these distinctions allow for more stig-
matizing of onlookers. The narrative in these texts has become
more diffuse, as the older books had a relatively straightfor-
ward construction of the good, innocent person being bullied
by the bad, aggressive bully, while now the value judgments
have expanded even further to onlookers, who are positioned
as either good or bad, depending on whether they are inter-
vening or not. These new ways of labeling onlookers may
potentially add more punitive measures and reinforce existing
race and social class hierarchies, given that low-income youth

and adolescents of color are disproportionately subjected to
disciplinary action (Browne 2015; Ferguson 2001; Fine et al.
2003).
To resist ways of labeling onlookers, attention needs to
shift toward the experiences of marginalized queer youth,
whose experiences likely reveal that strategies of individual-
istic intervention do not improve their lives, as they often
cannot rely on their peers, teachers, or school administrators
to intervene on their behalf, and may be harmed by strategies
that increase surveillance. As the role of neoliberalism in these
anti-bullying texts has shifted from a model representing
bullies in relatively harsh ways to a gentler model that calls
for reporting and intervening on behalf of adolescents
experiencing bullying, greater analysis is needed to highlight
how surveillance strategies reinforce systems of inequality. As
I have emphasized, the newer texts, although appearing less
aggressive and punitive, potentially expand the scope of con-
trol in US schools by calling for more individualistic interven-
tion, a strategy likely to reinforce rather than challenge already
existing hierarchies in these schools.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Human and animal rights and informed consent This article does
not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by
any of the authors.
References
Abrahamson, M. (1983). Social research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Ahmed, O., & Jindasurat, C. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer, and hiv-affected hate violence in 2013. National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs, Retrieved 1 July 2015, from http://www.
avp.org/storage/documents/2013_ncavp_hvreport_final.pdf.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age
of colorblindness. New York: New Press.
Bansel, P., Davies, B., Lewis, C., & Linnell, S. (2009). Bullies, bullying
and power in the contexts of schooling. British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 30(1), 59–69.
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: a neoliberal metric for ap-
praising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73(7), 279–291.
Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: girls, race, and identity. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: text analysis in grounded theory. In
U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steink (Eds.), A companion to qual-
itative research (pp. 270–275). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brank, E. M., Hoetger, L. A., & Hazen, K. P. (2012). Bullying. Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 213–230.
Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: on the surveillance of blackness.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Calhoun, C. (2013). Occupy Wall Street in perspective. The British
Journal of Sociology, 64(1), 26–38.
Centeno, M. A., & Cohen, J. N. (2012). The arc of neoliberalism. Annual
Review of Sociology, 38, 317–340.
Sex Res Soc Policy
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Cohen, J. W., & Brooks, R. A. (2014). Confronting school bullying: kids,
culture, and the making of a social problem. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Collier, K., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H., & Sandfort, T. (2013). Sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression related peer victimization
in adolescence: a systematic review of associated psychosocial and
health outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50(3-4), 299–317.
Comaroff, J. (2011). The end of neoliberalism? What is left of the left.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 637(1), 141–147.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: tech-
niques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Davis, K., Randall, D., Ambrose, A., & Orand, M. (2015). BI was bullied
too^: stories of bullying and coping in an online community.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 357–375.
Duménil, G., & Lévy, D. (2011). The crisis of neoliberalism. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Elliott, S. (2014). BWho’s to blame?^ Constructing the responsible sexual
agent in neoliberal sex education. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 11(3), 211–224.
Enns, P. K. (2014). The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence
on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of
Political Science, 58(4), 857–872.
Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: public schools in the making of black
masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferguson, J. (2010). The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode, 41(s1), 166–
184.
Fields, J., Mamo, L., Gilbert, J., & Lesko, N. (2014). Beyond bullying.
Contexts, 13(4), 80–83.
Fine, M., Freudenberg, N., Payne, Y., Perkins, T., Smith, K., & Wanzer,
K. (2003). BAnything can happen with police around^: urban youth
evaluate strategies of surveillance in public places. Journal of Social
Issues, 59(1), 141–158.
Foreman, V. (2015). Constructing the victim in the bullying narrative:
how bullying discourses affirm rather than challenge discriminatory
notions of gender and sexuality. Crime, Media, Culture, 11(2), 157–
176.
Formby, E. (2013). Understanding and responding to homophobia and
bullying: contrasting staff and young people’s views within commu-
nity settings in England. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
10(4), 302–316.
Formby, E. (2015). Limitations of focusing on homophobic, biphobic and
transphobic ‘bullying’ to understand and address LGBT young peo-
ple’s experiences within and beyond school. Sex Education:
Sexuality, Society and Learning, 15(6), 626–640.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New
York: Vintage Books.
Galitz, T., & Robert, D. (2014). Governing bullying through the new
public health model: a Foucaultian analysis of a school anti-
bullying programme. Critical Public Health, 24(2), 182–195.
Gerlinger, J., & Turner, S. F. (2015). California’s public safety realign-
ment correctional policy based on stakes rather than risk. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 26(8), 805–827.
Gershon, I. (2011). Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology, 52(4),
537–555.
Gill, R. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist
times. Subjectivity, 25(1), 432–445.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of
grounded theory. Mill Valley: The Sociological Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory:
strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Green, M., Bobrowicz, A., & Ang, C. S. (2015). The lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual and transgender community online: discussions of bullying and
Sex Res Soc Policy
self-disclosure in YouTube videos. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 34(7), 704–712.
Grzanka, P. R., & Mann, E. S. (2014). Queer youth suicide and the
psychopolitics of Bit gets better.^ Sexualities, 17(4), 369–393.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hilgers, M. (2013). Embodying neoliberalism: thoughts and responses to
critics. Social Anthropology, 21(1), 75–89.
Hirschfield, P., & Celinska, K. (2011). Beyond fear: sociological perspec-
tives on the criminalization of school discipline. Sociology
Compass, 5(1), 1–12.
Kaufman, L. (2013). Publishers revel in youthful cruelty (p. C1). New
York: The New York Times.
Kupchik, A., & Monahan, T. (2006). The new American school: prepa-
ration for post‐industrial discipline. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 27(5), 617–631.
Marying, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von
Kardoff, & I. Steink (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research
(pp. 266–269). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meyer, D. (2014). Resisting hate crime discourse: queer and intersection-
al challenges to neoliberal hate crime laws. Critical Criminology,
22(1), 113–125.
Meyer, D. (2015). Violence against queer people: race, class, gender, and
the persistence of anti-LGBT discrimination. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data
analysis: a methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: how neolib-
eralism survived the financial meltdown. New York: Verso.
Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: mutations in citizenship and
sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press.
Oppliger, P., & Davis, A. (2015). Portrayals of bullying: a content anal-
ysis of picture books for preschoolers. Early Childhood Education
Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-
0734-1.
Paceley, M., & Flynn, K. (2012). Media representations of bullying to-
ward queer youth: gender, race, and age discrepancies. Journal of
LGBT Youth, 9(4), 340–356.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: masculinity and sexuality in
high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pascoe, C. J. (2013). Notes on a sociology of bullying: young men’s
homophobia as gender socialization (pp. 87–104). QED: A
Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, Inaugural Issue.
Payne, E., & Smith, M. (2013). LGBTQ kids, school safety, and missing
the big picture: how the dominant bullying discourse prevents
school professionals from thinking about systemic marginalization
or…why we need to rethink LGBTQ bullying (pp. 1–36). QED: A
Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, Inaugural Issue.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3),
380–404.
Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2010). Postneoliberalism and its
malcontents. Antipode, 41(s1), 94–116.
Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2012). Neoliberalism resurgent?
Market rule after the great recession. South Atlantic Quarterly,
111(2), 265–288.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving ophelia: saving the selves of adolescent girls.
New York: Random House.
Quinn, T., & Meiners, E. R. (2013). From anti-bullying laws and gay
marriages to queer worlds and just futures (pp. 149–176). QED: A
Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, Inaugural Issue.
Ringrose, J. (2008). BJust be friends^: exposing the limits of educational
bully discourses for understanding teen girls’ heterosexualized
friendships and conflicts. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 29(5), 509–522.
Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2010). Normative cruelties and gender devi-
ants: the performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys
in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 573–596.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Smith, P., Kupferberg, A., Mora-Merchan, J., Samara, M., Bosley, S., &
Osborn, R. (2012). A content analysis of school anti-bullying poli-
cies: a follow-up after six years. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 28(1), 47–70.
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor:
neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Spade, D. (2011). Normal life: administrative violence, critical trans
politics and the limits of law. Brooklyn: South End Press.
Taylor, E. (2013). Surveillance schools: security, discipline and control in
contemporary education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thornberg, R. (2011). BShe’s weird!^—the social construction of bully-
ing in school: a review of qualitative research. Children & Society,
25(4), 258–267.
Wacquant, L. (2009). Prisons of poverty. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Walton, G. (2005a). BBullying widespread^: a critical analysis of research
and public discourse on bullying. Journal of School Violence, 4(1),
91–118.
Walton, G. (2005b). The notion of bullying through the lens of Foucault
and critical theory. Journal of Educational Thought, 39(1), 55–73.
Wayne, R. (2013). The social construction of childhood bullying through
U.S. news media. Journal of Contemporary Anthropology, 4(1),
Article 3. Available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jca/vol4/iss1/3.
Weaver, L. M., Brown, J. R., Weddle, D. B., & Aalsma, M. C. (2013). A
content analysis of protective factors within states’ antibullying
laws. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 156–173.
Weston, K. (2016). Animate planet: making visceral sense of living in a
high-tech ecologically damaged world. Durham: Duke University
Press.