Healing Space | The bullies being made acceptable on reality TV

The idea that one member of a party in a transactional relationship should be manipulable by harsh or negative feedback, and that this is somehow a necessary rite of passage is deeply misguided. Worse, it is plain and simple bullying couched in socially acceptable terms. (Illustration by Suneesh K.)

Note to readers: Healing Space is a weekly series that helps you dive into your mental health and take charge of your wellbeing through practical DIY self-care methods.

Barney Simpson, the consummate flirt in How I Met Your Mother once epitomized the male pick-up artist (PUA), later popularized by Neil Strauss’s bestseller The Game (2013). Strauss revealed the concept of negging, in which a PUA feigned a lack of interest and a backhanded insult in order to have a woman take interest in him. The book was filled with several such underhanded means by which to gaslight and manipulate women into going out on dates with them.

What they didn’t tell you was Strauss has since then been in rehab and therapy for sex addiction, and regrets writing it. He also admits, women aren’t stupid and can see through the attempts at manipulation.

But the methodology has caught on and made its way into reality TV. Whether it’s Gordon Ramsey shouting at sous chefs in the kitchen, or sharks on Shark Tank, the idea that one member of a party in a transactional relationship should be manipulable by harsh or negative feedback, and that this is somehow a necessary rite of passage is deeply misguided. Worse, it is plain and simple bullying couched in socially acceptable terms.

Ragging, or hazing, was accepted in schools, colleges, and fraternities, teams in sports, and still occurs in disguised forms even though rendered illegal by law. You are either oppressor or oppressed, and this establishes whether you are a ‘winner’ or a ‘loser’. You either dish it out or you take it. If you accept this hazing well, and submit to the superiority of the oppressors, you get inducted into their group. You then gain the right to haze others in turn, passing on the humiliation that was heaped on you once, when it is your turn. This also occurs in workplaces that have a toxic male culture where ‘men’ put on a display of machoism by forcing subordinates to drink, smoke, engage in locker room talk, sexual innuendo, and make it a point to distinguish the ‘men’ from the ‘boys’ (and often, women). This psychology of hazing, circulated as some sort of necessary evil, finds its origins in establishing the primal order of the pack.

Primally, human beings bonded into packs in order to fend off threats by finding a strength in numbers. When you submit to the group and its rituals, you are gaining their protection. However, what is put on display is how the group that you seek protection (or in a modern context, approval) from, is equally capable of being a threat to you. The purpose of hazing is to cultivate social dependence by manipulating you into believing that without it you would be left alone and unprotected.

In entertainment and media terms, these also offer the highest clickbait and viewership. When you are cheering for your sports team, for one group over another in a contest, or are enjoying watching a group splinter into camps pitting themselves against each other in shows like Bigg Boss, and voting out contestants with a vengeance, sometimes sending multiple or mass messages in order to display support, you are participating in an act of primal bonding.

When that performance is necessarily dependent on criticism that is harsh, manipulative, gaslighting, and humiliating, there is absolutely nothing constructive about it. Whichever show in question has now devolved from merit of the argument, presentation or skill, to a matter of balance of power. What you’re saying is those who hold power by negativity control the room. This is plain and simple bullying. You’re also admitting that without such submission, the victim of bullying has no protection or value. You’re saying that without such venture capital attention, the business has a lower chance of thriving outside the clique. The hype is created to ask you to depend on the benevolence of the group, and the cost is your pride, your self-esteem and your dignity. Comments such as ‘don’t you know better?’ ‘how stupid are you?’ ‘haven’t you done your homework/research?’ ‘don’t you even know this much?’ or that personally target looks, identity, intelligence, are designed to degrade self-worth and trigger submission.

Ignoring it, by audiences and the media, or couching bullying in acceptable terminology, ‘oh it’s just some gentle ribbing/hazing/negging’ makes it seem acceptable socially. This is often done by people who have been through it themselves and thus feel entitled to pass it on. This is the ‘saans bhi kab hi bahu thi’ (the mother-in-law was once the daughter-in-law) phenomenon. Bullying is necessarily a cyclical phenomenon. It was promised to you that if you submit, you will gain in superiority/ social control/ stature by being able to do the same. You want the promotion so you can lord over others the way you were lorded over, so you submit to the system. Bosses do it, mothers-in-law do it, venture capitalists do it. That doesn’t make it right or any less a degree of bullying than locking someone in a toilet or slapping them.

Because you see there is the mistaken notion that the oppressor decides what bullying is or isn’t. Gaslighting and manipulation are equally forms of emotional abuse. Telling someone they are stupid, useless, dark skinned, will amount to nothing, ugly, don’t know what they are doing, have no good ideas, and will fail can have crushing effects on self-esteem, push people into depression, and trigger suicidal ideations. How many times have you read about a farmer who killed himself because he owed an amount several other people consider insignificant or easily repayable? The phone calls and field visits by loan collectors become bullying and threatening because they prey upon the individual’s insecurities and fears. A teenager who is called ugly and seeks to take their life does not have the perspective in that frame of mind or at that age and state of development to look around the corner and see that this won’t matter in time, or that the problem is with the abuser. There is no degree to bullying. You call it something acceptable until the victim reacts strongly and attempts self-harm, then society and the media starts calling it out. Until then, self-esteem and self-worth gets trashed like a bloodsport. The bully lacks empathy primarily, lacks remorse for their words or actions and its impact on the victim, picks victims who need social approval and manipulates them to their advantage by maintaining a hierarchy.

Stop giving bullying acceptable outlets. It’s not okay in any form.

Identify psychologically constructive criticism:

- Constructive criticism is descriptive: It tells you what a person felt about it, not necessarily imposing the idea that this is how it is. You are therefore free to take it or leave it. (“Your idea made me feel like I wouldn’t use it much for X reason” not “your idea has no application”.)

- It is specific. It avoids the use of vague umbrella words such as ‘nice’ or ‘pointless’ or ‘outdated’. It will tell you exactly the point that needs fixing and why.

- It focuses on behaviour not the person. It does not dismiss the idea that the person could come up with a better solution or fit for the problem.

- It has empathy for the receiver of feedback. It sees their point of view.

- It directs criticism towards that which can be fixed. If it cannot be fixed, then the criticism is not useful and is fundamentally flawed.