can.
Correlation matrix (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) of variables associated with bullying. Note: crossed cells refer to correlations that are not statistically significant. Source: Calculations of the authors based on PISA-2018 in Russia.
To estimate the effect of learning outcomes on the probability of becoming a victim of bullying, we built a logistic regression model with an equation presented below.
The results of the model are presented in Table 4 . To make the interpretation more meaningful and intuitive, we converted the predictors from the interval to ordinal scale with three levels: low performers, medium performers, and high performers in three core subject domains monitored by PISA: reading, mathematics, and science. PISA defines low performers as schoolchildren that “score below Level 2 on the PISA mathematics, reading, and/or science scales,” as this level is considered the baseline “of proficiency that is required to participate fully in society” (OECD, 2016 , p. 37). Schoolchildren who score at Level 1 “can answer questions involving clear directions and requiring a single source of information and simple connections; but they cannot engage in more complex reasoning to solve the kinds of problems that are routinely faced by adults of today in modern societies” (OECD, 2016 ). The low performers cannot interpret or recognize situations in contexts that require somewhat more than direct inference, being thus unable to “extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode” (OECD, 2016 , p. 40). Oppositely, high performers showed outstanding results reaching either Level 5 or 6, whereas medium performers are those within levels 2, 3, and 4.
Regression models.
Science performance: Low | 0.002 | 0.045 |
Science performance: Medium | −0.010 | 0.037 |
Mathematics performance: Low | −0.027 | 0.034 |
Mathematics performance: Medium | −0.009 | 0.024 |
Reading performance: Low | 0.314 | 0.035 |
Reading performance: Medium | 0.059 | 0.028 |
Constant | 0.087 | 0.0309 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.087 | |
4,231 | ||
High level of school belonging | 0.055 | 0.015 |
Positive disciplinary climate | −0.121 | 0.011 |
School environment: Cooperative | −0.085 | 0.011 |
School environment: Competitive | 0.103 | 0.01 |
Constant | 0.276 | 0.010 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.047 | |
6,298 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.105 | 0.015 |
Constant | 0.500 | 0.006 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.007 | |
6,471 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.092 | 0.015 |
Constant | 0.439 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.005 | |
6,506 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.013 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.328 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.000 | |
6,485 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.084 | 0.0066 |
Constant | 0.034 | 0.003 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.024 | |
6,482 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.073 | 0.008 |
Constant | 0.057 | 0.004 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.013 | |
6,457 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.088 | 0.009 |
Constant | 0.077 | 0.004 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.015 | |
6,457 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.020 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.340 | 0.006 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.000 | |
6,481 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.035 | 0.011 |
Constant | 0.162 | 0.005 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.001 | |
6,480 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.088 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.288 | 0.006 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.006 | |
6,476 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.079 | 0.015 |
Constant | 0.624 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.004 | |
6,533 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.051 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.319 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.0019 | |
6,536 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | 0.113 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.314 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.009 | |
6,507 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.062 | 0.014 |
Constant | 0.311 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.003 | |
5,951 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.097428 | 0.015 |
Constant | 0.537 | 0.007 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.006 | |
6,519 | ||
Victim of bullying: Yes | −0.095 | 0.013 |
Constant | 0.273 | 0.006 |
Adjusted R-sq. | 0.008 | |
6,478 |
The logits calculated for all three groups across the three domains and presented in Table 4 were converted into probabilities and plotted as marginal effects in Figure 3 . High performers were taken as a reference group, and therefore, all marginal effects are presented in relation to the schoolchildren on Levels 5 and 6 in each cognitive test. The results suggest that statistically significant effects of reading performance predict the probability of becoming a victim of bullying. Medium achievers in the reading performance are 5% less likely to become bullying victims than low achievers. The probability is even higher for the group of high achievers, accounting for 27%.
Marginal effects of learning outcomes and the psychological environment of the school on the occurrence of bullying victimization. Source: Calculations of the authors based on PISA-2018 in Russia.
PISA provides some variables that could serve as useful proxies for the psychological environment in schools. These variables include disciplinary climate, cooperativeness, and competitiveness of the school environment, and the feeling of children of belonging to school. Using these predictors, we built the following logistic regression model:
Summary results of the model are presented at Table 4 , whereas Figure 3 shows the values of marginal effects predicted by the model. All the effects turned out to be highly statistically significant ( p < 0.01). A competitive school environment demonstrates the highest magnitude of the effect, increasing the probability of bullying by 11%. On the other hand, the likelihood of bullying in schools with a cooperative school environment is 6% lower. It is also clear that a positive disciplinary climate in schools decreases the probability of bullying by 9%. Finally, students who do not demonstrate a high degree of belonging are also 6% more likely to become bullying victims.
This part of the analysis looks at victims of bullying, thus aiming to reveal emotional states and psychosocial traits that are most typical for them. With this regard, bullying instead of being a response, became an independent variable of the logistic regression, and the model aimed to estimate the probability of a specific emotional state or psychosocial trait to be typical for bullying victims. We thus ended up running 15 models where bullying predicted the likelihood of a specific emotional states or psychosocial traits. The model thus obtained the following equation:
where P ( Y ) referred to a probability of a schoolchild to have a certain psychosocial trait or experience very frequently one of eight emotions reported in PISA, accounting for an effect of bullying. The results of these regressions are presented in Figure 4 .
Marginal effects of bullying on the emotional states and psychosocial traits of the victims. Source: Calculations of the authors based on PISA-2018 in Russia.
As was mentioned earlier, PISA asks students to assess how frequently they feel joyful, happy, cheerful, miserable, afraid, sad, lively, and proud. Logistic regression modeling identified statistically significant effects ( p < 0.001) of bullying on the occurrence of almost all of the outlined, except cheerfulness and liveliness. The most potent positive effect of bullying is observed in connection with fearfulness, misery, and sadness. Victims of bullying have a higher probability of experiencing these emotions than other students (with marginal effects equal to 7, 8, and 9%, respectively). Bullying is also negatively associated with joy and happiness, which means that bullying victims are 11% less likely to report joy and 9% less likely to report happiness.
Not surprisingly, bullying also shapes both attitudes and behavioral patterns of its victims. As such, the marginal effect of having low life satisfaction levels equals 10% amongst bullying victims. Conversely, bullying victims are less likely to have high eudaemonia levels, a condition defined by PISA as a sense of meaning in life. Also, victims of bullying are 11% more likely to experience a high fear of failure. They are 5% more likely to be found among least competitive schoolchildren, which shows their low ambitions in reaching goals and objectives; The marginal effect of high task mastery equals −10%, which means that bullied schoolchildren are less likely to reach the objectives set.
Finally, the most surprising conclusion refers to the attitude of bullying victims toward bullying itself. As such, victims of bullying are 10% less likely to be among those schoolchildren who have an explicitly negative attitude to bullying.
The study has some limitations imposed by the data. It appears essential to understand how bullying changes over time and how it transitions from primary to secondary school. However, since PISA collects data from schoolchildren in the last grade of lower secondary school, it does not provide an age variation that would be enough to make this kind of inference. Furthermore, we cannot discount that schoolchildren often become victims of bullying due to their appearance, which involves excess weight, functional difficulties, or even disabilities (Sweeting and West, 2001 ; Hill, 2017 ; Pinquart, 2017 ; Su, 2021 ). Unfortunately, PISA does not collect anthropometric data from children. Finally, due to the lack of data, it appears impossible to examine the influence of family environment as well as relationships amongst family members on bullying.
The results of our analysis suggest that one out of six 15-year-old children in Russian secondary schools is a victim of bullying. This result is substantially higher than one received in a measurement carried out within “Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC)” study in 2014, which was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2014 ). The measurement results suggest that up to 13% of schoolchildren aged 15 years are bullying victims in Russia (WHO, 2014 ). However, the difference in numbers is explained by the fact that the WHO-supported survey looked at a wider age group, and the prevalence of bullying in a younger age is lower than in adolescence.
In many ways, our findings go in line with the data from the last PISA report (OECD, 2019a ). As such, the pattern that boys and low-achieving students of both sexes tend to report bullying more often than girls and high-achieving students of both sexes, holds for OECD countries, too. “On an average across OECD countries, students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month scored 21 points lower in reading than students who did not report so, after accounting for socio-economic status” (OECD, 2019a , p. 46). Furthermore, calculations on Russian data also go in line with the OECD countries as bullied students tend to report feeling sad, scared and less satisfied with life, and demonstrate a weaker sense of school belonging than their peers who are less bullied.
The earlier studies also confirmed the prevalence of verbal bullying over other type (Glazyrina et al., 2017 ). Proceedings from the study carried out in 2011, state that verbal bullying is typically expressed as offensive words, rumors, unreasonable blame, threats, or personal insults, which emphasizes the fact that almost one-third of all cases of verbal bullying ever reported comes from teachers. According to our results, verbal bullying is followed by the relational type, whereas the measurement made by Glazyrina et al. ( 2017 ) suggests that the prevalence of physical bullying is second after verbal. It leads to the conclusion that since 2011 there has been a marked shift to psychological, indirect forms of bullying.
In this perspective, our findings go in line with the results of another study with a comprehensive geographical coverage in Russia. This research reveals that social aggression expressed in inappropriate gestures and offensive comments dominates physical aggression (Rean and Novikova, 2019 ). Since it appears challenging to monitor and sanction psychological violence in opposition to the physical type, which is also very easy to prove, the former becomes more attractive for perpetrators. The lack of any legal framework to regulate psychological violence and its subjective, personal character contribute to the spread of verbal bullying and its prevalence over physical aggression.
One of the bullying aspects that are uniquely specific for the Russian context refers to the reporting of bullying, highlighting significant differences in the perception of bullying by students and teachers. Existing evidence suggests that students agree that bullying should not be reported (Khanolainen et al., 2020 ). This in turn means that the problem of bullying tends to be severely underestimated by teachers and parents. It results in a significant difference in the perception of bullying by students and teachers, whereas “the majority of teachers indicated either seeing no bullying or only seeing bullying rarely as a justifiable reaction to provocation,” students reported bullying regularly (Khanolainen et al., 2020 , p. 1).
Analysis of the socio-demographic profile of victims enabled us to understand the composition of this group by several key dimensions. From the gender perspective, we revealed that boys are more likely to become bullying victims. It makes sense in this context to appeal to the study of Butovskaya and Rusakova ( 2016 ), which adds to our results by stating that victimization of girls peaks when they are about 13 years old and then gradually reduces, whereas victimization of boys remains on the same level approximately till they turn 16. Psychophysiological factors explain these differences well. Girls enter into puberty earlier, with the period being accompanied by the secretion of sexual hormones such as testosterone (Copeland et al., 2019 ; Fassler et al., 2019 ). Being unsynchronized in their physiological development, girls pass this phase earlier. Strong dependence of aggression levels amongst adolescents on sexual hormones (Finkelstein et al., 1997 ; Ramirez, 2003 ) explains the higher prevalence of boys amongst bullying victims. However, the prevalence of boys over girls is not exceptionally high; therefore, it is not gender per se but a combination of different psychosocial factors that predict the propensity to bullying (Bochaver and Khlomov, 2013 ; Shalaginova et al., 2019 ).
Schoolchildren from low-status groups also bear a certain risk of becoming bullying victims. As has been mentioned, more than 40% of bullying victims belong to 20% of families with the lowest index of economic, social, and cultural status, which also goes in line with other studies (WHO, 2014 ; Tippett and Wolke, 2015 ; Butovskaya and Rusakova, 2016 ; Rean and Novikova, 2019 ). The stigma associated with belonging to families with a lowest standing is exacerbated at school, and other classmates use it to highlight their dominance (Rean and Novikova, 2019 ; Vorontsov, 2020 ). However, it does not mean that bullying is a function of low-status dispositions. Even children from families with high economic, social, and cultural standing can become bullying victims. However, prevention strategies should refer to the so-called rural poor, i.e., children from the most impoverished families in rural areas. Our findings underline that in about 70% of cases victims of bullying reside in rural areas or small towns with a population under 100,000 inhabitants.
The relation of learning outcomes to bullying points out that low achieving students bear the highest risk of being bullied. When it comes to reading skills, in comparison to the high performers, the probability of a low performing schoolchild becoming a bullying victim is almost by 30% higher. The regression could not identify statistically significant effects of subject-specific performance in mathematics and science, which has a clear explanation. Reading test requires a schoolchild to actualize the psychological processes of meta-cognition critical for any analytical activity and thus goes far beyond classroom needs, assessing “literacy skills needed for individual growth, educational success, economic participation and citizenship” and emphasizing the “ability to locate, access, understand and reflect on all kinds of information” which is essential “to participate fully in our knowledge-based society” (OECD, 2019b , p. 22). In this context, a reading test serves as a good proxy for general intelligence and analytical thinking ability, including such literacy skills as “finding, selecting, interpreting, integrating and evaluating information from the full range of texts associated with situations that extend beyond the classroom” (OECD, 2019b ). High achievement in this area presumes skills crucial for cognitive activity and social adaptation. It thus allows high-achieving students in reading to avoid situations when bullying is directed at them.
On the other hand, low performers in reading when not reaching even the baseline level of skills necessary to participate in society fully, also lack skills of social communication and adaptation. With this in mind, insignificant effects of science and mathematics are not surprising: children who cannot go beyond direct inferences cannot be achievers in mathematics or science. The results of PISA in 2015 suggest that low performance is rarely limited to one subject, and there is a high overlap between low achievers in all three cognitive domains (OECD, 2016 , p. 40).
The regression analysis of variables of the school psychological environment—disciplinary climate, cooperativeness and competitiveness of the school environment, and schoolchildren' feeling of school belonging reveals that they impact the risk of becoming a bullying victim. Whereas, many scholars have mentioned the importance of the psychosocial factors in bullying prevention, our findings indicate its four specific aspects that should draw the focus of specialists while organizing prevention measures and remedial work.
The study also shows that bullying victims have a higher probability of experiencing such negative emotions as fearfulness, misery, and sadness; on the opposite, they have a lower probability of experiencing such positive emotions as joy and happiness. The bullying victims report fewer positive emotions while compared to people on average.
The study also indicates that adolescent bullying vulnerability affects their traits, for example, reduces the level of eudaimonia. Such adolescents experience fear and failures; they are less competitive and often fail to achieve their objectives. The set of the indicated above features characterizes Russian bullied adolescence as persons with an insufficiently mature personality.
Finally, the research has found that bullying victims tend to abstain from expressing a negative attitude toward bullying and do not feel sorry for the victims, proving the possibility of a victim–bully roles switching or combination. This goes in line with the results of other studies that examined whether prior bullying victimization leads to bullying perpetration in the longitudinal perspective (Camodeca et al., 2002 ; Jose et al., 2012 ). It is suggested that the switch from one role to another is particularly specific for students with high self-esteem. Another longitudinal study revealed that “students with higher self-esteem were the most likely to engage in future bullying perpetration in response to bullying victimization, while the students with lower self-esteem were the least likely to engage in future bullying perpetration”; as such, for the bully victims with high self-esteem it serves as a possible way to recover threatened egotism (Choi and Park, 2018 ).
Consequently, we can state that there are two high-risk groups of adolescents in bullying situations, namely : (1) prone to victim behavior and (2) prone to aggressor behavior. That conclusion is consistent with the view of Vorontsov ( 2020 ) that not only outsiders but also schoolchildren with social life and friends, i.e., those who seek to raise or preserve their social status among same-age peers at the expense of psychological or physical domination over others, are involved in bullying situations.
The carried out statistical analysis has thus provided a means of identifying the “primary risk group” of bullying victims in the secondary schools of Russia. It should be stressed that the research presents statistically proven pioneer work as the reading test results of PISA assessment have been first applied to estimate the probability of becoming a bullying victim. Similar research-based data have not been found in a large body of published literature.
Our research findings provide valuable information for bullying prevention programs. Programs oriented to creating a comfortable psychological climate at school present clear advantages over those oriented to reducing undesirable social behavior patterns. If antibullying programs aim to ensure the psychological well-being of adolescents, they can be more efficient in dealing with the problems that even go beyond bullying. Instead of focusing on specific negative aspects of school life, they provide ground for an inclusive and psychologically comfortable learning environment that rejects bullying. These areas of work should constitute primary preventive measures.
In the secondary prevention phase, the work should focus on those students who are specifically prone to risks of becoming victims. In other words, it should look at the profile of that 16% of schoolchildren who were identified as bullying victims. With these regards, increasing the learning outcomes by improving the literacy skills of low achieving students should be one of the core areas of work. Low performance in reading that outlines a lack of literacy skills needed to succeed in contemporary society shapes life even beyond schools, and bullying is one of the dimensions where the harmful effects of low achievement become so explicit. Another set of measures should be directed at improving the acceptance of students from low-status groups in the classroom to eliminate the influence of status-related issues on bullying.
Working with the behavior of male students is crucial to develop an appropriate and safe expression of anger, aggression, and other negative emotions as these students are especially prone to physical bullying. It is necessary to teach them to understand the psychological essence of aggression, its characteristics, optimize the interaction of the group, develop cooperation, increase school belonging, self-reflection, increase empathy, and create a healthy emotional space. Antibullying programs should facilitate communication skills crucial for better conflict resolution to mitigate verbal or relational bullying.
Generally, prevention strategies and antibullying programs should emphasize the ways and methods of self-control among adolescents. Creating situations of success, setting an encouraging environment that provides ground for positive emotions, developing awareness, and accepting their feelings are core areas of work. Antibullying programs should also teach socially acceptable ways of expressing aggression, aiming to reduce the verbal, indirect aggression through aggressiveness recognition and its think-aloud protocol, and develop empathy and skills of constructive problem solving and fostering personal maturity.
Our study suggests that, on an average, one out of six children attending secondary school in Russia becomes a bullying victim. This measure is different from simple descriptive statistics based on the prevalence of different bullying types. To identify amongst schoolchildren who reported bullying those who are victims, we looked at the bullying distribution scores and used k-means clustering to crossvalidate our assumptions. These procedures allowed for concluding that for 16% of all schoolchildren at the Russian secondary school, experienced bullying, with some frequency leading to victimization. The findings of our research also indicate the prevalence of verbal bullying over relational and physical ones.
Decomposition analysis of bullying victims outlines that male schoolchildren experience bullying more often. Although not all bullying victims come from marginalized groups, there are clear status-related considerations. More than 40% of bullying victims belong to families with the lowest economic, social, and cultural standing. Furthermore, most of the bullying victims (70%) reside in villages or sparsely populated towns.
Analysis of factors predicting bullying also presents reasons for concern. We identified the relationship between learning outcomes in reading and bullying victimization, which presents high risks for low achieving schoolchildren. Considering the PISA framework, those who do not possess the necessary literacy skills to succeed in life are also likelier to be socially excluded and victimized.
The psychological environment at school forms another group of factors behind bullying. Victimization is more likely to occur in a competitive school environment and, logically, less likely to occur in the cooperative one. Therefore, schoolchildren without a strong feeling of school belonging are also likelier to be bullied. However, our findings highlight that a positive disciplinary climate mitigates victimization. These conclusions provide ground for prevention efforts, and school psychologists and social pedagogues obtain a specific role in monitoring the psychological environment of the classroom.
Our study suggests that bullying substantially affects the psychological well-being of a schoolchild. Bullying provokes negative emotions like fearfulness, misery, and sadness amongst victims. Furthermore, it causes rarer experiences of positive emotions compared to other schoolchildren. These peculiarities are crucial in elaborating bullying prevention programs that should compensate for the deficit of positive emotions amongst the victims and eliminate the harmful effects of the negative ones. The adverse effects of bullying, however, go beyond the emotional states. The bullying victims tend to have lower eudaemonia levels, outlining that they avoid reflecting the sense of meaning in life. They also are more likely to have a low level of life satisfaction in comparison to other schoolchildren.
Finally, one of the critical findings of this study suggests that bullying victims could become perpetrators in other contexts. The analysis pointed out that bullying victims are less likely to share negative attitudes toward bullying and empathize with other bullying victims. It allows for hypothesizing that one person could potentially switch or combine victim–bully roles, and future research on bullying in Russian schools should focus on this aspect more.
Considering this, primary prevention measures should address issues related to the school environment creating a friendly and pleasant atmosphere. The measures aimed to create a positive learning environment would be more efficient by eliminating the conditions in which bullying occurs instead of dealing with its negative consequences and undesirable behaviors. The secondary phase of antibullying programs should take into account emotional states and psychosocial factors of bullying victims to help them overcome frustration and stigmatization caused by bullying, thus ensuring that they can fully participate in the social life of the school and beyond, without risks of being victimized again.
Author contributions.
GA and LD are the major authors who developed the initial manuscript. AB reviewed the literature and together with VK drafted the practical implications and prevention strategies. SK and VE contributed to the data processing and analysis. IA revised the final manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Funding. The research was financially supported by Southern Federal University, 2021, 07/2020-02-AP.
Protecting children from violence in school, every child has the right to go to school and learn, free from fear..
Every child has the right to go to school free from fear. When schools provide quality, inclusive and safe education, children can learn, build friendships and gain the critical skills they need to navigate social situations. In the best circumstances, school puts children on the path to a promising future.
But for too many girls and boys worldwide, school is where they experience violence. Bullying, harassment, verbal abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, corporal punishment and other forms of humiliation can come at the hands of a peer, a teacher or even a school authority. Many children also experience school violence associated with gang culture, weapons and fighting.
Far from a haven for learning and community, school can be a place of bullying, sexual harassment, corporal punishment, verbal abuse and other forms of violence.
Violence in schools can have serious effects on children’s psychological and physical health.
Children who are subjected to violence may experience physical injury, sexually transmitted infections, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidal thoughts. They may also begin to exhibit risky, aggressive and anti-social behaviour. Children who grow up around violence have a greater chance of replicating it for a new generation of victims.
At its most extreme, violence in and around schools can be deadly. For the tens of millions of children and adolescents living in conflict-affected areas, school too often becomes the front line.
What’s more, violence in school can reduce school attendance, lower academic performance and increase drop-out rates. This has devastating consequences for the success and prosperity of children, their families and entire communities.
UNICEF works with governments, schools, teachers, families, children and young people to prevent and respond to violence in schools. We help governments and partners:
As part of Safe to Learn – an inter-agency and multi-country initiative dedicated to ending violence in and around schools – UNICEF also works to increase the protection of children, improve learning outcomes, better leverage investments in education, and raise awareness of violence in schools.
Violence drives Haiti’s children into armed groups; up to half of all members are now children – UNICEF
DR Congo: Children killed, injured, abducted, and face sexual violence in conflict at record levels for third consecutive year – UNICEF
UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Angélique Kidjo celebrates resilience of girls and young people during visit to Benin
Action to end violence against children in schools: review of programme interventions illustrating actions to address violence against children in and around schools, social and behaviour change to address violence against children: technical guidance, social and behaviour change strategies for addressing violence against children in and around schools: case studies and lessons learned, safe to learn: global programmatic framework & benchmarking tool: from call to action to programme responses, safe to learn: safe to learn diagnostic exercises in nepal, pakistan, south sudan and uganda synthesis report , safe to learn: diagnostic tool, safe to learn: safe to learn in action how nepal, pakistan, south sudan and uganda are meeting the challenge of ending violence in schools, school-based violence prevention: a practical handbook, child-friendly schools manual, an everyday lesson: #endviolence in schools, behind the numbers: ending school violence and bullying, global guidance on addressing school-related gender-based violence, tackling violence in schools: bridging the gap between standards and practice, ending the torment: tackling bullying from the schoolyard to cyberspace, a rigorous review of global research evidence on policy and practice on school-related gender-based violence, preventing bullying: the role of public health and safety professionals, the campaign to stop violence in schools: third progress report, protecting children from bullying: report of the secretary-general, violence against children in education settings in south asia, violence against children: united nations secretary-general’s study, save the children global report 2017: ending violence in childhood.
Last updated 27 August 2021
Self-Paced Courses : Explore American history with top historians at your own time and pace!
History Resources
A spotlight on a primary source by j. edgar hoover.
In September 1970, J. Edgar Hoover composed an open letter to American students detailing his view on civil unrest at the nation’s colleges and universities and warning against the elements he believed responsible. Hoover opened with the empathetic assertion that “[t]here’s nothing wrong with student dissent or student demands for changes in society or the display of student unhappiness over aspects of our national policy.” Hoover drew a line, however, between “legitimate” student dissent and “extremism.” Extremists “ridicule the flag, poke fun at American institutions, seek to destroy our society,” he wrote, and their actions “led to violence, lawlessness, and disrespect for the rights of others on many college campuses during the past year.”
Hoover’s remarks were a reaction to the increase in violence across the nation’s campuses, most notably the shootings at Kent State just four months prior to this letter. At Kent State, during a protest against American escalation of the Vietnam War, four students were killed and nine others injured when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on protesters. Hoover’s letter placed the blame for the violence squarely on the protesters who “have no rational, intelligent plan of the future either for the university or the Nation.”
Hoover’s tone was contemptuous of extremists and condescending toward the students “lured in” by their message. Accompanying Hoover’s letter is a memo from President Richard Nixon communicating his request that “the message it contains will reach as many students as possible.”
There’s nothing wrong with student dissent or student demands for changes in society or the display of student unhappiness over aspects of our national policy. Student opinion is a legitimate aspect of public opinion in our society. . . .
But there is real ground for concern about the extremism which led to violence, lawlessness, and disrespect for the rights of others on many college campuses during the past year. The extremists are a small minority of students and faculty members who have lost faith in America. They ridicule the flag, poke fun at American institutions, seek to destroy our society. They are not interested in genuine reform. They take advantage of the tensions, strife, and often legitimate frustrations of students to promote campus chaos. They have no rational, intelligent plan of the future either for the university or the Nation. . . .
Based on our experience in the FBI, here are some of the ways in which extremists will try to lure you into their activities:
An Open Letter to College Students from J. Edgar Hoover, September 21, 1970, with cover letter from President Richard Nixon. (Nixon Library and Museum, Folder Campus Unrest [3 of 8]; Box 20; Subject File 1; WHCF: SMOF: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, online at https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/58.pdf )
Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter..
Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.
104 Boston University Law Review 769 (2024)
Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1805
63 Pages Posted: 4 Jun 2024
University of Wisconsin Law School; Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Date Written: May 22, 2024
Against the backdrop of declining crime rates, gun violence and gun-related homicides have only risen over the last three years. Just as it historically has, the brunt of that violence has been borne by poor Black and brown communities. These communities are especially impacted: they are not only far more likely to be the victims of gun violence, but are also the primary targets of police surveillance and harassment. People of color are disproportionately prosecuted for gun crimes, which, in part, prompted the Black Public Defenders Amicus Brief in support of expanding gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. Recognizing that the carceral approach of policing and prosecution has failed to prevent gun violence and has harmed Black and brown communities, this Article sets forth community violence interruption groups as a promising decarceral alternative. Violence interruption groups address violence by working with the people who are most impacted by cyclical gun violence and intervene by mediating conflicts, defusing imminent violence, and encouraging people to give up their firearms. Building on the work of abolitionist scholars and organizers, this Article centers the role of Violence Interrupters as an important alternative to policing and punitive prosecution. It explores legal changes that might minimize the legal barriers to violence interruption, including statutory reform, mens rea reform, expansion of the Second Amendment, and recognition of an innocent possession defense.
Keywords: policing, criminal law, violence interruption, gun violence
JEL Classification: K14
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
University of wisconsin law school ( email ).
975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 United States
55 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10003 United States
Paper statistics, related ejournals, university of wisconsin law school legal studies research paper series.
Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
Criminal law, courts & procedure ejournal, law enforcement ejournal, correlates of crime ejournal.
Home › Literary Terms and Techniques › Russian Formalism
By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on October 19, 2020 • ( 1 )
Russian Formalism, a movement of literary criticism and interpretation, emerged in Russia during the second decade of the twentieth century and remained active until about 1930. Members of what can be loosely referred to as the Formalist school emphasized first and foremost the autonomous nature of literature and consequently the proper study of literature as neither a reflection of the life of its author nor as byproduct of the historical or cultural milieu in which it was created. In this respect, proponents of a formalist approach to literature attempted not only to isolate and define the “formal” properties of poetic language (in both poetry and prose) but also to study the way in which certain aesthetically motivated devices (e.g., defamiliarization [ ostranenie ]) determined the literariness or artfulness of an object.
From its inception, the Russian Formalist movement consisted of two distinct scholarly groups, both outside the academy: the Moscow Linguistic Circle, which was founded by the linguist Roman Jakobson in 1915 and included Grigorii Vinokur and Petr Bogatyrev, and the Petersburg OPOJAZ ( O bščestvo izučenija PO ètičeskogo JAZ yka , “Society for the Study of Poetic Language”), which came into existence a year later and was known for scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky, Iurii Tynianov, Boris Eikhenbaum, Boris Tomashevskii, and Victor Vinogradov. (It should be noted that the term “formalist” was initially applied pejoratively to the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ.) Although the leading figures in the Russian Formalist movement tended to disagree with one another on what constituted formalism, they were united in their attempt to move beyond the psychologism and biographism that pervaded nineteenth-century Russian literary scholarship. Although the Symbolists had partially succeeded in redressing the imbalance of content over form, they “could not rid themselves of the notorious theory of the ‘harmony of form and content’ even though it clearly contradicted their bent for formal experimentation and discredited it by making it seem mere ‘aestheticism'” (Eikhenbaum, “Theory” 112).
Viktor Shklovsky/The Daily Star
In many ways, however, the Formalists remained indebted to two leading nineteenth-century literary and linguistic theoreticians, Aleksandr Veselovskii (1838- 1906) and Aleksander Potebnia (1835-81). Veselovskii’s work in comparative studies of literature and folklore as well as in the theory of literary evolution attracted the attention of the Formalists (particularly Shklovsky, Eikhenbaum, and Vladimir Propp), who found much of interest in his positivist notions of literary history and the evolution of poetic forms. More specifically, as Peter Steiner argues, “mechanistic Formalism was in some respects a mirror image of Veselovskii’s poetics” insofar as both stressed the “genetic” aspect in their theories of literary evolution.
Like the Formalists, Potebnia made a careful distinction between practical and poetic language. But his wellknown maxim that “art is thinking in images” (an idea, it should be noted, that was promoted earlier by midnineteenth- century literary critics Vissarion Belinskii and Nikolai Chemyshevskii) made him an object of derision in Formalist writings. Shklovsky categorically objected to Potebnia’s notion of the image, arguing that since the same image could be found in various writers’ works, the image itself was less important than the techniques used by poets to arrange images. Shklovsky further noted that images were common in both prosaic (common, everyday language) and poetic language; hence, the image could not be considered uniquely essential to verbal art. Potebnia’s theories led to “far-fetched interpretations” and, what is more important, knowledge about the object itself rather than the poetic de vice(s) that enabled one to perceive the object (Shklovsky, “Art” 6). Above all, it was “literariness,” rather than either image or referent, that the Formalists pursued in their studies of poetry and prose. With slight variations, literariness in Formalism denoted a particular essential function present in the relationship or system of poetic works called literature.
The personal and intellectual cooperation of the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ yielded several volumes of essays (Sborniki po teorii poeticheskogo iazyka [Studies in the theory of poetic language], 6 vols., 1916- 23). Given that many of the Formalists had been students of the Polish linguist Jan Baudoin de Courtenay and were well apprised of the latest developments made in linguistics by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure , it is not surprising that most of the essays in these volumes reflect a predominant interest in linguistics (see Jakubinskii, “O zvukakh stikhotvomago iazyka” [On the sounds of poetic language], 1916; and Brik, “Zvukovye povtory” [Sound repetitions], 1917). But while members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle considered the study of poetics to fall under the broader category of linguistics, OPOJAZ Formalists (such as Eikhenbaum or Viktor Zhirmunskii in “Zadachi pofetiki” [The tasks of poetics], Nachala, 1921) insisted that the two be kept distinct. Shklovsky, for instance, remained predominantly concerned with literary theory (the laws of expenditure and economy in poetic language, general laws of plots and general laws of perception) rather than with linguistics, while Eikhenbaum and Tynianov are best known for their work as literary historians. Other Formalists, such as Tomashevskii (who was also interested in prose) and Jakobson, approached meter and rhythm in verse with a statistical approach and attempted to isolate the metrical laws in operation.
More specifically, the Formalists understood poetic language as operating both synchronically and, as Tzvetan Todorov notes, in an autonomous or “autotelic” fashion. The Formalists consistently stressed the internal mechanics of the poetic work over the semantics of extraliterary systems , that is, politics, ideology, economics, psychology, and so on. Thus, Roman Jakobson’s 1921 analysis of futurist poet Velemir Khlebnikov, and especially his notion of the samovitoe slovo (“self-made word”) and zaum (“transrational language”), serves essentially to illustrate the proposition that poetry is an utterance directed toward “expression” ( Noveishaia russkaia potziia [Recent Russian poetry]). Indeed, the futurist exploration of the exotic realm of zaum parallels the Formalist preoccupation with sound in poetic language at the phonemic level. In a similar way, essays such as Eikhenbaum’s “How Gogol’s ‘Overcoat’ Is Made” (1919, trans., 1978), which examined narrative devices and acoustic wordplay in the text without drawing any extraliterary, sociocultural conclusions, emphasized the autonomous, selfreferential nature of verbal art. One of the most important of the devices Eikhenbaum described in that essay was skaz. Skaz , which in Russian is the root of the verb skazat’, “to tell,” may be compared to “free indirect discourse” (in German, erlebte Rede ), which is marked by the grammar of third-person narration and the style, tone, and syntax of direct speech on the part of the character.
Certain Formalists were not quite so eager to dismiss issues of content, however: Zhirmunskii maintained an interest in the thematic level of the poetic work; Tynianov considered an understanding of byt , the content of everyday, common language and experience as opposed to consciously poetic language, essential to any analysis of a poetic work. Rather than resolving the issue of form versus content, the Formalists tended instead to downplay it or to reframe it in new terms. For example, Eikhenbaum asserted the need to “destroy these traditional correlatives [form and content] and so to enrich the idea of form with new significance” (Eikhenbaum, “Theory” 115). “Technique,” continued Eikhenbaum in the same essay, is “much more significant in the long-range evolution of formalism than is the notion of ‘form'” (115). In his defense of the primacy of form, Shklovsky explained that “a new form appears not in order to express a new content, but in order to replace an old form, which has already lost its artistic value” (“Connection” 53).
Rejecting the subjectivism of nineteenth-century literary scholarship, the Formalists insisted that the study of literature be approached by means of a scientific and objective methodology. Their emphasis upon the scientific study of poetic language may be viewed in four ways. First, it may be traced to the more general nineteenth- century West European turn toward classification, genealogy, and evolution in the human sciences. In his best-known work, Morphology of the Folktale (1928, trans., 1958), Propp, a somewhat more peripheral yet not unimportant figure in the Formalist movement, employed the rhetoric and methodology of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Georges Cuvier in his attempt to isolate certain regularly recurring features of the folktale. Second, the Russian Formalists viewed their work as a direct challenge to what they perceived as the subjectivism and mysticism inherent in the Symbolist movement (i.e., the literature and criticism of Aleksander Blok, Bely, and Viacheslav Ivanov, among others). Tomashevskii went so far as to denounce the futurists as well as the Symbolists, claiming that it was futurism, especially, that “intensified to a hyperbolic clarity those features which had previously appeared only in hidden, mystically masked forms of Symbolism” (“Literature” 54). Third, Formalism sought to create a professional discipline independent of nineteenth-century configurations of university scholarship. And fourth, the Formalist shift toward science may also be considered as a response to the broader (and more radical) social, economic, and political transformations that the influx of industry and new technology helped to precipitate throughout early twentieth-century Russia. Not surprisingly, the poetic fetishization of the machine found in futurist poetics and avant-garde aesthetics quickly made its way into Formalist thought. Shklovsky’s analyses of poetic works are distinguished by his reliance upon the metaphor of the machine (Steiner 44-67) and the rhetoric of technology to account for such poetic devices and formal laws as automatization and defamiliarization. Ironically, objectives of scientificity in Formalist literary study were held up as an ideal, but only insofar as the Formalists believed scientificity would shield their theory from external influences, since everything outside the poetic system could only corrupt and obfuscate data extrapolated from the text. By 1930 it was clear that this was not to be the case.
For Shklovsky, “literariness” is a function of the process of defamiliarization, which involves “estranging,” “slowing down,” or “prolonging” perception and thereby impeding the reader’s habitual, automatic relation to objects, situations, and poetic form itself (see “Art” 12). According to Shklovsky, the difficulty involved in the process is an aesthetic end in itself, because it provides a heightened sensation of life. Indeed, the process of “laying bare” the poetic device, such as the narrative selfreflexiveness of Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and its emphasis on the distinction between story and plot (see Theory of Prose ), remained for Shklovsky one of the primary signs of artistic self-consciousness.
The notion that new literary production always involves a series of deliberate, self-conscious deviations from the poetic norms of the preceding genre and/or literary movement remained fundamental to Shklovsky’s and other Formalists’ theories of literary evolution. Tynianov’s and Jakobson’s notion of the “dominant” approximates Shklovsky’s emphasis on defamiliarization, albeit as a feature of the diachronic system, inasmuch as it demands that other devices in the poetic text be “transformed” or pushed to the background to allow for the “foregrounding” of the dominant device. The function of the dominant in the service of literary evolution included the replacement of canonical forms and genres by new forms, which in turn would become canonized and, likewise, replaced by still newer forms.
Toward the end of the Formalist period, the emphasis on the synchronic nature of poetic devices was gradually mediated by a growing realization that literature and language should be considered within their diachronic contexts as well. Some critics— Krystyna Pomorska, Fredric Jameson , Jurij Striedter— regard this later shift in Formalist theory (as described particularly in the works of Tynianov) toward establishing a set of systemic relations between the internal and external organization of the poetic work as protostructuralist. However, newly emerging literary groups such as the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle ( M.M. Bakhtin , Pavel Medvedev, Valentin Voloshinov) and Prague School of Structuralism (Jan Mukarovsky) found the Formalists’ attempts to incorporate a diachronic view of the literary work insufficient. Critics (e.g., Medvedev) attacked the Formalists for refusing to address social and ideological concerns in poetic language. The same criticism, of course, was leveled at the Formalists by the Soviet state (especially by Anatolii Lunacharskii and Lev Trotskii), and with much more serious consequences. Various individuals and groups advocating or at least incorporating a Marxist perspective on literature, including members of the “sociological school” as well as the Bakhtin school in the 1920s, attacked the Formalists for neglecting the social and ideological discourses impinging upon the structure and function of the poetic work. In The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928), Medvedev dismisses the Formalists primarily for failing to provide an adequate sociological and philosophical justification for their theories. While many critics (e.g., Victor Erlich) approach Bakhtin’s work as distinct from that of the Formalist school, others (e.g., Gary Saul Morson and Striedter) view Bakhtin’s work as historically connected to the broader aims and implications of the Russian Formalist movement. Despite Tynianov and Jakobson’s attempt to connect the aims of Formalism to the broader issues of culture (as an entire complex of systems), Russian Formalism remained committed to the idea that “literariness” alone, rather than the referent and its various contingencies, historical and otherwise, was the proper focus of literary scholarship.
Perhaps the ongoing, seemingly irresoluble debate over what constitutes Formalism (both then and now) arises in part from what Jurij Striedter describes as the “dialogic” nature of Formalism itself. The Formalists, especially Tynianov, based their theories of literary evolution (and their own role therein) largely upon Hegel ‘s dialectical method. In his summary of the contributions of the Formalist movement, Eikhenbaum ironically concluded that “when we have a theory that explains everything, a ready-made theory explaining all past and future events and therefore needing neither evolution nor anything like it—then we must recognize that the formal method has come to an end” (“Theory” 139). Eikhenbaum’s vision of a type of Formalist dialectics suggests the dynamic character of the movement as a whole, though external political pressure was surely also a factor by the time Eikhenbaum wrote his essay in 1926.
Shklovsky’s 1930 denunciation of Formalism signaled not just that political pressures had worsened but that the de facto end of the Formalist movement had arrived. Even before Shklovsky was forced to abandon Formalism to political exigencies, the Moscow Linguistic Circle and OPOJAZ had already dissolved in the early 1920s, the former in 1920 with the departure of its founder, Roman Jakobson, for Czechoslovakia, the latter in 1923. With the banning of all artistic organizations (including the various associations of proletarian writers) and the introduction of “socialist realism” as the new, official socialist literature of the Soviet Union in 1932, the Russian Formalist movement came to an official close.
The Formalist approach continued to make itself felt, however, in European and, later, American literary scholarship (though, it should be noted, the formalism of new criticism possessed no direct relation to Russian Formalism). The immediate heirs to the Formalist legacy were the Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in 1926 by Jakobson and a group of Czech linguists) and the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle. The contributions of the Prague Linguistic Circle (especially of Mukarovsky) eventually made their way into the literary discourses of French structuralism. The work of French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss echoes and acknowledges the work of Propp and, to a lesser extent, Tynianov’s interest in cultural and literary systems. The Bakhtin Linguistic Circle’s work (which first attracted the attention of Western scholars in the 1970s) extends several Formalist concerns, not the least of which deal with narrative theory and discourse in the novel. The development of structural-semiotic research and the emergence of the Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School in the 1960s (see the writings of such scholars as Viacheslav Ivanov, Iurii Lotman, Vladimir Toporov, Boris Gasparov, and Boris Uspenskii, to name just a few) may also be viewed as an extension of the aims and interests of both formalism and structuralism. Specifically, semiotic research continues to renew in various ways the Formalist emphasis upon language and the devices therein that function to generate meaning as sign systems.
In the United States, the Formalist approach found a sympathetic cousin in New Criticism, which emphasized, though in organic forms actually reminiscent of Russian Symbolism, the literary text as a discrete entity whose meaning and interpretation need not be contaminated by authorial intention, historical conditions, or ideological demands. Poststructuralism (and Deconstruction ) in the 1970s and 1980s, though a partial critique of the organic notions of form in much American New Criticism, nevertheless extended certain Formalist assumptions. Figures as diverse as Roland Barthes , Paul de Man , Juia Kristeva , and Fredric Jameson are all heavily indebted to the aims and strategies of Russian Formalism.
Further Reading Stephen Bann and John E. Bowlt, eds., Russian Formalism: A Collection of Articles and Texts in Translation (i973); Osip Brik, “Zvukovye povtory” [Sound repetitions], Sbomiki po teorii poeticheskago iazyka 2 (1917); Boris Eikhenbaum, “Kak sdelana ‘Shinel” Gogolia” (1919, “How Gogol’s ‘Overcoat’ Is Made,” Gogol from the Twentieth Century: Eleven Essays, ed. and trans. Robert A. Maguire, 1974), “Teoriia ‘formalnogometoda'” (1927, “TheTheory of the ‘Formal Method,”‘ Lemon and Reis [appeared first in Ukrainian in 1926]); Roman Jakobson, “The Dominant” (Matejka and Pomorska), Noveishaia russkaia potziia [Recent Russian poetry] (1921, Selected Writings, vol. 5,1979); Lev Jakubinskii, “O zvukakh stikhotvornago iazyka” [On the sounds of poetic language], Sbomiki po teorii poeticheskago iazyka 1 (1916); Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, eds. and trans., Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (1965); Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska, eds., Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views (1978); P. N. Medvedev, Formal’nyi metod v literaturovedenii (Kriticheskoe wedenie v sotsiologicheskuiu poetiku) (1928, The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics, trans. Albert J. Wehrle, 1978 [sometimes attributed also to M. M. Bakhtin]); Christopher Pike, ed. and trans., The Futurists, the Formalists, and the Marxist Critique (1979); Vladimir Propp, Morfologiia skazki (1928, Morphology of the Folktale, trans. Laurence Scott, 1958, 2d ed., ed. Louis A. Wagner, 1968); Victor Shklovsky, “Iskusstvo kak priem” (1917,”Art as Technique,” Lemon and Reis), “On the Connection between Devices of Siuzhet Construction and General Stylistic Devices” (1919, Bann and Bowlt), 0 teorii prozy (1927, Theory of Prose, trans. Benjamin Sher, 1990), “Tristram Shendi: Sterna i teoriia romana” [Sterne’s Tristram Shandy and the theory of the novel] (1921, “Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: Stylistic Commentary,” Lemon and Reis); B. V. Tomashevskii, “Literatura i biografiia” (1923, “Literature and Biography,” Matejka and Pomorska), Teoriia Literatury [Theory of literature] (1928); Iurii Tynianov, “O literaturnoi evoliucii” (1929, “On Literary Evolution,” Matejka and Pomorska), The Problem of Verse Language (1924, ed. and trans. Michael Sosa and Brent Harvey, 1981); Iurii Tynianov and Roman Jakobson, “Problemy izucheniia literatury i iazyka” (1928, “Problems in the Study of Literature and Language,” Matejka and Pomorska). Victor Erlich, Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine (1955, 3d ed., 1981); Aage A. Hansen-Löve, Der russische Formalismus (1978); Robert Louis Jackson and Stephen Rudy, eds., Russian Formalism: A Retrospective Glance (1985); Fredric Jameson, The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism (1972); Daniel P. Lucid, ed., Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology (1977); L. Μ. O’Toole and Ann Shukman, eds., Formalism: History, Comparison, Genre (1978), Formalist Theory (1977); Krystyna Pomorska, Russian Formalist Theory and Its Poetic Ambience (1968); Peter Steiner, Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics (1984); Jurij Striedter, Literary Structure, Evolution, and Value (1989); Ewa Μ. Thompson, Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism (1971); Tzvetan Todorov, Critique de la critique (1984, Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal View of Twentieth-Century Criticism, trans. Catherine Porter, 1987); Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution (trans. Rose Strunsky, 1975). Source: Groden, Michael, and Martin Kreiswirth. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Categories: Literary Terms and Techniques , Russian Formalism
Tags: Defamiliarization , Grigorii Vinokur , Linguistics , Literary Criticism , Literary Theory , Moscow Linguistic Circle , OPOJAZ , ostranenie , Petr Bogatyrev , Roman Jakobson , Society for the Study of Poetic LanguageSociety for the Study of Poetic Language
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
The cause and effect of school violence essay aims to explore the factors that contribute to violent behavior in schools, as well as the impact of school violence individuals and society as a whole. Ultimately, addressing the root causes of school violence is crucial to creating safe and supportive learning environments for all students.
School violence can take many forms. These are some of the types of school violence: Physical violence, which includes any kind of physical aggression, the use of weapons, as well as criminal acts like theft or arson. Psychological violence, which includes emotional and verbal abuse. This may involve insulting, threatening, ignoring, isolating ...
This essay aims to explore the preventive measures necessary to combat school violence and foster a healthy and secure learning milieu for students.\n\nPrimary Causes of School Violence\n\nThe causes of school violence are multifaceted and can be categorized into four main groups: individual, familial, institutional, and community-based risk ...
In a survey of 3,706 primary school children from Uganda, 24 percent of 11 to 14-year-old girls with disabilities reported sexual violence at school, compared to 12 percent of non-disabled girls.11 A study by UNESCO found over 60 percent of LGBTQ+ children in Chile, Mexico and Peru had been victims of bullying.12.
To help inspire students, here are 130 school violence essay topic ideas and examples. The impact of school violence on students' mental health. How social media contributes to school violence. Strategies for preventing bullying in schools. The role of teachers in addressing school violence.
Adrian Sainz/AP. Following the return of most U.S. schoolchildren to full-time, in-person learning, a raft of anecdotal reports indicate that violence may be rising in K-12 schools. Teachers are ...
Exposure to media violence encourages violent and aggressive behaviors in children, introduces new concepts of violence that children have been unaware of, and augments negative experiences of violence and abuse. We will write. a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts. 809 writers online.
School violence refers to all forms of violence that takes place in and around schools and is experienced by students and perpetrated by other students, teachers and other school staff. This includes bullying and cyberbullying. Bullying is one of the most pervasive forms of school violence, affecting 1 in 3 young people.
The effects of school violence can lead to division and severe mental and physical trauma for both perpetrators and victims alike. The main cause of school violence is a combination of weak community relations and a lack of a firm hand within both schools and communities. To effectively deal with the issue, both of these need addressing.
A good example of the school violence is the April 16, 2007 tragedy at Virginia Tech University, which remains a big sear for the hearts of those who were directly involved as well as those affected such as the victims' families or friends. On that terrible day, the struggling loss of lives due to one disturbed young man make many people ask ...
Violence against children in schools affects nearly 250 million children each year - violating their human rights, limiting their educational success and sustainable futures, and damaging their health. In response, leaders in the education, child protection, violence prevention, and health sectors came together in 2018 to form the Safe to ...
20 essay samples found. School violence encompasses physical violence, bullying, and any other form of aggressive behavior in educational settings. Essays on school violence could explore the psychological, social, and systemic factors contributing to violent behaviors, prevention and intervention strategies, and the impacts on academic and ...
Violence hampers prospects for gender equality, mental health and well-being, and socio-economic equity. The cost of violence in schools is an estimated US$ 11 trillion loss in lifetime earnings. Violence is a complex practice influenced by multiple interconnected factors including deeply rooted social and gender norms and power imbalances.
Violence at school is defined as physical or verbal attacks on a person while on school grounds or on school property ("School Violence essays", 2017), or any activity that is able to create a disturbance in an educational system (Blanco, 2017). In today's societies, School violence is spreading dramatically, which has caused many problems ...
Globally, half of students aged 13-15 experience peer-to-peer violence in and around school. This violence has short-term effects on their educational achievement and a long-term impression on their futures. This report outlines the prevalence of violence in and around schools and highlights students', partners' and UNICEF efforts to #Endviolence in schools.
Violence at school is defined as physical or verbal attacks on a person while on school grounds or on school property ("School Violence essays", 2017), or any activity that is able to create a disturbance in an educational system (Blanco, 2017). In today's societies, School violence is spreading dramatically, which has caused many problems ...
School Violence Essay. Preventing school violence has been an issue in our society for so long it has almost become commonplace. According to an article on infoplease, since the year 2000, there have been a recorded 64 shooting related incidents that involved publicly occupied areas. That is an occurrence of almost five per year.
School Violence Violence in schools is increasing at an alarming rate as more teenagers gain access to weapons. It is important to devise a plan which could reduce this violence and make schools safer for future generations. Facts about School Violence Although fears concerning school violence have increased in the last several years, recent studies show that "most children are safer in school ...
Section 3: Prevent violence through curriculum-based activities. Section 4: Work with teachers on values and beliefs and train them in positive discipline and classroom management. Section 5: Respond to violence when it happens. Section 6: Review and adapt school buildings and grounds.
The root of school crime and violence Chicago: McGraw Hill. (2008) Philipott, Scott. "School violence and teacher professional disengagement." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 465-477(2007) United States. National Center for Education Statistics. Violence and discipline problemsin U.S. Public Schools. Washington, D. C.:
Hsing-Fang Hsieh et al., "The Effectiveness of the Say-Something Anonymous Reporting System in Preventing School Violence: A Cluster Randomized Control Trial in 19 Middle Schools," Journal of School Violence 21 no. 4 (2022): 413-428; and Hsing-Fang Hsieh and Justin Heinze, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Say Something Anonymous Reporting System," Final report to the National ...
Gun violence in schools has been a national concern for more than two decades. Although school shootings are highly traumatic events and have brought school safety to the forefront of public attention, schools are very safe environments compared with other community settings (Borum et al., 2010). Less than 2 percent of homicides of school-aged ...
In the best-case scenario, public schools could provide special attention to students whose families have been on public assistance or investigated by child protective services as early as age 5.
The Guide School without Violence has been developed by the Commonwealth of Education Organizers, a Russian non-governmental organization, with technical support provided by UNESCO regional HIV and health education programme (based at UNESCO IITE). It was widely disseminated across the Russian Federation among regional education authorities ...
Although numerous studies report high prevalence of bullying in Russian schools, limited research was based on the large-scale, nationally representative analysis, which highlights the lack of findings applicable to the national context. ... Papers Educ. 16, 225-246. 10.1080/02671520110058679 [Google Scholar] ... School Violence and Bullying ...
Globally, half of students aged 13-15 - some 150 million - report experiencing peer-to-peer violence in and around school. Slightly more than 1 in 3 students between the ages of 13 and 15 experience bullying, and about the same proportion are involved in physical fights. Around 720 million school-aged children live in countries where they ...
In September 1970, J. Edgar Hoover composed an open letter to American students detailing his view on civil unrest at the nation's colleges and universities and warning against the elements he believed responsible. Hoover opened with the empathetic assertion that " [t]here's nothing wrong with student dissent or student demands for ...
Abstract. Against the backdrop of declining crime rates, gun violence and gun-related homicides have only risen over the last three years. Just as it historically has, the brunt of that violence has been borne by poor Black and brown communities.
Russian Formalism, a movement of literary criticism and interpretation, emerged in Russia during the second decade of the twentieth century and remained active until about 1930. Members of what can be loosely referred to as the Formalist school emphasized first and foremost the autonomous nature of literature and consequently the proper study of literature as…