a Real dialogue:

the Psychologist: it is necessary to return the conflict of the power struggle back in the relationship. To accept their share of responsibility - they say, here was wrong and clarify what the conflict... let's rehearse your appeal to the bug. As you approached him?

Teenager: Look, I was wrong, that connected parents, it was necessary to understand each other. Let's try to talk in a civilized manner, not like the animals...

the Psychologist: Stop! 🤦‍♂️
the wording That exactly delete from your dictionary.

If you try with the aggressor to speak English, have to work hard and to see him as a man. Talking of the arrogance of "I'm a civilized human, you filthy animal" impossible. This original installation was the cause of the conflict.

What I tell customers about bullying? Practice shows that it is stupid to punish aggressors – does not bring results. Punishment by teachers and parents perceive aggressors as a local victory of the victim harbored a grudge and taking revenge, then more firmly. It's an escalation. A positive practice is just denying primitive scenario “it – well, they – bad”. There are building a system to monitor the situation without jumping to evaluation. Aggressors are not punished, but only notice – “here, you see, it happened again”. And the fact of unbiased observation dramatically reduces relapses. But it is in the West. In Russia no one to do, no teachers have the necessary training.

the Aggressors do not go to the psychologist. And what can be done from the position of the victim in this situation? In any case, if one of the participants is perceived as a “guilty”, and the second as ‘innocent" of the conflict cannot be resolved. Vicious circle ‘aggression – punishment – of wine or a resentment – anger – revenge – punishment…”. This cycle impossible to break through the punishment of the aggressor. Need to find, paradoxically, what is the responsibility of the victim. Extremely unpopular proposal. But “I am a good – they are bad” is a merger with one pole of the evaluation. Such polar reactions are possible only the transition from victim to aggressor. The history of the school with arrows clearly show the prospects of such polarization. A systematic approach allows you to see the big picture and not to add fuel to the fire of mutual hostility.

so, it is necessary to seek the contribution of the victim. It is different. For example, often the victims of bulenga children with an arrogant stand against the aggressors. Supposedly I'm smart and correct, but they are underachievers and troublemakers (“am I a good – they are bad”). Aggressors read this attitude, and this affects their choice of victim. No wonder the victim often become the children of teachers, children polizeilich, etc. – where parents sort of activity used to assess and to judge. Their children stuffed enterectomy about what is right and what is wrong. And if the child is correct, it may have a negative attitude to “wrong”. They are often the first to reject peers (through fear or arrogance), which becomes a provocation.

This does not justify the aggressors, but if the victim notices the hostility towards him, there is an opportunity to recognize your contribution, to admit a balance of responsibility and use it as a Foundation for peace talks and restoring relations.