0009. 果たしてそういう方向性なのだろうか Is it really so? | Ameme Greenのブログ

Ameme Greenのブログ

I am an amateur on disorders and that kind, and this is purely and simply my record of thoughts after I struggle with situations with disorders of my own and the others.

 今朝もいつものようにネットの途中までしか書いていないニュースを読んでいて見つけた記事で、英国の研究グループが子供の時にいじめにあっていると大人になってからのうつ病発症率が高いっていう結果を発表したらしい。因果関係はまだ確立されていないようだけれど、数字的にはある程度現れているようだ。調査は、13歳時でアンケートをとり、5年後の18歳の時にまたアンケートをとるという形で行ったようだ。

 でも…私が思うに逆…というか…もちろん全てが全てとは言わないけれど、元々うつ病にかかる素質を持っている子がいじめのターゲットになり易いって事だと思うのだが。

 にわとりか卵かと言うより、症状が”いじめのターゲット役”であったり(or/and)”うつ病”であったりって事で、”種(大本、事が起こる根源)”の部分は同じだと思うのだが。

 なぜそういう「いじめられるとうつ病(注:前述通り因果関係はまだ立証されていません)」といったようなどっちか一方からどっちか一方へという形でしか考えられないのかなとちょっと不思議。私はいじめられるには絶対的に理由があると思っている。こういう事を書いたり言ったりすると恐ろしいほどの非難を受けるであろうことは想像がつく。ただ、私の持論として(そして多分多かれ少なかれ多くの人々が気付いている)そこから目を背けていたら絶対事態は根本的には解決しないと思う。人の命までかかわってきているので皆が神経質になるのも解る。ただ、そういった悲劇を心底根本から絶とうと思ったら、いじめる側だけでなくいじめられる側の分析も当然のことながら絶対的に必要不可欠なものだ。もちろん、”環境の組み合わせ”が大きく影響はすると思う。同じ時期に同じ所に、”いじめっ子役”の素質を持った人間が

居なきゃ天敵のない場所で固有の動物がのびのびと育ち命を繋いで行くのと同じ原理で全くなにも起こらずに過ごせるだろう。

 物事、片側だけを見て解決できる事というのは自然相手(=人間には太刀打ちできないもの相手)の時だけだと思う。特に人と人の問題は両側を見るのが必要だと思うし、決定的な理由・原因が見つからない限りは相互関係として方向なり高低を固定せずに考えるべきだと個人的には思う。(これはあくまでも私一個人の意見です。)

I was reading net news this morning which only shows half of the story for free readers, and found one article about the connection between bullying and depression. It was by British researching group, and it says that bullied children shows higher ratio of getting depression as they grow up. The causal relationship has not been confirmed yet, but somehow the figures showing differences. The researchers did survey when the children were 13 years old, and then after 5 years, when the children became 18 years old.

This is purely and simply my personal opinion, it is other way around or different connection. Of course not all the cases, but I would say most of the time, the children who have nature or character get depressed rather easily often become targets of bullying.

It is not quite like "egg or chicken" thing, it just the situations either of symptom appeared as "bullied or targets of bullying" or/and "depression", and the bottom line is same. That is how I think.

My question is, why they only think with directivity of "one then the other" as "being bullied then depression (again, though it is not confirmed yet)". I have my personal opinion that there is always a reason or reasons on a person who would be bullied. If I say or write clearly then I know as a fact I will be beaten up. But, again, as my personal opinion (and probably many people have notice or been realised), if the matter of fact keeps being ignored, then there will be no radical resolution. Many lives have been lost with this problem so I understand people become very sensitive on the issue. However, if the society really wants to clear this problem, you definitely need to analyse both of bullies and bullied. Of course, there is a "combination" of people and "environment" affected big much. If there is no bullies at same time, same location with a child who has tendency of being bullied, there would be no issues as like endemic species keep their lives growing without natural enemies (as human being as a part of living creatures).

I think only when the mother nature is the other side, you can look at one side. Other than that, you need to look at both side, and unless you get to the point absolutely certifying one cause, need to keep mutual possibilities not set your mind with some kind of directivity.

(Again, and again, this is my own personal opinion.)