Verified by 
Parents have been known to badger their children about one thing or another—cajoling, yelling, reprimanding, restricting access, movement, funding…even shaming.
"HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU not to...'x'?
You think it's funny?
I've HAD IT with you. Go to your room.
And you can forget about the sleepover on Friday."
Without a doubt, it seems they bully—antagonizing and aggravating their charges on the basis of their "preferences" and "rules"—on an ongoing basis.
Perhaps this is why we seem so powerless in the face of bullying behaviors.
Perhaps we model (non-physical) aggressions in our homes—imposing values, isolating, punishing, humiliating—even as we decry the (re)enactment of these behaviors on the playground, in the hallways, on the bus, in the cafeteria.
Certainly this argument can be made. More than this, we train our children to be invested in what we think of them, then wring our hands when our children worry about what their peers think of their clothes, their hair, their features…
Both of these behaviors—and the dilemmas they suggest—are patterned during early childhood socialization, when children vest authority in the gaze of an other—their caregiver(s). During this period, they look to please those who have the power to judge (and punish).
Their efforts (fealty?) may be an expression of love (if not dependence), a strategy in winning parental approval and affection, or simply a way to deflect anger / feel safe.
Note that these same motivations hold in the playground.
Peers—like parents before them—are agents of socialization. In this role, they—like parents before them—evaluate and critique behaviors. One way that both parents and peers respond to untoward behavior is to parody it, teasing the transgressor. Parents usually employ this strategy in an attempt at humor, looking to lighten the critique and soften the judgment. Encouraging laughter is one way to signal that the mistake is forgivable, reparation can be made, the trespass will not sever relationship. Even when caregivers yell, punish, and seem disgusted by the behavior of their charges, intentionally eliciting shame, guilt, and a sense of failure, there is usually a path toward redemption and reintegration. (As Michael Lewis has argued, their intent is “to teach their children to internalize values and to motivate their children, in [their ] absence…not to violate these standards, rules, and goals. What better way to prevent the child from doing this than by producing a strong emotion? The production of shame, even at normal levels, is an ideal device for instilling internalized values.”)
The intent to elicit shame seems perilously close to—if not identical with—the behavior of peers who have been charged with bullying. And in fact, the most significant difference between most parental discipline/shaming and most peer humiliation / bullying lies in the follow-up: in the potential for redemption. Young people may well critique, judge and even socialize peers into the group in ways that are reminiscent of—if not patterned on—the discipline found in their homes. Yet they rarely follow through and admit of the possibility of reparation, forgiveness and the restoration of social bonds. Rather, their judgments and critiques look to break connection—in ways that foster negative self-feelings. Their intent is to ridicule, and on that basis to reject any claims of ‘belonging.’
Without the opportunity to atone, behavior-management skills—an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, a willingness to take responsibility, a display of remorse, and/or a correcting of behaviors—are useless. When the conditions for reparation and redemption—also patterned during early socialization—are not in the offing ("If you clean your room and promise not to do 'x' ever—and I mean ever—again, I'll think about letting you go on Friday"), the negotiation of criticism and humiliation is daunting—and the judgments passed are but stepping-stones to bullying.
