Verified by 
At a recent social event, an acquaintance asked if I thought that the continued under-employment of professional women in a post-recession job market is an instance of ‘institutionalized bullying.' She cited an article that appeared in the NY Times several months ago, which claimed that professional women over 50 have had a particularly difficult time finding work, despite the revitalization of the economy.
This question begs another question: is there a difference between discrimination and bullying?—and if so, what is it?
Sociologists define discrimination as arbitrarily denying rights, privileges, or opportunities to a group of individuals on the basis of one or more commonly-held characteristic (such as age and sex/gender). They also believe, following R.K. Merton (1949), that one can discriminate without being prejudiced (think of someone who merely 'goes along with' biased behaviors and norms).
Clearly, one might substitute the word "bullying" for "discriminate" (see the table, linked above) and find similarities. One can 'go along with' taunting and public humiliation with little or no animus against the victim.
Similarities also exist in the choice of victims: both bullies and discriminators pick on those who are on the lowest rungs of the status hierarchy, individuals who have few—if any—allies capable of standing up for them.
And, in fact, those with low status are often ‘types’: young adults working through gender-identity issues, individuals with disabilities, or those struggling with obesity.
Moreover, both bullying and discrimination refer to repeated behaviors. A single instance of an individual making a slur against Muslims is neither discriminatory nor is it bullying—it is ignorant and cruel.
Repeated slurs against all Muslims constitute discrimination, while repeated slurs against one individual who happens to be Muslim is bullying. If there are no other Muslims in the group, it is impossible to determine whether this is discrimination in addition to bullying, or whether it is the appropriation of hate speech in the service of bullying, or both.
Finally, both discrimination and bullying often pointedly, and publicly, humiliate individuals, seeding (and nurturing) feelings of shame and inadequacy. Bigots repeatedly engage 'others' with derogatory intent, reveling in behaviors that belittle and reject those who are different.
Yet despite the similarities and overlap, bullying and discrimination are not synonymous.
Bigots who routinely discriminate may well be bullies, but a closer look at the nature of their aggression ultimately differentiates the two.
While it is undeniable that victims of both bullying and discrimination have lower social capital than their detractors, victims of bullying are not necessarily cultural scapegoats. (They may, in fact, fall into a discrminiated-against social group, but it is equally likely that they have had a falling out with the "queen bee," or that they simply have the misfortune of providing sport for bored peers).
The aggressions directed at these individuals seek to isolate them, to cut them off from real (or potential) social networks by establishing a pariah-status.
With this intent, the relationship between the bully and the victim can best be described as predatory.
That is, unlike discrimination, bullying always implies an overt aggression; bullies go out of their way to perpetuate social violences again their targets.
And, their main “weapon” in this is humiliation and shame.
Discriminators, on the other hand, do not usually go out of their way to overtly aggress. Rather, their aggression is in service to a particular world view, and not called into play unless the social hierarchy is threatened. They categorically demean individuals with particular characteristics, seeking to maintain their social position by denying rights, privileges and resources to those situated on lower rungs of the social ladder. Their indirect aggressions may or may not seek to actively shame individuals in this group, as their intent is primarily to “keep them in their place” (perhaps only attempting to humiliate and “make an example of” those who challenge the status quo).
Note, also, that in discriminating against a group that can be identified by one or more characteristics, bigots are relatively unconcerned with whether or not members of that group connect and support each other.
Their concern is that the lines that separate rights, privileges, and resources within any given hierarchy not be blurred. Bullies, on the other hand, target individuals for individual reasons. Further, they look to isolate their victims from any potential support.
So, are job-seeking professional women who happen to be card-carrying members of the AARP the victims of institutionalized bullying? I would have to say ‘No.’
The nature of the rejection and exclusion is prejudicial, but not predatory.
It is discrimination of the first order, a habituated ageism/sexism that may result in repeated rejections (from a series of potential employers) that may feel like bullying; that may well engender humiliation and shame, but in this instance, there is a limit to any overlap with bullying (if, in fact, bullying can be said to be institutionalized).
