Fel! Hittar inte referenskälla

The dilemmas of victim positioning
everyday life. 75 It is the marginalizing effects of Leena’s constant
rejection of the negative descriptions delivered by the other girls
which Evaldsson finds particularly interesting in her analysis of
the girls’ verbal interaction. 76
Drawing out these analytical points is interesting when it comes
to understanding relational aggression. However, I am more
interested in an aspect that Evaldsson does not address directly;
namely, that Leena is upset by Nahrin’s statement that Leena
used to be bullied. This is a statement that Leena cannot accept
under any circumstances. She does not deny having been
admitted to hospital, and she is able to answer accusations that
she gave money to boys (by suggesting the others are jealous).
But she cannot accept being called a victim of bullying —
seemingly crosses the line. Only at this point do she and the
others begin shouting at each other. 77 There is no way she has
been bullied. She has been teased, once! But not bullied! For the
other girls it is equally important to insist that she has in fact
been bullied. They demand that she admit it.
What is at stake here? Why is the recounting of the events as
bullying so central to the girls’ argument? Why can that naming
itself be used offensively by the excluding girls while the victim
of bullying for her part is fighting to remove that description
from herself? Could Leena not have taken that label and turned
it into an offensive along the following lines: ‘Yes, I’ve been
bullied once already and therefore recognize it when I see it.
You are bullying me, which isn’t acceptable, so please stop right
75
Evaldsson, 2007a.
76
Evaldsson, 2007b: 400.
77
Ann-Carita Evaldsson uses print norms from conversation analysis where
pausing, intonation, phrasing, etc., are noted and thus enables a reading of this
kind of detail of the transcription.
59