No matter the situation, where it is, and when it is, power dynamics will always shape every interaction. Sometimes, bullying can be a form of resistance to systemic oppression. Marginalized individuals will always be trapped in rigid hierarchies that allow harassment, exclusion, and inequality to continue. However, what if it is not always about personal hatred but rather how it is a touchstone of the failure of institutions to address the root causes of injustice? Simply put, the systems that protect us are the cycles they claim to prevent.
Simply put, Rockstar Games’ Bully reflects those frustrations. While depicting the lives of teenagers within the walls of the fictional Bullworth Academy, many have interpreted it as a game that promotes bullying. However, the game is a satirical critique of systemic structures in educational institutions and society but is handled through its themes and narrative. Despite the title and initial premise making it seem like a game about bullying, the game frames it as a form of resistance against an oppressive system.
At the same time, the game also shows how these issues keep cycles of marginalization going. However, how does it portray bullying as a response to systemic injustice and call out institutional failures that allow it to happen?
At first impression, we will see the main character, Jimmy Hopkins (a rebellious teenager who has just entered puberty while trying to see the Bullworth social hierarchy). As we play, the game mechanics reveal another view of it. School becomes a microcosm of the structure of society. Strictly, authority figures and institutional norms enforce these dynamics. Social cliques such as nerds, bullies, preppies, greasers, jocks, and townies each represent privilege with different marginalizations. However, all compete for dominance.
Jimmy is thrown into a world where he is marginalized as an outsider. At first, his rebellion can be seen as a resistance to the unfairness that keeps certain groups in power. Take, for example, his clash with the jocks. They hold the top positions because of their physical dominance and enjoy favoritism from institutions and teachers. However, Jimmy challenges the status quo that prioritizes athletics over other achievements of excellence.
Then, there are the preppies who represent wealth-based elitism. Their treatment of others is class-based, looking down on those beneath them and excluding those from less fortunate backgrounds by referring to others as “peasants” or “scum.” Throughout the game, they also demand special treatment, especially Derby Harrington as their leader, who refuses to accept Jimmy and those like him as equals to the point of constantly reinforcing the hierarchy based on wealth.
As players, we are pushed to see Bullworth’s social landscape up close by getting involved in pranks, fights, and challenging authority. Even though these actions can be chaotic evil, the game frames them as necessary responses to an unfair system, pushing back against the norms enforced by the cliques and Bullworth itself. Jimmy asserts his agency in an environment that tries to keep him down, reframing bullying as a form of resistance against systemic oppression.
Besides showing bullying as a form of resistance, the game also dives into the systemic issues that keep it going. Bullworth has a long history of institutional failure that encourages bullying. The school’s administration—represented by the ineffective Dr. Crabblesnitch and the authoritarian Mr. Hattrick—cares more about maintaining order and protecting the school’s reputation than addressing the root causes of student misconduct. Because of that, students are left to navigate the school’s hierarchy independently, with no real support or intervention.
Sure, Crabblesnitch enforces strict discipline, but he only punishes troublemakers when they threaten the school’s image. He disregards more serious issues like staff misconduct and favoritism. His so-called “rehabilitation” approach is just a cover for expelling rebellious students while protecting those from wealthy families or with inside connections. And Hattrick? He only cares about power and money, openly mocking poor students while siding with rich kids whose parents donate to the school. Instead of educating, he exploits students to reinforce his authority.
However, both have their kryptonite or voice of reason in Mr. Galloway and Mrs. Phillips. Galloway sees Bullworth’s toxicity despite his traits that students should not emulate. He understands that students act out because they are trapped. His alcoholism makes him seem hopeless. However, his empathy for his students sets him apart from other teachers.
Then there is Phillips, who treats the students with respect. She subtly criticizes the school administration and is also (besides Galloway) one of the few teachers who truly sees the students as individuals. The game compares Crabblesnitch and Hattrick through Galloway and Phillips. It shows us how “education should empower and not control.”
Classism, ableism, and sexism all play a role in keeping the cycle of bullying going. Take the nerds, for example—they are always getting picked on by the jocks, which reflects how intellect is often undervalued compared to physical dominance. Then there are the greasers, who come from working-class backgrounds and get pushed aside by the preppies, showing how economic inequality plays a role in social exclusion and harassment.
On top of calling out authority figures for enabling these systemic issues, the game also shows how administrators and teachers either ignore bullying or even participate. Mr. Burton actively encourages aggressive behavior, while Miss Danvers completely overlooks the struggles of less privileged students.
When talking about the themes in Bully, we can imagine how philosophers like Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Paulo Freire would interpret the game. More specifically, they would probably see it through the lens of power, discipline, and institutional failure.
First, there is Foucault’s concept of disciplinary institutions from Discipline and Punish. He would look at how the school in Bully enforces order—not through real education, but through surveillance (hall monitors), punishment (detention and expulsion), and power hierarchies (cliques and favoritism). He would likely see Crabblesnitch as a bureaucrat obsessed with control, more focused on making students obey than fixing systemic issues like underfunding or bias.
For Foucault, Bully highlights how schools are microcosms of larger authoritarian structures. The lack of teacher training and institutional bias would not be seen as failures but as intentional mechanisms to keep power imbalances intact, ensuring that students (like the preppies) succeed. In contrast, others (like Jimmy) are set up to fail.
Next, Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and social reproduction come into play. He would argue that Hattrick favors wealthy students not because they are learners but because their families hold power outside school. Meanwhile, kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—like Jimmy and the greasers—are labeled troublemakers, reinforcing class divisions. Bourdieu would likely see Bully as a critique of how schools do not create equal opportunities but reproduce existing social hierarchies. The lack of funding for specific programs and how privileged students are protected show how educational institutions uphold the status quo rather than offering class-blind learning.
Finally, Freire’s perspective from Pedagogy of the Oppressed focuses on how traditional education treats students as passive recipients of knowledge—a “banking model” of education. Instead of fostering active participation, Bullworth is filled with teachers like Hattrick, who enforce rigid discipline, while Crabblesnitch discourages questioning authority. Freire would see Bully as a game representing domination rather than empowerment—students either submit or rebel. Jimmy, who starts as an outsider but eventually becomes an unwilling leader, embodies Freire’s idea that real education should encourage resistance against oppression, not obedience to it.
All three philosophers would likely interpret Bully as a critique of systemic injustice in education—whether through Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power, Bourdieu’s take on institutional bias, or Freire’s vision of liberating education. The game shows that bullying is not just about individuals; it is a symptom of structural, institutional failures.
Rockstar Games’ Bully explores the complex yet messy concept of bullying as a form of resistance within a profoundly broken system. The game frames Jimmy as a reactor confronting that system. At the same time, it takes a stand on the issue by critiquing the failures of the institutions and authority figures within that dynamic.
At the same time, the game satirizes the injustices within the education system and beyond through its depiction. It shows a cycle of marginalization that we often encounter in the real world. Put, Bully highlights the issue of inclusively breaking the cycle of oppression.
References
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
- Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum.
