Yes Mother, Consequences Are the Only Way to Stop Bad Actors

“You cannot give adults consequences! They aren't children” my mother pleaded with me on the phone as I explained to her that there must always be consequences for misbehavior if change is to occur for the 1000th time. 

I genuinely do not understand where my mother got the idea that consequences are not an important part of human societal construct. I'm not sure if it's copium on her part because she doesn't like that I uphold strong boundaries for bad actors or if it's that she really doesn't understand the concept of social consequences as part of civilized behavior. No matter what though, it's absolutely baffling that she keeps saying that to me. No offense. 

Sociological theory has long held that informal social consequences - such as reputational loss, withdrawal of trust, exclusion, and public criticism - function as society’s first line of moral regulation. Émile Durkheim argued that shared norms are enforced not only through law, but also through collective reaction. When communities respond to harmful behavior with proportional disapproval, they reinforce moral boundaries. When they fail to respond, those boundaries weaken.

On an individual level, this feedback loop is essential to adult development. Psychologist Erik Erikson identified generativity, contributing responsibly to society,  a central task of adulthood. Generativity requires accountability. Without corrective social feedback, stagnation or self-centeredness can take root.

Modern personality research adds another layer. Studies on narcissistic traits show that individuals high in narcissism are particularly sensitive to status, admiration, and dominance hierarchies. They are less responsive to empathy-based cues but highly responsive to consequences that affect reputation or power. In environments where:

• Status shields behavior

• Wealth buffers reputation

• Communities avoid confrontation

• Enablers prioritize comfort over correction

Narcissistic behaviors are not extinguished, they are reinforced.

Behavioral psychology is clear on this principle: behavior that is rewarded or left unpunished tends to increase. If manipulation, aggression, humiliation, or intimidation lead to greater control without social cost, those strategies become adaptive.

Over time, this produces what can be described as a “bully equilibrium.” One dominant personality expands in influence, while others contract to maintain peace. The group unconsciously reorganizes around avoidance. The absence of consequence does not create harmony, it creates asymmetry.

Sociologist Robert Putnam has argued that social trust is foundational to democratic and communal stability. When harmful actors face no reputational or relational consequence, trust erodes. People disengage rather than confront. Silence becomes survival.

At scale, this dynamic mirrors playground psychology: the unchecked bully grows bolder not because of inherent strength, but because the surrounding system declines to enforce boundaries.

Importantly, this is not an argument for public shaming or disproportionate punishment. Research distinguishes between destructive humiliation and structured accountability. Healthy social consequences are:

• Proportional

• Specific to behavior

• Consistent

• Paired with opportunity for repair

The danger lies not in accountability, but in its absence.

When adults are insulated from social consequence, narcissistic patterns can metastasize… First within families, then institutions, and eventually culture. A society unwilling to enforce interpersonal boundaries risks consolidating power in the hands of its most domineering members.

In this sense, social consequences are not cruelty. They are containment.

Informal social consequences are one of the oldest mechanisms of moral regulation. Sociologist Émile Durkheim argued that communities maintain cohesion not only through law, but through collective reaction. When harmful behavior meets no response, norms erode. When it meets consistent resistance, norms stabilize.

At the interpersonal level, behavioral psychology is clear: behavior that carries no cost tends to increase. Repeated aggression-  belittling, manipulation, intimidation, coercion- becomes adaptive when it expands influence without penalty. Over time, groups reorganize around the aggressor. Others shrink, avoid, accommodate. This is how a single domineering personality can quietly set the tone for an entire social system.

When aggression is patterned and feedback has failed, the appropriate social response is not endless dialogue, it is containment. Containment often means removal:

• Loss of invitation

• Loss of platform

• Loss of leadership role

• Loss of relational access

• Collective refusal to engage

Exclusion, in this context, is not cruelty. It is boundary enforcement at scale. Groups have a right to protect psychological safety and cooperative norms. Allowing a chronic aggressor to remain centered signals that dominance outranks integrity.

Political scientist Robert Putnam has emphasized that social trust is foundational to stable communities. Trust deteriorates when harmful actors face no meaningful consequence. Removing an aggressor, when proportionate and justified, can restore equilibrium more effectively than repeated attempts at appeasement.

Healthy systems do not exile impulsively. They clarify expectations, allow for repair, and escalate consequences only when behavior persists. But when aggression continues, belonging is no longer guaranteed.

A society unwilling to remove its bullies eventually reorganizes around them. A society willing to enforce boundaries preserves trust, cooperation, and moral clarity.

To me, this all makes sense. It is easy, it is simple, and it is common sense. However, I am often looked at as a heartless monster because I believe in the power of research backed corrective measures for protecting people from bad actors. Today, while teaching musical theater to my elementary schoolers, I finally realized why. Why do people recoil at the thought of consequences for their bad behavior? 

“Move that's my seat!” Mackie screamed at Deliah from behind me. 

I was typing out our script as the scene unfolded, but I knew it was Deliah that Mackie was shouting at because she was the only other child not in front of me. 

“No” Deliah replied firmly. 

Neither of them should have been back there and we don't have assigned seats because I teach enrichment, so the entire interaction was ridiculous in the first place. 

“Get uppp!” Mackie screamed. 

I turned around just as Deliah pushed Mackie to the ground and jumped on her. I was so overstimulated, I thought the situation was baseless, and I really didn't want to deal with it- so just for a moment I considered punishing both Mackie and Deliah. The thought ran through my mind that it would have been a lot easier to not deal with the situation at all by acting as though they were both bad. I didn't though because I'm not a self-centered POS. 

“Deliah!” I exclaimed as I pulled her off of Mackie. “Oh no, Deliah!” I spoke firmly and with volume, signaling to the other students to join in. 

“Oh no, Deliah” the class chanted eerily. 

Deliah of course started crying because she was embarrassed. I used all my child psych training to not indulge it and instead to enforce learning. “Crying won't work with me. You are not hurt, you hurt Mackie” I stood my ground. 

Deliah immediately stopped crying. It actually gave me chills. A look of absolute knowing crossed her face and it was replaced by pure fury at being caught. “Where had she learned this at such a young age?” I pondered. 

“I pushed her because she was being mean to me” she lied. 

I was aghast. 

“No I wasn't,” Mackie wailed. 

“I know she wasn't being mean to you because I watched the whole thing.” I explained. 

Deliah’s mouth went slack. She was speechless. She was shocked that this didn't work. At 4 years old, why would she think it would work? Where did she learn it? 

From her grown ups doing it, from her grown ups indulging it, from her grown ups not willing to give her consequences for bad acting because they would be hypocrites. Because her grown ups don't want to be held accountable themselves. 

People are afraid to discipline their children against bad acting because it would mean creating a society where they themselves cannot be bad actors without consequences. 

Despite growing up in a family of repeat offenders for horrible acting, I was actually held to a really high standard of behavior by my family not enforced for anyone else. I was made to apologize when no one else was expected to, even the adults. I was made to be present for community events that my peers were not expected to be at. If I prioritized myself, it was not without consequence while my peers and adults around me were allowed to indulge in self-centered behavior. I actually was forced to go to a dinner at my great aunt’s house the day after prom despite pleading with my mother that I was too overstimulated to go. When I inevitably was thrown into a meltdown, she beat me instead of recognizing that she had no respect for my needs. Why? “If you can go to prom, you can go to Aunt Vinn’s”. Of me, they built a perfect victim for abuse. I am in some ways grateful that an abuser found me at a young age and nearly killed me. That sounds crazy, but I don't think I would have the sense of self I do now had I not seen the negative effects of my family’s treatment of me in that extreme of a manner. I don't think any of them can even begin to understand that I was able to normalize his behavior because they did it to me first.

 I notice this phenomenon in highly narcissistic communities. They are reliant on a minority of abuse acceptors to coddle their behavior and make them feel good about themselves. This person is made to prove their “goodness”. They also resent this person for these traits. The abuse acceptors often commit suicide, are killed by an abuser, or fully remove themselves from the community. Before they leave, they often make attempts to preserve the few relationships they trust in the community while removing themselves from the path of bad actors. This often fails because the community blames the acceptors for “breaking up the community” or “being selfish” if they do anything other than accept abuse. Non narcissists in the community often become bystanders and accomplices to the bad actors and look at people unwilling to comply with the bad actor as unreasonable. Speaking from experience, if you are in this situation, just leave. They won't improve, the problem is beyond you. 

I hear a lot of pipe dreams about a society where people self-govern for right and wrong thinking without clearly enforced consequences and enforcers of these consequences. In a society of softies that can't even tell a bully they're not welcome in a space unless they have made a full apology and actually changed their ways? Get real. People absolutely need more consequences because we are falling apart as a society. People are abandoning their child and the child’s mother and being accepted back by their siblings and parents with open arms. I would be so ashamed and literally never speak to my child or family member again unless they fixed that. That's because I actually value good behavior and strive for it. Jesus would have flipped table on you psychos and thrown you out of the temple. Get your morals up. 

My mother fears my words are too harsh. Soft words and soft punishments don't work on bad people 🤷🏽‍♀️