The Revenge Lens

 

Mag-isip nan halayom kay bas mosiway…

A vlogger has recently made waves on social media by comparing supervisors in the United States and the Philippines. While he clarified that not all supervisors engage in what he calls the “Visitation of Gods” in schools, many netizens resonated strongly with his observations. His critique, striking as it is, highlights a persistent conversation about leadership behavior and professional accountability.

Though such comparisons may seem inequitable given the many factors involved, some of the practices he noted still exist. At the same time, many supervisors are gradually shifting toward more work-focused visits and exercising greater discretion in their conduct, reflecting a broader cultural awareness. In today’s information age, public scrutiny and ethical consciousness are shaping expectations for professional behavior across institutions.

This discussion gains further depth when viewed through the lens of James Kimmel Jr.’s The Science of Revenge. Kimmel notes that roughly 20 percent of people who perceive themselves as deprived of something they believe they deserve go on to plan acts of revenge. Such behavior is not simply emotional or situational—it is driven by ingrained psychological and neurological mechanisms that reinforce retaliatory impulses. This framework explains why some individuals invest significant time and resources in actions like defaming others or undermining positions of authority: their behaviors are motivated by a desire for psychological relief or restored balance.

Leaders who harm those around them may, in theory, be predisposed to such behavior, shaped by unresolved experiences of injustice or deprivation in early life. In leadership contexts, power can become a tool for reenacting or compensating for these past wounds. Kimmel’s research further demonstrates that revenge operates like an addiction, engaging the brain’s reward system in ways similar to substance dependence. Crucially, however, this pattern is not irreversible. Through cognitive strategies, forgiveness practices, and supportive environments, individuals can mitigate revenge-driven impulses and cultivate healthier behaviors.

Viewed in this light, the vlogger’s critiques may stem from personal experiences of perceived injustice, subtly reflecting his own impulses for retribution. Yet, as Kimmel emphasizes, such impulses are treatable and can be transformed. Recognizing and managing them offers the opportunity to replace cycles of retaliation with constructive insight, empathy, and growth—both for individuals and the communities they serve.

Ultimately, The Science of Revenge reminds us that revenge is not an inevitable human trait but a modifiable process. When acknowledged and addressed, even the strongest impulses toward retaliation can become pathways for understanding, healing, and ethical leadership.