Hazing:
Applying Student Developmental Theory to a Societal Issue
Gennaro
DeAngelis
As a societal
issue, hazing tends to be associated with specific groups and/or organizations.
Perhaps this is because hazing, like several other problems in society, usually
exists just below the surface until a remarkable event brings it into the
forefront. This event is often tragic, and usually involves a group such
as a college fraternity, an athletic team, or a branch of the military. A
public perception emerges which correlates such activities to these specific
groups. However, hazing occurs in society every day and within arenas that
are outside of any organized group or affiliation. In dealing with hazing
as a campus issue, one may look to Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical
Development. It is a theory that examines how students create meaning, and
how they come to understand the difference between right and wrong. Depending
upon where a student may be developing within the theory, he or she will have
different attitudes and outlooks pertaining to hazing.
As the director of Harvard’s Bureau of Study Counsel in 1968, William J. Perry
Jr. set out to examine how students interpret and make meaning of the teaching
and learning process (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). The product
of his research was a theory that saw students developing within nine “positions”.
A position is best described as the lens through which the student views the
world. Should an individual successfully progress through the positions,
he or she will perceive the world through the forms of dualism, multiplicity,
and relativism.
Hazing is defined by the
Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group as “any action taken or situation created,
intentionally, whether on or off of fraternity premises, to produce mental
or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule” (http://www.stophazing.org/definition.html).
The definition that appears in Webster’s Dictionary is similar, but goes on
to add, “to harass with unnecessary or disagreeable tasks”. Hazing can appear
as a subtlety, or as outright harassment. Examples of subtle hazing may include
excluding a particular group from activities, deprivation of privileges, or
the issuing of any type of demerits. Harassment hazing may include verbal
abuse, along with requiring participants to wear ridiculous costumes or participate
in embarrassing activities.
At its worst, hazing can
have tragic repercussions. A fraternity pledge at a Texas university was
taken for a ride, handcuffed, and forced to drink large quantities of rum.
He was found dead the next morning, and an autopsy revealed his blood alcohol
level to be more than four times the legal level of intoxication (http://www.final.net/sinfonia/province_36/hazing.shtml).
On a less serious, but still profound level, hazing destroys self-esteem,
self-worth, and it forces alienation rather than fostering unity. If nothing
else, hazing is an attempt to assume control over an individual. In psychological
circles, rape has sometimes been associated with control as much as it has
been associated with sexual aggression. Such an example better illustrates
the possible long-term psychological effects of such an experience.
According to Perry’s theory,
a student who is in the Dualism phase will tend to view the world dichotomously:
good-bad, right-wrong, black-white (Evans et al., 1998). Learning occurs
quantitatively, as facts are far more important than opinion. Also, authority
figures are seen as holding the ultimate truth. An example of an authority
figure could be a parent, teacher, or member of the church.
Depending upon whom the student
views as the authority may play into whether they will participate in, or
allow themselves to be subjected to hazing. Hazing often involves alcohol,
and usually results in demeaning or humiliating a person or a group. As a
dualistic thinker, one may be opposed to such behavior simply because it is
what he or she has been taught by an authority figure. They may say, “my
parents do not approve of drinking, therefore it is wrong”. However, problems
may arise if the dualistic thinker finds his or her authority figure within
the group that is perpetrating the hazing. For example, if a senior captain
tells a freshman football player that he must consume a large amount of alcohol
in order to be a part of the team, he may view that senior captain as an authority
figure. As a senior member of the football team who has achieved a certain
level of respect and leadership status, the captain carries with him an aura
of credibility. Also, other members of the team may support the views of
the captain. According to Perry, this secondary source only feeds into and
strengthens the notion that what the authority says is the truth.
Evans et al. (1998) defines
multiplicity as “honoring diverse views when the right answers are not yet
known” (p. 131). It is a point in the thinker’s development when he or she
begins to see the opinions of others as equally valid, and their own thoughts
begin to be formed more independently. This can be a daunting period of development,
and Perry notes a high possibility of a “retreat” back to dualism. They can
also temporize, or hesitate before making the decision to stay where they
are, retreat, or move on to the next position (Boynton, 2001).
For a student who is experiencing
multiplicity, a subject such as hazing becomes a confusing one. Though the
student still trusts in authority, they are now influenced by the opinions
of others. Notably, peers become a legitimate source of knowledge. For a
student who may be pledging a fraternity, things like alcohol consumption,
illegal drug use, or acts of humiliation may be wrong according to their parents,
church, or other authority figure. However, the opinions of established fraternity
members or other pledges can carry added significance to a student in this
position. It is a process that can be both confusing and frightening. This
is why, according to Perry, students may retreat back to a dualistic outlook,
as it is comfortable and makes the most sense.
When a multiplistic thinker
makes the transition to relativism, it is usually initiated by the individual’s
recognition of the need to support opinions (Evans et al., 1998). Students
in this position can see that not all opinions are legitimate, but differing
opinions can be supported by reason. There can be a need for both an authoritative
answer (physics) and a relative answer (English Papers) (Boynton, 2001).
A student that has reached
this point of development could possibly have a positive impact on a hazing
ritual. Perhaps a senior member of a sorority, who has been through the hazing
initiation herself, still feels some of the negative effects of her own experience.
If she has had any anti-hazing education in addition to said experience, this
will only reinforce to her that some of what transpires is detrimental to
the young pledges. A student with such a combination of perspective and credibility
could potentially have an impact on changing any practices that work to embarrass
or degrade.
Though hazing is a societal
problem, it will be dealt with most effectively on a more individual level.
It is important to remember that the student affairs professional will be
dealing with a large population of young and impressionable individuals.
Using a theory such as Perry’s can be valuable in understanding the different
mindsets and perspectives of such a diverse population. Even a slight curb
in the practice of hazing could not be understated in importance if it helped
to eliminate even one tragic outcome.
References
Boynton,
J. (2001, October). Perry’s intellectual and ethical
model of student development.
Unpublished. Presented during class session; Student
Development Theory in Higher Education: Orono, ME.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., &
Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. (n.d.).
Retrieved December 1, 2001 from http://www.final.net/sinfonia/province_36/hazing.shtml
StopHazing.org, Educating to Eliminate
Hazing. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2001 from http://www.stophazing.org/
