Hazing is not simply a fraternity problem, or an athletic team problem: it’s a human dilemma. It is not confined to military barracks or locker rooms, but certain environments do expose this ugly side of humanity. Fundamentally, hazing underscores some of the darkest human tendencies: the will to exert power over others, the inability to confront wrong for fear of reprisal, and the reckless disregard for human life and dignity. This paper will first address the issue of hazing as a symptom of environment through the example of fraternity life. Using Alexander Astin’s theory of involvement, this paper will analyze hazing within the framework of Person-Environment theory. Additionally, drawing upon Allan Johnson’s work on privilege and power, the hazing of specific groups will be addressed, using issues of homophobia and hazing as a working example.

For the purposes of this paper, hazing will be defined as, “Any activity expected of someone joining a group (or to maintain full status in a group) that humiliates, degrades, or risks emotional and/or physical harm, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate.” (Hazing Defined, 2005). As stated previously, hazing is not simply a fraternity problem. However, for the purposes of this paper, it provides a consistent point of analysis.

On the surface, hazing, particularly in a fraternity setting, appears very “anti-fraternal.” For groups who promote brotherhood as their main byproducts, why would they go out of their way to engage in any activity that “humiliates, degrades, or risks emotional and/or physical harm,” on someone they would like to call brother? Further, why would someone looking to become a part of this, willingly subject themselves to those same activities, and then in turn, participate by administering those activities in following years? The answers, in part, stem from the interaction between individuals and their environment.

Falling into the developmental construct of person-environment theory, Alexander Astin’s work on student involvement gives some indication as to why men join fraternities. In Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice, Nancy J. Evans, Deanna S. Forney, and Florence Guido-DiBrito comment, “He [Astin] defined involvement as ‘the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience’ (p. 297). He further clarified that involvement refers to behavior, what the student actually does rather than the student’s thoughts or feelings” (Evans et al 1998, p. 297). Astin’s definition demonstrates some of the reasons fraternity life fits perfectly into his model of involvement, as well as the particular act of hazing. For students to feel “involved” in their new environment, joining a fraternity can be an extremely good and productive way of enriching the collegiate experience. However, looking at hazing in light of Astin’s definition of involvement also demonstrates how actively participating in hazing rituals, both as the subject and administrator, can also become an important part of that interaction.

Astin makes five key assertions about involvement. Of particular interest to this discussion, is Astin’s fourth assertion. “ ‘The amount of student learning and personal development associated with any educational program is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of student involvement in that program.’ Basically, the more students put into an activity, the more they will get out of it.” (Evans et al, p. 25). Astin theorizes that the more students put into an activity, the more they receive, whether that results in educational or social development. In a positive light, this environmental interaction between a person and an environment of achievement will likely lead to higher positive achievement. However, along that same continuum, it is just as likely that an activity of negative reinforcement, such as hazing, will lead to higher levels of negative interaction.

In the case of hazing, both the subject and administrators are products of this interaction. From Astin’s perspective, those going through the recruitment process are looking for involvement, and will continually subject themselves to increasingly degrading activities under the guise of active participation. As Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) put it, “Basically, the more students put into an activity, the more they will get out of it” (25). Under this principle of involvement, students subject themselves to hazing, under the assumption that the ties of brotherhood and all of the outcomes associated with that must be great given the high demand for involvement in the activity. These recruited members are participating in an activity that will “educate” them in the ways of that particular fraternity, not in an activity that they perceive will be detrimental to their own personal health and well-being.

Understanding this principle of involvement further characterizes the position of those administering hazing activities. These individuals also see involvement as key, which can lead to the escalation of hazing rituals to extremely dangerous and sometimes even fatal levels. In much the same way, established fraternity members who participate in hazing recruits can take on the role of “educator” and once again, establish an environment in which, for the purposes of “educating” recruits, they ask them to submit themselves to participate as much as they are fully able. As a perpetrator of hazing acts, individuals also act in a dual capacity as both administrator of hazing, and as an active participant member of the fraternity. While these individuals or groups may see themselves as helping educate their recruits, and thereby aiding them in achieving high levels of involvement, they too are also demonstrating their own high levels of involvement within the environment through their participation in those rituals.

Issues of involvement are clearly at the heart of hazing rituals. At the very center of the question is a certain sense of “belonging.” In the particular case of a fraternity, the environment of brotherhood and the importance of fostering that year after year, becomes the dominant and prevailing theme of recruitment practice. Some fraternities will go so far as to call recruitment “New Member Education,” which further strengthens the link between Astin’s theory of involvement and indicates that some fraternities conceptualize hazing from a similar perspective. Individuals are placed within an environment in which they’re told, either explicitly or implicitly, achievement and involvement are linked to the level of active participation. Consequently there are no bounds to the extreme level to which these activities can be taken. Astin surely did not envision hazing as an indicator of involvement, or as a product of active participation. It is, however, important to note that just as individuals can be pushed in the direction of high achievement and development through positive engagements, so too can they be pushed in a negative direction through activities such as hazing. Particularly when confronted with an environment that reproduces and reinforces itself year after year, class after class, individuals can be particularly susceptible to hazing, without being sufficiently challenged to build a positive environment which encourages positive involvement and achievement.

As previously stated, hazing demonstrates some of humanities darkest tendencies. One of human nature’s most primal urges is to exert power over all, and dominate those perceived to be weak. In essence, acts of hazing are really demonstrations of power and privilege. As Allan Johnson’s work details, groups both knowingly and unknowingly exert power over one another and our example of a fraternity is no different. In particular, gay life in fraternities and homophobia help to reinforce the dominance of heterosexism and provide a point of analysis for the influence of power and privilege on acts of hazing.

Johnson (2006) in Privilege, Power, and Difference explains what Peggy McIntosh describes as two distinct forms of privilege: “‘unearned entitlements’” and “‘conferred dominance’”(p. 23). For the purposes of this work, conferred dominance plays a much greater part in illuminating the experience of LGBTQ students in groups that engage in hazing.

Conferred dominance occurs by “giving one group power over another” (Johnson, 23.) In our culture and society, deference is given to heterosexuality, and heterosexual people carry around certain privileges, whether they are aware of that or not. Heterosexuality is the dominant societal norm, and with that comes certain freedoms. Of those, heterosexuality carries with it the ability to express ones’ self as a heterosexual and “reveal their intimate relationships…without being accused of ‘flaunting’ their sexuality or risking discrimination” (Johnson, 29). In this way, everything that is not heterosexual is, by default, considered to be deviant.

Pamela Freeman, in “The Relationship Between Hazing and Homophobia,” states six beliefs from which she concludes that homophobic beliefs are a great contributor to acts of hazing (272). She indicates, “Homophobic attitude and accompanying heterosexist attitudes lead fraternity brothers to view peers perceived to be gay as inferior (i.e less ‘masculine’ than normal men), further enabling the hazing of peers who may seem weak or less masculine than the expected norm for the organization” (272). Freeman articulates that those who subject themselves to these acts do so out of a genuine desire to prove their own masculinity and in order to demonstrate their desire to “belong” (Brotherhood, 2005, p. 275). Humiliating and degrading homosexuality serves to reinforce gender stereotypes, and affirm the masculine, heterosexual recruit as the “ideal member” (275). Supporting an already pervasive societal norm, homophobia in the fraternity setting can marginalize prospective gay members of the community through coercive acts of hazing, in which recruits will either be forced to deny their own sexual orientation in order to belong or risk further humiliation.

Hazing not only centers around issues of power and privilege, but an integral part of that conversation remains the discussion of gender. In “Hazing and Gender: Analyzing the Obvious” Elizabeth Allan elaborates on some of the issues of masculinity that Freeman addressed. Allan (2004) also links hazing practices to masculinity. Her work underscores the pressure individuals who are being hazed feel to conform to societal ideals of masculinity. Utilizing Gender Theory, Allan speculates that hazing is a developmental process in which the environment (culture and society) calls upon individuals to assert their sexual orientation (278). For heterosexual men, hazing can be seen as a social cue to assume “masculine” characteristics, and demonstrate those in front of a larger group of men. Echoing the work of Johnson and McIntosh, Allan also describes the cultural dominance of masculinity over effeminate, or feminine dispositions (278).

In discussing hazing, a certain level of dominance and subjugation seem inherent in the topic. As Johnson and McIntosh rightly point out, from a theoretical perspective, these power relationships in society form the foundation for acts that are played out in everyday activities. Hazing presents an example of how this phenomenon manifests itself. Freeman helps bridge the gap between larger society and college student development, by using fraternity life as an example. She demonstrates that within the context of a fraternity environment, the dominance of heterosexuality and the reaffirmation of the inferiority of gay brothers leads to the hazing of those individuals solely based on perceptions of heterosexual life as strong, and gay life as weak. While Johnson and McIntosh speak to the implied conferred dominance, Freeman gives an example of a tangible way in which hazing is justified. Only by exerting dominance over the gay community through acts like hazing, can a heterosexist in an apparently homophobic environment, like that of a fraternity, reaffirm their own dominance.

Fraternities offer examples of how detrimental and pervasive hazing practices are. They are, however, more symptomatic of a sick society, than any one fraternity, athletic team, or military unit. Hazing further promotes a culture of domination and subjugation, which Johnson, Allan, and McIntosh readily see. Given Astin’s demonstration of involvement as a key factor in an individual’s participation in hazing, a “perfect storm” exists. Individuals want to conform and be accepted, but paradoxically want to dominate each other. Humans thrive off of interaction with others, and the norm is always more comfortable than the “deviant.” Hazing remains a manifestation of how human beings force compliance with social norms, and further perpetuate those stereotypes.

References
Allan, E.J. (2004). Hazing and gender: Analyzing the obvious. In Nuwer, H. (Ed.). The Hazing Reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in
College. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Freeman, Pamela (2005). The Relationship between Hazing and Homophobia. In Windmeyer, S. (Ed.). Brotherhood: Gay Life in College Fraternities. New York, NY: Alyson Books.

Hazing Defined. (2005). Retrieved November 30, 2006, from
http://www.StopHazing.org/definition.html.

Johnson A. (2006). Privilege, Power and Difference, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill.