Student
Development and Hazing
Jacinda L.
Boucher
Within recent years, college campuses
nationwide have witnessed a steady increase in hazing related
deaths and injuries. What was once dismissed as a few isolated
incidents has now developed into a disturbing trend. Hazing
is most often associated with fraternities and sororities.
However, it is hardly restricted to national Greek organizations;
hazing cases are becoming alarmingly familiar in high school
and collegiate athletics as well as numerous other local clubs
and societies. There are a myriad of complex questions at
the center of the hazing phenomenon: What is hazing? Who
engages in hazing activities? Why do capable, intelligent
adolescents and young adults voluntarily permit themselves
to be subjected to physical and psychological humiliation?
How can these harmful practices be eliminated? The answers
may not be as elusive as they seem: student development theories
can provide a useful framework and initial step toward explaining
hazing behavior. Undoubtedly, ethics and justice are central
themes in understanding the dynamics of hazing. Moral reasoning
theories help to clarify one of the most perplexing mysteries
behind hazing: how and why students feel so compelled to belong
that they would allow themselves to be hazed. Therefore,
this paper will specifically examine hazing from the perspective
of Kohlberg’s (1998) Theory of Moral Development.Kohlberg’s
research (as cited in Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998)
asserted that moral reasoning develops in a six-stage sequence
comprising three levels. The first level, Preconventional,
contains two stages and is characterized by egocentric and
concrete thinking patterns. Absolute credence is given to
authority figures (Evans et al., 1998). Upon reaching Level
II – Conventional – individuals are aware of societal
roles and expectations and desire to maintain these norms.
Gaining acceptance from others and winning approval is a significant
goal during this period, which also includes two stages (Evans
et al., 1998). Finally, when someone begins to question existing
rules and laws, and bases decisions on human rights and values,
he or she has entered the final level, Postconventional
or Principled reasoning (Evans et al., 1998).
It is not difficult to distinguish the parallels between these
levels of thinking and college students’ attitudes regarding
hazing. Clearly, “the college environment serves as an excellent
laboratory for moral development.” (p.172)
Currently, no collective definition
of hazing exists and debates arise over which actions should be classified
as part of that category. But perhaps one of the most inclusive descriptions
of hazing is offered by Hank Nuwer in his book, Wrongs of Passage: “An
activity that a high-status member orders other members to engage in or suggests
that they engage in that in some way humbles a newcomer who lacks the power
to resist, because he or she wants to gain admission into a group.” (Nuwer,
1999, p.xxv) Amazingly, many students who take part in hazing activities
do not perceive their behavior as morally and ethically wrong. Fraternities
and sororities are often steeped in tradition, and members erroneously believe
that enduring a little discomfort and embarrassment is necessary to make one
worthy of the prestigious title of “brother” or “sister.” Similarly, some
high school and university athletes want to ensure that “rookie” players know
their place on the team. This false sense of power on the part of the current
group member creates a feeling of subordination and inferiority within the
prospective initiate; this closely relates to lower levels of Kohlberg’s
(1998) theory, which state that authority figures are all-knowing and must
always be obeyed. Avoiding punishment is a primary concern during the first
two stages of the theory, and students who use Level I reasoning fear ridicule
and retribution. If a student is operating at this level, it could have a
significant effect on his or her motivations to blindly comply with orders
from “superiors.”
For some hazing victims, group
influence wields more control than personal needs. For example, if a potential
member has reached Kohlberg’s (1998) second level of moral reasoning, he or
she is seeking validation and acceptance from others. Fitting in with others
is the paramount objective. “One does what is right to maintain the system
and to fulfill one’s obligations.” (Evans et al., 1998, p.175) This also may
explain the behaviors of individuals who haze; they have a desire to conform
and remain part of the club or organization. Therefore, they choose to go
along with established methods of the group: “Until young people gain maturity…loyalty
takes precedence over moral qualms.” (Nuwer, 1999, p.50) In addition, Kohlberg’s
(1998) theory suggests that those who instigate hazing activities might not
yet comprehend the implications of their actions. At the Conventional Level,
rules are seen as unchangeable and applying to everyone. Consequently, members
might have the opinion that “We all had to go through this once. Now it’s
their turn.”
Students who are hazed often develop
strong ties and feelings of comradeship with other new members. This element
of group solidarity and unity pertains to Kohlberg’s (1998) third stage of
moral development. Because they have all suffered together, their own individuality
becomes less important than doing what is best for the entire group. “Shared
feelings, agreements, and expectations take precedence over individual interests.”
(Evans et al., 1998) Nuwer (1999) reports that when one prospective member
does not perform his or her tasks satisfactorily, the rest of the group usually
compensates for the mistake. Separating from one’s identity within the group
is a daunting task during this stage, and new members falsely assume that
by following all instructions, they are protecting themselves and their counterparts.
According to Kohlberg (1998), the
postconventional level of reasoning is rarely attained during early adulthood,
if at all. Students who possess these higher-order moral reasoning skills
are most likely to abhor hazing or any similar coercive activity. These individuals
have established a solid sense of self apart from others. “At this level,
individuals separate themselves from the rules and expectations of others
and base their decisions on self-chosen principles.” (p.174) It would seem,
then, that individuals functioning within Kohlberg’s (1998) first four stages
are most susceptible to hazing.
Kohlberg’s (1998) Theory of Moral
Development is reflected in many aspects of hazing behavior. Hazing itself
is a moral dilemma, and one’s stage of moral reasoning plays a crucial role
in how it is approached. Yet exploring hazing within the context of moral
development only begins to tackle the complexities of this emerging epidemic.
Unquestionably, other theories must be considered as they could provide further
insights. Finally, possessing an awareness of the relationship between student
development theory and hazing equips us with the necessary knowledge to more
easily recognize it and ultimately, ensure that it is eradicated.
References
Evans, N.J.,
Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student
development in college: Theory,
research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nuwer, H. (1999).
Wrongs of
passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
