New Member Sorority Hazing Through the lens of Carol Gilligan’s Theory on Women’s Moral Development

Andrea M. Cole

Hazing is here now and it has been here for many years, but how long will it stay? The answer to that question lies in the hands of many. Students, administrators, advisors, parents, coaches, faculty members and many others all have important roles in bringing the state of hazing to one of non-existence on college campuses. For the purpose of this paper I will review the definition and implications of hazing, as they relate to Greek life, and will take a closer look at Carol Gilligan’s theory of women’s moral development as an analytical framework to interpret sorority hazing and why and how women allow themselves to be hazed as a new member of a group.

What is hazing? There are many definitions out there created for policy, rules and other governance, but they all carry the same dismal message about a disturbing trend that plagues many college campuses (Barry, 2002). Chi Omega, the largest women’s fraternal organization, defines hazing as:

Any action without consent which recklessly, intentionally, or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a person, or creates risk of injury, causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. (Chi Omega, 2001)

The above definition, as presented by Chi Omega Fraternity, is expanded on by the University of Maine’s policy on Hazing, which adds, “the act of hazing is counterproductive to the development of moral, mental and physical qualities of its members” (Maine, 2002). The Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group (FIPG) outlines specific activities of hazing in their definition of hazing which may include: use of alcohol; paddling or any form; scavenger hunts; creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; wearing public apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste; engaging in public stunts and buffoonery; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; and other activities not consistent with fraternal law (FIPG, 2002).

Hoover and Milner (1998) explored the relationship between hazing and bullying to love and belongingness in order to interpret the acts associated with hazing and why they are so natural to young people. I will further explore the concept of belonging and hazing by interpreting the theory of women’s moral development as it relates to the pervasive act of hazing in college sororities.

Gilligan’s stage theory proposes that women’s moral development proceeds through a sequence (Evans et al., 1998) of three levels where students focus on the relationship between self and others and two transitions where students develop a more sophisticated understanding between selfishness and responsibility (Gilligan, 1982). This is referred to as the “Ethics of Care” Model of moral development. (Table 1)

Table 1: Ethics of Care Stages

In stage one, the orientation to individual survival, the goal is to fulfill the desires and needs of ones own self. When faced with a situation where one is being hazed the woman focuses on her own survival and is unable to distinguish between what “should” and what “could” occur (Gilligan, 1982). The woman is motivated by her own self-interest, ultimately belonging to a group, in this case a sorority. If the woman wants nothing more than to be a part of the organization she may be narrowly focused on moving on in her membership and enduring what is presented, even in the form of hazing, in order to survive and be accepted by the group.

The first transition from selfishness to greater responsibility is characterized by the strong attachment and connection to others. In the most common situation after recruitment, the formal process of exploring Greek life on a campus, a woman is introduced to the sorority through a new member class. Her new member class is where she is one of many women going through a structured program preparing for initiation into a Greek organization. Through her relationship with other members of her class and her willingness to shift from her own independence to one of connection and responsibility, she will begin to integrate responsibility and care into her orientation. No longer are decisions she makes solely focused on her own survival. When faced with hazing behaviors, she begins to see the implications for her peers, as well as the whole new member class.

Stage two, where goodness is viewed as the sacrifice of oneself, survival moves to complete social acceptance and reliance on others (Gilligan, 1982). If the group is faced with a moral decision on whether or not to accept hazing as tradition or a requirement of the new member program, she will defer her own beliefs to that of the group. If she does have conflict with a decision being made she will have it in private in order not to draw attention to herself as having differing beliefs or opinion. She wants to belong to the organization and feels it begins with belonging to her new member class. She is ultimately giving up her own individuality in order to maintain a sense of belonging.

The second transition from goodness to truth finds the woman questioning why she continues to put others before herself and recognizes this is a time of doubt for her in her organization. She may question her membership and what it all means. If she is uncomfortable with actions she constitutes as hazing she begins to examine her own needs and beliefs. In this instance she is often times torn between survival, wanting to be a member of the organization, and morality.

The final stage of the theory is that of morality of nonviolence where the woman recognizes moral equality between self and others (Gilligan, 1982). She has newfound respect for herself and therefore can make moral decisions as they relate to acts of hazing. She recognizes she has power to select among competing choices, which may mean standing up for oneself and others subjected to behaviors endangering her own self and others. She feels strongly enough one way or the other about the acts of hazing that she is comfortable stating her personal beliefs and disagreement with the actions. Stage three is the time in which a woman would make the moral decision to stand up against the acts of hazing in her organization. I see this as a time where a woman has the power and wisdom to eliminate hazing for good in her organization by using her power and responsibility as a member of the organization.

Through the lens of Gillian’s theory is one way to view the stages of moral development of a new member of a women’s fraternal organization. In the example provided we must also consider there is no time limit in each of the levels, and students may not experience the entire sequence while participating in an new member class. The example used for the purpose of this paper shows the hypothetical moral development of one woman through the process of new membership and in this case has a happy ending where she is comfortable standing up against the harmful acts of hazing. This is not always the case, for if it were hazing would not exist in the lives of sorority women for enough women would have come forward in their respective organizations to deter all future acts of hazing. Unfortunately, we still read about sorority hazing incidents across college campuses.

College administrators say, although sorority hazing is more likely to involve emotional and psychological abuse than physical violence it is a growing problem (Geraghty, 1997). How do we put an end to the growth of sorority hazing? I believe, those connected with sororities; student affairs professionals, advisors, alumnae, and parents must take an active role in the new member programs of sororities. We must not only be aware of the lessons and public traditions of the organization, but also provide ongoing education opportunities for all sorority members. We must instill in sorority women the confidence to take action in light of sorority hazing, so that all future members of Greek organizations can be provided a healthy environment from which they can grow and flourish as members of a community possessing a true sense of belonging while being able to maintain their individuality. Hazing can be gone tomorrow, but it will take the efforts and determination of all, including current members of Greek organizations, to make it happen.

References

Barry, T.(2002). Hazing can be tough to handle (Electronic Version). Journal.net.

Chi Omega Book of Rules. (2001). Memphis, TN: Chi Omega Executive Headquarters.

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

Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group. Stop Hazing.org. Hazing Defined. (n.d.).
Retrieved December 4, 2002, from http://www.stophazing.org/definition.html

Hoover, J. & Milner, C. (1998). Are hazing and bullying related to love and
Belongingness?. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 7(3), 138-141.

Geraghty, M. (1997). Hazing incidents at sororities alarm colleges. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 43, 37-38.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

University of Maine’s Policy on Hazing. (n.d.) Retrieved December 1, 2002 from the
Greek Life Office at the University of Maine.