|
Hazing
and the Making of Men
“Hazing” refers
to 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. In years past, hazing
practices were typically considered harmless pranks or comical antics associated
with young men in college fraternities. Today we know that hazing extends far
beyond college fraternities and is experienced by boys/men and girls/women in
school groups, university organizations, athletic teams, military, and other
social and professional organizations, causing emotional and physical harm and
even death. Hazing practices are shaped by power dynamics operating in a group
and/or organization within a particular cultural context. As such, hazing also
reflects societal norms and expectations around gender, and masculinity, in
particular.
Historical
Overview
Behavior that
would meet today’s definition of hazing has been documented among male educational
and military groups for centuries. The term “hazing” however was not commonly
used in the United States until the Civil War period when it emerged as a descriptor
of initiation jokes played on newcomers to the ranks of the military. After
the Civil War, the term “hazing” was used to describe practices of initiating
new students to the university and maintaining order within the established
hierarchy between classes of students (i.e. upperclassmen vs. freshmen). Such
activities typically included expectations of personal servitude and other displays
of subordination to students in the upper ranks. Occasionally however, hazing
involved what was termed “disorderly conduct” and sometimes escalated into physical
brawls causing serious injuries and even fatalities (Nuwer 1999).
Hazing practices
today continue to reflect the masculine historical roots of military units and
universities. However, documentation of hazing in high schools, organized athletics,
as well as professional groups like police academies and firefighting units
has grown considerably. Over the last century, and especially the last three
decades, awareness and concern about the dangers of hazing has increased, marked
for example by its inclusion in many school and university codes of student
conduct. Since the 1970s there has been at least one student fatality each
year involving hazing (Nuwer 1999, 237). Such tragedies often led to increased
public scrutiny and sometimes resulted in the passage of statutory legislation
rendering hazing a criminal act. Today in the United States, forty-four states
have enacted anti-hazing laws that vary widely in scope and consequence but
are typically restricted to behavior occurring in educational arenas.
Hazing activities
are generally considered to be: physically abusive, hazardous, and/or sexually
violating. The specific behaviors or activities within these categories vary
widely among participants, groups and settings. Alcohol use is common in nearly
all types of hazing. Other examples of typical hazing practices include: personal
servitude; sleep deprivation and restrictions on personal hygiene; yelling,
swearing and insulting new members/rookies; being forced to wear embarrassing
or humiliating attire in public; consumption of vile substances or smearing
of such on one’s skin; brandings; physical beatings; binge drinking and drinking
games; sexual simulation and sexual assault.
Research
on Hazing
Empirical research
on hazing is scarce, and to date, there has been no systematic investigation
examining the role of gender in hazing. The most recent and extensive studies
have focused on hazing for male and female high school students and intercollegiate
athletes. Results of these studies indicated that 48 percent of high school
student group members reported being subjected to hazing (Alfred 2000) and 79
percent of NCAA athlete respondents reported experiencing one or more typical
hazing behaviors as part of team initiations (Alfred 1999). National news accounts
of hazing and anecdotal evidence point toward gender differences in hazing activities.
In general, a common conclusion drawn is that hazing among men is more likely
to be violent in nature and hazing among women is more likely to be psychological/emotional
in nature. Such perspectives align with and also reinforce predominant understandings
of differences between the genders. The results of the Alfred/NCAA study, revealed
differences between types of hazing experienced by male and female athletes.
Notably, women were less likely than men to be subjected to unacceptable acts
including: destroying or stealing property, beatings, being tied up or taped,
confined to small places, paddled, kidnapped or transported and abandoned (Alfred
University 1999). This finding supports the assertion that sex/gender differences
in hazing experiences do exist. For some, this distinction is simply attributed
to innate biological differences between the sexes. Others however draw on
a social constructionist perspective to argue that these differences are largely
the result of learning to perform gender roles differently (Allan forthcoming).
Several ethnographic
and journalistic accounts of fraternity life (Nuwer 1990, 1999) and athletics
(Robinson 1998) provide some insights about hazing practices. A number of these
examinations rely substantially on theories of gender, sexism and homophobia
to explain aspects of all-male groups that increase the probability of violence
against women who come in contact with these groups (Martin 1989, Rhoads 1995).
While hazing practices may take many forms largely influenced by the participants,
group and setting; some common characteristics can be identified and understood
in relation to predominant masculinity as practiced in contemporary European
and North American society. For instance, when hazing occurs among men, regardless
of the type of group, it is often framed as a test of “strength,” “courage,”
and “determination.”
Masculinity: “Weeding
Out the Unworthy”
How men and
women are taught to live in the world affects patterns of violence, abuse and
other behaviors involved in hazing practices. Regardless of race and socio-economic
status, accounts of hazing incidents among boys and men often include tests
of physical endurance, forced/coerced alcohol consumption, paddling and other
forms of physical assaults/beatings. A common rationale in support of hazing
is that it is a “tradition” necessary to “weed out” those unworthy of membership.
Research on
fraternity cultures and male athletic teams reveals an emphasis on hypermasculinity:
physical and mental toughness, endurance of pain and humiliation, obedience
to superiors and the use of physical force and coercion to obtain compliance
(Martin 1989, Messner and Sabo 1994). Gender theory provides a framework for
understanding the ways in which hazing is both shaped by and contributes to
shaping notions of masculinity and manhood. Some men who have been hazed are
firm believers in the abuses endured through the process of hazing and insist
they “enjoyed the challenge.” Such arguments are embedded in predominant cultural
performances of masculinity and what boys are taught to expect of themselves
and others as “real men.” Likewise, social anxieties around masculinity also
sustain hazing practices. The more boys/men are fearful of being labeled as
weak—the more likely they are to participate in hazing activities that are dangerous
and even life-threatening. A chronology of hazing fatalities reveals that men
are far more likely to die from hazing activities than are women. Of more than
sixty documented hazing deaths, only three have been women (Nuwer 1999, 237).
Gendered practices
of hazing are supported by the role homophobia plays in reinforcing rigid and
confining expectations of masculine and feminine behavior. This dynamic is
evidenced when for instance high school students to think about what happens
if a man is a little bit too nurturing or a bit too emotional
and they are quick to respond, “he’s a sissy,” “he’s a fag.” Women who cross
the line of normative expectations for femininity face similar social consequences
of being called “butch” or “dyke.” These terms are unlikely to serve as deterrents
unless they are perceived negatively, and homophobia ensures this. Thus, the
predominant social construction of masculinity, and homophobia, work in tandem
to create a climate in which violent and demeaning hazing practices are more
likely to be tolerated and even considered beneficial for young men (Allan forthcoming)
Understanding
masculinity as a dynamic process of “doing” gender helps to illuminate why the
eradication of hazing practices can be difficult. Since hazing can serve as
an opportunity for men to prove their masculinity (and heterosexuality), the
elimination of hazing traditions can be threatening on multiple fronts. Exit
costs for leaving a hazing organization increase because young men may lose
a major part of their identity by severing ties with the organization. Further,
when hazing is so closely tied to the performance of masculinity, those who
identify with predominant cultural constructions of masculinity, are likely
to fear their manhood will be called into question if they resist an opportunity
to prove their masculinity via hazing practices. This also explains, at least
in part, why some pledges, rookies and new members of organizations will ask
to be hazed even if the group is attempting to eradicate such traditions. Newcomers
know they are likely to be subject to scrutiny by members who have proven their
manhood through hazing. Such scrutiny is not entirely external—but also self-imposed—as
many boys/men have been taught to think of manhood in terms of physical prowess/strength,
toughness and conquest.
Increasingly,
reports of hazing among boys/men include acts of sexual victimization. While
reports of hazing have increased over the past decade, the humiliation and degradation,
along with the threat of group retaliation, continue to make it exceedingly
difficult for many to report such abuses. To date, efforts to curtail harmful
hazing have emphasized legal and policy remedies. Educational and programmatic
efforts are mounting, however, such efforts are rarely grounded in perspectives
linking the performance of gender to the development and maintenance of abusive
hazing practices. Making masculinity visible is crucial to further understanding
hazing and developing effective prevention strategies.
References
and further reading
Portions of this essay are provided
in: Allan, E. J. (2003). Hazing in High School and College & Allan, E.
J. (2003). Athletic Team Hazing. In Kimmel, M. & Aronson, A. (Eds.).
Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Alfred
University. 1999. “Initiation Rites and Athletics for NCAA Sports Teams: A
National Survey.” http://www.alfred.edu/news/html/hazing.
______.
2000. Initiation Rites in American High Schools: A National Survey.” http://www.alfred.edu/news/html/hazing_study.html.
Allan, Elizabeth J. forthcoming.
“Hazing and Gender: Analyzing the Obvious.” in Examining Hazing. Edited
by Hank Nuwer. Indiana University Press.
Martin,
Patricia Y. 1989. “Fraternities and rape on campus.” Gender and Society.
3, no. 4: 457-473.
Messner,
Michael A. and Donald F. Sabo. 1989. Sex, Violence and Power in Sports.
Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
Nuwer,
Hank. 1990. Broken Pledges: The Deadly Rite of Hazing. Atlanta, GA:
Longstreet Press.
_____.
1999. Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing and Binge Drinking:
Indiana University Press.
_____.
2000. High school hazing: When Rites Become Wrongs. New York: Grolier
Publishing.
Rhoads,
Robert A. 1995. “Whales Tales, Dog Piles, and Beer Goggles: An Ethnographic
Study of Fraternity Life.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 26,
no. 3: 306-323.
Robinson,
Laura. 1998. Crossing the Line: Violence and Sexual Assault in Canada’s
National Sport. Toronto, Canada: McClelland and Stewart.
StopHazing.org.
http://www.stophazing.org.
|
