[20416] in APO-L
Re: Level of Brotherhood
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Thompson)
Mon Apr 5 21:59:38 1999
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:00:51 -0500
Reply-To: Patrick Thompson <patrick.h.thompson@VANDERBILT.EDU>
From: Patrick Thompson <patrick.h.thompson@VANDERBILT.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Liston Bias wrote:
>
> The most obviously way to form a strong brotherhood is to offer a common
> point of reference. Whether this be all-white, all-male, all-skinny,
> all-fat, etc. When you venture into creating a diverse population I
> believe it becomes much more difficult.
I agree totally that a common frame of reference is vital. However,
that common frame of reference doesn't have to just be a matter of race
or gender--what's important is a shared value system. For APO, that
shared value system is encapsulated in Leadership, Friendship, and
Service. To truly live those priniples, shouldn't we extend the bonds
of friendship to people that might not look just like you, but also
value the things APO stands for? Even on campuses where guys like you
might rather wall yourselves off from other types of people?
> Although there is no real way to
> measure "brotherhood", I have no doubts that chapters who are less
> diversity have much less difficulty experiencing the strong bonds. Add
> hazing (or challenging pledge program) to the equation and you have added
> a whole new level of bonding... a definitive common point of reference.
Ah, so now you're introducing hazing to the equation--have you ever
thought that maybe you really want a soial frat, and should have joined
one of those rather than try to mould APO into a niche that is already
well filled by the social fraternities? APO has a lot to offer--not the
least of whih is a co-ed fraternity brothership. Yeah, it's a
tradeoff...but it doesn't serve APO to try to strip the organization of
its uniqueness.
> I have many friends who are members of fraternities who have very
> difficult pledging processes. When they are finished they would do
> anything for each other (rationale or not).
Well, that's an example of the shared value system. However, I'd say
that what you describe is a weaker value system, since it's forged in
shared (traumatic) experience rather than shared basic principles. In
the former, people an do things that might otherwise be seen as immoral,
to support a brother. For instance, a brother might stea for the
enjoyment of another in a hazing-based moral code, since the highest
loyalty is to the other brothers and not what's right or wrong. In APO
however, since ideally the highest loyalty is to the ardinal priniples,
people might be more likely to grow as moral individuals. I'm not
saying that all APO brothers have a high moral fiber, or that all soial
frat brothers don't--but, with a hazing-based moral code, the risk of
deindividualized amoral behavior is increased.
> When you open up an organization to different races, genders, cultures,
> etc, you definitely loose something. What you gain, however, is an
> organization that builds towards a global brotherhood.
You lose some of your ability to become complacent in your thinking, and
your ability to see all the world as merely being a reflection of you.
You know, maybe that's something people should lose, since it seems to
me growth and a loss of an egocentric worldview are crucial elements of
growing up, at least into the sort of adults APO wants to foster.
