[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I guess what I’m trying to get at is where we start and stop our definition of “hazing”. I’d think of hazing as being coerced into doing something you wouldn’t do under normal circumstances. You can also say that’s paying membership dues, because nobody would give money to an organization if they weren’t going to get something out of it, but that can be construed as getting funds to keep the services going from their members a la PBS.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose it depends on how much money we’re talking about; I understand that Scientology sucks people’s wallets dry. I’ve also heard it claimed that the victims keep going, because they are afraid to admit they’ve wasted that much money. That sounds like a monetary version of hazing to me.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I suppose it depends on how much money we’re talking about; I understand that Scientology sucks people’s wallets dry. I’ve also heard it claimed that the victims keep going, because they are afraid to admit they’ve wasted that much money. That sounds like a monetary version of hazing to me.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t fight this at all. It’s akin to poker, when most of your money is already invested in the hand and your opponent has a good deal more chips left than you do. At that point, you might as well put what relatively little you have in left and see what the results are.
Scientology is a rich man’s hazing, much in the way that fraternities on campuses, when hazing, provide a similar service with more “crude” hazing.
I use the term “crude” not to differentiate it, because all hazing, by definition is barbarid and crude.
I guess the difference between paying your dues and hazing is reasonability and applicability. Having to pass a grueling series of physical tests/tests of skill to join an elite military unit isn’t hazing; it’s what makes the group elite. Being beaten by sticks while joining a fraternity is hazing; there’s no relevance to college classes in being beaten.
Or in terms of money, paying $100 a month for a net $150 benefit is reasonable; $100 for nothing ( like Scientology, for example ) is not.
Agreed. Hazing would be a fraternity making their supplicants pay triple what the regular rate would be for other members.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It also sounds just like what I’ve heard about wartime atrocities; that they are often encouraged ( officially or not ), in order to draw the soldiers together and make them unwilling to question the cause. After all, if the cause isn’t justified/the enemy isn’t subhuman, then they have to take blame for the evil they’ve committed. Replace “stupidity” with “evil” and the principle seem the same.
[/QUOTE]
Yup. Nobody wants to be the last person to die for a mistake, and people will lie to themselves and others before they admit to themselves that they were hazed by a corrupt, inept, destructive bureaucracy. Doing so means it was all in vain.
I’m not so sure that’s as Anti-Iraq a comment as it is Anti-Nazi party circa 1935.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Having to pass a grueling series of physical tests/tests of skill to join an elite military unit isn’t hazing; it’s what makes the group elite.
[/quote]
That sounds to me like definitional acrobatics. Does basic training fall into that category of elite training? I doubt it, given how many people go through it every year, many of them quite shlubby. No. The training a man requires to drive the colonels to the officer’s club and back in Fort Meyer certainly is not the kind of elite training you’re thinking about, but we still haze the shit out of that guy before he makes PFC. You cannot simply dismiss the military from the equation.
Certainly true, but I object to the notion that anything a college fraternity does to/with/for members that isn’t related to college classes is hazing.
Anyways, like I said above, the United States (that means all of us in it) collectively believe that hazing provides the important social benefit of making recruits into dependable troops.
Other hazing organizations believe that the haze provides the benefit of closer fellowship to their members. By all means, this is most clearly an individual benefit. But individual benefits are societal benefits. A rising tide floats all boats. So of course the question we must ask is not what kind of benefit is appropriate, but whether it’s worth the cost. If the haze in question is that the “victim” has to know the words of the alma mater or has to answer the phone when it rings, then I’d say it might be worthwhile. If he has to submit to a broomhandle being shoved up his rectum, that’s where I draw the line!
–Cliffy
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
I can see this point in the case of a fraternity - but one doesn’t really have much choice in the case of certain occupations (or elite organizations within a particular field).
[/QUOTE]
Having a certain occupation is still a choice, isn’t it? I can’t think of many situations where you would be forced to go through a hazing in order to join a group that was of little importance to you (generic you).
The world does not care about the best interests of the individual. That is why people join groups. Because the strength of the group is often greater than the sum of it’s individuals.
There’s different kinds of “nurturing”. I don’t think you can really get a true sense of a person unless you challenge them and see how they react to the challanges. It is how we react to our successes and failures that make up a persons character. Why is it when two people are told “drop and give me 20” one might bitch for 15 minutes while the other bangs out 20 pushups?
I’m not a fan of abusive hazing, but I do believe that there are benefits to creating challenges that test a person character and physical and mental toughness.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
The world does not care about the best interests of the individual. That is why people join groups. Because the strength of the group is often greater than the sum of it’s individuals.
[/quote]
There’s a difference between joining a group for mutual self interest and subordinating the needs of the individual to the group.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Why is it when two people are told “drop and give me 20” one might bitch for 15 minutes while the other bangs out 20 pushups?
[/quote]
Because the first guy has more of a spine ?
[QUOTE=msmith537]
I’m not a fan of abusive hazing, but I do believe that there are benefits to creating challenges that test a person character and physical and mental toughness.
[/QUOTE]
Putting up with such “challenges” shows a lack of character; someone with some spine would just sneer at people who demanded he submit and walk away.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
it’s what makes the group elite. .
[/QUOTE]
What makes the group elite?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Putting up with such “challenges” shows a lack of character; someone with some spine would just sneer at people who demanded he submit and walk away.
[/QUOTE]
well put.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
I think it could be a hold-over from the past. You still see it quite frequently in tribal societies. Rites of passage must be completed before a boy is called a man, regardless of age, and girls must complete theirs before they’re technically adult women.
Sometimes, these rites include danger such as the boys in the Amazon who must jump from towers with ropes which they have woven themselves tied to their ankles, hoping that they estimated the distance correctly, or they’ll crash into the earth head-first. Sometimes the rites include humiliation or subservience. I remember seeing one rite of passage for girls (though can’t remember the culture) in which the girl was smacked and pinched while she tried to complete a task. There is another culture in which boys are required to give oral sex to all of the adult men before they’re adults. (The group believes a man does not make his own sperm, so a boy must injest enough to last him when he’s an adult.)
Modern churches often have their own forms of rites of passage. The convert must complete training or be baptised before the entire group before they’re accepted as a full member. Some include practices like having the convert confess their sins before the group, or participate in speaking-in-tongues. Gangs often require the new member to comit a crime or be beaten by the members of the group. (Some allow women to have sex with all members rather than be beaten.)
I think that modern hazing practices are in some sense a demonstration of longing for ritual in a society which has mostly been stripped of it, added to the human loging to belong to exclusive groups.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that’s pretty much it, except that calling it a “hold-over from the past” is no more meaningful than saying that any ceremony is a hold-over from the past. I can’t think of any society that doesn’t incorporate hazing into its practices. That means it’s very much a part of who we are now, not some relic that has outlived its usefulness.
Can hazing be overdone? Of course. But that’s true of almost any human cultural practice. Even sex can be bad when it’s forced, but does that mean that sex itself is bad? No.
[QUOTE=seoulsoul]
What makes the group elite?
[/QUOTE]
Being composed of people who are stronger, tougher and more skilled than, say, the other 95+ percent of the military. It’s just a random theoretical example; I wasn’t thinking of any particular group.
By the way, you all realize “hazing” as stated, is a common idea in Confucian morality? Confucius wrote that proper obedience must be paid to those both older and younger, and to those in lesser and richer upbringings. In some societies the common expression “Nice to meet you” is often replaced by “How old are you?” in an effort to realize the position of the relationship, and what response is required. Often times the required response is predicated on these basic understandings.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yep, that’s pretty much it, except that calling it a “hold-over from the past” is no more meaningful than saying that any ceremony is a hold-over from the past. I can’t think of any society that doesn’t incorporate hazing into its practices. That means it’s very much a part of who we are now, not some relic that has outlived its usefulness.
[/quote]
I can think of a number of practices that are a major part of “who we are” in various societies - honor killings of wayward spouses, caste systems and other forms of racism etc. Their longevity does not justify their continued existence.
I don’t think you want to make this comparison, as it sounds like you’re suggesting that rape is like sex, only overdone. :rolleyes:
Regarding claims that hazing produces bonding within a given professional or fraternal group - if this is true, does this necessarily equate to an overall benefit to society? And again, are violent/domineering/sadistic practices employed to initiate a new group member superior to cooperative/mentoring behaviors when it comes to either “bonding” or creating a productive and useful member of society? While anecdotes are interesting, something in the realm of scientific research would be more convincing.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Regarding claims that hazing produces bonding within a given professional or fraternal group - if this is true, does this necessarily equate to an overall benefit to society?
[/QUOTE]
More likely a net drag on society. Consider the example of hazing medical residents by overwork mentioned by the OP; I bet quite a few people have been hurt or killed because of exhaustion-induced incompetence. Not to mention, I fail to see how an us-against-the-world mentality benefits society; I’ve heard plenty of examples of it hurting society. Catholic priests covering for pedophile priests for example; less group unity would have been quite helpful in that situation.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I guess the difference between paying your dues and hazing is reasonability and applicability. Having to pass a grueling series of physical tests/tests of skill to join an elite military unit isn’t hazing; it’s what makes the group elite. Being beaten by sticks while joining a fraternity is hazing; there’s no relevance to college classes in being beaten.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Let me give yu an example from my own experience:
Back in basic training we had a ritual called the Masa, or March. Every Thursday night we’d put on our full kit, get in two lines and start walking quickly over ough desert terrain. We started out with a brisk 2000 meters, upping the distance every week until four months later we did 60 kilometers in one night. The March involved various ritual elements, including chants made before we left, chants made when we arrived, face painting and more. After certain especially arduous marches we’d receive various “awards” - a new pin, a new shoulder tag, and after the final one a new beret.
Now, one could look at these marches as hazing - after all, in a purely physical sense they were incredibly painful and psychologically draining. The pain you feel in your legs, feet and back after one of those things makes being hit by sticks feel like a nice soothing bath. But they were also valid training, because after all, infantry has to know how to walk. We were getting into shape, learning our limits, learning how to work together as a team. Despite the pain - in a large part because of the pain - we were learning a valuable skill.
And we were CERTAINLY not humiliated by the process. Quite the opposite, in fact.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Putting up with such “challenges” shows a lack of character; someone with some spine would just sneer at people who demanded he submit and walk away.
[/QUOTE]
Do you also believe that it takes more courage to walk away from a fight? I would think the option that involves some risk of bodily injury requires more courage.
As I mentioned before, I think we need to separate the term “hazing” from “initiation rituals”.
Hazing is abuse. Initiation rituals provide a shared bonding experience through overcoming adversity. It’s the difference between being forced to run some gauntlet obstical course and singling out an individual to be beaten with bars of soap for running it too slow.
My fraternity didn’t really haze at all in the sense of beatings and forced alchohol consumption. Did we force our pledges to do stupid crap that maybe was a little embarassing and uncomfortible? Sure. We also made them do a lot of unpleasent chores because those choores need to be done. There’s a hieararchy in the house and you don’t just come in at the top of it.
We didn’t want mindless conformists either. We wanted the type of people who wouldn’t stand by and let abuses happen just because someone thinks it’s “tradition”. On the other hand, if you are the type to “sneer and walk away” because you feel you are above kitchen duty once a week, I’d just asume you go back to your dorm where you can hang out with your residential services assigned roomates (assuming they can put up with you).
The big question of course is where the line is. The ROTC Rangers and my school treated their ritual where their pin was hammered into their chest as a source of pride. Some fraternity guys VOLUNTARILY brand themselves with their letters (stupid by the way). New initiates look forward to being able to get up on the bar at the house wearing nothing but their boxers and their pledge letters while 50 people throw ice cold beer at them. When I played hockey, I would blast out as many pushups as my coach demanded. The douchebag we just hired gives attitude whenever he is asked to do anything he feels is beneath him. I told a manager to get bent because she expected me to wear a stupid wall clock like Flavor Flav after she made me late to her meeting.
So when is standing up to hazing and when is it simply being a self-righteous pussy who doesn’t want to suffer the slightest inconvienience?
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
I can think of a number of practices that are a major part of “who we are” in various societies - honor killings of wayward spouses, caste systems and other forms of racism etc. Their longevity does not justify their continued existence.
[/quote]
You are conflating practices that can be found in some societies with practices that can be found in all societies. We’re talking about hazing here, which is practiced by all societies, and that can produce a positive effect when not taken to extremes.
[quote]
I don’t think you want to make this comparison, as it sounds like you’re suggesting that rape is like sex, only overdone. :rolleyes: ]/quote]
Meh. If you don’t like the term “overdone”, then pick another one. The fact is, the sex act can be used for “good” and it can be used for “bad”. Are you trying to say that because of the latter, we should eliminate the former? If not, then what is your point?