As an end to this series on mental well-being, I wish to focus on one of the more striking contradictions in our student culture of health and wellness: hazing as a method for fraternity bonding. As the Inter-Fraternity Council’s vice president for risk management correctly noted in an Oct. 10 article, hazing occurs in social groups outside of Greek life. Still, its greatest stronghold at this University lies in fraternity tradition. Arguments against hazing regularly draw on common-sense values or the potential for unsafe consumption of alcohol, but this article will focus on the contradictions in such practices that social neuroscience brings to light.
The Fraternal Information Programming Group defines hazing as “any action taken or situation created, intentionally,[…] to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule.” The practice is typically presented as a group tradition or rite of passage and its proponents often view it as a method of establishing strong social bonds (i.e. “brotherhood”) between incoming members. Hazing is clearly a problem at the University. After several incidents of hospitalization last semester, Dean of Students Allen Groves judged hazing a large enough problem that he ordered all fraternities to complete their pledge process early.
Social neuroscience confirms much of what intuition tells us about building healthy social ties: our relationships benefit from positive interactions and suffer from negative ones. As psychologist Daniel Goleman notes in his book “Social Intelligence,” when someone “dumps their toxic feelings on us — explodes in anger or threats, shows disgust or contempt — they activate in us circuitry for those very same distressing emotions. Their act has potent neurological consequences.”
According to Goleman, expressions of “disgust and contempt” are particularly damaging when forming relationships. He suggests that optimal social relationships are established by maximizing the number of positive, genuine emotional interactions — such as mutual support and goal-directed bonding activities — and minimizing negative interactions. To achieve “brotherhood,” hazing actively endorses what the science warns against.
Perhaps the most common argument in favor of hazing is its ability to bind together brothers of the same pledge class. The apologists have a point — those who go through difficult, emotionally taxing experiences together tend to feel a sense of solidarity and kinship. Still, this seems an odd (as well as risky) approach. And often what begins as hazing directed equally to every pledge can devolve into the bullying of certain individuals — a particularly harmful byproduct that cannot be justified with the “hazing creates social cohesion” idea. Rather than isolating and terrorizing certain subgroups of your brotherhood, you could try for healthier activities that bond the entire fraternity together unconditionally.
The obvious solution to the hazing dilemma is what some fraternities have arrived at through common sense: social cohesion through more positive experiences. Practices include mentoring programs, granting pledge members equal rights and responsibilities to their senior brothers, and group community service activities. And if you still desire an edgier approach, connect with like-minded pledges via rock climbing, spelunking, skydiving or bungee jumping. Get creative with your bonding activities — just avoid mixing in interpersonal toxins like humiliation, resentment and anger.
The social neuroscience perspective suggests that to stop hazing in all forms is not just the humane approach, but — considering the goals of the fraternity — also the most rational one. To promote hazing as a desirable form of bonding might go against anecdotes from those who have emerged from the other side of the process, but it directly contradicts empirical and clinical evidence.
George Knaysi is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run on Tuesdays. This column is the last in a four-part series about well-being and mental health among University students.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 13 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 18 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
