Changing Objectives A CALL FOR RE-EVALUATING THE FRATERNITY/SORORITY SYSTEM by Chris Bunn In a society that venerates science as a method for understanding all that is our world, individuals accept explanations about gender, race, and human nature as explicitly grounded in an objective scientific community. Popular culture conceives of gender as a stationary, immobile category of attributes that is realized through individuals' "natural" biological drives. With the advancement of rationalization and the scientific method, many historically defined sociological arenas of human behavior have come to be defined through the more "rational" and "scientific" fields of biology, physics, and psychology. "Objectivity" has become the pinnacle of scientific research and a driving force in accepting any intellectual ideas within the institutions of the scientific academy. Unfortunately any research or ideas that don't hold to the pretense of objectivity are considered to be biased by the intellectual community of scientists, and consequentially rejected. If only our scientists had read their Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and, more recently, Carol Tavris and Donald Black carefully, they would quickly realize that the supposed diamond of objectivity is, in actuality, nothing more than compressed coal. The pretense of objectivity is just that, a pretense, and the importance of objectivity in science has become the farce that threatens the legitimacy of the scientific method. Each of the aforementioned quite brilliantly point out that objectivity in rationalizing the world is impossible and any claims to objectivity are not only misguided but empirically false. Much of the criticism of my past two articles on the fraternity and sorority system ("Are You Man Enough?", February 5 issue; "A Woman's Place," February 12 issue) rests on the false assumption of objectivity as a means for evaluating their validity. I was in no way objective in my research. I didn't do a random sample. None of my research claims statistical validity, and all of my research is specifically attached to an external agenda, but with all of these supposed biases, can my research still be seen as valid? Accord-ing to many expert sociologists, the resounding answer is yes. Other criticism of my work has rested on my agenda and my supposed purpose in conducting this research. Here is the statement I included in the final draft of my research project from which I took my two previous articles: This paper came out of frustration. A frustration that can only be understood by those who have existed within the fraternity/sorority system. I was frustrated that women were treated badly, and in some ways contributed to the ill notions about them; I was frustrated because most of the system is rooted in tradition and resists change. I was frustrated that women are blissfully unaware of the subtle ways in which they are objectified, and that the fraternity system likes it this way. I was frustrated to find that a system can empower its members to be individuals, to celebrate diversity, to create social bonds, yet at the same time create these bonds around notions of arcane gender roles. I was frustrated to speak with fraternity men and sorority women, finding them to be kind, concerned individuals, only to later discover that they had participated in self-degrading rituals. I was frustrated by a system that claims to celebrate masculinity and femininity, but in actuality concentrates popular culture's notions about gender and spoonfeeds them to individuals. I was frustrated that a system that has the potential to empower one third of this university with strength and social solidarity instead creates divisions via internal competition. This paper is my attempt to break the silence surrounding pledge rituals, and fraternity/sorority life. This paper would not have been possible if it weren't for the multitudes of fraternity men and women who stepped forward and broke that silence which surrounds their clandestine rituals. Obviously some people are ready for change, and I hope that this paper may in some way speed that process. Implicit in my disclaimer are notions that the fraternity and sorority system have the potential to do good things. In fact, most of the people I interviewed were very happy with their overall fraternity/sorority experience. In many ways, and in many different houses, members felt empowered and accepted. Unfortunately the relationships among houses and the notions about gender that exist in the system at large weren't as empowering or accepting. In conclusion, many people within the system were pleased and excited about their experiences as members of the system, but found upon closer inspection of their specific rituals and lifestyles many troublesome notions about gender and sexuality. The bad news is that these roles and systems of gender ideology are ingrained into the popular culture in which everyone exists, and changing this system is incredibly difficult. The good news is this: the sorority/fraternity system is a microcosm of its own. It has notions about gender that mirror popular conceptions, but the prospect for change is very good. If individuals within this system have been disturbed about sorority rush practices or fraternity initiation rituals, or if they have realized the way that sorority rush disempowers women, or if they have seen that fraternity rush excludes men who aren't "traditionally masculine" -- then make a resolution to change. Changing the popular culture is difficult and takes much time and effort; conversely, changing a micro-culture can be much easier -- and results can be seen in years instead of decades. The painful process of change and the eventual redistribution of power within the system cannot begin unless individuals from within make the first move.

back to Decweb main