Developing a Positive Masculinity Approach to Fraternity and Other College Men

Developing a Positive Masculinity Approach to Fraternity and Other College Men

On March 3 of this year, I posted a response to Caitlin Flanagan’s “The Dark Power of Fraternities” to the ACPA Men & Masculinities blog. The post briefly addresses a common occurrence when discussing fraternity life in the American higher education system. Media and commentators frequently highlight troubling statistics and pervasive attitudes that exist within Greek Life; a means to devalue the positive and developmental qualities we claim are espoused by fraternities. This often loud and critical perspective on Greek life creates a need for self-preservation. In the Winter 2014 issue of Perspectives, a publication of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Editor Heather Kirk writes:

When the media picks up an incident that seams sensational or shocking, we swing into reaction mode. ‘How could this happen,’ we ask. ‘What were they thinking?’ ‘Not again.’ Just as often, we say ‘But this is a small population; most of the students do the right thing.’ Or, ‘But fraternities also provide leadership and growth experiences.’ And of course, ‘The media is just trying to sell copies” (pp. 3). 

Kirk adequately describes the current state of affairs within conversations regarding the future of fraternity life in higher education. While we listen to external critics with little knowledge of fraternal structure and transformative experience call for an end to American Greek Life, we develop a “protect our house” defensive mentality that does not serve a productive purpose. In my previous post to the ACPA blog, I state:

Let’s stop debating the pros and cons of fraternity life. We cannot sit down with the statistics of philanthropy dollars raised and the number of sexual violence reports and decide on which overshadows the other. Placing a quantifiable value on each positive and negative action to prove our stance is not only impossible, but [also] harmful to the overall discussion.

While I continue to believe that we spend too much time defending the future of fraternity life, I am inclined to clarify my perspective. The often-hostile back-and-forth that exists between various campus and community partners adds little to the conversation. The time has come to adopt a new perspective on our college men. We must recognize that there are men inside (and out of) fraternities who are exhibiting dangerous behavior and attitudes. While not disguising this fact, it is important to affirm that most men are not responsible for such actions, and many college men add positive value and advance the mission of higher education.

In “Affirming the Strengths in Men: A Positive Masculinity Approach to Assisting Male Clients,” Matt Englar-Carlson and Mark S. Kiselica (2013) note that existing research on masculinity is problem-focused, emphasizing the “deficits of and the difficulties created by men” (pp. 399). When discussing the culture of fraternity men in “Beyond Bad Behaving Brothers,” Harper and Harris (2014) perfectly highlight this deficit-based approach to masculinity, summarizing the popular perspective on college men as follows:

They are drunken, promiscuous, academically disengaged lovers of pornography, sports, and video games who rape women, physically assault each other, vandalize buildings on campus, and dangerously risk their lives pledging sexist, radically exclusive, homophobic fraternities (pp. 703).

When addressing men and masculinities, research and scholars often develop a foundation within the deficit model described by these previous authors. During the 2011-2012 academic year, I was a senior Sociology & Gender Studies major at Washington & Jefferson College. Through the senior capstone experience, I was able to foster a basic understanding of and interest in the area of men and masculinities. While fortunate enough to present my findings, titled Eliminating the Gender Gap: Research into Past and Present Achievement Levels Between Students of Washington and Jefferson College, at the 2012 North Central Student Sociology Conference, the entire focus operated on a deficit model. The paper cited decreasing percentages of males in higher education as well as persistence to graduation, lower participation in campus activities and leadership positions, and extrinsic factors as the motivating force to higher education. While the idea of assigning negative characteristics to masculine identity provides a foundation to the study of college men, we must remember that there are those achieving healthy masculinities and engaging campus opportunities (Harper & Harris, 2014, pp. 704).  

Englar-Carlson and Kiselica (2013) assert that our fixation on viewing men as defective has been culturally fostered through historical notions of success and expectations of gender performance. We assigned positive traits to women, inhibiting the productive conversations we have with our male college students. Through socialization, men are bombarded with biases that reinforce a preconceived lack of healthy and adaptive behavior (pp. 401). In essence, we continue to allow the extreme incidents of a few men to blind us from the empowering and productive experiences of others.

How can we foster the healthy masculinities that exist and promotes cultural competency? Englar Carlson and Kiselica (2013) cite a shift in dialogue to allow all men to understand the standards of which they can achieve. Examples of this shift may include the “protector” role. A historical deconstruction of this image reflects power, dominance over women, and physical strength; however, reframing this to illustrate new understandings of traditional masculinity can mean loyalty, responsibility, and courage (pp. 401-402). Using positive psychology, college men counter stigmatizing language with specifics of where and how healthy masculinity has been enacted. When we change discourse from “bad-dogging,” as Jason Laker would describe it, to conversations on what positive masculinity looks like in a community context, men are not felt to be inherently flawed by birth.

It is important to develop an understanding of a positive masculinity approach to college men before applying this theory to segments of the campus population; however, the same concept noted here can be implemented when fostering development in our fraternal organizations. Just as men are not biologically damaged, fraternities are not organizationally harmful. It is the culture of masculinity that has infiltrated these societies and been allowed to persist over time that must be changed. The foundation of fraternities is to bring together men to share in a common bond while advancing unique values. In theory, fraternities provide a prime space to initiate and test the positive masculinity approach. Refocusing the conversation to how our fraternity men have upheld these immutable principles provide a context to the expectations we require while reinforcing praise when healthy masculinities are achieved.

References:

Englar-Carlson, M. & Kiselica, M. S. (2013, October). Affirming the strengths in men: A

positive Masculinity approach to assisting male clients. Journal of Counseling & Development. Vol. 91, 399-409

Harris III, F. & Harper, S. R. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: Productive

performances of masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Vol. 27, No. 6., pp. 703-723.

Kirk, H. M. (2014). Editor’s Note. Perspectives. Association of Fraternity/

Sorority Advisors. Winter. pp 3.

About the Author

Mike Prinkey serves as the Area Coordinator for Student Conduct under Residential Life & Student Activities at Champlain College. While studying Higher Education Administration at Northeastern University, Mike was the Program Assistant for the Office of Fraternities, Sororities & Independent Living Groups at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as the Graduate Assistant to the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs & GLBTQ Resources at Emerson College. Mike is a proud alum of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity from Washington & Jefferson College.

You can contact Mike through:

Email: michaelcprinkey@gmail.com

Twitter: @McPrinkey

“Don’t Shame Me Bro” and other Pedagogical Considerations for Engaging Fraternity Men in Conversations about Healthy Masculinities

            Let me start by saying that I am proud of my fraternity affiliation. I initiated as a member of Phi Kappa Psi at Beloit college in 2005. I was “that guy” in the chapter who served in or ran virtually every committee including: Alumni Relations, Social, Risk Management, Student Government Representative, and Finance. My affiliation meant so much to me that I became a travelling consultant for two years before leaving Headquarter staff to get my masters in Higher Education and Student Affairs.

            All of which is to say though that even though I have immense pride and love for my affiliation, I don’t always love what I did during that time.

            The recent Atlantic Article highlighted many major issues facing fraternities (and missing a few crucial issues as well), but this blog posting isn’t about responding to these articles. My new colleague, Michael Prinkey (2014), has done an excellent job of that in a previous blog post for the ACPA Standing Committee on Men and Masculinities.

            This post is about how one can be a part of, even love, a system while simultaneously be able to engage in critical/challenging conversations around how to improve individuals, groups, and communities that comprise said system for the benefit of all involved.

            This post is about diving into promising practices around engaging men in critical conversations of socialized gender roles for the purposes of promoting pro-social, healthy, and authentic sense of self as well as community for fraternity men on college campuses.

            This post is about promoting authenticity, support, and encouraging inclusive space while navigating a world which cannot lose the momentum it has built in holding actions and organizations accountable.

            What Do I Mean By Critical Gender Conversation:

            This is a question I get a lot when I talk with other professionals. For the purposes of this blog entry, I follow bell hooks conceptions of critical theory. I apply that perspective to my own teaching practices as a means of engaging in reflective assessment as well as critique of society and culture (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Kinchloe & McLaren, 2002). Activities are varied, but ought to be cognizant of the following: systemic influences of power and oppression, intersecting & competing perceptions of masculinity, societal equity, challenge systems that also promote racism, sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination, as well as the cultural assumptions by the facilitator regarding appropriate and inappropriate norms of gender. (Harper & Harris, 2010).

            Admittedly, there has been a lot of talk about why gender is an important part of the conversation, but how can practitioner’s apply the developing field of masculinities studies to their own programs? Since I am neither a published author nor someone who has published a dissertation on the topic (yet…), the rest of this blog posting is based upon the articles I’ve read, my experiences as a travelling consultant for my fraternity, and my time at the University of Iowa as part of the Men’s Anti-Violence Council. In all regards, I invite you to challenge, think critically, and submit your own suggestions in the comments! I doubt this list will be all encompassing.

1.      It is time to stop shaming fraternity men – Regardless of how you feel about the interfraternal movement, condemning the whole community gets you no where as a facilitator. Many programs around violence prevention either focus solely on men as perpetrators or determine them helpless against their “biological nature”, there is a natural explicit or implicit tendency to discount this group of semi-autonomous, self-governing, (largely) 18 – 21 year old. Jason Laker has written at length about how damaging “bad dogging” has been for group facilitation and for the learning outcomes of men (Laker, 2011). None of which means we should discount the fact that a majority of perpetrators of violence against women and men is other men, but the quickest way to get fraternity men to tune out any relevant information is to shame them.

2.      Don’t avoid holding fraternity men accountable – The flip side of the above argument is the tendency of facilitators coddling fraternity men. This lets them off the hook for their explicit perpetuation of violence or implicit support of systems based in violence through silence. In my travels, I have seen fraternity go from arguing that they are independent, self governing organizations that should (in the same breath) be compared and held to the same standards of university managed student organizations. In my own experiences, if we’re “real” or authentic with fraternity chapters they respect that honesty. It isn’t always pleasant, but challenging students to lean into their own dissonance is one of the main ways to encourage critical thinking (King and Kitchener, 1994).

3.      It’s time to abandon the “frat bro” language – The “Frat Bro,” popularized by such sites as Total Frat Move, Bro Bible and the American Pie series, is just one facet of fraternity culture. Moreover, it often represents a higher socio-economic status, and traditionally white social fraternities of the Interfraternity Councils (IFC). While many chapter may joke about being “frat bros,” their representations often times over looks the intersection of race and class in fraternities. I once advised a student who ultimately ended up avoiding buying books so he could buy the right shoes, shirts, and alcohol of his peers not to mention the dues he owed. Even within the interfraternal movement, we often give short change to the many other types of fraternities and sororities in existence. In addition to the Interfraternity Council, there are 11 other organizations that cover a gamut of students from culturally based organizations to professional and service based organizations, to religiously affiliated organizations. All have their own processes, procedures, systems, and expectations. As we continue to focus exclusively on engaging the white, rich, heterosexual “frat bro” we not only create blinders on our own assumptions but we lose out on engaging many other communities on college campuses.

4.      Hegemonic Masculinities not Hyper Masculinity – It seems like a silly point, but I believe talking about hegemonic masculinities is a more productive place to lead conversations. When one “blames” hypermasculinity, you have to ask yourself what masculinity are you expressing too much of? Is it the white, rich, heterosexual Frat Bro, is it the blue collar worker, the cowboy, the artist/intellectual, musician, the thug, the scholar, or the token? Media often informs a lot of what archetypes we think about, but many are incompatible with each other even as we manifest multiple archetypes within each individual (Harper, Wardell, and McGuire, 2011). For a great example of the many types of masculinities, check out the Miller Lite “Man Law” campaign. Hypermasculinity essentializes a listener’s experience and also blames men for adopting common masculine narratives taught to them since birth.

Facilitating a conversation on hypermasculinty,  the process of soliciting feedback from a particular group about what hypermasculinity means might reinforce the dominant masculine narrative at the expense of other forms of masculinity. As a result, it can potentially fail to promote a safe space for multiple forms of masculinity, leaving men afraid to be open about all of their passions, goals, and fears.

The lens of hypermasculinity can also shame dominant narratives as being inherently “wrong.” Case in point, a fraternity that prides itself on physical strength may display hypermasculine tendencies through steroid abuse and physical hazing. But weight lifting by itself is not necessarily unhealthy, and as you challenge men to turn away from hypermasculine tendencies, they may adopt other crutches (such as alcohol) as an alternative to what they were trying to prove. Rather than encourage students to reflect and engage around various forms of privilege (and intersecting identities that might also confer oppressions), students are more likely to retreat from the conversation instead.

Hegemonic masculinity is broadly defined as masculinity in opposition to femininity. It depends upon the prioritization of certain manifestations of masculinity proven in the eyes of other men. It is not a deficiency model per se, but it is a compensatory model. Hegemony does not demand you be the “most manly” man ever, but it does compel you to prove you are more masculine (in whatever form is socially acceptable to your community) than other men around you. Klobassa and Davis’ (2009) article in combination with Edward and Jone’s (2009) demonstrate the effective power of societal influences on the internal identities of men. Specifically, the heavy social pressures compel men to mold themselves to traditional narratives of masculinity that propels them up the ladder of their own social hierarchies. If that fails, then masculinity can also be proven by degrading those around them (Kimmel, 2008)

5.      Healthy Masculinities – Healthy masculinities is rapidly developing a strong institutional and academic support base (Courtenay, 2010). Rather than situating masculinities on a scale that promotes considers it only on the two dimensional perspective of excess or insufficiency, we can instead talk about helpful or harmful behaviors in multiple dimensions or expressions. Public health programmers have seen significant gains in a similar model with alcohol consumption called “harm reduction” (Dimeff, Baer, Kivlahan, & Marlatt, 1999). It moves away from discussing behaviors in all or nothing perspectives and instead situates them in terms of their impact on the individual and the community. Talking about masculinities in this way also allows for traditional norms of masculinity while also challenging how those norms manifest towards self and others. Rather than condemn or shame men for not going to seek help, we can discuss elements of masculinity (such as stoicism and perseverance as an ideal) and reflect upon how that might contribute towards decreased willingness to seek mental health support, increased use of drugs and alcohol, or even higher rates of terminal cases of diagnosable diseases due to failure to go to a doctor. All of these elements we can see as unhealthy actions, without giving up an individual’s preference for perseverance as an internal strength.

6.      Know Your Audience’s Language – At interviews, conferences, and workshops, I’ve always been asked by campus professionals who are not Greek “How can I connect with them?” My first response is that as much as fraternity men think their situation is unique, the problems they face are fairly common to many students. On the other hand, there is a great deal of social capital vested in the language, processes, and history of the interfraternal movement. Speaking in terms of leadership, autonomy, values, and ritual has resonance. If you do not have fraternity experience yourself, it is not difficult to find analogous experiences in your own life.

7.      Be Inclusive – Not enough can be said about this. Even when a “predominant number of crimes” are committed by men against women, highlighting gender neutral pronouns both de-antagonizes participants, but also models how to promote inclusivity at least in language. Further, the same mechanisms that fuel hegemonic masculinities also reinforce racism, homophobia, and trans*phobia as being “outside the norm” of rich, white, heterosexual “frat bro” masculinity (Wagner, 2011; Harper, Wardell, & McGuire 2011)

8.      Pro-feminism is not anti-masculinities – The critical study of gender owes its intellectual foundations to the feminist movement. While I could write a whole blog post about the nuances of labeling one self a feminist, pro feminist, humanist, etc. For the purposes of this post though, I personally stress in my programming that gender equity is an issue for everyone and cannot be seen in isolation of other issues in our society. I categorically reject that feminism is bad for men even as I remain cognizant of my privilege of being a cisgender, white, heterosexual male in the movement and in classroom spaces.

9.      Bystander Education is a Must – Talking about issues is good, understanding issues is better, acting to create a more inclusive fraternal community is the best. Every program, discussion, or exercise must contain some sort of take away or action point.  Research on reflective learning stresses the importance of putting into action what one has learned and reflecting on the outcomes (King & Kitchener, 1994). Bystander education has demonstrated particular effectiveness in preventing sexual assault, hazing, and other harmful behaviors (Vladutiu, Martin, & Macy, 2011; Berkowitz, 2011; Langford, 2008). By moving away from shaming masculinity towards a model of healthy masculinities, we decrease the barriers against men speaking out to other men to promote positive outcomes (Carlson, 2008)

10.  Environment Matters – Even when men self-identify as advocates for social change, environment remains a critical factor for whether they intervene and talk with other men. When it comes to addressing sexual assault paired with healthy masculinities, there are a few elements that stand out. Groups need safe space, most often created when all of the participants are able to have at least some time as a homogenous group. The facilitator’s affinity (gender, sexual orientation, participation in fraternity and sorority life) is less important, but the facilitator must be willing to model authenticity and be willing to tolerate some initial push back. Longer sessions tend to have better impact, especially when students are able to interact with each other and their material. Multiple sessions allows for more material to be covered and reinforced. Small groups tend to produce more openness (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; Casey & Ohler, 2012).

As I introduced this blog, this list is by no means exhaustive. It is meant to start a dialogue. I believe that fraternities are like an echo chamber. They can echo the best parts of being a student or the worst. Rather than get caught up in a debate over whether they are worth while or if they donate enough money, I would rather see them become the vehicles of positive change that many men and women have found them to be. I believe that the terms “Be A Man,” “Man Up,” “Don’t be a pussy,” “No Homo” and others are destroying the fabric of our fraternities and sororities.

The great news is that if these organizations echo society at large and hegemony is itself a social construct, then we can change the nature of the construct. Change the dialogue, change the world!

About the Author

Jacob Oppenheimer is a proud member of Phi Kappa Psi and served his fraternity in a number of capacities, including two years as a Leadership Development Consultant for the national headquarters staff. He earned his masters degree in Higher Education and Student Affairs at the University of Iowa where he served as the graduate assistant in Fraternity and Sorority Life, coordinator of the Men’s Anti-Violence Council, and the interim Academic Counseling Coordinator of TRiO Student Support Services. He now serves as the Assistant Director of Fraternities, Sororities, and Independent Living Groups (FSILG) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

You can reach him at Jacob.a.oppenheimer@gmail.com or follow him on twitter at @jacoboppenheimr.

He can also be found on facebook - https://www.facebook.com/jacob.a.oppenheimer

“The Bright Power of Fraternity Men: Redefining Masculinity”

There has been quite a wealth of articles and conversation coming out around the concerns of the American Fraternity system. Most notably, The Atlantic recently published Caitlin Flanagan’s piece “The Dark Power of Fraternities” in which she presents a year’s investigation of social and cultural trends within Greek houses and the liability that lurks behind the walls. Within a brief period, Flanagan captured the attention of individuals and organizations both inside and out of the Greek community. If you have not done so already, I highly encourage you all to read Flanagan’s article as she outlines very real concerns for our Fraternal men and undergraduates at-large.

In developing my thoughts and reactions to what immediately seems an attack on the Greek system, it is crucial for me to understand my background and how this affects my perspective. As an undergraduate student, I spent three academic years as a brother to the Washington & Jefferson College chapter of the Alpha Tau Omega National Fraternity. For those of you who have already observed the aforementioned article, you will recognize that this is the same National organization that Flanagan referenced within the first sentence. The poor publicity for Alpha Tau Omega continues with Flanagan later noting a fall from the University of Idaho house during the 2012-2013 academic year. My connection to the anecdotes do not stop there as she briefly makes note of a fall at a September 2013 fraternity party at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I have served as Graduate Assistant since August 2013.

With my connection to at least two of the entities noted, as well as the love and respect I have for my own fraternity experience, one would expect me to quickly take the role of defender to the Fraternity system. That’s not the case. Caitlin Flanagan is correct in every word. There is a culture of liability engrained within the walls of many fraternities across the country. Sexual and physical assault remains evident, hazing continues to be a concern for every administrator and potential new members, and unintended slips and falls will never completely be eliminated no matter the preventative measures by institutions, students, or national organizations. Lets stop debating the pros and cons of fraternity life. We cannot sit down with the statistics of philanthropic dollars raised and number of sexual violence reports and decide on which overshadows the other. Placing a quantifiable value on each positive and negative action to prove our stance is not only impossible, but harmful to the overall discussion.

My concern with this article, and frankly many stories in the media reporting on reckless and harmful behavior within fraternities, is not the negative attention. My concern is that we are not focusing on the appropriate issues. Fraternity houses and organizations are not the cause of sexism/sexual misconduct, racial discrimination, physical violence, homophobia, etc. as they have no fundamental values rooted in such harmful practices. The concern comes from the men who are entrusted to represent those organizations. We need to be asking ourselves why our undergraduate men are behaving in a manner that directly opposes the values they agreed to uphold when initiated into their organization.

From birth we are telling our boys that the essence of masculinity is to be strong and aggressive, athletic and cunning, composed with our emotions, and physically appealing. To be a man, we are to be a god on earth, the Adonis we see immortalized in unhealthy pursuits of masculinity. Boys grow to learn that men cease to have dreams. Financial stability and securing the future of our families—or destroying our bodies and minds in the process—defines our legacy. Furthermore, we are to protect this manhood from anything—and anyone—at all cost. We are providing our boys and young men limiting narratives that equate social capital and power with domination over others. I firmly believe that as we see the media continue to highlight the negative stereotypes and tragedies associated with our fraternities, we are witnessing first-hand accounts of the harmful realities that arise from our traditional thoughts on masculinity, brotherhood, and youth.

When we are developing a dominant culture of masculinity and an educational system that seem to directly oppose one another, we begin to understand behavior. The reality is that many men are not personally invested in the values of higher education (or any level of academia for that matter). College campuses, and fraternity houses most notably, then become a breeding ground for men to enact the culture we have long since prescribed on our young boys. This collegiate space can be a potentially hostile environment for our male students who are told they as individuals (not boy culture at-large) are a root cause for destruction of self and others. This dis-empowerment of our men only perpetuates the negative behavior we read about in pieces like Caitlin Flanagan’s “The Dark Power of Fraternities.”

There is a silver lining to all of this, however. Not only at Emerson College and MIT where I am employed, but across the nation, fraternity men are actively engaging their brothers and their peers outside the Greek community to redefine what it means to be a man. The majority of our young men―as the majority of all men are not perpetrators of these behaviors―are growing tired of themselves and their male peers being understood as "the enemy of the state." Their hopes are to raise awareness around issues of sexual assault, binge drinking, and lack of development and academic motivation. Not because they are atoning for the sins of the past, but but because they are invested in this redefinition and the future. With each new recruitment period, we move closer to a culture that embraces multiple forms of masculinity and espouses the love and respect that is central to the values of fraternity life. As internet blogs and comments are calling for an end to Greek life, it is now more important than ever to recognize the appropriate place these organizations have in dismantling our notions of masculinity. We must empower our undergraduates and allow them to be more than the “frat bros;” instead, rise to the worth of fraternity men.

Mike Prinkey is a Graduate Assistant (GA) to the Office of Fraternities, Sororities, & Independent Living Groups at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as GA to the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs & GLBTQ Resources at Emerson College. He is in the last semester for a Masters of Higher Education Administration from Northeastern University. You can contact Mike through:

email: michaelcprinkey@gmail.com

Facebook: facebook.com/mike.prinkey

Twitter: @McPrinkey

A 2014 Challenge to Men Everywhere

            What better space to talk about masculinity and men than the college fraternity? Tonight, I had the opportunity to sit in a room where many of my colleagues answered the question, “Where do you think the fraternal movement is headed in ten years?” Many answers throughout the room ranged from expansion policies to questioning the social Greek-Lettered organization single-sex status. What was not said (yes, I was a bystander in this situation) was the lack of support for men. No one said, “I foresee fraternities increasing the level of support for men,” and that is a shame.

            You might have seen an article recently about an email sent from a fraternity man to his chapter brothers about the “save the sluts” campaign he wanted to start on campus. Chalk another one up to the stupid undergrads who let their internal communication leak and make us look bad. All of us. Not just fraternities or student organizations. All men, everywhere. I think of the “men” who will be attending that institution in the fall and wish them much luck.

            Quite honestly, I am frustrated. Having been in the field about five years, I am a infant within the profession. However, I am sick and tired of very few men standing up to those who commit such blinding acts. I offer three keys in your efforts to encourage the men around you to step up and speak out against acts of hypermasculinity.

            Purpose and value. I get it. Most young men do not have the capacity yet to make certain values-based decisions (damn science!) in their lives. In today’s day and age, we need positive male role models. I question if the main consumer of the fraternal movement also buys in to this notion. What holds us back from challenging the men in our lives from being better people? Living with value and purpose provides guidance to understand our potential to make a positive impact on both ourselves and other men. I wonder if that letter would have leaked if someone in the writer’s chapter said “hey man, that’s not cool and against what we believe.”

            Empathy. When was the last time you truly made a commitment? With commitment comes buy-in to a cause or issue. We need to find more committed positive male role models who show empathy with, and to, other men. Trust me when I say that our male students want to tell their story, and will share when they are ready. Be that person who makes the first move. Tell your story and watch your students give your theirs. I wonder if the student who wrote the letter has an trustworthy adult in his life that could have told him that was a bad idea.

            Courage. To challenge the paradigms that surround hyper masculinity takes courage. Regardless of age and experience, we all still need to take a deep breath and put our best foot forward. One way I develop courage is by inspiring a shared vision for what can be within a fraternal organization. Using “What if’s,”  and “I wonder if’s,” I look to create a collaborative vision of a positive masculine experience, specifically through a fraternal lens. I wonder if that email would have even been written if any of the writer’s stakeholders (alumni, chapter brothers, etc.) had the courage to guide him in a different direction.

            In a perfect world, men would hold each other accountable, treat everyone the way they expect to be treated, and feel comfortable in their identities. Instead, we have 18 to 22 year old students writing email categorizing women as a “lesser sex.” We have some work to do.

            It’s the people who live with purpose and value, show empathy to others, and have the courage to step up against what is wrong that change the world. Where do I see the fraternal movement in the next years? Non-existent if we can’t produce spaces where healthy masculinity is promoted within the chapter. We need men to make history; step up, change the world, and guide the way.

—

Danny Catalano is the Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life and Leadership at Miami University. He can be imaging sense of the world, talking about soccer, and sharing his favorite music and books at Twitter at @dannycisme and at http://dannycatalano.wordpress.com.

Masculinity’s Impact on Fraternity Brotherhood

“I believe in Theta Chi, its traditions and its ideals. Born of sturdy manhood, nurtured by resolute men... It inspires true friendship…” – Excerpt from the creed of Theta Chi Fraternity. 

            When most people hear the above quote, they might let their minds wander to the place of “fratland,” where jocks thrive, shirts never possess sleeves, and men do nothing but chug beer and berate women.  Let’s take a few steps back.  On December 5, 1776, the first Greek letter society emerged at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia (History & Traditions, n.d.).  Phi Beta Kappa was founded by five students and introduced the early stages of fraternal values: an oath of secrecy, a badge, mottoes in both Latin and Greek, a code of laws, and an elaborate initiation ritual (Phi Beta Kappa, n.d.). Fraternities have existed ever since, and are built on a system of values designed to enrich a man’s collegiate experience, provide leadership skills, and offer brotherhood to its members.  Membership in fraternities is considered lifelong, where members are encouraged to stay involved and connected with their brothers for a lifetime.  Some could argue that a social construct of masculinity shapes the way fraternity men interact and connect with one another.  How does this affect the brotherhood that these organizations were founded on?

            First things first, I don’t want to categorize, make assumptions, or make any sweeping generalizations about fraternities.  The truth is, most fraternities really do pride themselves on their brotherhood.  Additionally, I’m sure that the majority of men make meaningful relationships with the other members of their organization that last well beyond their collegiate years.  But the fact of the matter is, masculinity today creates a huge stressor on fraternity men to behave, speak, and interact in certain ways. We see masculinity in many different forms in college-aged males.  Michael Kimmel (2008) talks about the “initiation” into manhood in his book Guyland as being characterized by excessive drinking, lying about sexual partners, and lots of locker room talk (Kimmel, 2008).  We all have our own opinions of what masculinity looks like: typically the answers revolve around an inherent lack of emotion, stubbornness, dominating the situation, never acting like a “girl;” the list goes on.  But is any of this necessarily positive?  In speaking with Lucas Schalewski, a residence life professional at Indiana University who has studied college men and masculinity, described positive masculinity as great personality traits that he believes to be important: courage, loyalty, leadership, kindness, inclusivity, vision, and strength (L. Schalewski, personal communication, September 12, 2013).  But what he sees on his campus falls far short from a vision of positive masculinity. 

            Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities, a handbook published in 1879, has the motto “the fraternity makes men,” (as cited in Yeung, Stombler & Wharton, 2010).  Perhaps one of the largest groups of “victims” of this masculinity battle are fraternity men.  I see it every day on my campus at the University of Maine.  Men feel the pressures from men in other fraternities, men in their own organization, and even sorority women, to be the perfect picture of a fraternity man: smart, athletic, charismatic, and career-focused.  Fraternity men have an especially vigorous demand placed on them to be the epitome of masculinity.  Unfortunately, some of these demands of living up to a masculine façade can have a negative impact on living out values and promoting brotherhood.  Let’s face it: some members of society might be a little surprised to see a group of college men hugging while sporting their Alpha-Alpha-Alpha t-shirt, right?  Why is not that a norm that is associated with fraternal organizations?

“Masculinity is a constant test – always up for grabs, always needing to be proved.” – Kimmel (2008)

            Fraternities were founded originally for brotherhood.  They were designed to offer camaraderie and help men make meaningful relationship with their college peers.  According to Yeung, Stombler, and Wharton (2010), “college fraternities construct their brotherhood through rituals, secrecy, and most important, an ideology that adopts a familiar metaphor by emphasizing brothers’ lifelong commitment to one another,” (p. 156).  However, Davis, LaPrad & Dixon (2010) describe that male bonding currently can be described as activity sharing: watching sports, working out, and avoiding emotional sharing.  How is this promoting brotherhood?  O’Neil & Crapser (2011) described 4 patterns of gender role conflict that men typically face, and one of which is restrictive affectionate behavior between and amongst men.  Similarly, according to Capraro (2010), recent research suggests that the typical male socialization patterns often employ shame to shape behaviors and attitudes.  Are men just shaming each other to get the results they want?  It reminds me of Jason Laker’s (2003) concept of “bad dogging” young men who are engaging in negative behaviors: we never come from a place of concern when we’re caught in the heat of the moment.  I think that a lot of this stems from masculinity overriding one’s sense of reflection.  Normative male alexithymia is defined as the inability for me to put feelings into words or be aware of them (Ludeman, 2011).  The fact that there is even a definition for men not being able to articulate their emotions says that masculinity definitely has something to do with this issue.    

“…Grant Thy wisdom to our leaders, and guide us in all our deliberations and transactions that the true spirit of brotherhood may be manifest in our every thought, word and deed.  Bless the brothers of our Bond wherever they may be, and deepen our love for each other, and quicken our sense of duty to Thee.
To Thee, our Lord and God, be all honor, praise and glory, for ever and ever.” – Excerpt from Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity open ritual

Brotherhood events, initiation activities, and philanthropies could arguably be viewed as constantly supplemented with alcohol.  David Bogenberger was one such victim.  On November 2, 2012, the evening after his fraternity’s initiation ceremony, Bogenberger was found dead of cardiac arrhythmia brought on by alcohol intoxication (Rozek, 2013).  According to studies, 75% of fraternity members engage in heavy drinking as opposed to the 49% of unaffiliated male students (Kimmel, 2008).  Kimmel believes that initiations are “all about masculinity” (Kimmel, 2008).  We would like to think that true meaningful brotherhood exist on its own without the pressures of masculinity interfering or without alcohol being used, but can it really? Capraro (2010) suggests that men binge drink to fulfill one of two voids in their life: first to conform to traditional masculinity, and second to avoid being perceived as inadequate from other men and society.  The constant stress on being a powerful “manly man” to fraternity men could very well be driving the brotherhood activities and rituals they are partaking in.  But why?  

            We learn through life that one of the best ways to make a friend is to be a friend.  Let’s look at the fraternity new member process.  Immediately when the words “fraternity pledge” come to mind, most people could immediately let their minds go to a place darkly crowded with conceptions of hazing and brutal treatment.  According to a study done at the University of Maine, 73% of those in fraternities and sororities are reportedly hazed each year (Kimmel, 2008).  In Guyland, an interview is described regarding a hazing situation and a group of “pledges” at a Michigan State fraternity house:

“We’d line ‘em up at all hours, yell at them for a while, quiz ‘em on chapter history, lore, and make sure they memorized all the brothers’ names, hometowns, majors, and favorite beers.  Like who cares, really?  Dumb shit like that,” (Kimmel, 2008, p. 112). 

Greek organizations have unfortunate reputations of hazing their members, and what’s worse, the images we see portrayed in the media only continually highlight and exaggerate the percentages and extreme situations that come about.  So what causes the desire to haze a member of an organization?  Many studies have been conducted on college men, and much to do with violent, disruptive, or risky behavior surround the feeling of inadequacy in terms of power in society and subjective experiences.  Men do what they do to feel powerful. We see it all the time.  I hear the men on my campus refer to their new members as “pledges” – an outdated word and not in line with current National Interfraternity Council policy or verbage.  The term pledge just has an almost ridiculed undertone to it.  The very word makes me cringe. 

            From my eyes, I see the positives that fraternities do every single day for a living.  I see the exceptional student leaders on my campus taking on roles and plugging into other areas of campus.  I see them coming in my office talking about the issues their chapter faces and having genuine concern for the well-being and lifeblood of their organization.  They are focused on the operations and not always the brotherhood.  I believe this to be almost 99% due to fear of gender role conflict.   So my first instinct is always to ask, “How are your brothers?  What kinds of brotherhood activities have you done lately?”  Think about the power that a “Walk the Line” or “If You Really Knew Me” activity could bring to a group to change their dynamic.  It’s so easy to get washed up in the politics of an organization and the demands of societal expectations that you forget the true purpose of something. 

            The truth of it all is, it’s difficult to completely diagnose how masculinity impacts brotherhood in fraternities.  But as administrators, we can start to question practices that are longstanding and make the wheels turn in fraternity members’ heads.  Why do you need alcohol at initiation activities?  How is making new members memorize facts going to improve your relationship with them?  Why don’t your brotherhood activities consist of more team bonding and discussions as to how to improve your bonds?  Fraternities should be a safe place and a place for positive masculinity to thrive.  By raising the topics and facing the problem in an honest place of care, we can start to help fraternities mold their organizations to be the “brotherly” places they were intended to be.

This post was written by Mallory Stratton.  You can connect with Mallory at on Twitter @MalloryStratton.

References

Caprero, R.  (2010).  Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure, and the paradox of

masculinity.  In S. R. Harper & F. Harris, III (Eds.),. College men and masculinities (pp. 239-258). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland.  New York, NY: HarperCollins. 

Laker, J. (2003).  Bad dogs: Rethinking our engagement of male students.  ACPA
            Standing Committee on Men’s Men On Campus.  Retrieved from
            http://www.myacpa.org/sc/scm/documents/SCM%20Brief%202003%20-
            %20Bad%20Dog.pdf

Ludeman, R. B. (2011).  Successful judicial interventions with college men.  In J. A.
            Laker & T. Davis (Eds.),  Masculinities in higher education (pp. 193-210). New
            York, NY: Routledge.

O’Neil, J. M., & Crapser, B.  (2011).  Using the psychology of men and gender

role conflict theory to promote comprehensive service delivery for college men: A call to action.  In J. A. Laker & T. Davis (Eds.),  Masculinities in higher education (pp. 17-50). New York, NY: Routledge.

Phi Beta Kappa. (n.d.). Retrieved from
            http://www.wm.edu/offices/greeks/scholarship/phibetakappa/index.php

Rozek, D. (2013, August 16).  Lawsuit alleges NIU frat didn’t seek help for unconscious
            students after hazing.  Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved from
            http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/21964482-418/lawsuit-alleges-niu-frat-
            didnt-seek-help-for-unconscious-students-after-hazing.html

William & Mary - History & Traditions (n.d.). Retrieved from
            http://www.wm.edu/about/history/index.php

Yeung, K., Stombler, M., & Wharton, R.(2010).  Making men in gay

fraternities.  In S. R. Harper & F. Harris III (Eds.),  College men and masculinities (pp 142-171). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.