In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

242 CHAPTER 7 GREEK LIFE fraternities and sororities often view themselves as upholders of tradition and collegiate spirit leaders. Many fraternity and sorority members declare Greek letter societies as a traditional place in the college where “me” becomes “us.” Fraternal organizations sing the praises of fellowship , ritually honor “brothers” and “sisters,” and parade the value of civic engagement , particularly in an individualistic, self-absorbed mass society. But as organizations that enclose themselves in separate houses and carry the stigma of secret societies, fraternities and sororities are subject to suspicion, restriction , reform, disparagement, suspension, and, at many campuses, banishment. Greeks recognize in a kind of double consciousness that many college characters see them as despoilers of campus integrity or social progress. The conflict of perceptions is especially acute in the public square because of the fear that the Greeks form an insidious cartel that, even if small, wields power over the collegiate superstructure.Questions naturally arise about the power and abuse the fraternities and sororities exert, what they are up to, who got in, and who did not. The Greek system is intended to foster lifelong benevolent values of fellowship and service, its defenders declare. Yet there is a public, and often administrative , apprehension of the exclusivity of the fraternities and sororities. The organizations are often assumed to be elitist and therefore arrogant, if not troublesome, and even defiant subcultures at the same time that they carry a line-toeing establishment aura. Another paradoxical combination of images is evident in traditional practices associated with fraternities and sororities of crude hazing, rowdy singing and pranking, pledging, initiation, and partying set off against their publicized activities as big-hearted service organizations , campus boosters, and well-mannered socialites. The debate heightens as universities have grown and the purposes of fraternities and sororities as debauched private worlds in a mass democratic society become matters of national concern. Greek-letter fraternities have come a long way from their eighteenth-century roots in the founding of Phi Beta Kappa at the College of William and GREEK LIFE 243 Mary. Latin-letter fraternities had already existed, and John Heath (1758–1810, destined to become a U.S. congressman), after failing to get into two of the organizations, created a precedent with the use of Greek-letter initials for the creation of an honorary society. Membership in the organization was more about academic status than brotherhood, and members included faculty as well as upperclassmen. Kappa Alpha at Union College in Schenectady, New York, organized in 1825, is credited with establishing the model of a modern fraternity with an exclusively student organization and elaborate initiation. Sigma Phi, formed in 1827 also at Union, became the first national fraternity when it opened a second chapter at Hamilton College in 1831. That led to the creation of other fraternities on the same campus to form a Greek system: Alpha Delta Phi in 1832 and Psi Upsilon in 1833 at Hamilton, Beta Theta Pi at Miami of Ohio in 1839, and Alpha Sigma Phi at Yale in 1845. Evolving from literary and debating societies, the early fraternities provided fellowship outside the control of college faculty and administrators. Students saw an advantage in forming fraternities, often ten or fewer in a chapter, where the support came from one another in an intimate setting. In answer to the regimentation of students in formal study, the fraternities provided a location for the social, fun side of college life. Sometimes fraternities attracted members looking for escape from the dismal dormitory life in the nineteenth century. Greek houses appeared much more attractive and independent, and also allowed for cooperative arrangements among students to work on exams and papers that were generally frowned upon in the Old Mains of many campuses (Syrett 2009, 13–50). More broadly, sociologists have observed, fraternities offered a counter-society within the faculty-derived parental authority of the campus that could extend into the society at large. This counter-society rested power not in the father-figure and male-provider role, but in a hierarchical group of brothers that could be called fratriarchal (Brod 1995,245–47).Pointing to the American fratriarchal context,social theorist Jay Mechling’s explanation is that“there is a strong individualistic, antiauthoritarian element in American culture, filled with distrust of patriarchal authority . Male power in American society lies with the fraternity, the male group (generally white, upper-middle class, heterosexual, and Protestant).American men’s anxieties about male power, hierarchy, and acceptance, then focus less on...

Share