Liquid Bonding: A Cultural Analysis of the Role of Alcohol in Fraternity Pledgeship By: James C. Arnold, Ph.D. & George D. Kuh As Originally Published in the Journal of College Student Development / September 1993 / Vol. 34 Tel: (415) 259-8542 Email Dr. Arnold Website: www.jimarnold.us

Qualitative methods were used to discover how the pledgeship experience shapes alcohol use of fraternity members. Regulating alcohol use is a key element in a complicated system of rewards and sanctions administered by active members designed to socialize newcomers to group norms and values.

Fraternity membership is at an all-time high. Approximately 400,000 men and 250,000 women, about 15% of the White, undergraduate population (Wilkerson, 1989), belong to Greek-letter organizations. Compared with nonmembers, the bonding of member-to-member and member-to-institution that occurs in fraternities results in such positive outcomes as higher levels of self-confidence, assertiveness, satisfaction with college, graduation rates (Astin, 1975, 1993; Carney, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), and participation in annual fund solicitations (Griffith & Miller, 1981; Nelson, 1984). Although fraternities offer these and other benefits (Johnson, 1972; Malaney, 1990; Owen & Owen, 1976), it is not possible to ignore the shadow side of fraternity life, particularly the hazardous use of alcohol.

The heaviest, most frequent, and most problematic drinking in college is done by fraternity members (Faulkner, Alcorn & Gavin, 1989; Globetti, Stem, Marasco & Haworth-Hoeppner, 1988; Goodwin, 1990; Hendren, 1988; Kraft, 1985; Mills, Pfaffenberger & McCarty, 1981; Miser, 1981; Tampke, 1990). This is the case despite stronglyworded policy directives issued by national fraternity executives, information about risk management from house corporations, lectures about personal and group responsibility by university officials and chapter advisors, and espoused group purposes. The charters, of most national organizations are based on values consonant with those expressed by the National Interfraternity Conference Decalogue (Robson, 1977, p. 848):

The college fraternity stands for excellence in scholarship [and] accepts its role in the moral and spiritual development of the individual. Recognizing the importance of physical well-being, the college fraternity aims for a sound mind and a sound body.

The differences between what a group says it believes and what its members do is a function of the group's culture. According to Moos (1976), if a group can create and sustain a culture that reinforces health-enhancing attitudes and behaviors, students will adopt those attitudes and behave accordingly. Therefore, a potentially illuminating approach to understanding alcohol use by fraternity members is to examine the cultural context in which they use alcohol, including patterns of norms, practices, values, and assumptions that guide their behavior as a group (Kuh & Hall, 1993; Kuh & Whitt, 1988) and whether certain properties of fraternity cultures sanction-even encourage-the use of alcohol.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to discover the role of fraternity culture in shaping alcohol use of new members. The guiding research question was, "How does the pledgeship experience, as a socialization process, influence alcohol use?" The paper does not provide a balanced, complete picture of life in a fraternity house. Rather, it is a careful, systematic description of a slice of fraternity life: those events at which alcohol is featured that violate the group's own publicly asserted alcohol policies.

GUIDING PERSPECTIVES

Two related sets of theoretical perspectives guided this inquiry: (a) culture as an interpretive framework, and (b) socialization-the process by which students learn what their peers value.

Culture is a holistic, complex set of properties that influence the behavior of people. Many definitions of culture exist (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). In this study, culture will be viewed as a system of reciprocal interactions among fraternity members, the physical manifestations of the setting(s)frequented by the group, and symbolic meanings unique to this group.

Socialization is "cultural learning" (Louis, 1983; Merton, 1957). Fraternities teach new members the culture of the organization through intentionally designed and carefully orchestrated rush and pledgeship experiences. Rush is the process whereby the fraternity first identifies individuals who appear to be worthy of consideration for membership. After accepting an invitation to join the group, the pledge begins a weeks-long, rigorous experience, during which the group provides guidelines for how much time to spend on curricular and extracurricular activities and how to relate to faculty, administrators, and other students (Bushnell, 1962; Hughes, Becker & Geer, 1962). Pledges have frequent contact with one another, particularly those who live in the chapter house; they develop strong loyalty to each other and the group, which makes them even more susceptible to group influence (Leemon, 1972). Thus, rush and pledgeship ensure the complete socialization (acculturation, induction, integration, incorporation) of newcomers (Leemon, 1972; van Gennep, 1960). Although new members learn a good deal about their fraternity from rush (Arnold & Kuh, 1992), this paper focuses exclusively on the pledgeship period.

METHODS

Cultural research attempts to learn how phenomena that are essentially tacit shape behavior (Kuh, 1990). Therefore, pencil-and-paper survey instruments designed to assess, for example, frequency of alcohol use and characteristics of users were inadequate to accomplish the purpose of the study because they do not provide the depth of information needed. We employed qualitative methods (i.e., data in the form of words) that were more likely to increase our understanding of why alcohol use is so widespread and difficult to control in fraternities. This allowed us to develop a "thick description" (Geertz, 1973; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of relevant aspects of fraternity culture.

The research strategy used was the culture audit (Fetterman, 1990; Kuh et al., 1991; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Whitt, 1993) adapted for use in multiple settings (Whitt & Kuh, 1991). The culture audit is a "systematic process of discovery that can be conducted by insiders or outsiders or, preferably, both working in cooperation . . ." (Whitt, 1993). Culture audits are characterized by multiple data sources, an iterative, interactive process of collecting and analyzing data, and a check of the trustworthiness and credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the audit results by sharing emerging constructions and interpretations with respondents to obtain their feedback ("debriefing") on the veracity of the investigators' descriptions and understandings.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data gathering occurred between June, 1991, and September, 1992. Data collection and data analysis were conducted concurrently in order to inform collection and interpretation of additional data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). That is, as data were collected, preliminary interpretations were formed and used to guide the collection of additional data. For example, we began by noting visible artifacts (e.g., physical properties of the house, written goals) of the groups under study, although not knowing at this point their meaning in the cultural milieu of the organization. Through continued contact, we learned about the groups' values-both espoused and enacted-recording inconsistencies between what the group members said was, important and what they actually did. Finally, with the help of group members, we began to discover some underlying assumptions of these organizations, the core of their cultures (Schein, 1985). In this manner, we continually strived to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of the fraternity cultures under investigation.

The institutions. Fraternities at two different types of institutions participated in the study. One was a large, state-supported research university, where about a quarter of the 20,000 undergraduates were affiliated with Greek chapters. The student code of conduct prohibited alcoholic beverages in university supervised housing, including fraternity houses. The second institution was a small, private, liberal arts college, where about three of every four students were affiliated with a fraternity or sorority. "Responsible alcohol use" was permitted under certain conditions (e.g., compliance with state law, no common containers such as kegs). Permission to conduct research at each institution was obtained in July, 1991, from the chief student affairs officer at each institution.

The fraternities. Student affairs staff at both institutions were asked to assign the fraternities on their campuses to one of two categories, those that had made progress in recent years adhering to the student conduct code concerning alcohol, and those that had not made progress. After reviewing additional information (e.g., house grades), we solicited the cooperation of the national headquarters of each fraternity we intended to pursue and began contacting groups to ascertain their willingness to participate in the study (one so-called "responsible group" and one "no progress group" from each campus). Following these initial discussions, we did not share any information about any specific fraternities with institutional agents or fraternity executives during the remainder of the study.

Data sources. Information was collected in three ways: interviews, observations, and document analysis. Seventyfour people were interviewed, either individually or in focus groups. The majority (n = 66) were fraternity members; the remainder were campus administrators and other students (e.g., sorority women). Initially, a list of questions was developed to elicit responses regarding alcohol use in the fraternities. As our knowledge about these groups increased, we used these protocols less and less and focused more specifically on aspects of fraternity culture that seemed to be important to understand alcohol use (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Interviews averaged about an hour in length and were tape recorded with the permission of the participants. For the initial round of interviews and focus groups, information was compiled on Interview Summary Forms (Miles & Huberman, 1984) in order to identify relevant themes (e.g., the nature of pledgeship events where alcohol was available to pledges) and questions that needed to be answered. In subsequent interviews and reviews of tapes, detailed notes were recorded on 5 x 8 index cards.

Observations included a formal tour of each house, led by the chapter president, and attendance at seven formal events. Many other informal activities were observed while in the chapter houses conducting interviews. Notes from these observations were made on 3 x 5 index cards, with interpretations dictated into a tape recorder immediately following a visit to the house. Thus, countless others participated due to their presence at the various events and activities we observed.

Finally, institutional documents (e.g., grade-point averages for fraternities and other groups, student code of conduct, student newspapers) and fraternity materials (e.g., pledge education files) were collected and analyzed at various times throughout the study.

Most of the students in the study were under the age of 21; thus, their participation required them to describe their involvement in unlawful behavior. To inform respondents about the study and their rights as participants, and to allay fears about divulging self-incriminating information, participants were asked to sign a consent form that indicated that their contributions would remain confidential, their identity and the identity of their group would not be divulged, the researchers' notes and other material were protected by a federally-issued Certificate of Confidentiality, and they could withdraw from the study at any time. No one did. Indeed, despite the relatively sensitive nature of certain issues, most participants seemed comfortable in discussing their college and fraternity experiences as well as their own and friends' use of alcohol.

. . .Continue to read rest of article (PDF).