Social Class and Sociability

  • Upload
    tmmt

  • View
    218

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    1/10

    Social Class and Sociability in Fraternity PledgingAuthor(s): Gene Norman Levine and Leila A. SussmannReviewed work(s):Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jan., 1960), pp. 391-399Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2774116 .

    Accessed: 21/01/2013 09:39

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

    The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    American Journal of Sociology.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2774116?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2774116?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    2/10

    SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIABILITYIN FRATERNITY PLEDGING

    GENE NORMAN LEVINE AND LEILA A. SUSSMANNABSTRACT

    Both family income and gregariousness affect the rates at which students at an eastern technical collegeapply for membership and are accepted in social fraternities. The relatively wealthy youth, regardless ofhis sociability, and the relatively poor one, if he is sociable in a predefined way, are more acceptable thanthe youth who is both poor and socially inexperienced. Closeness to parents is negatively correlated withfraternity-pledging among sons of manual workers, but there is no correlation among those of non-man-ual fathers. It may be that rejecting the values of their origin may be a prerequisite for mobility amongthe former.Each fall Freshmen entering many col-leges may choose whether or not to seekmembership n Greek-letter,social fraterni-ties. These fraternities,many of which havechapters at scores of colleges, have latelybeen undersomepressurefrom without andfrom within to give up their traditionalexclusion of Jewish and Negro students.Discriminatory practices are widespreadenough,however,to allowJewish and Negrocounterparts still to flourish. Fraternity

    men proclaim their right to associate withwhom they choose-and hence to select onlythose persons, whatever their racial or re-ligious origins,whom they find congenial.But, as is well known,personalcharacter-istics-values and attitudes, styles of life,habits of dress, speech, and comportment-are to a great extent class linked. Does this,then, mean that the fraternities, middleclass in originand character,bar from theirranks youths from the workingclass, apartfromreligiousand racial discrimination?Whomdo the fraternitieschooseas mem-bers? What are the personal characteristicson which they base their selection? Arethese traits class linked? What chance doesa youth of the working class have of gain-ing entry into these organizationswhich areso central to the social life of many collegecampuses?Data on the behaviorof studentsat a technical college in the East providequantitativeanswersto these questions.

    In August, 1957, a detailed questionnaire

    was mailed to 890 prospective Freshmenstudents in engineering and science. Theywere asked about their experiences at sec-ondary school, theirexpectationsof the col-lege they were about to enter, their plansfor a career, and their social and personalbackgrounds.Six hundred and twenty-threeyouths mailed back completed question-naires before leaving home, and another 192filled them out within two weeks of theirarrival at college-a total return of 92 percent. In addition to the questionnairedata,the Office of the Dean of Residence in-formed us who in the enteringclass did andwho did not seek fraternitymembershipbyattending "Rush Week." The Dean's officealso informed us who among the rushees"pledged" fraternities,i.e., accepted invita-tions ("bids") for membership.Qualitativedata of three kinds were collected, too: first,a few of the participants (both Freshmenandbrethren)served as informantsby keep-ing journalsof Rush Week for us; second, weourselvesrecordedeventswhich we observedat fraternityhouses at the time; third, sev-eral officersand rank-and-file members offraternities, as well as several Freshmen,were interviewed before, during, and afterRush Week concerningtheirexperiences.Over two-thirds of the class of 1961 (609out of 890 Freshmen) attended Rush Week.Of the rushees, roughly half (285 out of609) became fraternity pledges. In theanalysis to follow we concern ourselveswith391

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    3/10

    392 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGYthree questions: (1) How do the Freshmenwho come to Rush Week differ from thosewho elect not to come? (2) What happensduring Rush Week? (3) How do the rusheeswho pledge fraternities differ from thosewho do not?Some time aroundthe first of August theFreshmenmailing list is made available tothe rushing chairmenof the various frater-nities. Immediately, a wave of brochuresand pamphlets telling about life at the col-lege, the fraternitysystem, and the specifichouses arrives in the Freshman'smail. Inaddition, or instead, some fraternities dele-gate to their members the responsibilityofcontacting by letter, by telephone, or in per-son a portionof the Freshmenclass who livein their own section of the country.

    TABLE 1PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT RUSH WEEK

    BY FAMILY'S INCOME*Per CentFamily's Coming to TotalAnnual Income Rush Week No.Under $5,000 ............. 56 127$ 5,000-$ 8,000 .......... 68 254$ 8,000-$15,000 .......... 70 242$15,000and over......... 76 150* Forty-two out of the 815 who returnedthe questionnaireneglectedor refusedto reporttheir families'annual incomes.

    Rushing comes early at this college be-cause an acute shortage of dormitoryspacemakes it necessary for some of the Fresh-men to reside in fraternityhouses from thebeginning of the semester. This situationsometimes makes for intense competitionbetween the brotherly societies in their at-tempts to identify "good"men early in thegame.There are rules of the game of rushing,and these extend to summerrushingas well.Information concerning the backgroundsand personalities of Freshmenmay be ob-tained through channels of personal com-municationavailable to every fraternity. Itis legitimate to gain an advantage by invest-ing a greatdeal of energyto get the most outof these sources-for instance, by payingmore personal visits than other fraternitiesdo. It is legitimate to send literature to theFreshman but not to spend money on his

    entertainment in the summertime. It is le-gitimate to entertain him lavishly duringRush Week but not to keep him in igno-rance of invitations from other houses. Anindication that fraternity members carevery much about recruiting good pledges isthe constant, if mild, pressure to break therules. As a fraternity man, the member isconcerned to see that the rules be enforced;but as a loyal member of a specific frater-nity, he cannot help but search for ways toget ahead of the game. This makes for anintense interest in the rulesandin violationsof them.Before leaving home the Freshman-per-sonally contactedor not by a fraternitydur-ing July, August, or early September-is inthe throes of the decision: to rush or not torush. For the men who definitely perceivethemselves as fraternity material and forthose who think of themselves in the oppo-site fashion the problems are few. But be-tween these extremes are the Freshmenwhoare less sure: Can they afford to join a fra-ternity? Will the active social life called forin such organizations nterfere with the seri-ous pursuit of studies? Will close fraternityrelationships help them in their school andlater careers?Who in the class of 1961 was the morelikely to journey to college a week early inorder to seek fraternity membership? Totake a simple question first: Does moneyenterinto the student's decisionabout RushWeek? Because of the collective use of re-sources and facilities, fraternity member-ship at this school, in fact, costs little or nomore than living in a dormitory;but if en-tering students believe membership to bemoreexpensive than dormitory ife, the lessaffluentwill probably count themselvesoutof the rushing.The data show, indeed, that money mat-ters. The higher the annual income of thestudent's family, the more likely is he toappear for Rush Week (Table 1).-1 (The

    'Respondentswere asked: "What is your fam-ily's presentannualincome? (Checkone): Under$5,000,$5,00-8,000, $8,00-10,000, $10,00-15,000,$15,00O-25,000, ver$25,000?"

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    4/10

    CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING 393tables herein contain information only onstudents who answered the relevant ques-tions.) While only about half the studentsfrom the families with the lowest incomeenter into the competition for fraternitymembership,eight in ten of those from fam-ilies with the highest income do so.Finances enter into the decision to cometo Rush Week in indirect as well as directways. Some students have summer jobswhich help substantially to pay for theirfirst year at college and which they cannotafford to leave until the last possible mo-ment. For others-those who plan to workduring the school year-time is literallymoney. They feel they cannot spare the ex-tra time fraternity activities demand, hold ajob, and also give adequate attention to theirstudies. There are, of course, fraternitymenwho hold part-time jobs. Nevertheless, theseproblems deter some Freshmen from evenconsidering a fraternity.Preferencesin styles of living enter intoa student's considerations about rushing.Popular images of the "fraternityman" andhow he lives are not lacking. The imageryincludes elements that in anticipation can-not fail to affect the Freshman's decision.Peering into the mirror of his personality, aFreshman may feel that he "looks like" afraternity man; another may see no resem-blanceat all.What are some elements which enter intohis deliberations? The fraternity man isthought to be a person who is gregarious,sociable, party-loving and easy-to-meet.The fraternity brother also expects himselfto exhibit these qualities. Part of the role,then, of the good fraternity man, as con-ceived both by outsidersand by the breth-ren themselves, is what we shall call the"sociability complex."It entails a set of at-titudes and behavior patterns thought to beproper for the fraternity man. And, whetherhe actually ranks low or high on any hypo-thetical scale designed to measure grada-tions of sociability, he strives to live up tothe standard set for him. A corollaryof theexpectationthat the brother will be gregari-ous is, that he will not be too competitive,

    academically. He ought not to be a "greasygrind," a man who studies unceasingly toreach the top of his class. And, finally, thefraternityman is consideredto be organiza-tion minded, eager to give of his time tocampus affairs.The popular image of the fraternityman-his gregariousness,his avoidance of ap-pearing to study "too much," his extracur-ricular preeminence-definitely enters intothe beginning student's judgment about theadvisability of coming to Rush Week. First,we find that the more dating and socializinga Freshmandid in high school, the more apthe is to come to Rush Week.2 Sixty per centof the young men who socialized little inhigh school (fewer than six hours a week)come to Rush Week; 84 per cent of thosewho socialized a great deal (twenty or morehours a week) do so. Second, the more anentering student thinks of "having fun gen-erally" as important n his career at college,the morelikely is he to "rush":of those whofeel that having fun at college is "not im-portant," only 55 per cent come to RushWeek; of those who feel that having fun is"very important,"80 per cent come. Third,the greater the importance the Freshmanplaces on "making close friends" while atcollege, the more likely he is to rush. Fifty-six per cent of the students who feel thatmaking close friends is "not important"rush, while 75 per cent of those who feel itis "veryimportant"do so. Clearly,these re-sponses support the hypothesis that frater-nity men are thought to be gregariousandthat this image influences the Freshman.For, the less sociable the Freshmanis, theless likely he is to rush.The less time a student spent on studyingand homework n highschool,the more ikelyhe is to rush: 64 per cent of the men whostudied over twenty hours a week rush, as

    'The student was askedto fill out a timebudgetfor a typical week duringhis Senioryear in highschool.He had to account or the numberof hoursa weekhe spentin school,at studyandhomework,sleepingand eating,in extracurricularctivities atschool, dating and socializing,hobbies and otherleisure-time activities, doing chores at home, ona job, other.

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    5/10

    394 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGYcompared to 76 per cent who studied lessthan ten hours. Also, the lower his level ofaspiration regardingacademicperformanceat college, the more likely he is to come toRush Week. Of the Freshmen who wouldonly be satisfied to rank "close to the top"of their class, 60 per cent come to RushWeek; of those who would be satisfied torank "in the top half" or "lower," 76 percent come. Here again a popular notion ofthe fraternity man affects the Freshman'swillingness to try to "go fraternity." Thebetter he feels he fits the picture, the moreoften he enters into the competition formembership.

    Finally, the data reveal that the greaterthe importance a Freshman places onTABLE 2

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY BACKGROUNDAND "SOCIABILITY COMPLEX"

    FAMILY'SANNUAL INCOMEUnder $15,000$5,000 or MoreHours a week spent datingand socializing in highschool:

    Under 10 ............. 64% 25%10 or more ..... ... 36 75Total ............ 100% 100%Total number .... 97 79Importanceof having un atcollege:Very important . 24% 34%Somewhat or not impor-tant ................ 76 66Total ......... .. 100% 100%Total number ..... 126 127

    achieving extracurricular distinction, themorelikely is he to rush; and the morehoursa week he plans to devote to extracurricularactivities at college, the more likely is he tocome to Rush Week. Sixty-fourper cent ofthe young men who feel that achieving ex-tracurriculardistinction is "not important"and 80 per cent of those who regard it as"very important"rush; 60 per cent of thosewho plan to spend fewer than five hours aweek on extracurricularactivities and 86per cent of thosewho plan to devote at leastfifteenhoursa week to themrush.The precedingdata all point to the same

    conclusion: the popular picture of the fra-ternity man affects the Freshman'sdecisionabout attendanceat Rush Week.The betterthe Freshman feels he fits this picture, themore likely he is to rush. Conversely, theless the student feels his own personalityresembles that of the fraternity man, themore often he decides to stay out of therunning.Thus far we have discovered two condi-tions that enter into a Freshman'sconsider-ation about comingto Rush Week: his fam-ily's income and the degree to which he feelshe "looks like" a fraternity man. But arethese two factors independent? A greatbody of information which has been col-lected about the values of the Americanmiddle- and lower-income groups wouldlead us to believe that they are not. It iswell known that middle-class Americanstend to have more friends, to join more or-ganizations, and to cultivate more interestsand hobbies than Americans in manualoccupations.The personal qualities or values whichmake up the fraternal ideal are not, then,entirely personal. They are esteemed andcultivated differentlyin the various occupa-tional and income groups. Does this holdtrue also among our Freshmen engineers?The Freshmenwhosefatherswerein manualoccupationswho come to this technical col-lege are atypical of their group in havingchosen middle-class occupations for them-selves. They arelikely to sharemore in mid-dle-class values as well. Nevertheless, theanticipated class differencesappear (Table2). For example, the number of hours aweek spent in dating and socializingin highschool and the importance placed on "hav-ing fun"at collegeare greater n thehighest-than in the lowest-income group.Even though the admiredpersonal valuesare class linked, we must not overlook thefact that a substantialminorityin the lower-incomegroups possess them. But which fac-tor-family income or sociability-is moreimportant in the enteringstudent's decisionto come to Rush Week? Or do they have anequal impact?

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    6/10

    CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING 395In Table 3 we observe the simultaneouseffects on the rushingdecision of the Fresh-man's family income and his degree of soci-ability. Reading down the two columns of

    the table, it is seen that in the higher-incomegroup resemblance or non-resemblance tothe image of the fraternityman makes some,but not a large, difference n the proportionwho come to Rush Week. Among those oflower income, however, the difference ismore pronounced: those who do not seethemselvesas matching the image are decid-edly less likely to come to Rush Week thanthose who do.It is possible to state the matter anotherway. Reading acrossthe rows of Table 3, itis seen that students who resemble the fra-ternity image attend Rush Week in muchthe same proportions,regardless of familyincome. Those who do not resemble the im-age,however,cometo RushWeekoften onlyif they come from families with higher in-comes.

    Having elected to come to Rush Week,only about half the rushees end up as fra-ternity pledges. How does the rushing proc-ess select some Freshmen to join the broth-erhoodsand reject others?The fraternitymen spendmany hours be-fore Rush Week converting their sometimesmodest, sometimes lavish, residences intoshowplacesfor the Freshmen.The fraterni-ties areaboutto engagein the annualmelee,the outcomeof which they hope will be thereplenishmentof their ranksreduced by thedepartureof the previous June's graduates.The penalties of a bad showing are heavy:if a house does not succeed in getting thenumberof menit seeks (or, rather,the num-ber of good men it seeks), some years mayelapse before its strengthand its distinctivecharacter,in the eyes of the members,arerestored. "We are fighting for survival,"some brotherssay.Who is the "hot"prospect-the likely, asdistinguishedfrom the unlikely, prospectivemember?By what criteriado the fraternitybrothers differentiatethe "hotter"from the"colder"Freshmen?Let the fraternity men

    speak for themselves. Among the rushees,they seek:The manwho can expresshimselfmaturely,who has an interest n thingsoutsideof books,the onewho has a neat appearance.Likeableguys, ones who know how to talkand who aren't loud. Men who'll fit in here.After all, we've got to livewith each other.

    TABLE 3INCOME AND LIKENESS TO THE POPULAR IMAGE

    OF THE FRATERNITY MANPIERCENT COMINGTO

    RUSH WEEKFamily's Annual IncomeLess than $8,000$8,000 and OverHours a weekspent studyingin high school:Fewer than 15......... 74% 72%(Base) .............. 182 21115 and over .......... 55% 72%(Base) ................ 198 179flours a week to be devotedto extracurricular activi-ties:10 or more ........... 73% 79%(Base) ................ 124 111Fewerthan 10 ........ 58% 71%(Base) ................ 226 246Importance of having funfor careerat college:Very important ..... . 76% 83%(Base) ......... 82 97Less than very impor-tant ................ 60% 74%(Base) ............... 284 271Hours a week spent socializ-ing in high school:10 or more ........... 79% 79%(Base) ................ 86 106Fewer than 10 ........ 61% 70%(Base) . .............. 290 285The extrovert.All we want is a sharp groupof congenialpeople.... By a good personI meanone whois the all-American-boyypebutwith brains.Welook for a sharppersonwho is a bit of anextrovert,conversingwell andintelligently.Thetypeof fellowwe aretrying o pledge sone thatwouldbe apt to glideinto the atmos-phereof the houseveryeasily.In otherwords,we are lookingfor the fellow whomwe wouldbe glad to call our friendand whomwe wouldenjoybeingwith. Now this fellow s not just a

    "goodegg," for he usuallyneeds something oattract our attention to him, and this usually

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    7/10

    396 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYcomes n the formof varioushighschoolactivi-ties he participatedn.3

    On the otherside of the coin, the brothersdo not want:The "grind":he boy who s always tudying.The "meatball":omeonewho is too pushyand aggressive.Someonewho dressesand speakspoorly-a"'meatball."The fraternitiesseek, in other words, thegregarious youth, already socially poised,interested in and participatingin the worldoutside of himself and his books: "the aver-age American boy"-without evident per-sonality quirks, well and soft spoken, neatand clean, somewhat athletic, and not tooovertly intellectual. He is pre-eminently a"regularguy"-but one with brains.This isthe standard the rushee must approach f heis to be amongthe chosen.It is the standardthe fraternityman strives to attain himself.The two types of Freshmen whom thebrethren ook at with disapproval,the grindand the meatball, are seen as deficient inthese qualities. The former is unwilling togive of himself because he is so absorbed nhis studies; the meatball because he lackssavoir-faire.Either type, if admitted,wouldpresumablymake it difficultfor the brothersto live and to study co-operatively.As observed,many of the Freshmen whoare unlikely to meet the fraternities'criteriahave already eliminated themselves beforeRush Week begins. The others, the likelyand the less likely, begin arrivingat any fra-ternity's house on Saturday morning. Thebrothers immediately begin screening theyouths, checkingthemoff as to theirrelativepossibilities-first, sheerly on the basis ofappearance (Is he neat? Does he dresswell?Is his handshakefirm? Does he smile?) andthen on the basis of his behavior (Is hepoised? Is he self-confident? Does he talkwell?) That it doesnot take long to screen ayouth is attested by these fraternity men'sstatements:

    You can tell right away by their faces or theway they shake hands. A cold, clammy hand-shake as versus a warm, friendly one. Or by theway they are dressed.You can see right through them in fiveminutes.First, I'm concerned with how they aredressed. It's not a matter of Ivy League clothes,but looking neat and well-groomed. The nextthing is a hearty handshakewith a smile to gowith it. A cold, clammy handshakeand a tenseface don't go with me.At the first "all-friendly" on Saturdaymorning, the brothers quickly decide whomto ignore and whom to pursue. The main

    technique of communicatingto the rusheethat he does not fit into the house is tactfulavoidance. He is not admitted to intimatepersonal contacts. Those who are eliminatedin the initial screening are drawn togetherin groups to whom one or two brothers areassigned as hosts. They converse with theFreshmen and entertain them but do notwoo them. Eventually, it is hoped, theserusheeswill take the hint and depart. Quitedifferent is the treatment of those who passthe initial screening: these men may rarelyhave an opportunity to speak with a fellowrushee. Writes a brother:

    The actives circulate the good men amongthe other actives, while the meatballs are keptfrom the hot men in a group. Of course, the hotmen get rushed by more than one person at atime; while the meatballs get left to their owndevices (often a pool table).The initially successful rushee is drawnout in private discussion-on his back-ground, his likes and dislikes, the life hecontemplates leading at college. Passingthrough the second screening, other broth-ers-preferably those who have the sameinterests and hobbies (the better to hold therushee's attention)-are directed to him.Shortly after, he meets and is met by thebulk of the brotherhood.He is pressedto as-sure them that he will revisit the housesoon.It is not unusual that a rushee, passing

    the early screeningand asked to return,failsin his circulation through the membership'These remarks were made to one of the investi-gators or recorded by fraternity men who keptjournals during Rush Week.

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    8/10

    CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING 397to impresseveryonefavorably.But after thefirst few visits, thesemen aredecidedon oneway or the other-either they are weededout or the doubtersrevise their estimates.Typically, the fraternities are satisfiedwith the men whom they pledge; moreover,differencesbetween one fraternity'spledgesand those of any other are more apparentthan real. Pledges are both willing and ableto live up to the prescribedstandardsof howa fraternityman ought to behave. In truth,they know before they arrive at school howthey ought to act. Their previoussocial ex-perience-their extra-school activities, theirparticipation n organizationsdifferentfromfraternities only in that the members areyounger-has prepared them for rushingand made them confident. The youth wholacks anticipatory social experience-igno-rant of how a prospectivefraternityman isexpected to behave-stands less chance offaringwell in the Rush-Weekprocedures.

    Two things that enter into the Freshmanengineering tudent'sdecisionaboutwhetheror not to come to Rush Week have beenreportedabove: the relative affluenceof hisfamily and the degreeto which he resemblesthe popular image of the fraternity man.Among rushees,as well, the screeningproc-ess continues to workin the same directions.The better-off youth and the one who, re-gardless of financial status, subscribes tovalues which set him off as fraternitymate-rial are the most likely to pledge.The Officeof the Dean of Residence, besides knowingwho did and who did not rush, had data onwhich rushees pledged, and we shall usethese to validate this statement. It must benoted, however, that the outcome of rushingis in part a self-selection process and notsolely a matter of whom the fraternitymem-bers choose. We do not know how manyamongthe unpledgedturneddown bids, butwe believe they are few if only because ayoung man so ambivalent about fraternitylife would probably not stay on the courselong enoughto receive a bid.It is true, as fraternity members say,

    that many Freshmen come to Rush Weekonly to see what it is like, without seri-ously intendingto competefor a bid. Othersundoubtedly come without having madeup their minds where they want to live.When, in August, the Freshmenwere askedwhere they planned to live at school, of 548youths who cameto Rush Week,37 percenthad said they did not want to join a frater-nity. This is a rough measureof the propor-tion who come to Rush Week "for the ride."Of 347 students who said in August thatthey wanted to join a fraternity and whosubesquently came to Rush Week, 43 percent did not pledge.This is a rough measureof those who would like to be fraternityTABLE 4

    FAMILY INCOME AND PERCENTAGE OFRUSHEES WHO PLEDGE

    Family's Per Cent Be-Annual Income coming Pledges Total No.Under$5,000 ...... . 31 71$ 5,000- $8,000 ...... 40 174$ 8,000-$15,000 ..... 46 169$15,000-$25,000 ...... 52 65$25,000 and over 61 49members but who receive no bids or nonethey wish to accept.What characteristicsdistinguish rusheeswho pledge fromthose who do not? Consid-ering money first, we find that the higherthe rushee's family income, the more likelyhe is to pledge (Table 4).And what of the "sociability complex?"Is it also true that the more gregariousrush-ees whose academichopes are moderateandwho aspire to extracurriculareminence aremore likely to become fraternitymen thantheir opposites? The data offera partly af-firmative,partly negative, answer:the moretime a rushee has spent dating and socializ-ing in high school, the better his chance ofpledginga fraternity (Table 5). The greaterthe importancethe rusheeplaces on achiev-ing extracurricular istinction at collegeandthe more hours a week he plans to devote toout-of-class activities, the better his chanceof pledging (Table 6).Regarding scholastic performance,how-

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    9/10

    398 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGYever, the data show a discrepancybetweenthe popular image of fraternities and thefraternities at this technical college. Herethe fraternitieschoose the rushee who plansto study a lot and who aspires to high-aca-demic rank about as frequently as they dothe man who plans to study less and whoseaspirations are lower.Now we may ask with respect to pledgesthe same question raised previously aboutcoming to Rush Week. Which is more

    TABLE 5SOCIALIZING IN HIGH SCHOOL AND

    CHANCE OF BEING PLEDGEDHours a Week Dated Per Cent Be-and Socialized coming Pledges Total No.Fewer than 6 ......... 32 1826-10 . ......... 47 21311-19 . ......... 51 10220 and more . ...... 62 58

    TABLE 6EXTRACURRICULAR INTERESTS AND

    CHANCES OF BEING PLEDGEDPer Cent Be-coming Pledges Total No.A. Hours a weekplanned

    to spend on extracur-riculay activibties:Fewer than 5 ....... 36 965-9 .............. 45 22910-14 ............. 48 14215and more ....... 53 45B Importance of extra-curricuar distinction:Not important .... 32 111Somewhat important 45 333Very important..... 58 108strongly related to a rushee's chance ofpledging: family incomeor sociability? Theanswer is much the same as before: therushee from a family with a high incometends to pledge, whether or not he is socia-ble. Amongwealthierstudents, the moreso-ciable join fraternities only slightly moreoften than the less sociable.Amongstudentswho are financially less well off, however,sociabilitymakesthe difference:the sociablewill pledge much more often than the lesssociable. We present just one of severaltables whichprove the point (Table 7).

    The rushee from a family with a lowerincome who has already come to resemble

    the fraternity ideal has a good chance ofjoining a fraternity. How is it that someyoung men who lack money acquire thiswhen still in high school while others donot? We do have one piece of informationwhich gives a glimpse of the process. Thisquestion was put to the Freshmen:

    Would you say that comparedwith mostother people you know, you are (check one):closer to your parents; ess close to your par-ents; just aboutas closeas most?We expected the replies to a seeminglypsychological question to show relationshipto fraternity pledging because of the fact

    that the upwardly mobile-for example,those moving from the working to the mid-dle class-are frequently estranged fromTABLE 7

    PER CENT OF PLEDGING AMONG RUSHEES BYFAMILY INCOME AND DATING AND

    SOCIALIZINGIN HIGH SCCHOOLPER CENT PLEDGINGFamily's Annual Income

    HOURSA WEEK DATED Less than $8,000ANDSOCIALIZED $8,000 and OverFewer than 10 ........... 29% 47%(Base) .................. 172 19710 and more ............. 53% 56%(Base) .................. 68 84

    their families. In order to be successful inthe climb, they have had to unlearn work-ing-class values and to acquire the valuesof the class they aim at. An unfortunateconcomitant of the ascent has often beenthe rejection of parents and of non-mobilesiblingswho stand for a way of life that hasbeen abandoned.4This process may be at work among someof the upwardly mobile Freshmen in engi-neering and science (Table 8): among thosewho come to Rush Week whose fathers are

    'For a poignant account of this "American trag-edy," see Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted (Boston:Little, Brown & Co., 1951), esp. chap. ix, "Genera-tions," and chap. x, "Alienation." Handlin discussesthe gap between first- and second-generation Amer-icans, but we are observing young Americans of atleast the third generation: 79 per cent of themhave parents both of whom were born in the UnitedStates.

    This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:39:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 7/30/2019 Social Class and Sociability

    10/10

    CLASSAND SOCIABILITY N FRATERNITYPLEDGINO 399in manual occupations, those closest to theirparents are least likely to pledge a frater-nity, whereas those least close are most like-ly to do so. Among the others, closeness tofamily makes no difference at all in theprobability of pledging. In order to stand asgood a chanceof being pledged as a middle-class youth, the Freshman from a working-class home apparently has to be "distant"from his family-which is to infer that heshould already have acquired,before arriv-ing at college, the externalsigns (dress andspeech) and internal symbols (values andsentiments) of membership in the middleclass. For them, lack of closeness to parentsis not a function of movingout of theirclassand therefore entails neither greater norlesser adherence to class-related sociability.Fraternity pledging illustrates some sali-ent aspects of the American status system.Both stratificationandmobility exist. Class-linked attributes are conceivedas individualtraits, so that the credit for what is "desira-ble" and the shameof what is "undesirable"are bornealike by the individual.The near-universal denial by students that anyone is"hurt" by fraternity rushing testifies thatthe shame may be a serious problem but

    one that seems to be buried. Later on, thefraternities themselves will help preparetheir members intensively for adult sociallife, and some of this (e.g., "pledge train-ing") is thoroughlyplanned and organized.Much more is informal.Forty young men in

    TABLE 8PERCENTAGE OF SONS WHO PLEDGE, ACCORD-

    ING TO FATHER'S OCCUPATION ANDCLOSENESS TO FAMILY

    PER CENT PLEDGINGSons of Fathers Sons of Fathersin Non-manual in ManualOccupations OccupationsCloser to parents.... 47% 19%(Base) ............ 115 21Same as others .... 48% 37%(Base) ............ 281 62Less close to parents 45% 43%(Base) ............. 47 14late adolescence living together for fouryears can greatly influence each other's val-ues and character. College fraternities rep-resent a powerful agency of near-adult so-cialization which is accessible to intensivestudy.COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY

    WELLESLEYCOLLEGE

    Thi t t d l d d M 21 J 2013 09 39 03 AM

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp