Fear of Out-group association
When analyzing the influence of in-group and out-group behavior in regards to hazing, it is essential to recognize the consequences of relying on this perspective. The first consequence that I will evaluate is the harmful influence of stereotypes that emerges due to the negative connotation for out-groups. Many times, stereotypes are subconsciously present in the minds of people who have grown up with certain perspectives. In other words, “[s]tereotypes do not take special effort to acquire. Quite the opposite – they are acquired effortlessly and take special effort to discount.”[1] Due to the presence of an implicit bias that in-groups are good, and out-groups are bad, people constantly seek groups that they can associate with and develop a sense of identity. According to the consequentialism argument, the fear of being labeled as an outsider for not being able to handle an experience that involves hazing rituals has greater consequences than the immediate humiliation factors brought about by hazing. Therefore, people are willing to undergo the short-term consequences in order to avoid the greater humiliation of being rejected by the in-group. As consequentialism analyzes the consequences of a particular act, it can be argued that society has instilled a mentality that being accepted by the in-group is the positive outcome they desire. Therefore, people are willing to accept the pain and humiliation because they feel as though this is a better outcome than the ultimate humiliation of not being accepted into a certain group or society.
To counter, the argument can be made that the influence of in-group mentality is something that will not go away as it is engrained in us through our ancestors. There is an innate human desire to associate with small-scale societies due to the egalitarian nature that was practiced by hunters and gatherers. Von Rueden and Van Vugt explore the correlation of leadership in large-scale societies to that in small-scale societies by revealing that “[t]he face-to-face, spontaneous nature of leader-follower interactions in these contexts is fairly similar to those in which leadership often emerges in SSSs”.[2] Therefore, the argument can be made that maintaining small-scale societies is essential to maintain a civil environment in a large-scale society. Furthermore, writer and producer David Burkman states, “we know hazing is against every value our organizations openly espouse. But I think there is a deeper reason for this denial: We like it. We like hazing, and harder to imagine, those being hazed like, it too.”[3] Those with a competitive edge seek this type of thrill and adrenaline rush. There is a sense of comradery that occurs with a misery loves company mentality. Ultimately, Burkman argues that since there is an innate longing to be accepted by a particular group, there is an underlying enjoyment of the challenge hazing can bring. That being said, there is nothing wrong with participating in a challenge to prove the ability to contribute to a group of people. The problem arises when those already affiliated with the organization coerce others to partake in humiliating tasks such as overconsumption of alcohol, or embarrassing chants in public. However, with the consequentialism argument, when the consequences of actions lead to fatality and other negative outcomes, the action is inherently bad. This is not to say that all types of initiation result in negative consequences. Primarily, this argument focuses on members forcing those being initiated to complete tasks they might not volunteer for on a regular basis.
Negative influence of drugs and alcohol
A large contributing factor that increases the amount of humiliation involved with many types of hazing is the presence of drugs and alcohol. Typically, within Greek life organizations, they will coerce their pledges to consume obscene amounts of alcohol as a test of loyalty. However, these activities lead to a causal effect of traumatic injuries, including alcohol poisoning. As I referenced in my background paper, Michelle Finkel’s article, “Traumatic Injuries Caused by Hazing Practices”, presents a detailed guide to a variety of hazing practices. For instance, she explains that “[b]lunt trauma from falls is the harmful effect of hazing practices that include coercing initiatives to climb roofs, ledges, and bridges – oftentimes after ingesting excessive amounts of alcohol.”[4] In accordance with the deontic line of moral reasoning, it is immoral to force someone to do something against their will. When someone is forced to consume large amounts of alcohol, they are at risk for losing control of their bodies and will likely partake in activities they normally would not. Therefore, if the consumption is not voluntary, those who forced the alcohol are responsible for the outcome of the situation. Ultimately, the influence of alcohol should not be a factor for determining if a person is eligible to participate in an organization.