Social Class and Sociability in Fraternity Pledging Author(s): Gene Norman Levine and Leila A.

Sussmann Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jan., 1960), pp. 391-399 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING

GENE NORMAN LEVINE AND LEILA A. SUSSMANN ABSTRACT

Both family income and gregariousness affect the rates at which students at an eastern technical college apply for membership and are accepted in social fraternities. The relatively wealthy youth, regardless of his sociability, and the relatively poor one, if he is sociable in a predefined way, are more acceptable than the youth who is both poor and socially inexperienced. Closeness to parents is negatively correlated with fraternity-pledging among sons of manual workers, but there is no correlation among those of non-manual fathers. It may be that rejecting the values of their origin may be a prerequisite for mobility among the former.

Each fall Freshmen entering many colleges may choose whether or not to seek membershipin Greek-letter,social fraternities. These fraternities,many of which have chapters at scores of colleges, have lately been under some pressure from without and from within to give up their traditional exclusion of Jewish and Negro students. Discriminatory practices are widespread enough, however,to allow Jewish and Negro counterparts still to flourish. Fraternity men proclaim their right to associate with whom they choose-and hence to select only those persons, whatever their racial or religious origins, whom they find congenial. But, as is well known, personal characteristics-values and attitudes, styles of life, habits of dress, speech, and comportmentare to a great extent class linked. Does this, then, mean that the fraternities, middle class in origin and character, bar from their ranks youths from the working class, apart from religious and racial discrimination? Whom do the fraternities choose as members? What are the personal characteristics on which they base their selection? Are these traits class linked? What chance does a youth of the working class have of gaining entry into these organizationswhich are so central to the social life of many college campuses?Data on the behavior of students at a technical college in the East provide quantitative answers to these questions. In August, 1957, a detailed questionnaire

was mailed to 890 prospective Freshmen students in engineering and science. They were asked about their experiences at secondary school, their expectations of the college they were about to enter, their plans for a career, and their social and personal backgrounds.Six hundredand twenty-three youths mailed back completed questionnaires before leaving home, and another 192 filled them out within two weeks of their arrival at college-a total return of 92 per cent. In addition to the questionnairedata, the Office of the Dean of Residence informed us who in the entering class did and who did not seek fraternity membershipby attending "Rush Week." The Dean's office also informed us who among the rushees "pledged" fraternities, i.e., accepted invitations ("bids") for membership.Qualitative data of three kinds were collected, too: first, a few of the participants (both Freshmen and brethren) served as informantsby keeping journalsof Rush Week for us; second,we ourselvesrecordedevents which we observed at fraternity houses at the time; third, several officers and rank-and-file members of fraternities, as well as several Freshmen, were interviewed before, during, and after Rush Week concerningtheir experiences. Over two-thirds of the class of 1961 (609 out of 890 Freshmen) attended Rush Week. Of the rushees, roughly half (285 out of 609) became fraternity pledges. In the analysis to follow we concern ourselveswith

391

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

392

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY entertainment in the summertime. It is legitimate to entertain him lavishly during Rush Week but not to keep him in ignorance of invitations from other houses. An indication that fraternity members care very much about recruiting good pledges is the constant, if mild, pressure to break the rules. As a fraternity man, the member is concernedto see that the rules be enforced; but as a loyal member of a specific fraternity, he cannot help but search for ways to get ahead of the game. This makes for an intense interest in the rules and in violations of them. Before leaving home the Freshman-personally contacted or not by a fraternity during July, August, or early September-is in the throes of the decision: to rush or not to rush. For the men who definitely perceive themselves as fraternity material and for those who think of themselves in the opposite fashion the problems are few. But between these extremes are the Freshmenwho are less sure: Can they afford to join a fraternity? Will the active social life called for in such organizationsinterferewith the serious pursuit of studies? Will close fraternity relationships help them in their school and later careers? Who in the class of 1961 was the more likely to journey to college a week early in order to seek fraternity membership? To take a simple question first: Does money enter into the student's decision about Rush Week? Because of the collective use of resources and facilities, fraternity membership at this school, in fact, costs little or no more than living in a dormitory; but if entering students believe membership to be more expensive than dormitorylife, the less affluentwill probably count themselves out of the rushing. The data show, indeed, that money matters. The higher the annual income of the student's family, the more likely is he to appear for Rush Week (Table 1).-1 (The

three questions: (1) How do the Freshmen who come to Rush Week differ from those who elect not to come? (2) What happens during Rush Week? (3) How do the rushees who pledge fraternities differ from those who do not? Some time around the first of August the Freshmen mailing list is made available to the rushing chairmen of the various fraternities. Immediately, a wave of brochures and pamphlets telling about life at the college, the fraternity system, and the specific houses arrives in the Freshman's mail. In addition, or instead, some fraternities delegate to their members the responsibility of contacting by letter, by telephone, or in person a portion of the Freshmenclass who live in their own section of the country.
TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AT RUSH WEEK BY FAMILY'S INCOME* Family's Annual Income Per Cent Coming to Rush Week Total No.

$ 5,000-$ 8,000 .......... $ 8,000-$15,000 .......... $15,000 and over..........

Under $5,000

.............

56 68

127 254

70 76

242 150

* Forty-two out of the 815 who returned the questionnaire neglected or refused to report their families' annual incomes.

Rushing comes early at this college because an acute shortage of dormitory space makes it necessary for some of the Freshmen to reside in fraternity houses from the beginning of the semester. This situation sometimes makes for intense competition between the brotherly societies in their attempts to identify "good" men early in the game. There are rules of the game of rushing, and these extend to summerrushing as well. Information concerning the backgrounds and personalities of Freshmen may be obtained through channels of personal communication available to every fraternity. It is legitimate to gain an advantage by investing a great deal of energy to get the most out of these sources-for instance, by paying 'Respondents were asked: "What is your fammore personal visits than other fraternities ily's presentannual income? (Check one): Under do. It is legitimate to send literature to the $5,000,$5,00-8,000, $8,00-10,000, $10,00-15,000, Freshman but not to spend money on his $15,00O-25,000, Over $25,000?"

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

CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING

393

tables herein contain information only on students who answered the relevant questions.) While only about half the students from the families with the lowest income enter into the competition for fraternity membership,eight in ten of those from families with the highest income do so. Finances enter into the decision to come to Rush Week in indirect as well as direct ways. Some students have summer jobs which help substantially to pay for their first year at college and which they cannot afford to leave until the last possible moment. For others-those who plan to work during the school year-time is literally money. They feel they cannot spare the extra time fraternity activities demand, hold a job, and also give adequateattention to their studies. There are, of course, fraternity men who hold part-time jobs. Nevertheless, these problems deter some Freshmen from even consideringa fraternity. Preferences in styles of living enter into a student's considerations about rushing. Popular images of the "fraternityman" and how he lives are not lacking. The imagery includes elements that in anticipation cannot fail to affect the Freshman's decision. Peering into the mirror of his personality, a Freshman may feel that he "looks like" a fraternity man; another may see no resemblance at all. What are some elements which enter into his deliberations? The fraternity man is thought to be a person who is gregarious, sociable, party-loving and easy-to-meet. The fraternity brother also expects himself to exhibit these qualities. Part of the role, then, of the good fraternity man, as conceived both by outsiders and by the brethren themselves, is what we shall call the "sociability complex." It entails a set of attitudes and behavior patterns thought to be proper for the fraternity man. And, whether he actually ranks low or high on any hypothetical scale designed to measure gradations of sociability, he strives to live up to the standard set for him. A corollary of the expectation that the brotherwill be gregarious is, that he will not be too competitive,

academically. He ought not to be a "greasy grind," a man who studies unceasingly to reach the top of his class. And, finally, the fraternity man is consideredto be organization minded, eager to give of his time to campus affairs. The popular image of the fraternity man -his gregariousness, his avoidance of appearing to study "too much," his extracurricular preeminence-definitely enters into the beginning student's judgment about the advisability of coming to Rush Week. First, we find that the more dating and socializing a Freshmandid in high school, the more apt he is to come to Rush Week.2 Sixty per cent of the young men who socialized little in high school (fewer than six hours a week) come to Rush Week; 84 per cent of those who socialized a great deal (twenty or more hours a week) do so. Second, the more an entering student thinks of "having fun generally" as importantin his careerat college, the more likely is he to "rush": of those who feel that having fun at college is "not important," only 55 per cent come to Rush Week; of those who feel that having fun is "very important," 80 per cent come. Third, the greater the importance the Freshman places on "making close friends" while at college, the more likely he is to rush. Fiftysix per cent of the students who feel that making close friends is "not important" rush, while 75 per cent of those who feel it is "very important"do so. Clearly, these responses support the hypothesis that fraternity men are thought to be gregarious and that this image influences the Freshman. For, the less sociable the Freshman is, the less likely he is to rush. The less time a student spent on studying and homeworkin high school, the morelikely he is to rush: 64 per cent of the men who studied over twenty hours a week rush, as
'The studentwas askedto fill out a time budget for a typical week duringhis Senior year in high school.He had to accountfor the numberof hours a week he spent in school,at study and homework, activitiesat sleepingand eating, in extracurricular school, dating and socializing,hobbies and other leisure-timeactivities, doing chores at home, on a job, other.

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

394

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY conclusion: the popular picture of the fraternity man affects the Freshman'sdecision about attendance at Rush Week. The better the Freshman feels he fits this picture, the more likely he is to rush. Conversely, the less the student feels his own personality resembles that of the fraternity man, the more often he decides to stay out of the running. Thus far we have discovered two conditions that enter into a Freshman'sconsideration about coming to Rush Week: his family's income and the degree to which he feels he "looks like" a fraternity man. But are these two factors independent? A great body of information which has been collected about the values of the American middle- and lower-income groups would lead us to believe that they are not. It is well known that middle-class Americans tend to have more friends, to join more organizations, and to cultivate more interests and hobbies than Americans in manual occupations. The personal qualities or values which make up the fraternal ideal are not, then, entirely personal. They are esteemed and cultivated differently in the various occupational and income groups. Does this hold true also among our Freshmen engineers? The Freshmenwhose fatherswere in manual occupations who come to this technical college are atypical of their group in having chosen middle-class occupations for themselves. They are likely to share more in middle-class values as well. Nevertheless, the anticipated class differencesappear (Table 2). For example, the number of hours a week spent in dating and socializing in high school and the importance placed on "having fun" at college are greaterin the highestthan in the lowest-income group. Even though the admiredpersonal values are class linked, we must not overlook the fact that a substantial minority in the lowerincome groups possess them. But which factor-family income or sociability-is more important in the entering student's decision to come to Rush Week? Or do they have an equal impact?

compared to 76 per cent who studied less than ten hours. Also, the lower his level of aspiration regarding academic performance at college, the more likely he is to come to Rush Week. Of the Freshmen who would only be satisfied to rank "close to the top" of their class, 60 per cent come to Rush Week; of those who would be satisfied to rank "in the top half" or "lower," 76 per cent come. Here again a popular notion of the fraternity man affects the Freshman's willingness to try to "go fraternity." The better he feels he fits the picture, the more often he enters into the competition for membership. Finally, the data reveal that the greater the importance a Freshman places on
TABLE 2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY BACKGROUND AND "SOCIABILITY COMPLEX"
FAMILY'SANNUAL INCOME $15,000 Under

$5,000

or More

Hours a week spent dating and socializing in high school: Under 10 ............. 10 or more...... ... Total ............ Total number .... Importanceof havingfun at college: Very important . Somewhat or not important ................ Total ......... .. Total number .....

64% 36 100% 97 24% 76 100% 126

25% 75 100% 79 34% 66 100% 127

achieving extracurricular distinction, the more likely is he to rush; and the morehours a week he plans to devote to extracurricular activities at college, the more likely is he to come to Rush Week. Sixty-four per cent of the young men who feel that achieving extracurriculardistinction is "not important" and 80 per cent of those who regard it as "very important"rush; 60 per cent of those who plan to spend fewer than five hours a week on extracurricular activities and 86 per cent of those who plan to devote at least fifteen hours a week to them rush. The preceding data all point to the same

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

CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING

395

In Table 3 we observe the simultaneous effects on the rushing decision of the Freshman's family income and his degree of sociability. Reading down the two columns of the table, it is seen that in the higher-income group resemblance or non-resemblance to the image of the fraternity man makes some, but not a large, differencein the proportion who come to Rush Week. Among those of lower income, however, the difference is more pronounced: those who do not see themselves as matching the image are decidedly less likely to come to Rush Week than those who do. It is possible to state the matter another way. Reading across the rows of Table 3, it is seen that students who resemble the fraternity image attend Rush Week in much the same proportions, regardless of family income. Those who do not resemble the image, however,come to Rush Week often only if they come from families with higher incomes. Having elected to come to Rush Week, only about half the rushees end up as fraternity pledges. How does the rushing process select some Freshmen to join the brotherhoods and reject others? The fraternity men spend many hours before Rush Week converting their sometimes modest, sometimes lavish, residences into showplaces for the Freshmen. The fraternities are about to engage in the annual melee, the outcome of which they hope will be the replenishmentof their ranks reducedby the departureof the previous June's graduates. The penalties of a bad showing are heavy: if a house does not succeed in getting the numberof men it seeks (or, rather,the number of good men it seeks), some years may elapse before its strength and its distinctive character, in the eyes of the members, are restored. "We are fighting for survival," some brothers say. Who is the "hot" prospect-the likely, as distinguished from the unlikely, prospective member? By what criteria do the fraternity brothers differentiatethe "hotter" from the "colder" Freshmen? Let the fraternity men

speak for themselves. Among the rushees, they seek: The man who can expresshimselfmaturely, who has an interestin thingsoutsideof books, the one whohas a neat appearance. Likeableguys, ones who know how to talk and who aren't loud. Men who'll fit in here. Afterall, we'vegot to live with eachother.
TABLE 3
INCOME AND LIKENESS TO THE POPULAR IMAGE OF THE FRATERNITY MAN
PIER CENT COMINGTO RUSH WEEK

Family's Annual Income $8,000 Less than and Over $8,000

Hours a weekspent studying in high school: Fewer than 15 ......... (Base) .............. 15 and over .......... (Base) ................ flours a week to be devoted to extracurricular activities: 10 or more............ (Base) ................ Fewerthan 10......... (Base) ................ Importance of having fun for careerat college: Very important ..... . (Base) ......... Less than very important ................ (Base) ................ Hours a week spent socializing in high school: 10 or more............ (Base) ................ Fewer than 10......... (Base) . ..............

74% 182 55% 198

72% 211 72% 179

73% 124 58% 226 76% 82 60% 284 79% 86 61% 290

79% 111 71% 246 83% 97 74% 271 79% 106 70% 285

The extrovert. All we want is a sharp group of congenial people.... By a good personI mean one who is the all-American-boy type but with brains. We look for a sharppersonwhois a bit of an well and intelligently. extrovert,conversing The type of fellowwe are tryingto pledgeis one that wouldbe apt to glide into the atmosphereof the housevery easily.In otherwords, we are lookingfor the fellow whomwe would be glad to call our friendand whomwe would enjoy beingwith. Now this fellowis not just a to "goodegg," for he usuallyneeds something
attract our attention to him, and this usually

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

396

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

comesin the formof varioushighschoolactiviYou can tell right away by their faces or the in.3 ties he participated way they shake hands. A cold, clammy handdo not want:

On the other side of the coin, the brothers way they are dressed.

shake as versus a warm, friendly one. Or by the

the boy whois alwaysstudying. The "grind": someonewho is too pushy The "meatball": and aggressive. Someonewho dressesand speakspoorly-a "'meatball." The fraternities seek, in other words, the gregarious youth, already socially poised, interested in and participating in the world outside of himself and his books: "the average American boy"-without evident personality quirks, well and soft spoken, neat and clean, somewhat athletic, and not too overtly intellectual. He is pre-eminently a "regularguy"-but one with brains. This is the standard the rushee must approachif he is to be among the chosen. It is the standard the fraternity man strives to attain himself. The two types of Freshmen whom the brethrenlook at with disapproval,the grind and the meatball, are seen as deficient in these qualities. The former is unwilling to give of himself because he is so absorbedin his studies; the meatball because he lacks savoir-faire.Either type, if admitted, would presumablymake it difficultfor the brothers to live and to study co-operatively. As observed, many of the Freshmen who are unlikely to meet the fraternities'criteria have already eliminated themselves before Rush Week begins. The others, the likely and the less likely, begin arrivingat any fraternity's house on Saturday morning. The brothers immediately begin screening the youths, checking them off as to their relative possibilities-first, sheerly on the basis of appearance (Is he neat? Does he dress well? Is his handshake firm? Does he smile?) and then on the basis of his behavior (Is he poised? Is he self-confident? Does he talk well?) That it does not take long to screen a youth is attested by these fraternity men's statements:
'These remarks were made to one of the investigators or recorded by fraternity men who kept journals during Rush Week.

You can see right through them in five minutes. First, I'm concerned with how they are dressed. It's not a matter of Ivy League clothes, but looking neat and well-groomed. The next thing is a hearty handshake with a smile to go with it. A cold, clammy handshake and a tense face don't go with me.

At the first "all-friendly" on Saturday morning, the brothers quickly decide whom to ignore and whom to pursue. The main technique of communicating to the rushee that he does not fit into the house is tactful avoidance. He is not admitted to intimate personalcontacts. Those who are eliminated in the initial screening are drawn together in groups to whom one or two brothers are assigned as hosts. They converse with the Freshmen and entertain them but do not woo them. Eventually, it is hoped, these rushees will take the hint and depart. Quite different is the treatment of those who pass the initial screening: these men may rarely have an opportunity to speak with a fellow rushee. Writes a brother:
The actives circulate the good men among the other actives, while the meatballs are kept from the hot men in a group. Of course, the hot men get rushed by more than one person at a time; while the meatballs get left to their own devices (often a pool table).

The initially successful rushee is drawn out in private discussion-on his background, his likes and dislikes, the life he contemplates leading at college. Passing through the second screening, other brothers-preferably those who have the same interests and hobbies (the better to hold the rushee's attention)-are directed to him. Shortly after, he meets and is met by the bulk of the brotherhood.He is pressed to assure them that he will revisit the house soon. It is not unusual that a rushee, passing the early screeningand asked to return,fails in his circulation through the membership

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

CLASS AND SOCIABILITY IN FRATERNITY PLEDGING

397

to impresseveryone favorably. But after the first few visits, these men are decided on one way or the other-either they are weeded out or the doubters revise their estimates. Typically, the fraternities are satisfied with the men whom they pledge; moreover, differencesbetween one fraternity's pledges and those of any other are more apparent than real. Pledges are both willing and able to live up to the prescribedstandardsof how a fraternity man ought to behave. In truth, they know before they arrive at school how they ought to act. Their previous social experience-their extra-school activities, their participationin organizationsdifferentfrom fraternities only in that the members are younger-has prepared them for rushing and made them confident. The youth who lacks anticipatory social experience-ignorant of how a prospective fraternity man is expected to behave-stands less chance of faring well in the Rush-Weekprocedures. Two things that enter into the Freshman engineeringstudent's decision about whether or not to come to Rush Week have been reported above: the relative affluenceof his family and the degree to which he resembles the popular image of the fraternity man. Among rushees, as well, the screeningprocess continues to work in the same directions. The better-off youth and the one who, regardless of financial status, subscribes to values which set him off as fraternity material are the most likely to pledge. The Office of the Dean of Residence, besides knowing who did and who did not rush, had data on which rushees pledged, and we shall use these to validate this statement. It must be noted, however, that the outcome of rushing is in part a self-selection process and not solely a matter of whom the fraternitymembers choose. We do not know how many among the unpledgedturned down bids, but we believe they are few if only because a young man so ambivalent about fraternity life would probably not stay on the course long enough to receive a bid. It is true, as fraternity members say,

that many Freshmen come to Rush Week only to see what it is like, without seriously intending to compete for a bid. Others undoubtedly come without having made up their minds where they want to live. When, in August, the Freshmen were asked where they planned to live at school, of 548 youths who came to Rush Week, 37 per cent had said they did not want to join a fraternity. This is a rough measure of the proportion who come to Rush Week "for the ride." Of 347 students who said in August that they wanted to join a fraternity and who subesquently came to Rush Week, 43 per cent did not pledge. This is a rough measure of those who would like to be fraternity
TABLE 4
FAMILY INCOME AND PERCENTAGE OF RUSHEES WHO PLEDGE Family's Annual Income Per Cent Becoming Pledges Total No.

$ 5,000- $8,000 ...... $15,000-$25,000 ...... $25,000 and over

Under$5,000 ...... .

31
40

71
174

$ 8,000-$15,000 ......

46
52 61

169
65 49

members but who receive no bids or none they wish to accept. What characteristics distinguish rushees who pledge from those who do not? Considering money first, we find that the higher the rushee's family income, the more likely he is to pledge (Table 4). And what of the "sociability complex?" Is it also true that the more gregariousrushees whose academic hopes are moderateand who aspire to extracurriculareminence are more likely to become fraternity men than their opposites? The data offer a partly affirmative,partly negative, answer: the more time a rushee has spent dating and socializing in high school, the better his chance of pledging a fraternity (Table 5). The greater the importancethe rushee places on achievdistinction at college and ing extracurricular the more hours a week he plans to devote to out-of-class activities, the better his chance of pledging (Table 6). Regarding scholastic performance, how-

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

398

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

ever, the data show a discrepancy between the popular image of fraternities and the fraternities at this technical college. Here the fraternitieschoose the rushee who plans to study a lot and who aspires to high-academic rank about as frequently as they do the man who plans to study less and whose aspirations are lower. Now we may ask with respect to pledges the same question raised previously about coming to Rush Week. Which is more
TABLE 5 SOCIALIZING IN HIGH SCHOOL AND CHANCE OF BEING PLEDGED Hours a Week Dated and Socialized Per Cent Becoming Pledges Total No.

the fraternity ideal has a good chance of joining a fraternity. How is it that some young men who lack money acquire this when still in high school while others do not? We do have one piece of information which gives a glimpse of the process. This question was put to the Freshmen: Would you say that comparedwith most other people you know, you are (check one): closer to your parents;less close to your parents; just aboutas closeas most? We expected the replies to a seemingly psychological question to show relationship to fraternity pledging because of the fact that the upwardly mobile-for example, those moving from the working to the middle class-are frequently estranged from
TABLE 7
PER CENT OF PLEDGING AMONG RUSHEES BY FAMILY INCOME AND DATING AND SOCIALIZING IN HIGH SCCHOOL
PER CENT PLEDGING

Fewer than 6 ......... . 6-10 ......... 11-19 . ......... 20 and more . ......

32 47 51 62

182 213 102 58

TABLE 6
EXTRACURRICULAR INTERESTS AND CHANCES OF BEING PLEDGED Per Cent Becoming Pledges Total No.

Family's Annual Income

HOURSA WEEK DATED AND SOCIALIZED Less than $8,000 $8,000 and Over

their families. In order to be successful in the climb, they have had to unlearn working-class values and to acquire the values 32 111 333 45 of the class they aim at. An unfortunate 108 58 concomitant of the ascent has often been strongly related to a rushee's chance of the rejection of parents and of non-mobile pledging: family income or sociability? The siblings who stand for a way of life that has answer is much the same as before: the been abandoned.4 This process may be at work among some rushee from a family with a high income tends to pledge, whether or not he is socia- of the upwardly mobile Freshmen in engible. Among wealthier students, the more so- neeringand science (Table 8): among those ciable join fraternities only slightly more who come to Rush Week whose fathers are often than the less sociable. Among students 'For a poignant account of this "American tragwho are financially less well off, however, edy," see Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted (Boston: sociability makes the difference:the sociable Little, Brown & Co., 1951), esp. chap. ix, "Generawill pledge much more often than the less tions," and chap. x, "Alienation." Handlin discusses sociable. We present just one of several the gap between first- and second-generation Americans, but we are observing young Americans of at tables which prove the point (Table 7). least the third generation: 79 per cent of them The rushee from a family with a lower have parents both of whom were born in the United income who has already come to resemble States.

A. Hours a weekplanned to spend on extracurriculay activibties: Fewer than 5 ....... 5-9 .............. 10-14 ............. 15 and more ....... B Importance of extracurricuar distinction: Not important .... Somewhat important Very important.....

36 45 48 53

96 229 142 45

Fewer than 10............ (Base) ................... 10 and more ............. (Base) ...................

29% 172 53% 68

47% 197 56% 84

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

CLASSAND SOCIABILITYIN FRATERNITYPLEDGINO in manual occupations, those closest to their parents are least likely to pledge a fraternity, whereas those least close are most likely to do so. Among the others, closeness to family makes no difference at all in the probability of pledging. In orderto stand as good a chance of being pledged as a middleclass youth, the Freshman from a workingclass home apparently has to be "distant" from his family-which is to infer that he should already have acquired, before arriving at college, the external signs (dress and speech) and internal symbols (values and sentiments) of membership in the middle class. For them, lack of closeness to parents is not a function of moving out of their class and therefore entails neither greater nor lesser adherence to class-related sociability. Fraternity pledging illustrates some salient aspects of the American status system. Both stratificationand mobility exist. Classlinked attributes are conceived as individual traits, so that the credit for what is "desirable" and the shame of what is "undesirable" are borne alike by the individual. The nearuniversal denial by students that anyone is "hurt" by fraternity rushing testifies that the shame may be a serious problem but

399

one that seems to be buried. Later on, the fraternities themselves will help prepare their members intensively for adult social life, and some of this (e.g., "pledge training") is thoroughly planned and organized. Much more is informal. Forty young men in
TABLE 8
PERCENTAGE OF SONS WHO PLEDGE, ACCORDING TO FATHER'S OCCUPATION AND CLOSENESS TO FAMILY
PER CENT PLEDGING

Sons of Fathers in Non-manual Occupations

Sons of Fathers in Manual Occupations

Closer to parents .... (Base) ............. Same as others .... (Base) ............. Less close to parents (Ba se) .............

47% 115 48% 281 45% 47

19% 21 37% 62 43% 14

late adolescence living together for four years can greatly influence each other's values and character. College fraternities represent a powerful agency of near-adult socialization which is accessible to intensive study.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY WELLESLEYCOLLEGE

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