Holden: So. Walking through Red Square yesterday. Witnessed one of the more epic Humans vs. Zombies ambushes. Nerf bullets everywhere.
Nathan: Sounds intense.
Holden: Really was. Disrupted my afternoon routine. But it got me thinking.
Nathan: Oh yeah?
Holden: How divisive it is. People have really strong opinions about this overblown game of tag.
Nathan: Really? I’ve always thought it was kind of funny, people running around with orange bandanas and nerf guns. Kind of like being able to watch reality TV on my way to class.
Holden: Where I live, in the heart of Greek territory, there’s nothing more ‘lame’ than those orange bandanas. I’ve seen older brothers give pledges — in the hopes of embarrassment — the task to play Humans vs. Zombies.
Holden: Admittedly. But, I want to get to the root of this. It’s a larger stigma around here. GDI’s — just the concept — drive people crazy.
Nathan: Yeah I’ve never understood that. What are we, in high school again? Being in the Greek system doesn’t make you different — for better or worse — than someone not in the Greek system.
Holden: It speaks to an underlying insecurity. The construct of fraternities is based on exclusivity — separation, in some senses, from the fray. And Humans vs. Zombies is, whether intentional or not, an affront to that.
Nathan: What, did I miss the seminar at AEPi where we decided to hate the color orange?
Holden: Humans vs. Zombies excludes no one, and people go batshit for it. And the collective Greek community responds by labeling it lame — by mocking it incessantly.
Nathan: I feel like there are a lot of broader, more inclusive campus events that the Greek system responds to in a similar way. Dawg Daze, for one.
Holden: Exactly. The Greek system constantly tells itself it’s better and cooler than the alternative. It’s microcosmic American exceptionalism. And it perpetuates. If we tell ourselves we’re the best enough times it becomes a cultural truism.
Nathan: I vaguely remember seeing a Greek shirt that stated “All men were created equal. Until 1869.” That’s some bullshit, and a bad precedent to live by.
Holden: Absolutely. It’s entrenched not only in the Greek system but in the American psyche. It’s roots are deep.
Nathan: Unfortunately, I think you’re right. The Greek system is at times a reflection of broader human insecurities. Classism, racism, discriminating based on religion or the lack thereof. Obviously the divisions between the Greek system and independents aren’t quite on the same level of the above-mentioned. We all come together on Dawg Saturdays as UW students. But whenever you put yourself above others — even some of the time — because of beliefs or circumstance, society as a whole suffers.
Holden: What can be done?
Nathan: Awareness is always the first step.
Holden: So me and you, we’re aware. We’re better than most in that regard.
Nathan: Oy.
Continue the conversation below by telling us if you a.) think we have our heads up our ass or b.) think we said something intriguing
Continue the conversation below by telling us if you a.) think we have our heads up our ass or b.) think we said something intriguing
.jpg)
Finally reading your blog! This is an interesting discussion and something I thought about often in college.
ReplyDeleteI ran one of our University's non-Greek student organizations that was by definition all inclusive. Our club required membership for it's activities (at a nominal fee, I think $35/yr). I definitely noted some chagrin from Greeklife & more exclusive groups, but I also noticed similar distaste from people who weren't included. Not that they couldn't be involved in my club, but that they assumed there was some degree of exclusion regardless.
Also, being an all-inclusive group, we ran into difficulties. Not to say that there's merit in seeing some people as lesser, but I'd sooner argue that that's an unnecessary pejorative. I often wished we could establish some of the exclusivity of the Greek organizations. Each organization has a goal, a vision or a mission statement, and there are often people who have very little regard for it. There are also people who will scare off other people, there are people who will cause problems, there are people people who will tarnish the name of your organization through disrespectful or even illegal actions. Being able to say "he's not one of us" holds some value.
So I guess what I'm trying to argue is that it's unfortunate that the message often gets confused into a better/worse people notion. I think it also relates a lot to people's sense of control. When in your frat or club or wherever, you can sit comfortable that the group is controlled somewhat. Where as in public all-inclusive events, you have no control over the type of people you might have to deal with, or the social standards they'll abide by.