Hazing and How Hazing Affects the Military - Essay Example

? Hazing and Its Effects on the Military Hazing and Its Effects on the Military Introduction Belonging to a group is oneof the cherished aspects of human society. We all want to feel a belonging and a connection to a set of people that become our brothers and sisters in this life. Many groups have long standing rituals and traditions that serve to solidify the bonds of its members. As a new member desires to join many organizations, a series of inductions, or hazing, may take place. It is a rite of passage, if you will, that has been passed down through the years. The military is no exception. While most branches of the U.S. Military have a policy specifically forbidding hazing, it does still occur in many locations. Boot camp is designed to weed out new recruits and to strengthen those who remain. This is the ritual and tradition that the military wants to be proud of. They do not want to be known as being similar to a fraternity that focuses on humiliating and degrading any person who simply desires to become a part of the group. The Marines, for example, are focusing on efforts to educate its members on what hazing is and is not. Hazing, by definition, does not have to involve physical contact. If a person is verbally abused, or suffers emotional distress, hazing could be taking place. Since the military has received bad press in recent years about the hazing that is taking place within its ranks, it is important to study the issue from an objective point of view. The issues that need to be looked at involve the reputation of the military, the harm that can be done as a result of hazing, and the public’s perception on what the role of the military should be. Hazing Defined The commonly accepted belief as to what defines hazing is that it is the process whereby a new or potential recruit to the military, a college fraternity, a sports team, or other tradition based group is forced to perform strenuous, humiliating, or dangerous tasks. Sometimes the participants give their permission to take part in the activities, while other times the actions are performed without their explicit approval. This can be a problem due to the dangerous effects this can have on a recruit’s psyche, not to mention the damage that can be done to the organization as a whole. This problem is the focus of this brief study. Many universities, organizations, and military institutions have policies against hazing. Such policies usually prohibit actions that “recklessly, intentionally, or unintentionally endanger the mental, physical, or emotional health of a recruit [or student/group member]” (Cimino, 2011, p. 241). Activities that are usually including in such hazing prohibition policies include any action that creates a risk of injury to any individual or group. They would also tend to prohibit any activity that causes discomfort or embarrassment to a person or group of people. Furthermore, hazing policies are designed to prohibit the harassment, degradation, humiliation, or ridicule of an individual or group. This certainly seems to encompass a great many actions and activities that often take place in a group or organization, but they are designed to protect people from physical or emotional harm. Even with these policies in place, however, we know that hazing still exists and is perhaps just as prevalent today as it was a few decades ago. Many veteran members of a group or military institution do not see hazing as harmful because they survived it themselves. They see it as a rite of passage, if you will, to membership in a given group. What many fail to realize, however, is that the consequences can be disastrous in more than just a few isolated cases. A person that is victimized by hazing can begin to suffer from physical or mental instability. They can be denied sleep and lose all sense of control and empowerment. If at a university or military academy, prolonged periods of hazing can cause an individual to lose interest in their academic work, thereby causing a steep decline in their grades. Another potential effect of hazing can result in a deterioration of relationships with friends, partners, and family members. In the military especially, hazing has been known to result in post-traumatic stress syndrome. Often times, a victim of hazing will lose all respect for the organization and desire to sever all ties. Finally, there is the potential erosion of trust that might occur with group members, leading to future trust issues later in life (Johnson, 2011, pp. 202-204). While we know that hazing exists, it is important that its effects are realized and that institutions begin to more fully understand that dangers of subjecting new recruits to this kind of behavior. That is perhaps no more true than at in the institution of the military. Specifically, a problem has been occurring with female members of the military becoming particularly subject to its effects. Hazing and the Military The American military has a long, storied, and proud history. For the nation’s foundation, the separate branches of the military have fought with honor and protected this country with all of its combined might. The military is perhaps one of the strongest, and private, institutions/organizations in the country. It is so strong and powerful that it has its own separate form of judicial system. The individual branches of the military have their own set of rules that soldiers and other personnel are expected to follow. They are to act with integrity and represent the nation well at all times. The military is also steep in tradition. Hazing rituals have likely been around as long as boot camp itself. Recently, however, hazing has become an issue of bad press and public relations for the military, so they are beginning to deal with the issue internally and swiftly. Women In the Military Pershing notes, “Numerous studies have documented the prevalence of hazing rituals and other rites of initiation in predominately male organizations, including the military” (2006, p. 470). Times are changing, however, and females are entering the same ranks and groups as males. Females are now common at the elite military academies and studies are just now being conducted to see how they are fitting in with the traditional male aspects of the organizations. Pershing recently conducted a study at the U.S. Naval Academy to determine to what extent women were subject to hazing. Females have been attending the academy since 1976, but they only make up about 10% of the cadet population. Like main such institutions, the Naval Academy has undertaken steps to eliminate hazing, but studies likes this one “reveal that not only is hazing pervasive, but that men and women are equally likely to experience it during their first year at the Academy” (Pershing, 2006, p. 472). It is thus shown that gender plays a minor role, if any, in determining who is subject to hazing. The emotional effects of hazing, however, could be different by gender. One study shows that men are much more likely than women to agree that certain types of hazing should be allowed at the Academy. This could be party owed to the fact that males have dominated these institutions now for multiple generations. If a recruit comes from a military family, for example, grandfathers and fathers could have passed down knowledge of such hazing rituals to their sons. It could be seen as a tradition that should not be eradicated. Because women are relatively new to the ranks, many scholars not this may be the reason they are initially opposed to any type of such initiation into the ranks. While men are more likely than women to downplay the negative consequences of hazing, both genders agree that there should be some type of ‘rite of passage’ that takes place in order to determine who is truly committed to the military (Light, 2012, p. 135). . The military is strong on brother and sisterhood. To become a fully integrated part of such an organization, many feel that individuals must demonstrate their devotion to the overall well being of the group. They must value the group over the individual. One such way that this has been demonstrated in the military over the years is through various hazing rituals. We can argue for the elimination of hazing, but that may be arguing for the elimination of tradition. It comes down to semantics and the extent to which certain activities turn harmful. It appears that many in the military advocate from type of system to demonstrate a person’s worth and devotion to the organization as a whole, but the modern argument is how this should take place. Policies are being implemented to forbid hazing, but that bodes the question at what point hazing is actually taking place. Most would contend that hazing will never be eliminated in the military, but with the increasing numbers of women joining the ranks, more studies should be conducted to determine how to safely integrate females into this initiation process without subjecting them to harassment or emotional abuse. In addition, with the inclusion of homosexuals in the military, an entirely new focus on the hazing process has been bought to the forefront. The Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Its Effects on Hazing Rituals For several decades, gays and lesbians were not permitted to serve openly in the U.S. military. Nobody is so naive to think that the ranks were empty of homosexuals during this time, but such lifestyles were hidden. To make your ‘gayness’ public would be to invite certain dismissal from the military altogether. As such, men and women went through boot camp, or any other type of hazing rituals during their first year, largely unscathed from attacks on their sexual orientation. The policy prohibiting homosexuals, however, is now lifted and gays can serve openly in the military. Similar to sexual harassment directed at females, many fear that gays will be subject to an entirely new form of harassment should they choose to make their sexual orientation public. This would potentially manifest itself during any type of hazing process, perhaps putting the safety of recruits even more in jeopardy (Lynch, 2008, pp. 393-395). The original argument supporting the ban on gays in the military stemmed from the notion that leaders of the various institutions believe that, “Homosexuals are unfit for service because their present compromise military readiness and unit cohesion” (Knapp, 2008, p. 227). Research, however, suggests otherwise. Scholars have determined that homosexuals appear to be no more disruptive to the cohesiveness in their units than heterosexuals. There appears to be a fear that openly gay members will be subject to harassment from their peers. This argument, however, would be largely based on the same assumptions that kept women out of various military institutions for decades. Gays now serve openly the military serving the country they love. While there are isolated reports of harassment that have occurred, it appears to be no more prevalent than other issues that typically arrive in large organizations. What cannot be tolerated, however, is hazing or initiation rites that are specifically directed at gays. While hazing may not be out in the open, the forced activities that take place during the first year a person is in the military is well documented. As noted, these activities are deep in tradition. Like women, homosexuals will likely accept this process as initiation as simply a part of the organization that they have decided to join. Where the line must be drawn, however, is if a person is discriminated against or subject to unjust punishment or activity simply because of their gender or sexual orientation. The Effects of Hazing While some may approve of hazing, few can deny that there can potentially be harmful effects of the process if it is not carried out in the way it was truly intended. If, as members of the military contend, hazing were used as a mechanism to weed out members who are not truly devoted to the cause, then few would argue against them. If, however, the activity a person is forced to perform during the hazing process is designed to simply desecrate or ridicule an individual, then the intended purpose is certainly not served. Hazing is common worldwide, not just in America. Overtime, institutions such as the military have developed hazing practices that continue to this date. Camino notes that, “The over-arching purpose of hazing is to create dependence, whereby abused individuals increase their liking of their abusers” (2011, p. 244). This is certainly true in the military. The people charged with conduction initiation rites, or hazing practices, are upper classmen. These are people who, the hierarchy of the institution, are looked up to and respected by new recruits. In essence, the various activities that take place during these practices are designed to build an even deeper respect for the upperclassmen. Hazing is also used to “contribute to group solidarity in one context or another” (Cimino, 2011, p. 245). For this to occur, however, many questionable activities have been known to take place. The problem with hazing is that it usually is not voluntary. Many organizations that exhibit hazing practices require new members to go through the process. Rather one calls it hazing or not, the concept is still the same. For some organizations, this process is open and clear: You can both participate and finish the process, or you do not get to join. In the military, the openness of such rituals may not be as clear. While every new recruit goes through some type of boot camp, there may be another hidden ‘culture of hazing’ that takes place. While this process would not be considered mandatory, the need to belong to a group and to be ‘part of the team’ draws everyone into the process. To refuse to be involved would cause an individual to be shunned by the group and to suffer certain emotional distress as they are forced to act as individual, rather than as part of a team. This certainly would create a lack of cohesion among the ranks in the military, which we know from tradition cannot and must not happen. It is therefore, then, the contention of this student that hazing may not be practiced as openly today as it once was, but the idea is still alive and well in institutions nationwide. Conclusion Hazing, by its very mention, conjures up bad images in the minds of many people today. The very word, itself, has turned into something that makes leader of entire organizations shudder. The reality is that there are documented cases of physical harm, emotional distress, and even death that can be attributed to hazing practices. Organizations, such as fraternities and the military, are clamping down publicly on any such type of behavior. The reality, however, may very well be that these practices are so engrained in tradition that they may never truly be eradicated. Again, on the surface, the idea of hazing appears to be sound. To demonstrate one’s devotion to a group can be valuable and help to foster cohesion within an entire organization or institution. To go through this process can truly be seen as a rite of passage. Many have expressed they are proud to have ‘survived’ their own hazing and see it as a process that has greatly strengthened their character (Gahm, 2012, p. s24). You can take the name ‘hazing’ out of any activity, but if the intent is to forcefully initiate a person into a group, then it is certainly hazing that is taking place. The problem, then, may not be hazing at all. This paper has examined many of the reasons behind hazing, it effects on the person, and what can potentially happen it the practice is carried too far. That, then, appears to be the problem. Initiation rites will continue to be practiced, but they must be done so in moderation, without any risk of harm to the individual or the group. That should be the aim of future policies directed towards the concept. References Cimino, A. (2011). The evolution of hazing: Motivational mechanisms and abuse of newcomers. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 11(3), 241-267. Gahm, G. (2012). Addressing the surveillance goal in the national strategy of suicide prevention: The Department of Defense suicide event report. American Journal of Public Health, 102(S1), S24-S28. Johnson, J. (2011). Through the liminal: A comparative analysis of community and rites of passage in hazing and initiations. Journal of Sociology, 36(3), 199-227. Knapp, D. (2008). Ready or not? Homosexuality, unit cohesion, and military readiness. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 20(4), 227-247. Light, M. (2012). The navy’s moral compass. Naval War College Review, 65(3), 135-152. Lynch, M. (2008). Don’t ask don’t tell revisited: Debunking the unit-cohesion rationale for the continuing exclusion of gays from the military. University of Louisville Law Review, 47(2), 391-408. Pershing, J. (2006). Men and women’s experiences with hazing in a male-dominated elite military institution. Men & Masculinities, 4(8), 470-492. Read More