Hazing, an integral part of military tradition, has come under fire recently from many different sectors.  From the recent hazing problems at the Citadel to the release of videotaped footage of the brutal Marine "blood pinning," the U.S. military is reeling from increased scrutiny and criticism.  Critics are calling for a "zero tolerance" approach to hazing and disciplinary action against those who refuse to comply.  I believe the wholesale rejection of hazing is a mistake.

Hazing is an essential part of every soldier's training and produces the social cohesiveness needed to complete an assigned mission.  From the scared kid at boot camp to the cadets at West Point, hazing is a common rite of passage that functions as a prerequisite to full acceptance into the group.  This prerequisite encourages strong social bonds and the pursuit of common as opposed to individual objectives.

Those opposed to hazing cite some of the extreme cases of hazing which occur in elite units in the military, from black soldiers made to act like animals to the blood pinning performed by U.S. Marines.  These, however, are not common but isolated incidents where human nature fails and hazing plays a twisted and inhumane role.  The underlying fact remains, hazing as a training tool is incredibly effective and provides a common bond necessary for the functioning of military units.

As a member of the U.S. Army Reserves, I have had firsthand experience with hazing during my two months spent at basic training.  I experienced a rough shaving, verbal degradation, physical isolation, and a surprise attack on the first day.  I am convinced that these experiences led to social cohesiveness within my platoon.  Blacks, whites, and Hispanics all worked together to achieve mutual goals as opposed to individual interests.  Hazing only strengthened the bonds created within my platoon and became the cornerstone of acceptance into the U.S. Military.

As we approach the year 2000, I think that the "many different sectors" Furze mentions, education being one of them, are providing a more appropriate response to hazing and the damage it does to those who are subjected to it.  I applaud the scrutiny and criticism of the U.S. military for the hazing and "rites of passage" that are used as "training tools."  I would venture to say that the "extreme cases of hazing" are not just isolated incidents and there is far more than any of us will ever know.  Zero tolerance is exactly what is needed because the very nature of hazing is embedded in secrecy and pushing the limits and boundaries in unhealthy ways.  Just because something functions well does not make it right.

Think of what the military could be if it embraced the ideas of caring and human dignity as means of providing social cohesiveness and common bonds.  Think of the greatness that could come from the military if it built teamwork with positive efforts and the modeling of intelligent responses rather than verbal and physical degradation.  People are not motivated to achieve mutual goals and social cohesiveness with verbal and physical abuse.  Fear is the only thing achieved through hazing.  If the military could provide platoons with the leaders who fostered diplomacy, teamwork, and common goals, the military could create a generation of soldiers who understand that greatness does not come through violence, that dominance is not power.  But this would take major change.  If hazing is the way that the military strengthens the bonds of platoons and is the "cornerstone of acceptance into the military," the only thing the military will produce will be people who believe, as Furze does, that fear and intimidation are acceptable forms of training.

Hazing practices of the military found their way onto college campuses in the early 1960's.  At KSC and many other colleges and universities around the country, hazing activity occurs within a variety of student groups, including fraternities, sororities, and athletic teams.  Each year student deaths due to hazing occur at campuses across the country.  In many states, New Hampshire included, student hazing is against the law.  In my seven years at KSC, particularly in working with fraternities and sororities, it has taken many years of "positive pledging training" and workshops for students and alumni to begin to let go of degrading and humiliating hazing practices.  My guess is that it will take the military even longer.
 
 

The motivation for the ritual of hazing seems to be to create a sense of common goals and cohesiveness for a given group.  The tactics used to create this bond range from verbal abuse, degradation, humiliation, and physical abuse that on occasion has led to death.  I offer a view of hazing that opposes the position of Mr. Furze.

Indeed, hazing is nothing new to the military, or for that matter to "boys clubs" in general.  From cutting your finger to become "blood brothers" to shaving your heads to be a visible member of the football team, bonding rituals for men and boys have been around forever.  For the most part, these antics are harmless.  However, this is where other forms of hazing part company.  As in any other bureaucracy, the military needs leaders and followers.  It requires these two groups in disproportionate numbers with officers at the top and the multitudes of enlisted soldiers at the bottom of the heal.  The question then becomes, "Which category do you want to be in?"

Although soldiers need to be taught allegiance to their superiors, emphasis on leadership qualities such as responsibility, rationality, analytical thinking, and logic provide the dividing line in training.  In order to be effective in a military confrontation, this group of "a few good men" must rely on their own assessment of the situation.  There is no one to rely on for orders and they cannot lean on the group for support.  Officers are responsible for the welfare of their soldiers.  This is when the ability to think is critical.  Life is not a John Wayne picture where bravery is the key ingredient to success.  Brave soldiers die.  This is where the grunts come in.

These soldiers (also known as the infantry) are the backbone of war.  They are the first to die and the most easily replaced.  Lambs for slaughter or cannon fodder are merely other terms for the rank.  From a military standpoint it is absolutely essential that these young soldiers take orders without question!  Thinking for oneself could jeopardize the safety of the group.  Basic training teaches them to obey authority on command.  The word "no" does not exist nor does the question "Why?"  For the infantry, cohesiveness is critical.  Solidarity is success.  Survival in the field for these soldiers depends on their ability to behave as a group.  Interdependence is key.  In this case, the ritual of hazing seems to serve a purpose.  Learning to blindly take pain or do as you are told serves a valuable function.  You begin to bond and rely on one another regardless of race, religion, or personality.  The "group" mentality formed during hazing becomes legitimate.  There is method to the madness.  To be an individual could mean death.  The question again becomes, "Which group do you want to be a part of?"  Leader or grunt?  Shepherd or sheep?

And, as a parting observation, for all of those people that justify fraternity hazing by comparing it to military practices, there simply is no comparison!  The majority of our graduates will go on to become bankers, accountants, business persons, and psychologists.  I sincerely doubt that my life or death will depend on another student with whom I had "bonded" through mutual hazing experiences.  Making buddies during your four years at college is one thing; however, I hope that the emphasis is on learning how to think for yourself and for the betterment of others.  This is part of what you are here to acquire.  Learning to say no or be able to stand firm and alone on an issue are important aspects of a successful individual.  These are the attributes that will help you to succeed and stand out in the crowd.  Ten years from now, no one will remember (let alone care) that you shaved your head, got spanked 1,000 times, or drank a case of beer in one sitting.  If they do recall these days, chances are that time will have changed their perception of the significance of the event.  Is it making sense now?  Take the advice that the Marines include in their propaganda: "Be all that you can be!"  Be someone that thinks logically, acts compassionately, and is proud to stand out from the crowd if that is what is right or necessary.

Despite the appearance of controversy, Mark Rubinfeld and I agree on many more points than not [NEXUS Vol. 1.1], and our disagreements are more a matter of expression than substance.  We agree that television is a potent marketing medium, and that various companies profit enormously from advertising.  We also agree, though he seems to assume I do not, that some people can and do think critically about television, and thus that it is a factor in the dialectic of public life, not simply an isolated source of influence.

We both evidently grant the proposition, however, that most people most of the time do not experience television in a mode of critical dialogue.  If either of us denied that television were deeply influential on an uncritical viewing population, how would we square this with the effectiveness of advertising?

Are we to assume that GM is wasting those billions of advertising dollars, since people would buy their cars without television urging them to do so?  Despite the success of the campaign to eliminate cigarette advertisements in the wake of the (“enormously profitable”) Virginia Slims campaign (a process I remember well; I was writing letters to the editor then, too), we should note that the story concedes:  a) the overwhelming power of the medium to influence viewers on a mass scale, b) the inadequacy of educational attempts to sustain mass critical consciousness against such influence, and c) the consequent need for state censorship of the medium.  Interesting as this story is, it does not challenge my basic thesis that, on the whole, television breeds passivity (not always, of course, but normally, and by design).

In general, I do not myself support state censorship of television, as do most of those (Dole, Bennett, Quayle, ad nauseum) with whose arguments Rubinfeld inaccurately associates mine.  Rather, as my article makes clear, I avoid the medium myself, and argue that others would do well to join me, for reasons I believe are both compelling and clear, leaving everyone free to agree, disagree, argue with me, or ignore me.  Skeptical as I am that it will catch on, I advocate critical dialogue with television, one strategy for which is to watch less.  Unlike television itself, and the above-mentioned pompous self-appointed moralists, I do not suppress or neutralize dissent, but recommend it.

It is thus disconcerting that he accuses me in his title of “bashing” popular culture, as though I set myself up as an elite intellectual dissing the low pleasures of the masses.  His choice of this inaptly violent metaphor is a real, if essentially trivial, difference between us. “Bashing” normally brings to mind the figurative (and often literal) brutalization of the targets of bigotry -- e.g. gays, Asian-Americans, etc.  The metaphor seems misplaced because the target here is the opposite of a powerless and maligned group.  Popular culture would seem by definition to be successful; the very claim that it is popular implies that it is doing very well for itself, thank you, and could probably care less about its academic foes or allies. If anything is fair game for honest criticism, it is television.

Another difference which seems mostly terminological is Rubinfeld’s criticism that my arguments are misguided because they are “singular and linear,” a charge I find unclear.  If he means that my arguments employ elementary principles of inference, I plead guilty on their behalf, though of course his arguments do so as well.  Perhaps, more plausibly, he is just restating the prior criticism that my arguments are simplistic.  I do argue in a fairly simple way, because whether to watch television is not a question requiring sophisticated logic, and because I think it is a question almost everyone ought to be able to discuss.  He has not, however, shown that my arguments are simplistic in any damaging way.

I agree with Rubinfeld that the phenomenon of television and its relation to its viewers is an interesting and important subject, and one which historians, anthropologists, philosophers, and sociologists, etc., might well take up.  It does not follow that we ought actually to watch vast amounts of television; as I suggest in my original article, I find a little dab will do me.

Let me emphasize, for those who mistook my purpose, that I am not a snob about popular culture, much of which is fascinating and powerful, both as art and as cultural phenomenon.  I just think there are better things to do with our time than watch television, for the reasons stated. (I also think, incidentally, that we should limit our daily intake of so-called high culture; six hours a day is too much Shakespeare.)  I agree with Rubinfeld that one can learn to “see” television critically, and even discover in it isolated opportunities (though not “avenues”) for effective resistance to its potent, hurtful, and confused social messages.  There are generally, however, better sources of inspiration.

Pets fill a variety of human needs, from acting as child substitutes, to providing companionship and unconditional love.  These companion animals no longer live in barns and kennels but are an integral part of the human family.  Ironically, this means that they suffer at the hands of abusers, just as children do.  In a study by DeViney, Dickert, and Lockwood (1983) it was found that companion animals were abused in 88% of the families in which children were abused.

Kellert and Felthous (1985) found that aggressive criminal subjects had a statistically significant higher incidence of childhood cruelty to animals in comparison to less aggressive criminal or noncriminal subjects.  Specifically, 25% of aggressive criminals had abused animals five or more times in childhood.  For nonaggressive criminals, the figure was less than 6%, and for noncriminals, 0%.  Aggressive criminal subjects typically came from families marked by paternal alcoholism and physical abuse.  Seventy-three percent of violent criminals reported alcoholism and/or drug abuse by their parents or guardians, compared to less than 20% of nonaggressive criminals and 10% of noncriminals.  Felthous and Kellert (1987) conclude that, in contrast to the noncruelty subjects, the men with histories of animal cruelty tended to have absent or emotionally unavailable father figures.

Several studies discuss the predictive triad of firesetting, enuresis [bedwetting], and cruelty to animals or other children in an attempt to detect and prevent criminal behavior as early as possible (Felthous & Bernard, 1979; Felthous & Kellert, 1987; Prentky & Carter, 1984).  FBI profiler, John Douglas, mentions the "homicidal triangle" or "homicidal triad" in his book, Journey Into Darkness.  He and his colleagues conducted prison interviews with serial killers and rapists.  They found that even two-thirds of the triad was enough to predict aggressive behavior toward society.  In a study by Hellman and Blackman (1966), 74% of those committing violent crimes had a history of the triad or a part of the triad as compared with only 28% of those committing no violent antisocial acts.  There was also a background of previous assaults, rapes, and burglaries in about 75% of these.

In 1987, the American Psychiatric Association included cruelty to animals for the first time in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) under the diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder.  Conduct disorder is a mental disorder characterized by a pattern of behavior in which children violate the basic rights of other individuals and well-established social rules.  It is related to the prediction of adult disorders and is often present across generations within families.  Physical cruelty to animals is a symptom of conduct disorder, and hurting animals is considered one of the earliest reported symptoms.  A child's cruelty toward another animal can be an attempt to gain control over a creature that is smaller and weaker and may be the only way the child can feel powerful.  It may reflect a desire to inflict pain or be a displacement of hostility.  The child may also act out upon an animal the same brutalization that he/she experiences from another.

It is imperative that social workers, teachers, administrators, and psychologists become aware of animal abuse and its relationship to human violence so that they can design appropriate prevention and intervention programs.  Primary prevention may focus on educational programs that protect children with clear guidelines for acceptable behavior with animals.  Because abuse of animals by children invariably signals great distress, parents and other significant adults need to be informed that certain forms and/or patterns of cruelty should not be dismissed as typical childhood actions.

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and   Statistical Manual of Mental
        Disorders (3rd ed., rev.).  Washington, DC: Author.
DeViney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets  within child abusing
        families. International Journal for the  Study of Animal Problems. 4 (4), 321-329.
Douglas, J. (1997). Journey into darkness  (p. 36). New York:  Scribner.
Felthous, A.R. & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting, and  cruelty to animals: the
        significance of two-thirds of this triad.  Journal of Forensic Sciences. 24 (1), 240-246.
Felthous, A.R. & Kellert, S.R. (1987). Childhood cruelty to  animals and later aggression
        against people: a review.  American Journal of Psychiatry. 144 (6), 710-717.
Hellman, D.S. & Blackman, N. (1966). Enuresis, firesetting and  cruelty to animals: a triad
        predictive of adult crime. American  Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 1431-1435.
Kellert, S.R. & Felthous, A.R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward  animals among criminals
        and noncriminals. Human  Relations, 38 (12), 1113-1129.
Prentky, R.A. & Carter, D.L. (1984). The predictive value of the  triad for sex offenders.
        Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2  (3), 341-354.

The term hero is defined as a figure in mythology and legend renowned for exceptional courage and fortitude.  My hero is not a figure in mythology, but she has shown exceptional courage and fortitude.  Her name is Trudy and she is not a famous figure in history.  She is not a popular movie or music star.  She is a hardworking individual who I lovingly call "Mom."

My mother is a single parent with many responsibilities.  There are three children in my family.  I have a sister who is a junior at the University of New Hampshire.  I also have one brother who is fifteen and a freshman in high school.  My mom holds down two jobs, one as a registered nurse at a local hospital.  She works twelve-hour shifts three days a week, and on the other days she cares for an elderly woman who is bed-ridden.  She is now looking for a third job.

My father has been gone from our family for about ten years.  When he left, my mother had to learn how to do everything on her own.  She has had to care for her children on just her salary alone with no help from anyone.  My father is supposed to pay child support for my brother; he does when he feels the need, but he never pays what he is supposed to pay.  He is what is commonly known as a "deadbeat dad."

My mother's life has never been easy.  She grew up in an alcoholic home where her father was abusive.  She was told that she would never get through nursing school because she was not smart enough.  But even back then she had more courage and strength than most people gave her credit for.  She went to Concord Hospital's School of Nursing and became a registered nurse.  She got married to my father before she graduated and gave birth to me soon after.

I love my mother.  She is my life and my world.  She is the person who demonstrated to me what courage, strength, and love is all about.  When my life was falling apart right before my eyes, it was my mother who helped me to put the pieces back together.  My mother is a model citizen and a true symbol of virtue.  She is always giving of herself to anyone who needs her help or advice.  We have a neighbor who lives alone and is getting on in years.  He is sometimes very grumpy and over opinionated.  But, no matter how many nasty things he says to my mom, every night she brings a plate of food to him for supper.  She also attends church every Sunday that she is not working.

My mother fulfills many different roles in my life, including healer, resource, and teacher.  But beyond everything that she does for me and all the roles she plays in my life, she is also my best friend.  I don't believe that many daughters can honestly say that.  Because of the example my mom has set for me, I truly believe the saying, "There is no greater love than that of a mother."  My mom, my hero.