Quote:
|
Originally posed by legacypbs: What is the difference in a club and a fraternity/sorority?
|
May I? A club generally speaking lacks many components of the fraternity/sorority model. A fraternity (pronoun used hereafter for brevity to comment on both org types in general) has alumni (graduate) involvement where a club tends to exist for its members only when they are part of a particular organisation of set people (eg at a college). A fraternity has interconnected chapters across cities, states, even countries. A club might well be part of a "governing body" but there is little similarity between one club and another. A fraternity has noble ideals steeped in tradition - as important today as they were long ago; which members swear to uphold. Precious few clubs will go beyond focusing on the immediate aim of their club eg sporting prowess. A fraternity's members are bonded through an (inter)national collective of history, brotherhood, common aims and ideals.
I hazard a guess that legacypbs is in favour of pledging that some might describe as hazing? There have been articles written on it e.g.
Charles Smoot who
was pledged "hard" and
is a member of a fraternity (APA). I have never gone through similar things but telling me I wouldn't possibly understand on the basis of that just doesn't wash.
It is perfectly possible to have a group without "hard pledging"; without just asking if they can pay the $, sign their name and that's it to be in. Members should not be defined by red marks on their posterior, bags under their eyes but by their heart and commitment to the organisations aims, service and brotherhood. Both groups which "pledge hard" and groups which have a defined education process without (for
example) paddling might have 'ghost' members later but the latter group won't threaten its future by its actions.