social?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by xovimat

With rare exception, the brothers who most loudly proclaim that the fraternity has always been social were not members of Sinfonia during the 1970s. Indeed, many of them had not even been born yet. What makes them such experts on the fraternity's history?

Hello Brother Barber, and welcome to GreekChat!

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that Sinfonia has always been social. I've heard many claim, and I think that history bears it out, that Sinfonia was founded as a social fraternity (not a general fraternity -- the two terms are not identical) and that while professionalism clearly ruled the day for many decades, the movement of the last two decades has been to return to founding principles, including recovery of the Fraternity's social purposes.

Like you, I pledged Phi Mu Alpha in the professional days, but my experience was a bit different from yours. While leadership at the time indeed insisted that the Fraternity was professional through and through, my chapter and those nearby mine emphasized the social rather at least as much if not more than the professional. You would hear our brothers saying things like, "yes, we're a professional fraternity, but that doesn't really describe who we are." My impression -- based on nothing but personal observation -- is that the professional-social balance varied in different regions of the country, with some areas leaning more to professional while others leaned more to social.

As for what was going on in 1898, a great deal of historical research has been done in the last few decades, with much material that was buried in boxes and elsewhere having been read and studied. Both in efforts like Jervis Underwood's Centennial History and other projects, that history has been disseminated much more widely than I can remember being the case back when I was in college. I do think I can safely say that collegiate members these days are much more familiar with, or at least have much greater access to, Sinfonian history than was the case when I pledged.

BTW, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia officially withdrew from the Professional Fraternity Association yesterday (August 13).

[xovimat]

Thanks to MysticCat for his thoughtful response.

MC: "I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that Sinfonia has always been social."

Of course, many Sinfonians do acknowledge that the professional-social balance has often been uncertain, ambiguous or wavering. But about five years ago, I participated in a discussion group (perhaps Google or Yahoo) where several brothers initiated in the late 1990s practically called me a liar for saying that at one time the fraternity described itself as professional. I suspect that they had undergone an intense we've-always-been-social indoctrination. I am glad that your contact has been with people who are more reasonable.

MC: "the movement of the last two decades has been to return to founding principles, including recovery of the Fraternity's social purposes."

One might conclude that during the professional period of the 1970s, Phi Mu Alpha -- although for benign reasons -- misrepresented itself.

MC: "My impression -- based on nothing but personal observation -- is that the professional-social balance varied in different regions of the country, with some areas leaning more to professional while others leaned more to social."

Absolute truth.

MC: "As for what was going on in 1898, a great deal of historical research has been done in the last few decades, with much material that was buried in boxes and elsewhere having been read and studied."

I firmly believe that a thorough knowledge of the fraternity's history enriches every brother's experience; it is indispensible. Yet I do not feel compelled to do everything the same way as it was done in 1898. Is it never right to proceed in a new direction?

MC: "BTW, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia officially withdrew from the Professional Fraternity Association yesterday (August 13)."

The deprofessionalization of Sinfonia has taken more than two decades, if you regard the 1985 convention as the beginning. This shows how deeply the professional vein runs.

- - Dave Barber

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by xovimat

Thanks to MysticCat for his thoughtful response.

And thanks for your's as well.

Of course, many Sinfonians do acknowledge that the professional-social balance has often been uncertain, ambiguous or wavering. But about five years ago, I participated in a discussion group (perhaps Google or Yahoo) where several brothers initiated in the late 1990s practically called me a liar for saying that at one time the fraternity described itself as professional. I suspect that they had undergone an intense we've-always-been-social indoctrination. I am glad that your contact has been with people who are more reasonable.

Well, at least you had the comfort of knowing you were right.

One might conclude that during the professional period of the 1970s, Phi Mu Alpha -- although for benign reasons -- misrepresented itself.

Possibly, but I tend to think of it as "taking a different road" for a while, then going back to the original road. We were on the professional road -- or somewhere in between -- for a while.

I firmly believe that a thorough knowledge of the fraternity's history enriches every brother's experience; it is indispensible. Yet I do not feel compelled to do everything the same way as it was done in 1898. Is it never right to proceed in a new direction?

No, you are exactly right. Sometimes it is very right to proceed in a new direction -- what's important, I think, is that there be as broad agreement as possible for a new direction. And I am willing to give collegians the deciding vote on that -- they are in the best position to assess what will further the Fraternity's growth because growth happens at the collegiate level.

The deprofessionalization of Sinfonia has taken more than two decades, if you regard the 1985 convention as the beginning. This shows how deeply the professional vein runs.

Without question, and questions like whether to retain membership in the PFA have been fraught with far-reaching implications. For at least a decade, that question has been batted around -- was it better to stay a member, given that PFA membership is open to any fraternity where members share a "common interest," and be part of an umbrella organization even if it risks sending a "mixed message"? What will be the effect at the local level, such as with campus IFC involvement? (Some of our chapters are members of campus IFCs, but most are not).

I've long thought that our nearest "analogous" GLOs are not the "general" social GLOs, but rather are groups like Triangle, FarmHouse, Alpha Gamma Rho and the like -- social fraternities where membership is based on studying or being interested in a particular field.

These are interesting days.

[Boodleboy322]

Do any of you suppose that one of the reasons it's tough to get alumni to start up Alumni Associations or be active after college is due to the whole "I had a Professional Experience" vs. "I had a Social Experience"?

I don't necessarily agree that this is a good reason to not support the brotherhood in the post-collegiate experience.

Regards,

Boodleboy322