social?

[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.