Quote:
Originally Posted by nate2512
If he was an SAE and Mason, why would he have essentially created a new brotherhood? Just because your founder was in a social doesn't mean jack. If thats what you use to feel accepted in the greek world, you may want to reconsider things.
It seems here that the word fraternity seemed to be just a formality in which you are using to one-up yourself, and make yourself equivalent to a social fraternity, but the truth you, you aren't equivalent. By your explanations I do not see why anyone in the group would feel the need to be in a social, or vice versa if, in fact, you consider your brotherhood and everything you do to that equivalence of socials.
|
Nate, I think you may be misreading what Michael is trying to say. I don't think he's saying that APO is the equivalent of social/general fraternities at all -- indeed, it seems to me that he's saying that from its founding, APO has understood itself to be different from (and, perhaps, complimentary to) general or social fraternities and to have a very different role in collegiate life.
I think his issue has been with the implication that, because it is primarily service-oriented, it has no right to call itself a "fraternity" because that term belongs only to social fraternities (a suggestion that would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to the Freemasons and the Franciscans, both of whom were using the term long before social fraternities came on the scene). I think he is merely trying to say that,
even though they are in many ways quite different from a social fraternity, fostering a true brotherhood is nevertheless an essential part of who they are and how they function; thus, they are a fraternity --
i.e., a brotherhood. A service fraternity, not a social fraternity, but still a fraternity.
Michael can, of course, correct me if I'm the one misreading him.
Hybrid Mode
