A few months ago, I posted about my research with Josh Schutts and Sarah Cohen related to how sorority women define and think about sisterhood, and how chapter size impacts sisterhood. If you haven’t had a chance to read it, be sure to check it out here – It will give you some valuable context for this post.
As we are discovering, women think about sisterhood as a
developmental process – women join the chapter often thinking about the
superficial and primarily social notions of sisterhood (i.e. sisterhood based
on shared social experiences), but gradually evolve beyond those surface-level
notions of sisterhood into more transcendent ways of thinking about it (i.e.
sisterhood based on accountability and sisterhood based on common purpose).
One woman described this process as “the transcendence from
a sisterhood of selfishness to a sisterhood of selflessness.” The idea behind
this phrase is that, at first, women think about sisterhood by asking “how am I
receiving sisterhood from others,” but gradually evolve to think about it by
asking “how am I contributing sisterhood to others.”
As we have discussed this idea with women, we have asked a
lot of questions about how this process of transcendence happens. What are the
right ingredients to create a chapter experience where more women are able to
transcend to higher levels of sisterhood?
One of the things that continues to come up in our
conversations is the importance of the chapter standards process. Specifically,
women who have a positive experience with the standards process are more likely
to transcend to higher levels of sisterhood, whereas women who have negative
experiences with the standards process are more likely to remain stuck in the
less evolved levels of sisterhood.
At the risk over over-simplification, I’m going to boil all
of the ways I have heard the sorority standards process described down into two
models. Model 1 is the “You have embarrassed us” model, and Model 2 is the “We
are concerned about you” model.
Model 1 – You Have Embarrassed Us
In this model, women are “called into standards” when they
screw up in a way that brings shame or humiliation to the sorority: your
drunken, raised platform dancers, fraternity house shackers, 1.4 GPA, out of
control at that Sigma Chi date party type of standards process. The general
tenor of these standards meetings is “hey – you have embarrassed the sorority
with your behavior. Don’t do that again, or there will be Hell to pay.” The
main concern established at these meetings is that the reputation of the
sorority is paramount – anything that could possibly bring the chapter into
disrepute is a sin that must be swiftly and sternly addressed.
Model 2 – We Are Concerned About You
In this model, women are “called into standards” for many of
the same reasons as in the previous model. In fact, the difference between the
two models lies not in the issues addressed, but in the manner in which they
are addressed. In Model 2, instead of focusing on the sorority’s reputation,
the conversation revolves around real and expressed concern for the individual
member involved. Instead of “you have embarrassed us,” the conversation becomes
about “we are concerned about you – can we have a conversation about why you
have been drinking so much/engaging in risky sexual activity/doing so poorly in
school?”
What do these two standards models have to do with
sisterhood? As it turns out, a great deal.
Model 1 reinforces a simple message - the reputation of the sorority is the most
important thing. And guess which version of sisterhood is subsequently
reinforced by this message? The very surface level notion of sisterhood – that
sisterhood with is based on the social experience. Women who think about
sisterhood in this way care very deeply about the social status of the
organization, and this type of standards process only reinforces those
attitudes. It says “We keep our sisters in line because anyone doing something
bad could cause harm to our reputation, which could damage our social status on
campus.” And if you have a standards process like this in your chapter, then it
is highly unlikely that very many of your members are transcending to higher levels
of sisterhood. Instead, they are constantly bombarded with messages reinforcing
the importance of the social aspects of sisterhood.
On the other hand, Model 2 reinforces a very different message – that as a group of women we have sworn an obligation to look out for one another, to hold one another accountable, and to work together to make one another better. And this message directly aligns with the type of sisterhood that women should be striving to build in their chapters – a sisterhood based on accountability and the striving together for a common purpose. And women who experience a standards process like this are much more likely to transcend to those higher levels of sisterhood. The message communicated here is “we look out for one another, we care about your development as a person and as a woman, we have standards rooted in our values, and we really want the best for you as a sister.”
So what do you do with this information? Here are a few
ideas:
Take a look at your chapter’s
standards process. Which of these two models does it more closely resemble? If
the answer is Model 1, then you have some work to do.
If you’re a Model 1 chapter, spend
some time thinking about how and why your standards process got to that place.
A crotchety old advisor who loves to lecture chapter members on chastity and
appropriate behavior through her lens of womanhood that hasn’t changed since
the Nixon administration? A chapter culture that places too much emphasis on
the chapter’s position in the social hierarchy on campus? Understanding why
your process is what it is can help you fix it, so spend some time diagnosing
the issue.
Retrain your standards board.
Again, keep in mind that you’ll be addressing a lot of the same issues if you
are a Model 2 standards board, but you’ll be approaching those issues in a
different manner. Coach your standards board members on asking questions that
come less from a place of judgment and more from a place of care and concern.
Take a look at the composition of
your standards board. Is it a bunch of goody-two-shoes? That may not be the
best thing, especially if you want them to have credibility in the eyes of
members who are more likely to like to be there for the good time. Have a broad
representation of different types of women on your standards committee, keeping
in mind that their job is not to be above reproach, but to help their sisters
take care of themselves an make better decisions.
Spending some time thinking about your chapter’s standards
process can go a long way in helping members of your chapter become better
sisters, and the result will be a sisterhood where women understand the importance
of looking out for one another, holding one another accountable, and the
commitment to making one another, and the organization, better.
