A lot of organizations put new members through some sort of
initiation ceremony. Fraternities are typical; candidates are forced
through some sort of ritual, and it's quite common for it to include
at least one episode which is either uncomfortable or unpleasant
or deeply embarrassing, or potentially so if you screw up while
doing it.
There have been studies about this kind of thing, and what was
learned was that members of such groups tend to be more loyal
and more dedicated when there is that kind of ritual than they will
be without it, and are more likely to remain loyal for the rest of
their lives. And if the group has some sort of agenda, they're more
likely to adopt that agenda as their own, and to maintain and
promote the group and help it to work to achieve its goal.
Such things appear many places in human culture. It applies to
various rites of passage, such as adulthood ceremonies (e.g. bar
mitzvah, or adolescent circumcision ceremonies in many places
around the world). Not only do such ceremonies represent a clean
dividing line between "child" and "adult", but they also tend to
make each kid bond to the group, and help in promoting group
cohesiveness.
By the same token it also tends to induce group chauvinism. If the
group is important, and if those in the group are superior because
they're members, then it means everyone outside who is not a
member is inferior. And you often encounter a kind of smugness
about membership, or varying degrees of outright hostility
towards non-members, to a great extent as a function of the group
culture and the kind and amount of ceremonial suffering which is
involved in joining it.
Groups like the Masons take this to particularly great lengths.
There are varying degrees of membership; an entire ladder, in
fact, with dozens of rungs.
Each step up the ladder involves a new initiation ceremony, and
though the precise details of them are secret (or at least supposed
to be, though some have been leaked) they all involve exactly this
kind of embarrassing or uncomfortable public display by the
candidate in front of the rest of the membership, or in front of
those of higher rank who themselves have already gone through it.
At a certain point a member becomes eligible for the "Shrine" and
if accepted becomes a "Shrine Mason" (or Shriner), which opens
up an entirely new ladder to climb with many further steps of
rank. The Shrine recruits from the outer lodge, and its members
are seen as being even more special than normal Masons, by
themselves and by non-Shrine Masons.
No one really knows for sure why this makes people more loyal to
the group, though there's speculation. One idea is that it leads to a
period of rationalization: Yes, I did just go through something
awful and demeaning but it was worth it because membership in
the group is even more important. Therefore the person will
assign offsetting value to the group proportional to the degree of
unpleasantness they went through to join it or advance within it.
Whether that's why it works, it's beyond dispute that it actually
does. And this same kind of thing also tends to show up in cults.
And it's also the case that lesser parts of the group culture can
enhance this on an ongoing basis. Even something as trivial as
having all members wear some sort of silly hat during all group
meetings will work to this end. Yes, this fez makes me look like a
moron, but it's worth it because it helps me be accepted in this
group that I think is particularly important. Thus group meetings
as such come to be valued in direct proportion to the silliness of
the display.
In cases where this kind of overt display of membership isn't just
in secret (i.e. only at lodge meetings) but actually becomes a
permanent part of the lifestyle, it works even more strongly.
For example, if a given group always goes around in public
wearing strange robes and with most of their hair shaved and a
strange braided pigtail, they tend to get strange looks from others,
and quite often are avoided or treated with disdain. In some
members this will eventually cause them to give up and leave, but
it's more common for them to bond more closely to the group
because of this. And disdain is given for disdain received; they
hate us because they know we're better than they are.
And it may be that the reason they are more likely to remain loyal
to the group is that if they do leave, they cease to have the ability
to rationalize that all the stupid and painful things they did were
worthwhile.
The same kind of thing is at work in certain fringe extremist
Christian sects whose members have a predilection for standing
on boxes at busy street corners accusing everyone who comes by
of being a sinner, and preaching at the top of their lungs about
how the end of the world is near. This is seen by members of such
groups as being a moral duty, but on a lower level it also has the
same bonding effect as fraternity initiation ceremonies. As a
practical matter it has negligible chance of recruiting new
members or of swaying the public, but it is still an important part
of maintaining the group by keeping its own members loyal and
subservient.
Many kinds of groups have processes and policies which cause
their members to make these same kinds of public displays, which
cause them to be disdained by those around them, and which have
the effect of causing their members to bond more closely to the
organization and its goal. Whether this is deliberate for any given
group, or the result of memetic selective processes is hard to say.
Even such groups as the Crips and the Bloods have such things,
though they can be more subtle. At the height of the gang
competition in LA, there were certain colors which each group
claimed, and members would never wear a color belonging to the
other side. There were certain kinds of styles; certain tastes in
music. Sometimes these differences were sufficiently subtle as to
not even be apparent to those outside the core cultural group.
In fact, these kinds of initiation and bonding ceremonies, and
public displays of membership, are quite common in youth gangs
and in criminal organizations. There's an organization of that kind
among people from certain parts of SE Asia where members have
to get a small but distinctive tattoo on one hand, which pretty
much identifies them for life as being a member.
By the way, motorcycle gangs (like the Hell's Angels or the Gypsy
Jokers) do this, too, complete with a demeaning initiation ritual
and official membership clothing (known as "colors"). And the
competition between motorcycle gangs and the mutual hatred can
inspire them to outright combat. There was a gunfight in a casino
in Nevada last year between members of rival motorcycle gangs
and a couple of people died.
It occurred to me yesterday that this phenomenon may explain
something happening in the US right now which to many seemed
inexplicable.
It's been noted that there is a rising tide of antiwar protests in the
US and in Europe, and it's also been noted by many that some of
the signs and slogans they're using vary from brainless to idiotic to
outright vile. In some cases the demonstrators are doing things
which are virtually guaranteed to cause nearly everyone outside
the movement to have negative reactions. (For example, the recent
protests in San Francisco which involved deliberately interrupting
traffic, or ejecting various unpleasant bodily fluids in public
places.)
The most obvious theory is that by doing this these people hope to
influence the more general public to their point of view
politically, but given that it's equally obvious that it's been a
notable failure, and indeed in many cases has been causing
general animosity, there's also been much speculation that those
responsible for these demonstrations are unwise, or stupid, or
deluded.
But even if these demonstrations have had little political effect at
all, or outright negative effect, on the public as a whole, it also has
the effect of making those in the movement itself particularly
dedicated to the cause. There's little practical difference between
wearing weird robes and dancing and chanting on a street corner,
and having a vomit-in at City Hall.
The primary force organizing most of the large antiwar
demonstrations in the US now is the Worker's World Party,
through various daughter organizations which are mostly staffed
by WWP members, and financed by the WWP or its sympathetic
contributors. And many who have attended these demonstrations
have found themselves listening to speeches advocating positions
on various issues which didn't seem to have anything to do with
war. Many have been turned off by this, but at least a few have
heard things which they found appealing, and have thus
potentially become recruits for the larger causes that the WWP
works for. The WWP is cynically using this cause as a way of
trying to recruit members.
And if they can convince people to join them in public antiwar
displays which are painful or disgusting or embarrassing or which
cause the general public to react negatively, this has the effect of
causing many or most of these new recruits to become bonded to
the group, and thus potentially to coming to accept the larger
agenda of the parent organization, which is to say, the WWP.
Which would mean that in fact those organizing these displays
don't care in the slightest that they have no chance of actually
stopping the war or of influencing the population as a whole to
oppose war. They're trying to build their membership, and these
public demonstrations aid them in doing so. Each of these
demonstrations amounts to an initiation ceremony, or a promotion
ceremony, which are no different in psychological effect than the
ones used by the Masons.
Update: By the way, military academies engage in this kind of
thing, too. For instance, hazing of first year candidates has this
effect; those who survive their first year then bond to the group
much more closely. Officers in the US military who are graduates
of one of the three academies usually wear class rings and are
known as "ring knockers" because they tend to draw attention to
their rings by clicking them against drink glasses in the O-club.
They have a reputation for thinking of themselves as being
somehow better than officers who did not attend an academy.
All recruits in the Marine Corps go through a process known as
The Gauntlet at the end of basic training, and must pass it in order
to be considered true Marines. Recruits who have not yet passed
this test are not really thought of as being full members. This is
yet another manifestation of this same kind of bonding ritual.
Submariners are recruited from the rest of the Navy; no one
enlists directly into submarines. They have to attend a school and
to pass it, and it's damned tough. There are five times as many
applicants as there are positions to fill, and only the best are taken
at the end. And among other things they do is to go through a test
in a special room where they have to react to a simulation of
equipment failure in a sub, which includes high-speed water leaks
to be corrected. It's not at all uncommon for them to be hip-deep
in water by the end. It's a legitimate test, because some men crack
under the pressure. Submarines are particularly unforgiving, and
to a greater extent than for any other kind of military assignment,
failure by any crewman can doom the entire vessel and its entire
crew. So they have to test for it, but it also has the same kind of
effect of bonding. Sailors who wear dolphins think of themselves
as being better than the rest of the Navy, and most of the rest of
the Navy agrees with them.
Update: Gregory writes:
You're pretty much dead on with the submariner bit! (Heh)
However, I've also found it more-or-less true in any
community that requires specialized training. In the nine
years I've been on active duty, I've attended Nuclear Power
School, Sub School, assigned to the USS XXXXX, SEAL
Delivery Vehicle Team ONE, and now the Naval Science
Insititute (part of an officer accession program), and will
eventually attend flight school in Pensacola. Every single
one of those are a small part of a small community and
there is a LOT of pride amongst those that are a part of it.
Sometimes the pride simply comes from graduation; the
ritual is the school, as is the case for BUD/S, SERE, and
other intense courses. Sometimes the ritual is the
qualification process required to earn the right to wear a
warfare pin, i.e. submarine dolphins or SEAL tridents.
Another ritual would be for advancement, as is the case for
the "Chief's Initiation" along with NSI (the school I am
now attending prior to returning to college). In these PC
times, most of the non-job-related trials are
optional...however more respect is conferred upon those
that choose to go through the ordeal.
Anyone who goes through tough training and passes is entitled to
satisfaction and pride for having done so. And respect for those
who do from those who do not is also legitimate. But this kind of
thing operates on more than one level, which is the point I was
trying to make.
The Army has the same kind of internally recognized elite with
the Rangers and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Airborne, or so I
understand it; I'm not totally clear on just who's considered elite
and by how much.
The Marines have an entirely different approach to this. It's
interesting to note that as far as the Corps is concerned, there's no
special elite inside the Corps because from their point of view the
entire Marine Corps is elite. (It's not clear they're wrong about
this, by the way.) So either you're a Marine or you aren't; that's all
that really matters. You become a Marine by passing the Gauntlet
at the end of basic, and after that you're just as good as any other
Marine, or at least you better damned well be, because the Corps
has high expectations for you and relies on you.
I'd like to make clear that I don't think that this kind of initiation
and bonding is inherently evil or manipulative. Actually, unless
the process itself is morally evil (i.e. requires you to do something
really bad) then it's pretty much morally neutral. It's more a matter
of what organization is using it and what they are trying to
accomplish by doing so.
Update: Stephen, another Dolphin, writes to tell me that nukes
(crew trained and qualified to work on submarine reactors) don't
go to the regular sub school. They have their own training
program which lasts 18-24 months and then go directly to a boat.
On the boat, access to the reactor is limited, and the non-nuke
crew aren't allowed in there and those that are don't talk about
what it's like inside.
He also says that during that test, "the water goes up as high as
they want it to. I'm 6'1", and
it was up to my chin." I've seen film of that test, and it looked
damned scary. I understand that some men do crack and go bozo
or try to flee to the door; obviously such men don't graduate.
Another thing that Dolphins have to go through is testing to see if
they get irritable. A sub is a very unforgiving psychosocial
environment, and it's important that the men be even-tempered, or
else you risk fights or worse.
The Dolphins are considered elite because they are elite. They
have to be.
In WWII, American submariners in the Pacific had a higher rate
of fatalities than any other major assignment in the US military.
IIRC, 25% of submariners died in action, most "missing and
presumed dead" when their boats didn't come back.
Update: James writes to say that the Marine Corps initiation at the
end of basic training is called The Crucible. I misremembered the
name.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <
http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
