Originally Posted by
icarus_
maybe it is just me, but i find it a dubious test to loyalty. anybody can endure such pain and humiliation, but is not exactly a guarantee of loyalty. and it is equally fair to say that those who cannot endure it cannot be loyal as well.
what it seems to prove, however, is a neophyte is willing to go through something that might be totally opposite to what the organization stands for, just to belong. and i find this quite sad.
what i am looking for is a re-imagination of the entire initiation process wherein the positive ideals of a fraternity is incorporated in this very process, not exhibiting it's opposite at the start of a neophyte's membership. doing the later seems to exhibit the weakness of the very ideals that the organization seems to be standing on, that or simply members do not understand these ideals, hence the inconsistency.
while i believe you might be looking at the entire thing as a procedural error in the part of the initiation overseer, i am looking at it as a systemic error in the twisted irony of starting a good thing by doing its complete opposite.
Well, it's a system/ritual that has been around even during the earliest human civilization. I don't entirely agree with it, but it would take the majority to act on it to change the status quo.