Equal to the Sum of its Parts
One Individual Does Make a Difference in a Group (Even a Sorority)

Like many childhood experiences that continue to plague an individual as they ascend into young adulthood and the rest of their lives, the bittersweet curse of anti-social tendency is something I often place squarely on the shoulders of my mother and father. What I knew as a reluctance to join groups, and what I now see as my inability to understand the importance of being a productive community member, is something I mistook in childhood as my personal freedom to either engage or separate from people and the social networks that surrounded them at will. If I wasn't getting along with fellow Girl Scout members, I quit. if the Future Problem Solving team wouldn't take my suggestions, I simply removed myself and joined something else.

Now, this is not to say my parents actively told me, or my brother and sister, not to be loyal to a group or to refrain from associating with other children and adults. Rather, I was influenced by the indirect way my parents demonstrated their own preferences to be part of a non-community community. My mother painted in her studio while other mothers joined the PTA. Dad never went out after work for drinks with colleagues. And to me, watching my parents' social habits was similar to the way children are indoctrinated into religious membership by default—through the religious participation of their families. 

Today, with my childhood decidedly behind me and two feet placed squarely inside the Luther bubble, I repeatedly experience that inclination to be separate form my peers and watch it isolate my ability to form connections with others. Most recently, I have found myself being pulled to quit my sorority because of disagreements with others and the general feeling that it really doesn't matter whether I continue to be a committed member or not. And this feeling has led me to the question—as part of an academic community consisting of "joiners," what should I do when I find myself divided by my childhood anti-social instincts and my basic human need (though unrealized) to be part of a specific voluntary community? 

Being but a humble college student, I decided to use the political theory of Michael Walzer, whose ideas about a "communitarian" approach to society and politics led him to write Politics and Passion, and who is infinitely more capable of answering my question as it relates to individuals and groups than myself. Walzer does not address my situation directly, as I'm sure he had little experience with sororities, but he does offer two bits of insight into the effect of leaving or continuing to support a community. 

As part of an academic community consisting of "joiners," what should I do when I find myself divided by the anti-social instincts of childhood and my basic human need (though unrealized) to be part of a specific, voluntary community? 

Walzer tells us that Americans who believe in their basic, inalienable rights are inherently members of an asocial society because of their adherence to individual liberties and their freedom from being "unencumbered" by others. 

This is a natural conclusion for us, after being raised in classrooms where liberty is preached and practiced daily, but Walzer would say this is a "wayward understanding" of an individual's "wayward interests and desires." By living this way and capitalizing on our right to do what we want, we are actually building communities that "lack the qualities of cohesion" and leave society unsettled.

Suffice to say, Americans are already fighting an uphill battle when it comes to group participation, and having an affinity for solitary confinement makes "joining" an especially difficult endeavor. But Walzer would still say "it would be a good thing ... if we could teach those [liberal selves] to know themselves as social beings" for the following reasons.

First, staying in the group, or in my case continuing to stay and support the sorority, is important because it sets a precedent. Walzer says, "if all the groups are precarious, continually on the brink of dissolution or abandonment, then the larger union is weak and vulnerable." How can you really make connections with people you see infrequently or only at your convenience? Just because we have the choice to disassociate with others, doesn't mean we should do it. And the more it is practiced, the easier it becomes for individuals to remove themselves which, "the easier the easiness is, the less stable all our relationships are likely to become." And so, by staying in the group, we are not only strengthening our connections within it, we are also strengthening the association between individuals and society as a whole. 

The second reason to stay in a group, Walzer would suggest, is because when an individual withdraws from a community, it not only hurts the group—it is bad for the individual as well. The community has as much influence in shaping the individual as the individual does the group. Essentially, I am going to suffer by leaving the group because it plays a large role in shaping my identity. This whole argument is hinged on the truth that the group you are considering to join or remove yourself rom actually does benefit you and the larger community—in this case, Luther College. Some groups obviously do not fit in to this category. 

I say my anti-social tendencies are bittersweet because I suspect like most people, I like doing things on my own free will without necessarily first considering what is best for others. In the end, through Walzer's analysis at least, I do think a larger stake is put on the cultivation and cohesiveness of community. Because of this, while working through my question of the role I play in a group, it can be seen that it is not only possible, but necessary to be part of a larger community and to be bound to others. As Walzer says, "if the ties that bind us together do not bind us, there can be no such thing as community." And that would be a great loss. 

Luther Review | 
Art | Katie Meyer

Walzer, Michael. "Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism. Yale UP, 2004.