“We would die otherwise.” This is how exchange student Karl Dargel explains the necessity of community at Duke.
In other words, without a tight-knit community, Karl is convinced that the fear of isolation alone can have destructive consequences.
In his home-country of Germany, “the university is your job,” but in America “college is your entire life.” Here, social spheres dictate eating habits, living situations, professional networks and most importantly, the treasured intimate connections students build amidst them all.
Karl’s words resound on a campus that is a microcosm of societies in which everybody longs to belong. And while experts have long investigated the instinctual desire for individuals to feel like parts of a whole, university students and administrators alike continue to grapple with the practical challenges of offering those inclusive communities.
One challenge at Duke is the pre-existing paradigm of social life. As fellow Chronicle columnist Jennifer Zhounotes in the context of student-run organizations in her piece “Culture of exclusion,” “hyper-selection fails at creating an inclusive campus for all.” With selective processes that are inherently embedded in perceptions of a social hierarchy of sorts, selective living groups perpetuate the idea of “worthiness” being tied to affiliation status.
The second challenge is a mere deficit of healthy alternatives. Selective living groups have experienced an increased number of applicants as the number of bids extended remains the same. During a freshman’s first semester, individualism and innovation is required to build a network of friends—it is why East campus is one of Duke’s greatest assets.
Sadly, when living groups promote structured social life, through crush-parties, mixers, even open-parties and an entire mentorship network of bigs and littles, they contribute to a perception that tight-knit community cannot exist in independent living. Though these traditions are not inherently wrong, we must take a closer look at their unintended consequences.
As explained by research from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and University of Maastricht, “social anxiety occurs when the need to belong is present but thwarted.” For Vivek Sriram, a member of the independent house Avalon, that frustration is especially visible.
Vivek did not have fun socializing at living-group recruitment events at the start of his freshman year spring semester. The process felt superficial and yet he continued on the journey with friends in search of consistent programming, a set group of people to spend time with and the crown jewel of feeling “a part of something.”
James M. Kuder from Colorado State University extensively studied and compared the experiences of upperclassmen living in residence halls and fraternity sections. His conclusion remarked that the bonding of fraternity members is correlated with their distinctly strong “need to belong.” In other words, people wanting to come together—with the right resources and attitudes—can and do form meaningful communities. There is no reason non-SLG or Greek-affiliated students cannot have the same.
For one, we need diverse minds collaborating on alternatives to the status quo. We need committed minds running for House Council, and Resident Assistants who purposely continue to foster community. But we also need to look beyond the housing model. Unlike with calls to abolish Greek life, calls to abolish hyper-selectivity are warranted.
Programming bodies need to intentionally promote the interaction of people from differing backgrounds. Duke University Union—the largest programming body on campus—has achieved great success in offering alternatives to selective living group programming. However, even at Karaoke Fridays and the various concerts they offer, friend groups both enter and exit spaces together—there is rarely an opportunity for the inter-change of perspectives when students interact with peers they do not yet know.
Secondly, we need to change the perception of what it means to be independent. In Vivek’s hall, welcoming faces feel familiar in the common room where the “intimidation factor” is nonexistent. Thanks to this, his community members are not afraid to approach strangers and make friends of them.
With that, our vernacular must change. The word “independent” itself is misleading and potentially contributes to the issue of polarization we are facing. At Duke, lab groups, intramural sports teams, professional associations and academic departments all bring together students from various backgrounds and affiliation statuses. We are all independent beings who are also affiliated with networks beyond those determined by who we live with. Our tone should reflect these nuances.
Thirdly, as abundant as well-planned programs may be, their success is contingent on the active engagement of attendees. The allure of social exclusivity certainly attracts many to recruitment events. Programming that builds community should be no different. It falls on each student to critically assess our own complacency and actively begin to bridge the gap.
During international orientation Karl sensed the gap as many people—especially freshmen—eagerly looked for places to belong. The January rush season went further, with everyone “desperately trying to find someone.” During those recruitment seasons, more attention should be raised on alternative living options that students, faculty and administrators must continue to expand and create.
Living learning communities, a new avenue to connect individuals, seek to balance intellectual engagement with social programming. Visions of Freedom Living Learning Community President James Ferencsik attributes the group’s member satisfaction ratings to shared intellectual interests. “We want to talk about and do the same things,” he wrote in an email. “Those conversations and common experiences are facilitated by living together. It allows us to do things more spontaneously.”
On the other hand, when promoting these new sources of community, it is important to note dangers. The intense bonding that occurs when people find a niche threatens to impede their willingness and desire to interact with those outside their new homes.
Vivek has been fortunate with his independent community. He cautioned, however, that his experiences are not the norm. Some of Vivek’s friends in other buildings simply do not have these facets; additionally, stigma can play a role in preventing students from reaching for new opportunities.
Beginning with his neighbors, classes, and co-curricular involvements, his network of friends has grown with each new addition who brings his or her own pre-existing network. The result? “A huge amalgamation of people” comprising a uniquely diverse community of friends, according to Vivek.
Nonetheless, the need to belong persists. Programming and administrative restructuring offer a solution to this loophole of Duke’s social culture. In the meantime, the Duke community must ask, how much do we want living-group affiliation to define our social fabric?
Sabriyya Pate is a Trinity sophomore. Her column, “in formation” runs on alternate Mondays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.