Running Header: SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

Self Analysis Part II: The Rise of Theory Application

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

College is a time for a student to develop and learn what future lies ahead for them. It is a
time of exploration and excitement. That is what college was for me, growth, development and
excitement. Over the years my views of the world changed and developed as I was able to learn
more and construct my values and beliefs through my teachings and experiences as an
undergraduate student. I entered college with the idea that the answers would be given to me if I
just worked and studied hard. I did not know that I would have to discover those answers myself.
Using Perrys (1968) theory of intellectual and ethical development, Bems (1983) gender
schema theory, Chickerings (1969) theory of identity development and wonderful seven vectors,
Helms (1984) model of white racial identity development, and Baxter Magoldas (2001) theory
of self-authorship I was able to analyze my development and learning process as a student.
Fun with Perry
I entered college having no idea what to expect, the only things I knew for sure
was who my roommate was, one of my best friends from high school, and my major,
criminology. It was an exciting feeling. I had no idea what was in store for me and I was ready to
learn and explore life as a college student. When I say I had no idea what to expect, I mean my
expectations were minimal. I saw college as just an advancement as my education and the
professors where the wise old people you see in all the movies handing down life lessons and
advice.
My first semester of college was generally easy. The courses were mostly subjects and
topics that I had already covered in high school. They were not really challenging me even my
introductory course into criminology was a general law course that was offered in my high
school. I would read my books, study, go to class, and the professor would answer everything for
me. This is how I thought college would be as far as the academic part. I looked to others for the

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

answers. This would be a viewed as dualism according to Perrys (1968) theory of intellectual
and ethical development (1981). Dualism is the idea that there is a wrong and right never a real
in between. I would not say that I was completely dualistic, because I knew there might be
options, but I figured the professors were there to teach me, so they must have the right answers.
I was more or less teetering between position one and the transition of position one and two of
Perrys (1968) theory in that I started to see the different opinions of world views other than
religion.
It was not until either my second semester or beginning of my sophomore year of college
that I was really being challenged as a student as a student leader. I was a member of a Greek
organization by now and my classes were finally starting to get challenging. We finally started to
dive into theory of crime. Criminological theory is not the same as student development in
learning theory as it charts progression and is used to help guide students through their
development. Criminological theory is used mainly for two purposes. The first purpose is to
discover why crime(s) occur .The second purpose to prevent that crime(s) from happening. In the
second and third semesters I was bombarded with multiple theories explain why crime might
occur and how to prevent it from happening. Some theories dealt with peoples physical
appearance. If a person looked more like a throwback as it was called, having broad shoulders,
a low brow and wide mouth this person would be more likely to commit crime. Another basis of
theory was based on a persons psychological development and other theories were based on
environments and certain environments were more likely to make criminal acts easier to commit.
I was studying all these different theories and could see how they worked and did not see them
being wrong or right, but they were all acceptable answers to why people commit crime. I was at
the stage of multiplicity according to Perrys (1968). Multiplicity is diversity of opinions or

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

values are legitimate and no judgments can be made by them (Perry, 1981). I saw this as all the
theories had truth and one was not better than the other or wrong, but the all had their right
answers. As a progressed through the years I was able to make more informed opinions about
criminological theory.
Around the middle of my junior year I was able to make a more informed opinion about
criminological theories. I started to have favorite theories I would use in papers or class
discussions to give my answers validity. I was starting to see the importance of being able to
support an argument with solid facts and evidence. I had finally moved into, what Perrys (1968)
theory calls relativism. This is described as, Diversity of opinion, values, and judgment derived
from coherent sources, evidence, logic, systems, and patterns allowing for analysis and
comparison. (Perry, 1981). I was able to develop answers for why it was so easy to commit acts
of white collar crime a fairly new phenomena of crime, but it still has the characteristics of a
simple robbery and started to make the connections flawlessly. The application of theory really
helped me develop as a student learner, but it did not have and impact on my identity in the
college community. I found my identity as a member of a Greek organization on my campus.
Bems Gender Schema
In my first semester I was also introduced fraternity and sorority life. My idea of being
Greek came from popular movies and television shows. I thought that if a student joins a
fraternity they would be making plans to get back at the dean or throw one last big party before
they were kicked off the campus. Fraternity life, at least in my experience is nothing like that. It
was a group of men with common interests that wanted to be leaders in their community. Being
that it was a fraternity I had to be perceived as a strong masculine leader.

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

Sandra Bems (1983) gender schema is based on three components from her findings.
First, her theory is based on the fact that children consistently learn what the cultural definitions
of maleness and femaleness. (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). For me, I went
threw this idea of gender all over again being in a fraternity. It was being reinforced what it
meant to be a fraternity man. A fraternity man has to be a gentleman, but also he had to be able to
socialize and hang out with his brothers (i.e. drinking, parties) giving it a negative connotation at
the same time. I had to be a gentleman in public and a bro in private. The second component is
that gender schema is a network of ideas and information that filter the individuals perception
with out them evening knowing (Evans et. al., 2010). For example, when looking at career paths,
men can firefighters or lumberjacks and women can be nurses or teachers. This could be seen on
campus with my fraternity. All my brothers were most likely pursuing a business degree or going
into a field that was dominated by males. I wanted to go into more of an education based field
because that is where my passion lies. I was an outlier in my fraternity, but I was never
challenged on it because today it is not uncommon to see a man in the field of education. The last
component of Bems (1983) is that individuals learn which elements in their environment belong
in the male and female categories and they link those categories to what they feels is appropriate
(Evans et. al., 2010). For example males are aggressive and competitive where women are kind
and nurturing. I was constantly guilty of being over competitive in the fraternity becomes that is
how I could assert my dominance over other men in the Greek community. For example, every
year we had Greek Week which was a week of games and competitions for fraternities and
sororities. I would yell and scream at teammates, referees, and officials because I thought that is
what an individual, especially a male, should do in a competition. I was not aggressive, rude, or
mean, I was competitive.

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

After seeing how I acted I learned that to be a leader in your community you do not have
to be over aggressive. Good leaders find a balance between the two roles because as a president
of an organization I had to be dominant and assertive, but I also had to be nurturing because I
had brothers who were in trouble or needed support. I learned this from continuing to build
relationships with other members and leaders in the community. This balance helped make me a
more effective leader.
Chickering and Some of His Wonderful Vectors
Being a member of a fraternity there a fair amount of skills learned with in the
organization that can be applied to experience outside of college. One of those is the ability to
socialize and network. Being in a fraternity I became more social and by being more social I was
able to start to meet more people. This led to me to create strong friendships and I started dating
because I was allowing myself to experience other peoples views and opinions. I was searching
and exploring intimacy and support. This is viewed as one of Chickerings (1969) seven vectors
from his theory of identity development. It is the vector of developing mature interpersonal
relationships. This vector involves the tolerance and appreciation of differences and capacity for
intimacy (Chickering, 1993). The one thing about Chickeringss (1969) seven vectors is they are
not stages or transitions. They are viewed as scales. A person can be high on one vector or low on
another. For me, I was on the lower end of the vector when I started school. I did not want to
make myself vulnerable and really did not want to have to put myself out there for others to see
and view. Being in an organization where the members wanted to you to accept them this made it
easier for me to accept their friendship and support as well as giving my friendship and support
to them. It was and is a great feeling to have this support and that is when I started to seek a more
intimate relationship with a single partner.

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

I began dating and this was exciting, but I kind of reverted back in the vector just like
when I started to make friends in the fraternity. I did not want to feel vulnerable and left in the
open, so I would put on a tough exterior and slowly let it fall. The end of my sophomore year I
was in an intimate relationship and I have been with the same partner since then going on almost
six years. Over this time span I thought I would be able to move the relationship along, but I am
still hanging around the middle of this vector and I think that it is partly due to another vector.
The ability to manage emotions is something I had trouble with and still do to this day.
Chickering describes the ability to manage emotions as the student is able to recognize and
accept emotions as well as the ability to appropriately express and control them (1993). As far as
my emotions went if I was happy I would always be able to display that because it is easy to
show satisfaction and content. The problem for me was all the other range of emotions and how
to properly express them to my partner. I would handle it by, and I still do to this today, is to just
bury those feelings deep down because I do not know how I want to express them. Chickering
states that some students are completely open to expressing there emotions while others are more
reserved and through their experience are able to find a balance on properly conveying their
emotions (1993). I fall on the lower end of the vector, but I am moving more towards the middle
of the vector. The fraternity allowed me to develop and learn how to manage emotions because I
could be a little more assertive in a sense and kind of let me emotions flow, but I did not really
find a comfortable balance. As a student of the world I am constantly learning and developing
and these things take time to grow. Some times an individual is thrown right into the water and
they have to learn to sink or float. One of those things that cannot be controlled is a persons
race.
Helms White Racial Identity Development Model

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

One of things I am most proud of about my fraternity is it was the first fraternity to
discriminate based on religion because most fraternal organizations were founded by white,
Anglo-Saxon, Protestant men. The fraternity would later branch out to accepting all men and it
did not matter what race, religion, or creed they stood by. They were men and they wanted to
change the world and make it a better place. That is one of the reason I joined the fraternity is
because it was one of the most diverse group of young men on campus and I wanted to learn
what it means to be a diverse individual. I never really put much thought into thinking what race
I identified with until I started school and joined the fraternity. I always saw myself as white put
I never really called it into question because I grew up in a middle class neighborhood that was
not diverse by any means. I was raised to not discriminate against anybody and to treat others as
I would want to be treated by them.
When looking at Helms (1984) white racial identity development model she is able to
explain the transformation an individual goes through as identifying as white through a two
phase process. The first phase is the abandonment of racism. This phase must start with some
sort of contact whether it is direct or indirect. Based on familial environment one will enter this
stage with either nave curiosity or timidity and trepidation about Blacks and a superficial and
inconsistent awareness of being white (Helms, 1990). I more than likely was in this stage early
on because I was taught to not see color. I was colorblind so to speak and I really did not pay
attention to other people where treated based on their racial identity. The next stage of phase one
is disintegration. At this stage, the individual is conscious, though conflicted, and acknowledges
ones whiteness. It triggers the recognition of moral dilemmas associated with being white. For
example, the desire to be religious or moral person versus the recognition that to be accepted by
whites one must treat blacks or other races immorally (Helms 1990). To me it did not make sense

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

to discriminate because what I was being told in church is that everyone is equal and everybody
is welcome into Gods kingdom because he/she sees everybody the same. I guess I elected to be
a moral person over everything else. The next stage, integration, discuss that one accepts being
white, but still has feelings of hate towards other races and a sense of superiority over them as
well (Helms, 1990). I once again, never felt a hatred or superiority towards another group or
individual. Maybe I just have not had that period or dissonance or conflict by I would identify
more with the second phase of the theory, defining a non-racist white identity.
As an undergraduate student I would most likely be in the pseudo-independent stage, by
defining a positive white identity and abandoning the belief that there is superiority over other
groups (Helms, 1990). The fraternity really helped instill the belief that everybody is equal and
one of the ways that happened was the recitation of our creed before every meeting and in that
creed it explained our beliefs and values as an organization. Once I started to repeat the words
over and over not only did I believe the words I spoke, I lived them. My ritual for the fraternity
was not standing around in hoods with candles in a dark room, chanting sayings from the past.
Our ritual was living our creed making sure that we could make the world a better place. Once I
started to live the creed I transitioned to the stage of immersion/emersion according to Helms.
This is when the individual replaces white and race myths and stereotypes with accurate
information. Changing other groups is no longer the focus, but rather the goal of changing the
white people becomes salient (Helms, 1990). One of the ways I was able to demonstrate and
actual see this stage in the process without really knowing I was doing it, was through our
philanthropy. Our philanthropy is called The Elimination of Prejudice. It is based off of a line of
our creed that we live every day. The reason our philanthropy was started was the fact that
prejudice still exist all over the world and no other organization addresses the issue. Just like our

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

10

founding fathers did not want to be discriminated against we do not want anybody to have that
feeling of prejudice.
When examining certain theories the last stage sometimes tends to be sort of this all
knowing or completely transformed self. As far as Helms (1984) theory I do not think I have hit
the final stage of autonomy simply because I feel that there is more I could learn. The reason for
that is that in the final stage the individual no longer feels threatened by the other group or a need
to discriminate (Helms, 1990). I have never really had those feelings, so therefore according to
this theory I have not reached the final stage. The main reason for that is my involvement in the
fraternity and the message that it provides its members. The fraternity provided me with a
tremendous amount of opportunity and helped develop my path through college.
Baxter Magoldas Theory of Self-Authorship
When I entered college like most students, I had a plan. I would graduate in four years
with my degree, enjoy my time there and stay out of trouble. Then, go into the workforce
because that is what was expected of me. I was strictly told to not join a fraternity because they
were nothing but trouble. That is what my parents wanted for me and growing up in their house
what they wanted was what I wanted. Entering college I was in the first phase of Baxter
Magoldas (2001) theory of self-authorship. In this phase the individual follows plans developed
by external authorities that determine how the individual should think, act and conduct
themselves (Evans et.al., 2010). I really did not challenge this plan because it seemed like was
the right path for me. It was not until I actually went to college and in my first semester I saw
that maybe the plan my parents wanted was the right one.

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

11

Within the first semester I had hit the second phase of the theory described as crossroads.
This is when an individual discovers that the path they have been following on lifes yellow brick
road does not suit their interests or goals (Evans et. al., 2010). I realized that not all fraternities
were trouble and they provided growth and opportunity for me. I saw them more as a positive
than a negative. I knew it would help shape and guide my path more clearly through college I
just did not know how at this point. By the end of my first year I knew that a career in a
criminology field was not for me so I made the switch over to elementary education. I felt that I
would be better suited as an educator rather than an enforcer of the law. I always wanted to be a
crime fighter of some sort and I thought it would be fun, I just did not want all the stress that
comes with the position. There were some problems along the way with becoming a teacher. I
was a leader of my fraternity and the Greek community, so sometimes I would place that above
my school work and in effect my GPA took the hit. This made it difficult for me to be able to
complete a teaching degree and to get my GPA to where it needed to be I would have to be it
would have taken me six years to complete a four year undergraduate degree and I just did not
want that. I had enough credits that I could graduate in four and a half years with a degree in
criminology, but I knew I would not be happy in this field. Thats when I started to have the
conversation of graduate school.
I would discuss with my advisors and mentors that I was not happy and that I really
enjoyed being a leader in student organizations and that is were I grew more as an individual and
as a student in college. My advisors then told me about the graduate degree they pursued in
higher education and student affairs. Hearing that an individual could go to school for working
with student organizations and work with students into developing them into leaders was exactly
the career that I wanted. I finally hit phase three of Baxter Magoldas (2001) theory, becoming

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

12

the author of ones life. In this stage the individual chooses their own beliefs and are able to
stand up for them. They are able a path they set out for themselves (Evans et. al., 2010). I had
developed a path that I knew I want to follow and a story that I wanted to construct.
During my final semester it was clear that I would be headed to graduate school I just did
not know if I wanted to go immediately or take a year or two off from school because financially
I just could not afford to continue my education. If I could take some time off I would be able to
earn some money to help pay for the degree and career I wanted. By this time I had entered the
last phase of Baxter Magoldas theory, internal foundation. At this phase the individual has a
solid sense of who they are and they are open to change as well (Evans et. al., 2010). I knew that
the path to graduate school would not be easy and that there would be bumps along the way, but I
would not let that bring me down. I would adapt and make the changes that I thought would
allow me to continue my journey and the path that I created for myself.
Is This the End?
My journey as an undergraduate student was long and strenuous, but I was able to grow
and develop more than I ever thought I could. I strayed from the path that was set before me, but
it only improved upon my development as a student. I know that the journey I took as an
undergraduate was just the beginning to my growth and development for a future that holds
unlimited opportunities. The next step is up to me and what direction do I want to head.

SELF ANALYSIS PART II: THE RISE OF THEORY APPLICATION

13

References
Chickering, A.W., (1993). The Seven vectors: An overview. In Education and Identity. (2nd ed.,
pp. 43-52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, J.N., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D. & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student
Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Helms, J.E., (1990). Toward a model of white racial identity development. In Black and White
Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 49-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry Jr., W.G., (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W.
Chickering and Associates (Eds.) The Modern American College: Responding to the New
Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society (pp. 76-117). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.