I decided to skip the rest of the sub-section I was discussion last time. I'll pick up on the "Exchange" sub-section of the same section as before: "Structural Theories of Interpersonal Behavior."
***
"Deviant behavior exists when the individual acts in such a way as to indicate an intent to flout group norms or a failure to internalize the standards of behavior." (p. 593)In my case I clearly was an example of "failure to internalize the standards of behavior," but in the Vienna mission the thing was you weren't really sure what the "standards of behavior" were until you began to internalize what you did know (or think you knew) of them, which would, I think, lead to more understanding of the norms and/or others revealing more of the norms. So, in effect, I failed to internalize the standards of behavior I thought I understood, mainly because I didn't like/agree with enough of what seemed to be the group's norms. I didn't like/agree with them for several reasons, including: 1) my understanding of the situation in Eastern Europe made me think that the mission took the security precautions farther than needed to work in that environment; 2) the security precautions the mission did seem to take looked like it entailed unscriptural aspects; and 3) they conflicted with my personal ministry interests (i.e., I wanted more personal ministry involvement than seemed to be allowed for me).
To a certain extent I think it could be said that I flouted the group norms, but to a large extent I wasn't always sure exactly what those norms were to flout, in which case my deviance would be more closely related to failure to internalize group norms rather than flouting them, because internalizing them would have led to greater understanding of the norms. In other words, I didn't know the norms to be able to flout them because I hadn't internalized them or the ones I was aware of.
In addition, some norms which, taken on their own, I might not otherwise have had an issue with, I did in the Vienna mission context because I saw the norms as a composite unit rather than as discrete elements from which I could pick and choose. So I extended my leeriness about specific elements of the mission to encompass the whole of the mission.
***
"Both conformity and deviation, when viewed as aspects of exchange, involve rewards, costs, and profit to the individual... The costs of conformity are implied in the rewards the individual forgoes in achieving interpersonal rewards. Instead of working hard on a task to realize the rewards of intrinsic job satisfaction, for example, the individual participates in group activities or interacts in ways not relevant to the task to achieve group-oriented rewards." (p. 593)This is an interesting take on my relationship with the mission. What did (or do) I perceive to have been the possible rewards and costs of conformity? Since I didn't conform very well, my answer to this is somewhat speculative.
Ideally, the possible rewards might have been more extensive ministry in Eastern Europe. I think that is the primary thing for me that would have been a reward I would have valued. On the other hand, the costs might have been foregoing a lot of personal (i.e., people contact) ministry, limiting myself to the mission's narrow ministry interests (i.e., biblical instruction), taking on values and participating in actions that went against my conscious and/or which I thought were unbiblical.
I'm not sure what the chances might have been of my getting to have more people ministry, because there are several possible things arguing against that, including the fact that I was to be the secretary of the person who is now the head of the whole organization. So it's possible I might have ended out just following him around as his secretary all these years, perhaps with occasional ministry trips into closed countries. Also, there's the issue of my dad and the possibility that that might have precluded me having an intensive behind the iron curtain people ministry with the mission.
Looked at in this light, it doesn't seem surprising that I had trouble conforming to the mission's apparent demands of me. (I say "apparent" because they seemed to me to be the mission's demands, but the mission might say otherwise.)
***
"In group situations, an individual may seek to improve his social standing, which is another way of saying that he seeks to increase his reward-cost-profit outcome, but in doing so he may find that the behavior emitted toward increased conformity results in an immediate increase in costs and an unchanging level of reward. If the individual perceives few alternative channels for reward in his life setting, he may continue to reduce immediate profit in the hopes of achieving increased profits at some future time. This pattern is seen as vying for group rewards through heightened conformist behavior." (p. 594)I could have taken this stance vis a vis the Vienna mission, and undoubtedly there were some there who had done this kind of thing. The thing that kept me from doing this, however, was, I think, primarily my Christian idealist values system. That is, the norms of the mission conflicted too greatly with my own to allow me to change. The fact that I thought that many of their demands were unnecessary, the possibility that there was extra-Christian involvement (e.g., via the military chaplains), and that some of the things seemed outright unbiblical all argued against my compliance with the mission. Nevertheless, I did "perceive few alternative channels for reward in [my] life setting" and this is at least part of the reason why I had so much stress and dissonance about my relationship with the mission. The other thing would be everything I had put into that being my career.
***
I have to break off here, but I think there is more about deviance that might be worth looking into in this article, so we'll continue with this thought in my next post. I've got to go run some errands now.
