Okay, so here is what I've come up with so far, at least from one angle of the theory-building process. These are the broad-stroke options:
1. The mission truly wanted me on board and anything I might have experienced with them was by way of socialization and the standard way they treated everyone (given similarities in response by the new member, etc.) In this theory, anyone could have experienced the things I did if they had responded as I did to the mission's socialization efforts.
1A. My view of the mission was greatly distorted by the fact that I was unique in how I responded to the mission, and so their response to that gave me an understanding of the mission that otherwise wasn't accurate, or at the very least was different from how others' viewed the mission. (In other words, I saw the mission at its worst, but this was an aberration of its usual self or nature.)
1B. My view of the mission is relatively accurate, either despite the mission having to respond harshly to my nonconformance or because I saw the belly of the beast that others didn't get to see. (In other words, I saw the mission at its worst, and that reflected its true nature.)
2. The mission - or at least those in a position to influence this - were influenced in how they treated me because of who my dad was (his job).
2A. The mission - or at least those in a position to influence this - wanted me to work with them, but only under certain conditions that wouldn't put my father or the mission at risk. This would mean I would have to be more controlled than other members of the mission and there might have been less of a toleration for 'independence' in me. (In other words, my experience of the mission was only partially similar to others' experiences of it and my actions only partially explained its responses to me - since my father's position would have been an extra consideration.)
2A1. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, errant because the mission wasn't acting towards me in a way that truly reflected its basic nature.
2A2. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, more accurate than others' interpretations of it because I saw and experienced what the mission was really like.
2B. The mission- or at least those in a position to influence this - didn't want me there at all because of my dad. In this case, the mission did all it could to get rid of me so I wouldn't be a liability to them.
2B1. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, errant because the mission wasn't acting towards me in a way that truly reflected its basic nature.
2B2. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, more accurate than others' interpretations of it because I saw and experienced what the mission was really like.
***
Let's just briefly take these one by one, in order. I'm not doing a comprehensive analysis, here, you understand.
1. If this is true, then there should have been evidence of variable treatment by the mission with other newcomers, and differences of treatment by the mission should be reasonably explainable based on typical differences such as individual response to the mission's socialization efforts and the nature of the position the individual was filling. It seems like there would have to be some kind of a congruence there between treatment and the apparent reasons for its treatment of the individual.
1A. In this interpretation, the mission acted out of character in how it treated me, even though there treatment of me was all related just to regular socialization efforts. In other words, I was a hard nut to crack and it used uncharacteristic means to pull me in line. Since the mission's actions were otherwise out of character, and my understanding of the mission is based largely on how they treated me, as a result, my understanding of the mission is inaccurate.
1B. In this interpretation, the mission acted in character, but it usually didn't have to use such strenuous means to socialize a newcomer, so members weren't used to seeing that more extreme side of it. As such, my understanding of the mission was accurate in the sense in which what I experienced was truly within its very nature. [For example, if I have a car that can drive 100 miles per hour (160.9344 km/h), but I only ever drive it on side streets, until one day I decide to try it on the expressway, the nature of the car has not changed at all - it always could drive at higher speeds; it's just that I had never driven it that fast before.]
2. In this option, socialization might have played a part in how the mission treated me, but if so there was also the added influence of my dad's work.
2A. Here, the mission wanted me to work for them, but only under tightly controlled circumstances that wouldn't cause a problem. So they really did try to socialize me, but might have been harsher because of the seriousness of the other issue involved, namely my dad's work.
2A1. In this case, the mission's consideration for my dad's work was unusual and did not reflect how it usually operated, in that it didn't normally have any political connections nor respond to these kinds of influences. In this case, my experiences of the mission and the resultant interpretations I gave those experiences did not reflect what the mission was really like.
2A2. If this is true, then how I experienced the mission was fairly indicative of what the mission was really like, because connections and influences of a political nature that resulted in them being concerned about my dad's work was a part of who they really were and how they functioned. In this case, I saw a side of the mission that a lot of people at the mission probably knew little or nothing about.
2B. In this case, I was treated differently from others from the get-go, and nothing I experienced with the mission could be considered socialization in the usual use of the term, because they would have been trying to get rid of me instead of assimilate me.
2A1. In this case, the mission's consideration for my dad's work was unusual and did not reflect how it usually operated, in that it didn't normally have any political connections nor respond to these kinds of influences. In this case, my experiences of the mission and the resultant interpretations I gave those experiences did not reflect what the mission was really like.
2A2. If this is true, then how I experienced the mission was fairly indicative of what the mission was really like, because connections and influences of a political nature that resulted in them being concerned about my dad's work was a part of who they really were and how they functioned. In this case, I saw a side of the mission that a lot of people at the mission probably knew little or nothing about.
***
I'm posting these now, but there will be more to say about them.
