After I finished writing my last entry last night I was up till after 2 a.m. going through the material I'd found... and I couldn't find the specific articles I'm looking for. So now I'm really tired and frustrated. I can't think where else I could have put them. So I'll probably now have to go through all my unpacked boxes of books (I don't want to put my wall shelves up until I know I'm going to be here for a while, and even then, knowing my luck, once i do that I'm sure something will happen so that I have to move again... that's how my life goes.)
But while I do my morning stimulator session I can't do much else other than sit here at the computer, especially since some of my electrodes are losing their stickiness, so I'll continue on with the next chapter of Taming the Troops.
***
Chapter 3: Professional Paternalist Control
***
This chapter begins by comparing how different groups of people view autocratic leadership in the military, where the nonveterans polled thought that autocratic means must be the only way they could get people to do that they do in the military (e.g., kill). But people with military experience thought that using autocratic techniques was a sign of being a poor combat leader and led to low morale. "Generally, they believed that fear techniques should be used only when all else had failed." (p. 55)
"... Why do these ex-military people place such an emphasis on morale and de-emphasize autocratic, punishment-oriented techniques of control? As we have shown, it is because they have seen that people will do far more if they are willing to do something than if they are forced to. Forcing people is inefficient; it inevitably seems to result in resistance of some kind, such as go-slows and mistakes." (p. 55)
First of all, it should be noted that the earlier discussions (in chapter 2, which I discussed in my last post) of uses of autocratic control were used with a specific group of soldiers (dissidents and organizers) and not with units as a whole. As far as that goes for Vienna, I don't think others got the treatment I did. Even such concrete things as moving around in offices and positions was unusual from what I saw there, so it could be that I was treated differently than others this way, although a lot of it would be hard to disentangle as such. But there were a few concrete things that point to my being treated differently. Since one of the main indicators comes up fairly early in my time in Vienna, this does seem to point in favor of my theory that at least part of what I experienced in Vienna might have been an effort to try to get me out of there because of my dad. I don't know why I would have been singled out like that so early in my time there. One possibility of why they might have treated me that way starting so early, though, would be that since I was living alone and had some grasp of the language and culture I was harder to sort of coral into their group.
***
The author, by citing a military officer's telling of an incident, which the author sums up as his having struck a balance "between military objectives and group morale. Contrast this with a coercive leader who would simply follow orders and deal with the consequences after they arose." (p. 58).
As such, I don't think the leadership in Vienna took this tack. Instead, I think they got such a commitment to their leadership that people were so used to portraying an image, whether to other people around them in Vienna, to their supporters back home, or as part of their trying to avoid suspicion by authorities & snitches while "in-country" (in an East Bloc country). So the Vienna missionaries got so much into this mode of living, where they were sort of living double lives, that it was pretty easy to lead them along, and I think that anything perceived as being otherwise (not acting as a sheep in the flock following their caring shepherds) would have led to a sort of identity crisis wherein the double living could be at risk of unraveling for anyone not following the flock, which would put their sanity (whether in appearance only or otherwise) at risk. It's sort of like there was this "secret life of missionaries" that was under the radar, and it was so well lived out that trying to unravel it, describe it or prove it would be difficult. That's despite being told by one of our military chaplain h.r. staff that they were "not professionals." He didn't say professional what but it seemed like it was "professional spy/intelligence" workers, because they were obviously professional theologians and missionaries.
This being said, can you imagine what my thought was when a few short years later I was asked by this Soviet guest during the Seattle Goodwill Games, who was undoubtedly a Soviet intelligence worker, if my dad paid me? First of all, I was surprised at the bluntness of the question and the question itself, but I even right then almost laughed inside myself (I didn't actually demonstrate any sign of humor), thinking "No, whatever I learned that might make you ask this I learned from missionaries in Vienna! Boy are you off-track - way off-track." Heck, my dad had even suggested I apply to be a Russian translator for Boeing, to which I, without even thinking, unhesitatingly answered a forceful, "No." I thought, what on earth would I do at Boeing (this was the year or more before the Soviet putsch) with Russian? The last thing by that point that I wanted was to get anywhere near sensitive-type work, and I was mad that his line of work had apparently hindered me so much - although I don't think I ever thought that my experiences in Vienna were totally connected to him. After all, the missions there had to have been in a position to start with to be able to treat me like that at all.
***
I've finished my stimulator, which means 45 minutes has already gone by, and I've hardly even started on this chapter. I'm going to get my breakfast now though, and then I'll continue on.
***
I'm back now, and I just had another thought that maybe I could add here in case I miss it later on: While I was in Vienna one of my responses to what I felt were authoritarian/cult-type authority relations was, "The only person I let have that much authority over me is God, not even pastors or mission leaders have that much authority over me. I still maintain the right to "search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" like the Bereans in the New Testament, and come to conclusions apart from these supposedly spiritual leaders (leaders who are not perfect). I was, after all, the renegade woman in Bible school who exhibited markedly unfeminine characteristics in engaging in theological discussions (this gender role issue is cultural among certain Protestants, and seemed to be strong amongst student in my school, although this aspect was not necessarily pushed by the school administration). My God has many names, none of which are "(human) missionary leader" or "(human) pastor".
Leaders, and probably others in Vienna too, would argue that they never required this kind of submission, but they are referring to their "on the surface" and "literal" requirements, not how things were actually done. And in response to some specific examples, I can just see even right now years later, the lead chaplain in h.r. saying with sort of a boyish innocence (raised eyebrows, a bit of a pout), "We have your best interests at heart." It's very disarming, even approaching an interrogation technique (this subject is part of another file).
I would love to meet that same chaplain again now and say, "Gee remember how I had 'culture shock' after 5 months in Vienna? Well, it's a good thing that I stayed out of missions after I left Vienna, and went to Siberia on my own. After all, it seems my 'culture shock' only happens when I'm with a mission, apparently. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...? Any ideas, Mr. Chaplain,... sir?"
***
Getting back to our chapter...
In this next section, that continues directly from the last piece, a situation is described where this same officer who gave the earlier narration, describes a situation in which he had to defuse some building tension between squads that ended up being uniformly of differing races. He handled it by moving people around.
"Both of these instances show a tendency on the part of the officer to take a quick, decisive action... This officer also demonstrates a nonconfrontation style of dealing with his subordinates." (p. 59)
I'm sure that in the case of the racial issues the soldiers probably had an idea of why the moves were happening, but, although the text doesn't explain this, I suspect that another ostensible reason(s) was/were given. But since the officer is the more powerful one, especially as formal power is concerned (power by virtue of his rank), he gets to frame the issues (I learned about this topic in my social movement learning research). That means if he says the moves were done for thus and such reasons, even if those under him suspect otherwise, he can make this be the formal understanding by things like what he puts on the paperwork involved in such moves (I assume there is paperwork - since we're talking about a major bureaucracy here) and perhaps in things like company newsletters. For example, he could write something like: "We are sorry to see Pvt. Smith move to unit XXX, but he has skills that are much needed there and I'm sure he will be a great asset to that unit." I'm just being hypothetical here, but this is how framing is done by those with more power that have more access to and control over these kinds of things. The newsletter might even go into Army archives where it will be used by historical researchers down the road.
This happens in missions too, and I'm rather aghast at the newsletters I found yesterday... newsletters that I wrote! Now people will look at these and say, but you wrote them, why are use saying something different now? I wrote what I wrote, especially the newsletter which the mission had to approve, almost under duress knowing that if I wrote anything differently there would negative consequences/reinforcements for me. In Pavlovian terms, that would mean I'd get a swift kick in the behind to teach me to do otherwise. I face the threat of my double life caving in; of course, I suppose most missionaries eventually meld the worlds - the facade they've carefully built up for the mission - and the rest of their being, so that they don't have much if any conflict between the two and for all practical purposes they meld together to become one. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for me, I never accepted their norms and the two standards never even came close to melding. If there ever would have been a potential, given more time, of them melding in me, it would have been from being worn down and coalescing as a self-preservation method, which would have, I suppose, eventually been indistinguishable from other roads leading to melding. Of course, some would call this process socialization. Other might call it brainwashing. Can you see the potential for seeming psychotic in the midst of this? That's the threat of not playing along... fully playing along... brainwashing-type playing along.
***
I with there were section breaks in these chapters, but there don't appear to be. But I do need to start getting cleaned up and start on my weekly laundry. I'll be back later on, though.
~ Meg
