I'm not sure why I'm so tired. After the surgery I was pretty tired the first couple weeks, and then when I could take the neck brace off I got tired again and it's been almost 2 weeks and I'm not sure it's getting better. The second half of the day I'm pretty wiped out. I rest some, but I still get stuff done, but I feel like I'm just dragging myself around I'm so wiped out. But I wake up refreshed in the morning.
***
Anyway, one thing I wanted to say before hitting the book again is that my experience in Vienna could be taken alone as it is, OR... it could be taken in the context of my whole life, especially some things that happen after my Vienna experience. It'll take a lot to wind my way through that experience, but even when it's over, it might not really be over, because it could just be a harbinger of other things to come.
What I mean is, how much of what happened in Vienna was just because of the erroneous ways of the mission (and my vulnerabilities), and how much of it was related to my dad's work. I don't want to give you the impression that I know the answer to that question definitively, but my hunch is that at least a certain amount of the Vienna experiences had some relation to my dad's work. I can't be certain of this, however, but at the very least there are enough indications that this theory could be plausible.
***
Next Van Maanen discusses Etzioni's theory of different types of organizations requiring different types of compliance.
"Normative organizations are characterized by a high moral commitment of their members to the mission of the organization. These organizations stress 'expressive' socialization aimed at insuring that the individual's values, attitudes and motives are congruent with the mission. While normative organizations may be dependent upon outside agencies for support (e.g., educational institutions), they must still develop some internal mechanisms for the socialization of their members. On the other hand, utilitarian organizations emphasize 'instrumental' socialization - aimed primarily at controlling only the overt behavior of the members. Values, attitudes and motives are considered largely irrelevant providing the new member's behavior is in the organizationally defined direction. Hence, utilitarian organizations orient their socialization procedures toward supplying novices only with the knowledge and behavior required of the specific role they are to perform. Finally, Etzioni perceives coercive organizations as most concerned with obedience. The organizational socialization process is punishment-centered and, as such, is conducive to an alienating form of individual compliance." (p. 86)
It seems pretty clear that the Vienna mission was of the first type - normative. In a way that's not too surprising considering it was a missionary organization and also the nature of the mission field. That is, missions would want the new missionary to share their theology and values, and there would undoubtedly be some care taken to work in countries otherwise not terribly friendly towards religious activity. But the problem is that I didn't foresee how far they had taken the precautions, and how that had somehow mutated the mission into something that I could barely recognize as a mission, and a theological institution to boot - filled with theologians who evidently had no qualms with the way things were done.
The Vienna mission was clearly in the normative camp.
***
"Normative organizations, because of the reliance and concern with the values, attitudes and motives of their members, are likely to be most concerned with the socialization of their new participants. Hence, these organizations usually have time-consuming and intensive socialization methods." (p. 86)
The problem (well, one of the problems) with the Vienna mission was that it was hard to tell what was socialization and what wasn't. It's not as if it was clearly labeled as being socialization or something else, so eventually I began to think that just about everything was socialization. That might not have been true if I'd have been a more responsive subject, in which case I might not have felt that everything was socialization because I'd been socialized already. Then I'd become part of the socialization machine ready for the next recruit to be properly molded. In fact, it did seem, in my observations of others, that once you successfully pass the first battery of tests than part of your initiation was being entrusted to help socialize other new comers. To be able to do that you would have had to have internalized their values and ways of doing things, their norms.
***
Next Van Maanen looks at another way to classify organizations. In this system, the differential is how "total" an institution is (or isn't).
"...[T]he main issue is not which organizations are total, but rather how much totality does each display.
In strong institutions, such as the army, persons are socialized normally by harsh methods. Shiloh (1971) suggests that initiates to these organizations are 'profaned' by a standardized series of abasements and degradations. The organizational machinery is directed toward the classification of the initiates. As the socialization process progresses, tests of obedience are administered under tight supervision. These tests are considered necessary if the individual is to learn a new role." (p. 87)
I've discussed this some in earlier posts, that the Vienna mission was pretty much a total institution. In a sense you might have been freer to leave than, say the military or prison, but if you did you'd have a lot of explaining to do to your supporters (churches and individuals) back home, not to mention any other such life-changing consequences. And there you were plopped in a foreign country, although that didn't phase me personally much, but I think it was used with a lot of people as a way to keep them closely in the fold. Most missionaries who came had a profession (theologian, secretary) and didn't necessarily know German, for example.
***
"In Etzion's terms, coercive organizations are the most like total institutions. Virtually all facets of an individual's life are controlled within these organizations." (p. 87)
It sure felt like this - coercive and total - to me. If you consider that even in the military soldiers have free and leave time, but that setting is still considered coercive and total. So it was in Vienna, and it felt to me like the more I did apart from the group the more I felt the coercion, which was expressed in a variety of ways, such as socially shunning me or changing my work position. I don't want to go into this too much now, but, believe me, I'll get to it.
***
"[S]ome organizations require the recruit to learn a new style of life. Such learning places the members in a community (or subculture) whose claims over their daily existence exceed their official duties. Socialization into such organizations is generally harsh and attempts to force the novice to break old patterns and relationships. The new member is expected to emerge from the organizational socialization process with a strong identification with the collectivity. Moore (1969:879) notes that in such organizations, the process invariably involves suffering." (p. 87)
This was true, I think, of the mission in Vienna. I mean, it's not as if newcomers had to forsake a wanton lifestyle, but they did need to change to fit the way the organization thought and acted, and this did seem pretty all-inclusive. The initiated managed to use all facets of their life for the benefit of the organization. Thus, working to found a Christian school where the missionary kids (MKs) could attend would fit that bill, and would include a few people from the mission, so that it would be possible to make sure that the mission's interests were followed. That would be an activity outside the primary mission of the organization, but within the bounds of what was in the interests of the mission, so that outside activities like this were pretty integral to success in the organization - you couldn't just do your job well and go home and do what you wanted, even if it wasn't necessarily something that would hurt the mission. For the most part, to succeed there at least most, if not all, of your life had to be for the mission's interests, as they defined their interests.
***
"The existence of danger in an occupation or organization is another characteristic having implications for the socialization process. Janowitz (1964) and Van Maanen (1972) note that organizations involved in the performance of crucial life-death functions develop far-reaching claims over the participant's life." (p. 87)
This clearly describes the Vienna mission working in Communist countries. However, as mentioned earlier, this was a Christian mission and as such should have operated under biblical principles, which is exactly where I think they lost the mark. Try explaining that to a bunch of theologians, however. At least you can't accuse me of being intimidated. Back then I did eventually become intimidated through those 2 years of hell on earth (for me), but I grew through those experiences and I've faced a lot of things since then, so I'm pretty hard to intimidate now.
***
It's after midnight and I'd better go for now. Good night.
~ Meg
Monday, February 28, 2011
122. Socialization File, Pt. 5 (Dubin, pt. 5)
Now remember that I did the research that resulted in my having all these articles and book segments in the mid 90's, so my thinking along these lines has stayed pretty constant all this time and that was much closer to the time when all this happened to me - specifically the Vienna years.
Also, the fact that I've kept them all this time is an indication of my continual intention of using them eventually, when life circumstances permitted it.
***
"When an individual enters an organization as a newly recruited member, he is likely to experience what Hughes (1958b) calls a 'reality shock.' The extent to which the shock affects the outcome of the organizational socialization process depends largely upon the extent to which the person has correctly anticipated the various expectations of the organization." (p. 84)
Whoooa, Nelly! Need I say that I didn't anticipate "the various expectations of the organization" very "correctly"? I got along pretty well in Austria apart from my dealings with the mission, which indicates that I knew the Austrian culture better than I understood the organizational culture mostly made up mainly of fellow Americans, and evangelical Christian Americans at that. How can that be? Where had I ever had problems among American evangelical Christians? So as you can see, this is not just any ordinary group of (mostly) American evangelical Christian. No, this is a group of (mostly) American evangelical Christians who had developed a way of thinking and doing that seemed very foreign to my American evangelical Christian experience, which spanned about my whole life.
Now it's one thing to do things a little differently, but how could more fundamental things like way of thinking and rationalizing ways of doing that seemed antithetical to all that I knew about my faith and biblical teaching? Had I been mistaught? Had I all these years misunderstood the Bible?
If these perceived differences were real, and not just ephemeral or a misunderstanding somewhere along the line on my part, how could these seemingly astute theologians and Bible teachers come to such divergent understandings and ways of thinking?
If they were correct, was their way of thinking something that needed to be taught back home too - after all if they were right, surely they should spread it to Christians back home (and elsewhere) too, right? Or was it that they were right only in the narrow context of working in Eastern Europe (or "closed countries" anywhere), which mandated a different reality, a different understanding of things?
But if there was a real gap between the mission's reality and what I'd been taught, experienced and read in the Bible, how could they bridge that gap? I can tell you my theory on this: they were convinced that these differences were necessary to be able to "successfully" carry out their work... in the context of Communist countries. So then the issues become: 1) What is "successful"? 2) Was this really necessary to be "successful"? and 3) Was it biblical?
Here are my answers to these questions:
1) "Successful" in their eyes involved minimal human suffering (e.g., imprisonment of nationals, missionaries being banned from countries, etc.) and more equipped national church leaders to build the Church in those countries. I think the first part of this equation is based on our modern/cultural thinking and does not biblically justify their tactics (although if broken down into specific individual tactics, some might not have been an issue).
2) To meet their idea of "successful" (as I've just surmised) the complete package of their tactics might have been more or less necessary. But since I disagree with their concept of "successful" (as I've interpreted it), I also don't agree that their means were necessary.
3) No, I don't think it was biblical. If it were possible to have one of the leadership (i.e., one of those that would have had the greatest knowledge and understanding of the tactics used) list out the various specific tactics - including the things not written down - and then give a biblical/theological explanation for each of them, I would be very interested in seeing such a list. But first of all, there would need to be corroboration that the list was relatively complete and accurate and not snow job. But since I think that these tactics are still in use in other "closed" countries (i.e., countries not open to Western missionaries), I highly doubt that you'll find anyone willing to do this, unless there was someone else out there (besides me) who was disgruntled about these things but had more insider access than I did.
So all that is to say that I had a very incorrect understanding of the "various expectations" of the mission before arriving in Vienna.
***
"In many cases, anticipatory socialization sharpens the positive features of the organization and dulls the negative features. For example, recruitment procedures seek to present the organization in its most favorable light. Consequently, the encounter period is likely to be an extremely trying period." (p. 84)
Hah! Missions give EVERYONE a glossed over view of their work!! Of course, the more deviance in the mission the more "glossing over" you'd expect. Most missions with any deviation, though, would be expected to having something like disagreements among workers or something scandalous about a particular missionary, or the like. But the glossing over that missions to Eastern Europe did involved intentionally hiding a major part of what they did!
Of course, in general terms I anticipated this, but the kind of discretion I imagined paled in comparison to the whole-scale spy-like institutionalized deception I encountered. You've heard of front companies? Here's something from the Sept. 17, 2008, Los Angeles Times:
The CIA set up a network of front companies in Europe and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a constellation of "black stations" for a new generation of spies, according to current and former agency officials. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/17/nation/na-intel17)
That's about what it felt like.
***
I'm going to break off for now...
Ciao...
~ Meg
Also, the fact that I've kept them all this time is an indication of my continual intention of using them eventually, when life circumstances permitted it.
***
"When an individual enters an organization as a newly recruited member, he is likely to experience what Hughes (1958b) calls a 'reality shock.' The extent to which the shock affects the outcome of the organizational socialization process depends largely upon the extent to which the person has correctly anticipated the various expectations of the organization." (p. 84)
Whoooa, Nelly! Need I say that I didn't anticipate "the various expectations of the organization" very "correctly"? I got along pretty well in Austria apart from my dealings with the mission, which indicates that I knew the Austrian culture better than I understood the organizational culture mostly made up mainly of fellow Americans, and evangelical Christian Americans at that. How can that be? Where had I ever had problems among American evangelical Christians? So as you can see, this is not just any ordinary group of (mostly) American evangelical Christian. No, this is a group of (mostly) American evangelical Christians who had developed a way of thinking and doing that seemed very foreign to my American evangelical Christian experience, which spanned about my whole life.
Now it's one thing to do things a little differently, but how could more fundamental things like way of thinking and rationalizing ways of doing that seemed antithetical to all that I knew about my faith and biblical teaching? Had I been mistaught? Had I all these years misunderstood the Bible?
If these perceived differences were real, and not just ephemeral or a misunderstanding somewhere along the line on my part, how could these seemingly astute theologians and Bible teachers come to such divergent understandings and ways of thinking?
If they were correct, was their way of thinking something that needed to be taught back home too - after all if they were right, surely they should spread it to Christians back home (and elsewhere) too, right? Or was it that they were right only in the narrow context of working in Eastern Europe (or "closed countries" anywhere), which mandated a different reality, a different understanding of things?
But if there was a real gap between the mission's reality and what I'd been taught, experienced and read in the Bible, how could they bridge that gap? I can tell you my theory on this: they were convinced that these differences were necessary to be able to "successfully" carry out their work... in the context of Communist countries. So then the issues become: 1) What is "successful"? 2) Was this really necessary to be "successful"? and 3) Was it biblical?
Here are my answers to these questions:
1) "Successful" in their eyes involved minimal human suffering (e.g., imprisonment of nationals, missionaries being banned from countries, etc.) and more equipped national church leaders to build the Church in those countries. I think the first part of this equation is based on our modern/cultural thinking and does not biblically justify their tactics (although if broken down into specific individual tactics, some might not have been an issue).
2) To meet their idea of "successful" (as I've just surmised) the complete package of their tactics might have been more or less necessary. But since I disagree with their concept of "successful" (as I've interpreted it), I also don't agree that their means were necessary.
3) No, I don't think it was biblical. If it were possible to have one of the leadership (i.e., one of those that would have had the greatest knowledge and understanding of the tactics used) list out the various specific tactics - including the things not written down - and then give a biblical/theological explanation for each of them, I would be very interested in seeing such a list. But first of all, there would need to be corroboration that the list was relatively complete and accurate and not snow job. But since I think that these tactics are still in use in other "closed" countries (i.e., countries not open to Western missionaries), I highly doubt that you'll find anyone willing to do this, unless there was someone else out there (besides me) who was disgruntled about these things but had more insider access than I did.
So all that is to say that I had a very incorrect understanding of the "various expectations" of the mission before arriving in Vienna.
***
"In many cases, anticipatory socialization sharpens the positive features of the organization and dulls the negative features. For example, recruitment procedures seek to present the organization in its most favorable light. Consequently, the encounter period is likely to be an extremely trying period." (p. 84)
Hah! Missions give EVERYONE a glossed over view of their work!! Of course, the more deviance in the mission the more "glossing over" you'd expect. Most missions with any deviation, though, would be expected to having something like disagreements among workers or something scandalous about a particular missionary, or the like. But the glossing over that missions to Eastern Europe did involved intentionally hiding a major part of what they did!
Of course, in general terms I anticipated this, but the kind of discretion I imagined paled in comparison to the whole-scale spy-like institutionalized deception I encountered. You've heard of front companies? Here's something from the Sept. 17, 2008, Los Angeles Times:
The CIA set up a network of front companies in Europe and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a constellation of "black stations" for a new generation of spies, according to current and former agency officials. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/17/nation/na-intel17)
That's about what it felt like.
***
I'm going to break off for now...
Ciao...
~ Meg
Sunday, February 27, 2011
121. Socialization File, Pt. 4 (Dubin, pt. 4)
I went out and did a little shopping this afternoon. My legs aren't very good. I wanted to look in a new store, but decided I'd done enough walking.
I'm trying my sublingual Vitamin B-12 to see if it will help with the fatigue. So far it does seem to be helping.
***
Van Maanen starts out this section by dividing three "conceptually distinct problems" the individual deals with in the socialization process. These are first of all selection of the organization and anticipatory socialization, the second problem is the actual entry into the organization and the structural aspects of that, and the third problem "deals with the extent of personal change necessary for continuance in the organization and is called metamorphosis." (p. 80)
The author further describes these problems as being interdependent and often entail causal ordering.
The rest of what I'm going to cover now is about the first problem.
"For the purpose of this analysis, the concept, anticipatory socialization, will refer to the degree to which an individual is prepared - prior to entry - to occupy organizational positions." (p. 81)
I thought that I was well-prepared for my work in the Vienna mission. The one area I felt weakest in was my secretarial skills, but I thought I had enough temp work under my belt and other skills that that wouldn't be a problem. In hindsight I still think that that was a good assumption... except I didn't have a correct understanding of the organization itself and how it functioned. That is, I understood the explicit aspects of the work, the broad pen functions and what the public (supporters, etc.) was told. But the implicit aspects of the work were quite contrary to my expectations.
Ultimately, to succeed in the Vienna mission I think that the implicit aspects trumped the explicit in as much as falling in lockstep with those things would be more likely to result in a productive (and possibly fulfilling) role in the organization. That's my opinion. So the things I was most prepared for weren't as important as the things I wasn't prepared for.
In citing a study about the socialization of army soldiers in which it was found that "those persons who accepted the official values of the army hierarchy were much more likely to be promoted." (p. 81)
I think that this could be safely said for the Vienna mission too.
***
Next van Maanen discusses how individuals with certain value orientation are selected to work with an organization, these individuals are called "identifier types." The example given in the text is how the Forest Service looked for employees with "a strong public service orientation." (p. 81)
"...[T]he Forest Service was able to successfully screen and select recruits with this personal characteristic. Hence, the socialization process carried on by the organization assumed that the recruits supported and were committed to the service ideology and that this orientation had been implanted through socialization mechanisms." (p. 81-82)
I went to Vienna thinking that I was an "identifier type" for the mission, that I was very committed to ministry in that part of the world and work this group did. This much I did have.
But in reality, and here I'm surmising based on my experience and what I saw while with the mission, they probably wanted someone who was willing to become very vulnerable in order to be completely trusted by the group, and, in the case of value conflict be willing to suspend personal judgment in favor of the group's perspective. If these (or something like these) were the true, or the more important, identifier qualities for the Vienna mission, I was a poor fit.
In contrast, I believe I always have the right to come to my own value and ethical decisions and I thought (and still think) that be becoming completely vulnerable they'd have an easier time getting you to agree to their values and ethics, which would end out being coercive, in my opinion. Again, the mission leadership would deny the "coercive" accusation, but since there clearly would be a power imbalance (the newcomer vs. the entire mission machinery), I find it difficult to imagine it being anything but coercive. For it not to be coercive, at the very least the individual should not be required to be completely vulnerable (bare your soul, if you will).
***
On page 82 the author discusses one theorist who describes how a person's self-conception develops through a reality-testing process, where the individual tries out a theory and takes the result of that attempt to feed back and help reaffirm or adjust the self-concept theory. Selection of a career is seen as part of this process, where career selection is congruent with a person's self-concept.
In my case I'd say this is true. I have quite an altruistic bent and being a missionary fit within that aspect of my self-concept as well as my theology and other aspects of my self-concept.
But I've often noticed how it seemed that missions to Eastern Europe seemed to be different from other fields. Even after the fall of Communism, when I was living in Siberia I couldn't believe how many church planters there didn't know any of the language! This is certainly not what I learned in Bible school about missions, and when I think of the gal I went to school with who worked as a literacy educator in north Africa took 2 years to prepare for that work - 1 year learning French and 1 year learning Swahili!
It seemed it took a different kind of person or different kind of motivation or something to work in that part of the world, maybe it was political persuasion that Communism is the red scare or the potential seat of the antichrist or something. I didn't have this type of orientation, so it probably made me a bad fit. Theoretically and theologically I disagreed with Communism, but I worked through those issues during the process of formal education and on my own as well - I was not particularly politically oriented. I came to these understandings way after I started on the road to preparations for ministry to Eastern Europe. And I wanted to take what I learned in Bible school regarding missions, and not flagrantly go against it, especially as I'd readily accepted these teachings and not had any qualms with them.
So I thought my occupational choice fit my self-concept, and I still think it did, but I didn't have an accurate understanding of how the missions operated, even after having prior short-term and part-time exposure to it. So I was a good fit with an errant view of how things actually worked in that mission field. I may have had an errant view, but I still think that the mission was wrong, in as much as I think they were mistaken in using the deceptive and manipulative measures they did. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of God nor of the biblical mandate to ministry.
***
On page 83 and the top of 84 van Maanen discusses how students (specifically medical students in his example) go through training and gain some limited experience, but are not independently practicing professionals until after they graduate, so there is some uncertainty as to how a person will actually function once on the job. Presumably this could be broadened to any job, not just the first professional job after training. And preparations could be more or less realistic or pertinent to any particular position.
***
That's all for now. Next time we'll discuss what happens when the person enters the organization.
I'm trying my sublingual Vitamin B-12 to see if it will help with the fatigue. So far it does seem to be helping.
***
Van Maanen starts out this section by dividing three "conceptually distinct problems" the individual deals with in the socialization process. These are first of all selection of the organization and anticipatory socialization, the second problem is the actual entry into the organization and the structural aspects of that, and the third problem "deals with the extent of personal change necessary for continuance in the organization and is called metamorphosis." (p. 80)
The author further describes these problems as being interdependent and often entail causal ordering.
The rest of what I'm going to cover now is about the first problem.
"For the purpose of this analysis, the concept, anticipatory socialization, will refer to the degree to which an individual is prepared - prior to entry - to occupy organizational positions." (p. 81)
I thought that I was well-prepared for my work in the Vienna mission. The one area I felt weakest in was my secretarial skills, but I thought I had enough temp work under my belt and other skills that that wouldn't be a problem. In hindsight I still think that that was a good assumption... except I didn't have a correct understanding of the organization itself and how it functioned. That is, I understood the explicit aspects of the work, the broad pen functions and what the public (supporters, etc.) was told. But the implicit aspects of the work were quite contrary to my expectations.
Ultimately, to succeed in the Vienna mission I think that the implicit aspects trumped the explicit in as much as falling in lockstep with those things would be more likely to result in a productive (and possibly fulfilling) role in the organization. That's my opinion. So the things I was most prepared for weren't as important as the things I wasn't prepared for.
In citing a study about the socialization of army soldiers in which it was found that "those persons who accepted the official values of the army hierarchy were much more likely to be promoted." (p. 81)
I think that this could be safely said for the Vienna mission too.
***
Next van Maanen discusses how individuals with certain value orientation are selected to work with an organization, these individuals are called "identifier types." The example given in the text is how the Forest Service looked for employees with "a strong public service orientation." (p. 81)
"...[T]he Forest Service was able to successfully screen and select recruits with this personal characteristic. Hence, the socialization process carried on by the organization assumed that the recruits supported and were committed to the service ideology and that this orientation had been implanted through socialization mechanisms." (p. 81-82)
I went to Vienna thinking that I was an "identifier type" for the mission, that I was very committed to ministry in that part of the world and work this group did. This much I did have.
But in reality, and here I'm surmising based on my experience and what I saw while with the mission, they probably wanted someone who was willing to become very vulnerable in order to be completely trusted by the group, and, in the case of value conflict be willing to suspend personal judgment in favor of the group's perspective. If these (or something like these) were the true, or the more important, identifier qualities for the Vienna mission, I was a poor fit.
In contrast, I believe I always have the right to come to my own value and ethical decisions and I thought (and still think) that be becoming completely vulnerable they'd have an easier time getting you to agree to their values and ethics, which would end out being coercive, in my opinion. Again, the mission leadership would deny the "coercive" accusation, but since there clearly would be a power imbalance (the newcomer vs. the entire mission machinery), I find it difficult to imagine it being anything but coercive. For it not to be coercive, at the very least the individual should not be required to be completely vulnerable (bare your soul, if you will).
***
On page 82 the author discusses one theorist who describes how a person's self-conception develops through a reality-testing process, where the individual tries out a theory and takes the result of that attempt to feed back and help reaffirm or adjust the self-concept theory. Selection of a career is seen as part of this process, where career selection is congruent with a person's self-concept.
In my case I'd say this is true. I have quite an altruistic bent and being a missionary fit within that aspect of my self-concept as well as my theology and other aspects of my self-concept.
But I've often noticed how it seemed that missions to Eastern Europe seemed to be different from other fields. Even after the fall of Communism, when I was living in Siberia I couldn't believe how many church planters there didn't know any of the language! This is certainly not what I learned in Bible school about missions, and when I think of the gal I went to school with who worked as a literacy educator in north Africa took 2 years to prepare for that work - 1 year learning French and 1 year learning Swahili!
It seemed it took a different kind of person or different kind of motivation or something to work in that part of the world, maybe it was political persuasion that Communism is the red scare or the potential seat of the antichrist or something. I didn't have this type of orientation, so it probably made me a bad fit. Theoretically and theologically I disagreed with Communism, but I worked through those issues during the process of formal education and on my own as well - I was not particularly politically oriented. I came to these understandings way after I started on the road to preparations for ministry to Eastern Europe. And I wanted to take what I learned in Bible school regarding missions, and not flagrantly go against it, especially as I'd readily accepted these teachings and not had any qualms with them.
So I thought my occupational choice fit my self-concept, and I still think it did, but I didn't have an accurate understanding of how the missions operated, even after having prior short-term and part-time exposure to it. So I was a good fit with an errant view of how things actually worked in that mission field. I may have had an errant view, but I still think that the mission was wrong, in as much as I think they were mistaken in using the deceptive and manipulative measures they did. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of God nor of the biblical mandate to ministry.
***
On page 83 and the top of 84 van Maanen discusses how students (specifically medical students in his example) go through training and gain some limited experience, but are not independently practicing professionals until after they graduate, so there is some uncertainty as to how a person will actually function once on the job. Presumably this could be broadened to any job, not just the first professional job after training. And preparations could be more or less realistic or pertinent to any particular position.
***
That's all for now. Next time we'll discuss what happens when the person enters the organization.
120. Socialization File, Pt. 3 (Dubin, pt. 3)
Speaking of the individual's initial entry into an organization (rather changes, such as a raise or move to a different department, once in the organization), Dubin has this to say:
"During this 'breaking in' period, the organization may be thought to be most persuasive, for the individual has few guidelines - other than what the immediate situation supplies - to direct his behavior and has little, if any, organizationally based support for his 'identities' which may be the object of influence. Hence, the initiation of an outsider into the organization is indeed a stressful period." (p. 78)
You may remember our earlier discussions regarding brainwashing and total institutions (e.g., prison). It seems that the more a situation resembles a total institution the more the "persuasive" breaking in efforts might be seen as brainwashing. But in any case, if the Vienna mission was a total institution, or an approximation of one, the entrant (e.g., me) should not have had an adversarial attitude (as an unrecalcitrant prisoner might in prison).
The fact it, as I believe I've mentioned before, I thought I had a relatively good handle on missions to Eastern Europe/Communist Countries and also life in Europe and I still held out a belief that the ills in some missions to this part of the world were not universal. I never thought I would become the target of a group trying to make me become like what I avoided as unethical and unbiblical. So this realization in itself was a shock to me ("a stressful period" in the words of van Maanen (the chapter author)).
I also didn't see myself as an "outsider" needing such initiation, because of my previous experience in this field. I obviously was wrong on this count, though, and was more of an outsider than I could ever have imagined.
***
This next quote refers to the inductee's efforts to assimilate:
"Depending upon the neophyte's general values and motivations, he may feel a strong desire to define the expectations of others (i.e., the organization, the work group, the supervisor, etc.) and develop constructs relating himself to these expectations. One researchers has called this process building a 'mental map' of the organizations (Avery, 1968)." (p. 79-80)
I guess this was in my "general values and motivations" because I did try to make sense of what was going on, including trying to understand the rules of play and how relationships worked in the group. Even though I'm not that phased by positionality one way or another in my relationships, I do think it is helpful to understand the lay of the land, so to speak, and I did try to make sense of this aspect of the life of the organization. But as to expectations of others towards me, I found that there was a lot going on that seemed stereotypical in some areas, and others that were seemed to me cliquish depending on your position in the organization. What I mean is that some things seem to be expected of me because I was a single gal (e.g., making a special effort to befriend my boss's wife and kids) or limiting (e.g., choosing to be closer to those in my rank - secretaries - than others). These apparent expectations was especially true regarding choosing one's confidants. If an outsider attended a large group social, though, it's unlikely that this kind of thing would be noticeable.
I had expected to hit the road running when I arrived in Vienna, but the mission had other plans for me. If "running" is a metaphor for effectively carrying out meaningful work, I am not sure I ever got that far - I just hit the road splat and was a casualty that never had a chance to run. The leadership would deny this interpretation, with what I would call paternalistic encouragement, saying that au contraire, I was a valuable and vital member of the team that they couldn't have functioned without. Double splat (this time it's a puke on my part from the saccharine-coated garbage).
***
This was a short section, but there's only one more section and it's some 35 pages long. I'll start it later today, but at least that subchapter is broken down into sub-subchapters.
"During this 'breaking in' period, the organization may be thought to be most persuasive, for the individual has few guidelines - other than what the immediate situation supplies - to direct his behavior and has little, if any, organizationally based support for his 'identities' which may be the object of influence. Hence, the initiation of an outsider into the organization is indeed a stressful period." (p. 78)
You may remember our earlier discussions regarding brainwashing and total institutions (e.g., prison). It seems that the more a situation resembles a total institution the more the "persuasive" breaking in efforts might be seen as brainwashing. But in any case, if the Vienna mission was a total institution, or an approximation of one, the entrant (e.g., me) should not have had an adversarial attitude (as an unrecalcitrant prisoner might in prison).
The fact it, as I believe I've mentioned before, I thought I had a relatively good handle on missions to Eastern Europe/Communist Countries and also life in Europe and I still held out a belief that the ills in some missions to this part of the world were not universal. I never thought I would become the target of a group trying to make me become like what I avoided as unethical and unbiblical. So this realization in itself was a shock to me ("a stressful period" in the words of van Maanen (the chapter author)).
I also didn't see myself as an "outsider" needing such initiation, because of my previous experience in this field. I obviously was wrong on this count, though, and was more of an outsider than I could ever have imagined.
***
This next quote refers to the inductee's efforts to assimilate:
"Depending upon the neophyte's general values and motivations, he may feel a strong desire to define the expectations of others (i.e., the organization, the work group, the supervisor, etc.) and develop constructs relating himself to these expectations. One researchers has called this process building a 'mental map' of the organizations (Avery, 1968)." (p. 79-80)
I guess this was in my "general values and motivations" because I did try to make sense of what was going on, including trying to understand the rules of play and how relationships worked in the group. Even though I'm not that phased by positionality one way or another in my relationships, I do think it is helpful to understand the lay of the land, so to speak, and I did try to make sense of this aspect of the life of the organization. But as to expectations of others towards me, I found that there was a lot going on that seemed stereotypical in some areas, and others that were seemed to me cliquish depending on your position in the organization. What I mean is that some things seem to be expected of me because I was a single gal (e.g., making a special effort to befriend my boss's wife and kids) or limiting (e.g., choosing to be closer to those in my rank - secretaries - than others). These apparent expectations was especially true regarding choosing one's confidants. If an outsider attended a large group social, though, it's unlikely that this kind of thing would be noticeable.
I had expected to hit the road running when I arrived in Vienna, but the mission had other plans for me. If "running" is a metaphor for effectively carrying out meaningful work, I am not sure I ever got that far - I just hit the road splat and was a casualty that never had a chance to run. The leadership would deny this interpretation, with what I would call paternalistic encouragement, saying that au contraire, I was a valuable and vital member of the team that they couldn't have functioned without. Double splat (this time it's a puke on my part from the saccharine-coated garbage).
***
This was a short section, but there's only one more section and it's some 35 pages long. I'll start it later today, but at least that subchapter is broken down into sub-subchapters.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
119. Socialization File, Pt. 2 (Dubin, pt. 2)
Before moving on, there was something I forgot to comment on in the last bit of text, and that was the part about getting "special counseling with the police chaplain." In Vienna it was military reserve chaplain/mission H.R. director. In any case, you can see that there is a question of loyalty regarding chaplains in such institutions: was s/he primarily serving the employer (police academy, military) or God? It seems difficult to equally serve both, although it could have fluctuated depending on the situation. Of course, theology could be worked out so that serving your country is serving God. I have materials about this, so we'll get to this in more detail later at some point. I just want to point out these things when we come to them.
Continuing from where we left off earlier...
***
"As will be discussed in the following sections, most organizations are principally concerned with acquainting the participant with the role demands and observing the resulting behavior. Little attention is normally paid to the individual's underlying motivation or his general value structure. On the other hand, some organizations (e.g., total institutions) are characterized by the attention they pay to such latent characteristics as values and motivation..." p. 72.
I think I discussed already how the Vienna mission could be viewed as a total institution (eventually I'll go back and verify that assumption), so, as you can imagine, my "underlying motivations" and "general value structure" seemed to be rather important to the leadership.
In a way I can sort of see how any mission could be seen as a total institution no matter where they were because the workers are generally uprooted to a new location and more interdependent on one another than if they were all back home working together. But the situation in Vienna probably had even more impetus to be concerned for such inward workings of my conscience because of the political context of our mission field.
Still, no one warned me that having one's own opinions would be tantamount to treason or insubordination (or both?). But I think in Vienna it was not just conformity that mattered, but also complete transparency. Both of these, in my mind, required a certain level of trust and, besides, I wasn't prone to changing my views based on coercion. You can already see that under the circumstances I wouldn't make a very good socialization candidate.
***
"...[A]dult socialization settings can be viewed as lying on a continuum from those concerned primarily with overt behavior to those concerned with all facets of the general socialization equation." (p. 72)
Do I need to say explicitly where the Vienna mission lay on this continuum? I'm sure you guessed, but just for the record, they were on the far end of the "all facets of the general socialization equation".
***
"Successful organizational socialization to Caplow provides the individual with: (1) new self-images, (2) new involvements, (3) new values, and (4) new accomplishments." p. 75.
New self-images? new values? Okay, I can see having new involvements and accomplishments; that part seems clear and I don't have a problem with them, assuming that the involvements and accomplishments are ethical and all that good stuff.
I'm going to take the "new values" point first. I didn't expect to have my values toyed with, especially in a Christian mission. After all, I agreed with the theology and the work itself, including the rationale behind it, etc. But there was a whole underworld going on there that in hindsight I might have earlier caught bits of in my previous short-term mission work to people from that same part of the world. But I really had no idea of how pervasive and fundamental these values were to much of the work in that part of the world, including the Vienna mission. I was definitely flown a curve ball on this one.
Regarding self-image, I think this is relevant here too because I think workers were supposed to develop more of a group-centered self-image, where your image of yourself was more integrally tied to the group. I didn't like this either because once that happens, it seemed to me, then basically you're at the mercy of the group.
Now you'd think that this would be no big deal for a missionary joining with the mission, but when this was taken together with all the other stuff going on and a lot of it in the information power and informal communication levels, which is where things can become manipulative and less straight forward, I found this demand untenable.
***
"Hence, adult socialization consists largely of the person turning himself into the kind of individual the situation necessitates." (p. 75)
The phrase "the situation necessitates" can be viewed on many levels, or at least two in my situation. On one level, it could mean what the organization required of me in order to succeed in it. But on another level, it could mean what the ministry itself necessitates. What I mean by this is what the mission did and how it operated may or may not have been necessary to actually accomplish what it wanted to do. This is just looking at it pragmatically - what would work or not work - and doesn't even touch on the ethics involved.
***
"Operationally, this means the individual develops a specific set of beliefs that link his activities to the valued rewards in his situation. The perceived attainment of these rewards demonstrate to the person his competence upon which his self-concepts are ultimately based." (p. 76)
I don't have too much trouble with this. As a Christian, though, these values and self-concepts should not contradict Biblical teaching, and the person's most fundamental self-concept, I think, should transcend work, so that the work-related values and self-concept form only a part of the individual's overall values and self-concept, and might even just be cordoned off as only affecting his/her work life. I do have problems, though, when this involves felt unethical behavior and thinking and when it is more all-encompassing.
***
"The importance of this initial set of experiences in determining how both the individual and the organization will view one's career cannot be understated.
Thus, the organizational socialization process - emphasizing the transfer of knowledge, abilities and motivations - necessarily involves the creation of expectations regarding careers." (p. 77)
I'm not sure what is meant here by "initial experiences" (the first week? month? year?), but it didn't take long (a few months) for my experiences to take a dramatic plunge for the worst. After that I'm not sure what their career expectations were for me, and I think I began to react to things more than hold specific career goals, although, I did still have some hope of a career and didn't give up hope completely for a long time (it sure seemed like a long time to me, anyway).
As to the "transfer of knowledge, abilities and motivation" I don't think there was that much focus on knowledge in my experience; in fact, the one main area of knowledge was, to my mind, ultimately more an experience of learning submission and the like. I'll talk about that when I return to my chronology. So knowledge was virtually irrelevant in my socialization in Vienna. I did learn some skills specific to their work, although I don't think it was the most important thing. What really mattered was "motivation" and the whole realm of related subjectivities that involved.
***
This ends part I of this chapter, and I'm going to leave off for now.
My vision has fluctuate a fair amount the last year and none of my glasses are working well for doing this so I'm sitting in a position that the neurosurgeon would chide me for. I'm trying to sit up with good posture, but it's hard not to crane my neck. I see the optometrist March 8, but I can't see my ophthalmologist because they don't take my insurance any more. I didn't want to see my optometrist any sooner because she's a ways away and although I'm gradually getting out more it's a bit of a trek, so I wanted to wait until I thought I was up to it. The stenosis seems to have had affects in my head as well as lower down, so it's like most of my central nervous system was affected by it.
One other thing I wanted to say is that even though I did this study on socialization (that's how I got all these articles, chapters, etc.), it wasn't always clear that socialization was the aim. But if there was something else going on I may never know to what extent different goals were at play. The issue here is that I think organizational socialization assumes an effort by the organization to integrate the individual newcomer. If there was something other than this going on it would not have been part of any socialization efforts there might have been.
Continuing from where we left off earlier...
***
"As will be discussed in the following sections, most organizations are principally concerned with acquainting the participant with the role demands and observing the resulting behavior. Little attention is normally paid to the individual's underlying motivation or his general value structure. On the other hand, some organizations (e.g., total institutions) are characterized by the attention they pay to such latent characteristics as values and motivation..." p. 72.
I think I discussed already how the Vienna mission could be viewed as a total institution (eventually I'll go back and verify that assumption), so, as you can imagine, my "underlying motivations" and "general value structure" seemed to be rather important to the leadership.
In a way I can sort of see how any mission could be seen as a total institution no matter where they were because the workers are generally uprooted to a new location and more interdependent on one another than if they were all back home working together. But the situation in Vienna probably had even more impetus to be concerned for such inward workings of my conscience because of the political context of our mission field.
Still, no one warned me that having one's own opinions would be tantamount to treason or insubordination (or both?). But I think in Vienna it was not just conformity that mattered, but also complete transparency. Both of these, in my mind, required a certain level of trust and, besides, I wasn't prone to changing my views based on coercion. You can already see that under the circumstances I wouldn't make a very good socialization candidate.
***
"...[A]dult socialization settings can be viewed as lying on a continuum from those concerned primarily with overt behavior to those concerned with all facets of the general socialization equation." (p. 72)
Do I need to say explicitly where the Vienna mission lay on this continuum? I'm sure you guessed, but just for the record, they were on the far end of the "all facets of the general socialization equation".
***
"Successful organizational socialization to Caplow provides the individual with: (1) new self-images, (2) new involvements, (3) new values, and (4) new accomplishments." p. 75.
New self-images? new values? Okay, I can see having new involvements and accomplishments; that part seems clear and I don't have a problem with them, assuming that the involvements and accomplishments are ethical and all that good stuff.
I'm going to take the "new values" point first. I didn't expect to have my values toyed with, especially in a Christian mission. After all, I agreed with the theology and the work itself, including the rationale behind it, etc. But there was a whole underworld going on there that in hindsight I might have earlier caught bits of in my previous short-term mission work to people from that same part of the world. But I really had no idea of how pervasive and fundamental these values were to much of the work in that part of the world, including the Vienna mission. I was definitely flown a curve ball on this one.
Regarding self-image, I think this is relevant here too because I think workers were supposed to develop more of a group-centered self-image, where your image of yourself was more integrally tied to the group. I didn't like this either because once that happens, it seemed to me, then basically you're at the mercy of the group.
Now you'd think that this would be no big deal for a missionary joining with the mission, but when this was taken together with all the other stuff going on and a lot of it in the information power and informal communication levels, which is where things can become manipulative and less straight forward, I found this demand untenable.
***
"Hence, adult socialization consists largely of the person turning himself into the kind of individual the situation necessitates." (p. 75)
The phrase "the situation necessitates" can be viewed on many levels, or at least two in my situation. On one level, it could mean what the organization required of me in order to succeed in it. But on another level, it could mean what the ministry itself necessitates. What I mean by this is what the mission did and how it operated may or may not have been necessary to actually accomplish what it wanted to do. This is just looking at it pragmatically - what would work or not work - and doesn't even touch on the ethics involved.
***
"Operationally, this means the individual develops a specific set of beliefs that link his activities to the valued rewards in his situation. The perceived attainment of these rewards demonstrate to the person his competence upon which his self-concepts are ultimately based." (p. 76)
I don't have too much trouble with this. As a Christian, though, these values and self-concepts should not contradict Biblical teaching, and the person's most fundamental self-concept, I think, should transcend work, so that the work-related values and self-concept form only a part of the individual's overall values and self-concept, and might even just be cordoned off as only affecting his/her work life. I do have problems, though, when this involves felt unethical behavior and thinking and when it is more all-encompassing.
***
"The importance of this initial set of experiences in determining how both the individual and the organization will view one's career cannot be understated.
Thus, the organizational socialization process - emphasizing the transfer of knowledge, abilities and motivations - necessarily involves the creation of expectations regarding careers." (p. 77)
I'm not sure what is meant here by "initial experiences" (the first week? month? year?), but it didn't take long (a few months) for my experiences to take a dramatic plunge for the worst. After that I'm not sure what their career expectations were for me, and I think I began to react to things more than hold specific career goals, although, I did still have some hope of a career and didn't give up hope completely for a long time (it sure seemed like a long time to me, anyway).
As to the "transfer of knowledge, abilities and motivation" I don't think there was that much focus on knowledge in my experience; in fact, the one main area of knowledge was, to my mind, ultimately more an experience of learning submission and the like. I'll talk about that when I return to my chronology. So knowledge was virtually irrelevant in my socialization in Vienna. I did learn some skills specific to their work, although I don't think it was the most important thing. What really mattered was "motivation" and the whole realm of related subjectivities that involved.
***
This ends part I of this chapter, and I'm going to leave off for now.
My vision has fluctuate a fair amount the last year and none of my glasses are working well for doing this so I'm sitting in a position that the neurosurgeon would chide me for. I'm trying to sit up with good posture, but it's hard not to crane my neck. I see the optometrist March 8, but I can't see my ophthalmologist because they don't take my insurance any more. I didn't want to see my optometrist any sooner because she's a ways away and although I'm gradually getting out more it's a bit of a trek, so I wanted to wait until I thought I was up to it. The stenosis seems to have had affects in my head as well as lower down, so it's like most of my central nervous system was affected by it.
One other thing I wanted to say is that even though I did this study on socialization (that's how I got all these articles, chapters, etc.), it wasn't always clear that socialization was the aim. But if there was something else going on I may never know to what extent different goals were at play. The issue here is that I think organizational socialization assumes an effort by the organization to integrate the individual newcomer. If there was something other than this going on it would not have been part of any socialization efforts there might have been.
118. I'm Back...., I Think... & Socialization File, Pt. 1 (Dubin, pt. 1)
[Note: there is a break in the numbering here because there are 3 drafts and Blogger.com sequences posts by date/time started, so when/if I post any of those 3 drafts they'll appear before this one.]
I'm going to start picking up again where I left off in my story, but I'm still recuperating, so it's going to be somewhat slower. The main thing now is that I still get tired so easily and end out usually taking hour long naps in the afternoon. I'm hoping it's just a phase in my recovery, but I'm half afraid it could be the start of chronic fatigue syndrome. Time will tell, I guess.
At any rate, I finished chronicling the events of the past 6 months or so in quite a bit of detail elsewhere. Since they are current I decided to write about them openly and not use a pseudonym, but they'll eventually merge with this material here when I get that far in the story and am ready to reveal myself. I'm expecting that even when I finish the chronology I'm going to want to go over it all as a whole and do some editing to clarify things that seem to need that, add things that I may have omitted, delete things that might not be so important, as well as fix any linguistic errors.
As I left off I was just getting to my move to Vienna. But since it's been such a long time since I've written I'm going to warm up to that by going over another file. I'm sorry if you're reading straight through this and didn't have such a long break in reading as I have in writing, but I think I need it and also it might provide some more useful background information to you the reader. This file is "Socialization". By this I mean specifically "Organizational Socialization", which Wikipedia defines as:
******
I'm starting out here with a general discussion of socialization - some of the texts I have are more focused on specific situations or aspects of socialization. These are sections from The Handbook of Work, Organization and Society (1976), edited by Richard Dubin.
"Implicit in the analysis of adult socialization to work and work career is the notion that the individual is being acted upon in the interests of the work organization. It is presumed that the individual will be adaptive and responsive to the socializing efforts." (p. 67, from the introduction)
In general this sounds pretty benign and routine. But what if the socializing involves issues that go contrary to you values and beliefs? Of course, the carrot and stick can be pretty potent when they involve a person's source of income and career.
I'm not a cultural relativist, but I don't think I'm a cultural bigot either. That is, I do think that there are things that are right or wrong irrespective of culture, and that includes my native culture. This also includes organizational culture, in my opinion. Not that I could have said this so succinctly when I was in the throes of being "socialized", if that's what it was.
******
Chapter 3, Breaking In: Socialization to Work, by John Van Maanen, p. 67-129.
"Throughout this analysis, the term organizational socialization will be preferred to the tern occupational socialization because it directs attention to the dominant setting in which the process occurs. Although the two socialization processes are often interdependent, the position taken in this chapter is that the characteristics of the socialization setting are far more crucial to the eventual outcomes of the process than are the specific occupational attributes to be inculcated." (p. 67)
Occupational socialization is socialization into your field, while organizational socialization is socialization to a specific organization (work place). In my context, the occupational socialization would have been the short term and part-time mission work I did and also my formal Bible school education. This socialized me into missions and missions to Eastern Europe in particular.
However, when I arrived in Vienna I would experience, not occupational socialization, but organizational socialization - socialization into that mission's way of thinking and doing things. Before my Vienna work, I would have had some organizational orientation in my short-term and part-time mission work too, especially since it was all with one mission.
I can't remember if it's in this file that this comes up in or somewhere else, but one of the things here is that there can be conflicts between professional and organizational socializations. This is especially true, as I understand it, in professional positions.
When I went to Vienna, I came there with values and theology inculcated in me at Bible school especially, but also other values, such as ones I was raised with at home. Nothing I learned in any of these experiences, including in my short-term or temporary mission work, prepared me for the socialization awaiting me in Vienna.
***
"Related to the postulated learning process, organizational socialization also implies that a man may be forced to relinquish certain attitudes, values, and behaviors. Schein (1968a) succinctly refers to this aspects as the 'price of membership.' At its best, organizational socialization results in the matching or melding of individual and organizational pursuits. At its worst, the process may lead to rejection by the individual of the expressed requirements of the organization." (p. 68)
Presumably, if a new missionary were required to "relinquish certain attitudes, values, and behaviors" to be fully integrated into a mission, there should be good Biblical backing for this and also backing for the techniques and processes used, right? If you answered, "right" to that question you can understand how encountering something seemingly diametrically to the contrary would be a shock to the system... especially for someone who'd prepared so meticulously and for years to arrive in the mission field well-equipped for the job. When the Bible was used as evidence it was used manipulatively, in my opinion.
Although it is mostly true that I was an "At its worst" case, it can't be completely true, because I often wasn't sure what the "expressed requirements" were to reject them.
***
"Taking role-acquisition as the central concern of socialization, Brim views personality in terms of a person's perception of self and his behavior in relation to the social organization in which he acts... the socialization process is seen by Brim (1966:9) as:
The manner in which an individual learns the behavior appropriate to his position in a group, through interaction with others who hold normative beliefs about what his role should be and who reward or punish him for correct or incorrect actions." (p. 69)
Taking this from the top... I was never in one position more than about 6 months, and there were times when there were also insinuations of other changes. So it hardly seems like in my case being socialized into the position itself was central.
I will affirm the method of carrot/stick (good ole' positive/negative reinforcement psychology) as being used in Vienna. Except it didn't seem like they were using it primarily to socialize me into a role (since the role was such a moving target).
***
On pages 70 to 71 van Maanen discusses various life-cycle socializations and how it changes as we mature. He then postulates that just as the life-cycle socialization phases change and build on one another, so is organizational socialization structured (at least in general terms).
The scary thing about that is the sixth and last "change postulated [which] is a transformation from idealism to realism" (p. 71)
I understand that there are both realistically (Thomas Aquinas, etc.) and idealistically (St. Augustine, etc.) oriented Christians, but to be forced into a realistic position? Not in so many words, of course, but in essence.
***
Then he continues, quoting Brim (1966):
"As the child matures, he is taught to realize that there is a distinction between the ideal and the real, and learns to take his part in society accordingly to the realistic expectations, rather than attempting conformity to ideal norms." (p. 71)
Funny, that's not what they taught me in Sunday school... Seriously, though, in my context this would be like learning to not bother conforming to the Bible, but rather conform to the organizational standards, irregardless of what "ideal norms" are given in the Bible.
Not that the Bible wasn't used at times to back something, but too often I thought it was a manipulative use of Scripture - either pulling something out of context or only looking at one small piece of an issue rather than looking at the full Scriptural teaching on an issue. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of thing is out of place especially in a Christian mission - and you can call me an idealist on this count.
***
Here's a scenario from the context of police acadamies:
"If the recruit demonstrates that he is unable to operate the weapon, the training program seeks to upgrade his skills. If he is unwilling to spend the time learning this skill, then motivational devices are used to induce the appropriate spirit through the use of special rewards and punishments (e.g., withholding a portion of the recruit's pay, or assign him extra duty). If it appears, however, that education about the values is required, the individual is coached, pressured, or otherwise persuaded to accept the general values of the organization. If the recruit still has problems accepting the values, he is usually dismissed from the organization, although it is conceivable that therapeutic procedures might be instituted to solve this dilemma (e.g., special counseling with the police chaplain). Only in the most extreme case is the recruit assumed not to be motivated toward the appropriate subcultural values. In this case the recruit is immediately dismissed and stigmatised." (p. 71-72).
Don't get me wrong on this, I don't know that the mission in Vienna was quite as systematic as this police training academy was, but even so, I think they were equally "professional" in their handling of my socialization. I think it's safe to say they used every single one of these tactics with me, sometimes simultaneously. But they weren't trying to teach me a skill, as in this example. I don't think skill level was ever the issue.
This lets you see some of the processes involved in how this might happen, at least in one context.
***
This chapter has subparts and I was hoping to take a break at one of those places, but I need to go do some other things, so we'll just pick up later where we left off.
I'm going to start picking up again where I left off in my story, but I'm still recuperating, so it's going to be somewhat slower. The main thing now is that I still get tired so easily and end out usually taking hour long naps in the afternoon. I'm hoping it's just a phase in my recovery, but I'm half afraid it could be the start of chronic fatigue syndrome. Time will tell, I guess.
At any rate, I finished chronicling the events of the past 6 months or so in quite a bit of detail elsewhere. Since they are current I decided to write about them openly and not use a pseudonym, but they'll eventually merge with this material here when I get that far in the story and am ready to reveal myself. I'm expecting that even when I finish the chronology I'm going to want to go over it all as a whole and do some editing to clarify things that seem to need that, add things that I may have omitted, delete things that might not be so important, as well as fix any linguistic errors.
As I left off I was just getting to my move to Vienna. But since it's been such a long time since I've written I'm going to warm up to that by going over another file. I'm sorry if you're reading straight through this and didn't have such a long break in reading as I have in writing, but I think I need it and also it might provide some more useful background information to you the reader. This file is "Socialization". By this I mean specifically "Organizational Socialization", which Wikipedia defines as:
Organizational socialization
- Organizational socialization is the process whereby an employee learning the knowledge and skills necessary to assume his or her organizational role.[10] As newcomers become socialized, they learn about the organization and its history, values, jargon, culture, and procedures. They also learn about their work group, the specific people they work with on a daily basis, their own role in the organization, the skills needed to do their job, and both formal procedures and informal norms. Socialization functions as a control system in that newcomers learn to internalize and obey organizational values and practices.
******
I'm starting out here with a general discussion of socialization - some of the texts I have are more focused on specific situations or aspects of socialization. These are sections from The Handbook of Work, Organization and Society (1976), edited by Richard Dubin.
"Implicit in the analysis of adult socialization to work and work career is the notion that the individual is being acted upon in the interests of the work organization. It is presumed that the individual will be adaptive and responsive to the socializing efforts." (p. 67, from the introduction)
In general this sounds pretty benign and routine. But what if the socializing involves issues that go contrary to you values and beliefs? Of course, the carrot and stick can be pretty potent when they involve a person's source of income and career.
I'm not a cultural relativist, but I don't think I'm a cultural bigot either. That is, I do think that there are things that are right or wrong irrespective of culture, and that includes my native culture. This also includes organizational culture, in my opinion. Not that I could have said this so succinctly when I was in the throes of being "socialized", if that's what it was.
******
Chapter 3, Breaking In: Socialization to Work, by John Van Maanen, p. 67-129.
"Throughout this analysis, the term organizational socialization will be preferred to the tern occupational socialization because it directs attention to the dominant setting in which the process occurs. Although the two socialization processes are often interdependent, the position taken in this chapter is that the characteristics of the socialization setting are far more crucial to the eventual outcomes of the process than are the specific occupational attributes to be inculcated." (p. 67)
Occupational socialization is socialization into your field, while organizational socialization is socialization to a specific organization (work place). In my context, the occupational socialization would have been the short term and part-time mission work I did and also my formal Bible school education. This socialized me into missions and missions to Eastern Europe in particular.
However, when I arrived in Vienna I would experience, not occupational socialization, but organizational socialization - socialization into that mission's way of thinking and doing things. Before my Vienna work, I would have had some organizational orientation in my short-term and part-time mission work too, especially since it was all with one mission.
I can't remember if it's in this file that this comes up in or somewhere else, but one of the things here is that there can be conflicts between professional and organizational socializations. This is especially true, as I understand it, in professional positions.
When I went to Vienna, I came there with values and theology inculcated in me at Bible school especially, but also other values, such as ones I was raised with at home. Nothing I learned in any of these experiences, including in my short-term or temporary mission work, prepared me for the socialization awaiting me in Vienna.
***
"Related to the postulated learning process, organizational socialization also implies that a man may be forced to relinquish certain attitudes, values, and behaviors. Schein (1968a) succinctly refers to this aspects as the 'price of membership.' At its best, organizational socialization results in the matching or melding of individual and organizational pursuits. At its worst, the process may lead to rejection by the individual of the expressed requirements of the organization." (p. 68)
Presumably, if a new missionary were required to "relinquish certain attitudes, values, and behaviors" to be fully integrated into a mission, there should be good Biblical backing for this and also backing for the techniques and processes used, right? If you answered, "right" to that question you can understand how encountering something seemingly diametrically to the contrary would be a shock to the system... especially for someone who'd prepared so meticulously and for years to arrive in the mission field well-equipped for the job. When the Bible was used as evidence it was used manipulatively, in my opinion.
Although it is mostly true that I was an "At its worst" case, it can't be completely true, because I often wasn't sure what the "expressed requirements" were to reject them.
***
"Taking role-acquisition as the central concern of socialization, Brim views personality in terms of a person's perception of self and his behavior in relation to the social organization in which he acts... the socialization process is seen by Brim (1966:9) as:
The manner in which an individual learns the behavior appropriate to his position in a group, through interaction with others who hold normative beliefs about what his role should be and who reward or punish him for correct or incorrect actions." (p. 69)
Taking this from the top... I was never in one position more than about 6 months, and there were times when there were also insinuations of other changes. So it hardly seems like in my case being socialized into the position itself was central.
I will affirm the method of carrot/stick (good ole' positive/negative reinforcement psychology) as being used in Vienna. Except it didn't seem like they were using it primarily to socialize me into a role (since the role was such a moving target).
***
On pages 70 to 71 van Maanen discusses various life-cycle socializations and how it changes as we mature. He then postulates that just as the life-cycle socialization phases change and build on one another, so is organizational socialization structured (at least in general terms).
The scary thing about that is the sixth and last "change postulated [which] is a transformation from idealism to realism" (p. 71)
I understand that there are both realistically (Thomas Aquinas, etc.) and idealistically (St. Augustine, etc.) oriented Christians, but to be forced into a realistic position? Not in so many words, of course, but in essence.
***
Then he continues, quoting Brim (1966):
"As the child matures, he is taught to realize that there is a distinction between the ideal and the real, and learns to take his part in society accordingly to the realistic expectations, rather than attempting conformity to ideal norms." (p. 71)
Funny, that's not what they taught me in Sunday school... Seriously, though, in my context this would be like learning to not bother conforming to the Bible, but rather conform to the organizational standards, irregardless of what "ideal norms" are given in the Bible.
Not that the Bible wasn't used at times to back something, but too often I thought it was a manipulative use of Scripture - either pulling something out of context or only looking at one small piece of an issue rather than looking at the full Scriptural teaching on an issue. As far as I'm concerned, this kind of thing is out of place especially in a Christian mission - and you can call me an idealist on this count.
***
Here's a scenario from the context of police acadamies:
"If the recruit demonstrates that he is unable to operate the weapon, the training program seeks to upgrade his skills. If he is unwilling to spend the time learning this skill, then motivational devices are used to induce the appropriate spirit through the use of special rewards and punishments (e.g., withholding a portion of the recruit's pay, or assign him extra duty). If it appears, however, that education about the values is required, the individual is coached, pressured, or otherwise persuaded to accept the general values of the organization. If the recruit still has problems accepting the values, he is usually dismissed from the organization, although it is conceivable that therapeutic procedures might be instituted to solve this dilemma (e.g., special counseling with the police chaplain). Only in the most extreme case is the recruit assumed not to be motivated toward the appropriate subcultural values. In this case the recruit is immediately dismissed and stigmatised." (p. 71-72).
Don't get me wrong on this, I don't know that the mission in Vienna was quite as systematic as this police training academy was, but even so, I think they were equally "professional" in their handling of my socialization. I think it's safe to say they used every single one of these tactics with me, sometimes simultaneously. But they weren't trying to teach me a skill, as in this example. I don't think skill level was ever the issue.
This lets you see some of the processes involved in how this might happen, at least in one context.
***
This chapter has subparts and I was hoping to take a break at one of those places, but I need to go do some other things, so we'll just pick up later where we left off.
Friday, February 4, 2011
114. Post-Surgery Brief Update
I had surgery Jan. 13. The lead up to it went very quickly once things got rolling. I saw the neurosurgeon my rheumatologist had been wanting me to see for at least a couple months on Jan. 5. He scheduled the surgery for the 13th, and I conveniently already had an appointment scheduled with my new primary care doctor on Fri. Jan. 7 so she could do the routine pre-op testing. I saw my rheumatologist again Jan. 11th, 2 days before the surgery.
The surgery itself was late in the afternoon and seems to have been a success. Initially the neurosurgeon said, based on imaging, he was going to do a diskectomy and fusion at C5-7 (another earlier neurosurgeon proposed C5-6), but in the end he did C4-7.
I won't go into all the details now about what exactly happened at the hospital after the surgery, etc., but I just wanted to say now that going to C4 gives credence to my conviction the whole time that my head and facial symptoms were from the neck. Some doctors were skeptical about that, even thinking there might be something psychological going on, which I guess was because the imaging didn't support my belief.
So here's what I understand now about it. C1 to C4 there's a network of nerves (the cervical plexus) emanating out from the spinal cord going back up to the head. So including C4 in the surgery backed me up. And the day after the surgery the neurosurgeon and his assistant came to me in the hospital and asked how my arms were, but I practically brushed that question aside in my excitement at how my head felt so much better. The doctor said then that they hadn't been sure if that part of the surgery was going to be successful or not, so there must have been something about it that was difficult to repair. I still have some head/face symptoms, but they're getting less troublesome. But it's these symptoms that make me tired, so when I get them, usually sometime late afternoon (I'm due for a nap as I write this). I hope they eventually go away completely. but if not it'll definitely be an immense improvement from before the surgery.
The other thing I learned too is that at C4 there's a nerve called the phrenic nerve that branches out from the spinal cord, and this nerve controls the diaphragm - which controls breathing. Evidently there's a saying that goes "Cut 4, breathe nor more," meaning cut that nerve at C4 and a person will stop breathing.
I think I was having some symptoms that this nerve might have been affected by the stenosis, but I'm just glad now that I'm over the worst part of it and on the recovery side of the surgery. It was really, really awful before the surgery, especially the head symptoms, though. Sometimes it was hard to fully explain what it was like, what I was feeling. I felt from early on an urgency about these symptoms, and I think in hindsight it was quite reasonable to feel that way.
Eventually I'll get back to this blog, but it might be a little while longer.
The surgery itself was late in the afternoon and seems to have been a success. Initially the neurosurgeon said, based on imaging, he was going to do a diskectomy and fusion at C5-7 (another earlier neurosurgeon proposed C5-6), but in the end he did C4-7.
I won't go into all the details now about what exactly happened at the hospital after the surgery, etc., but I just wanted to say now that going to C4 gives credence to my conviction the whole time that my head and facial symptoms were from the neck. Some doctors were skeptical about that, even thinking there might be something psychological going on, which I guess was because the imaging didn't support my belief.
So here's what I understand now about it. C1 to C4 there's a network of nerves (the cervical plexus) emanating out from the spinal cord going back up to the head. So including C4 in the surgery backed me up. And the day after the surgery the neurosurgeon and his assistant came to me in the hospital and asked how my arms were, but I practically brushed that question aside in my excitement at how my head felt so much better. The doctor said then that they hadn't been sure if that part of the surgery was going to be successful or not, so there must have been something about it that was difficult to repair. I still have some head/face symptoms, but they're getting less troublesome. But it's these symptoms that make me tired, so when I get them, usually sometime late afternoon (I'm due for a nap as I write this). I hope they eventually go away completely. but if not it'll definitely be an immense improvement from before the surgery.
The other thing I learned too is that at C4 there's a nerve called the phrenic nerve that branches out from the spinal cord, and this nerve controls the diaphragm - which controls breathing. Evidently there's a saying that goes "Cut 4, breathe nor more," meaning cut that nerve at C4 and a person will stop breathing.
I think I was having some symptoms that this nerve might have been affected by the stenosis, but I'm just glad now that I'm over the worst part of it and on the recovery side of the surgery. It was really, really awful before the surgery, especially the head symptoms, though. Sometimes it was hard to fully explain what it was like, what I was feeling. I felt from early on an urgency about these symptoms, and I think in hindsight it was quite reasonable to feel that way.
Eventually I'll get back to this blog, but it might be a little while longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)