I've been trying to keep to doing 2 of these a day (although the last one today was sort of an extra). My recovery from cervical surgery is being slow, so my energy is limited, and I have other things to do too.
Sometimes I may sound angry on this blog, and I do think that I have a certain amount of anger in me about some of my experiences. There's another one going on now that I'm trying to figure out how to deal with. I haven't told many people about this project and when I have I haven't given any details, but there are a couple people at church that I think are going to try to make me share some of these things publicly before I want to. Sometimes when I get into these things (people who want me to do things I don't want to), it ends out not very good, like coming up in a public situation where I have to explain myself when I don't particularly want to, or it's not the right setting, or whatever. So I end out avoiding potential situations like that, which in this case would probably mean not going to church until I've finished this project. Also in these kinds of cases it can look like the other person is being supportive when their disregard for my wishes makes me feel disrespected.
But let's leave that and move on. Since the above issue relates to things I'm talking about here, however, I may come back to it if there are any further developments.
***
"What is often missed in the discussion of the influence of reference and/or colleague groups is that the members of such groups are rarely perceived as equals by the recruit. Moore (1969) indicates that it is the role of the significant other that induces a new member to share the group's attitudes and beliefs." (p. 92)
Regarding my perception of myself vis a vis the secretaries, it was a mixed bag. I felt that they were better secretaries than me and certainly they knew the ropes of the organization than I did, but I came with a lot of knowledge and skills that they didn't have too, so I wasn't too encumbered with feelings of inadequacy in my relations with them. Also, I didn't need a lot of help in getting settled because I already had enough experience to get around by myself, and so I'm sure this made me more difficult to socialize.
However, regarding the "significant other" here, I think in my case if there were just one person to pick out as the main one in the socialization effort, it was my boss. That might have been otherwise if I had shared an apartment with one of the other secretaries (the one who called me from Alaska when I was in Colorado on deputation). In that case, she probably would have been the "significant other", but I'm not sure of that either, because she didn't arrive all that long before me and so probably wasn't far enough down the socialization process to be my "significant other" in the sense of having a main role in socializing me; rather our relationship might have been a kind of buddy-buddy system set up, since we were both being socialized at more or less the same time.
The relationship with my boss was a story all itself and I'm not going to go there right now.
***
"Those who feel they have been treated by another with affection and consideration usually regard their personal obligations as binding." (p. 98, quoting Shibutani (1962))
I think this does describe how it was supposed to be between me and my boss, but it was not just between me and him but by association also with his family. They were very kind and attentive (until the end), and I tried to build good relations with his family, especially his wife and one daughter, that I sort of had a big sister relationship with.
I'm not sure internally I responded as they wanted though, because I mostly felt like I was still trying to figure things out and so even with these efforts I was somewhat aloof, I think, and it's possible I could have been a bit of an enigma to them.
***
"Strauss (1968) sees the 'coach' as the significant other for some organizational initiates. The coach (or in some cases, coaches) is one who takes - either formal or informal - responsibility for seeing that a recruit is properly groomed, instructed, advised or cared for during the 'breaking-in' period. He notes that the coach's role is to develop a new identity for the learner by guiding him along a series of noninstitutionalized steps leading to full organizational membership. And the affective relationship that develops between coach and learner is key to the success of the process." (p. 92)
I wasn't going to include this quote, except I thought the last line warranted it's inclusion, with the preceding sentences setting the stage for the final comment.
Indeed, there did seem to be a sort of bond that was supposed to develop between me and my boss and it seemed to be a common sort of thing between the bosses and secretaries. How can I explain it? One thing was that it seemed that the bosses and secretaries got to know each other well enough that they sort of thought along the same lines or understood each other without a lot of extra verbage... sort of like a wife-husband relationship in that regard. But care was always taken for the secretary to have a good relationship with the boss's wife and family, and the boss-secretary relationship was given added respectability by that other relationship. Also the wives weren't at the office day in and day out, so having a relationship with them was important to avoid any possible misconceptions on their part by the secretary and her husband working together at the office and understanding each other so well. In a way, it could have been a benefit of being a wife of someone with a secretary, because other wives didn't have this office connection, although there certainly were other kinds of relationships going on too, but not sort of formalized ones so much as between the secretaries, their bosses and their boss's wife.
In this coaching relationship, which I've described some already in previous posts, there was a closeness that seemed bordering on sensual, which I think is because the socialization process in the mission required great vulnerability (in my opinion) and conformity of values, beliefs and opinions regarding the ministry and how to live while working with the mission (and even afterwards to a certain extent - such as how to represent the mission when you're back home). So there was this vulnerability back and forth going, where the inductee (the secretary) would be going through the throes of adjusting to this new life and her confidant would be there to provide whatever was needed to help her along, including understanding, assurance, counseling, sharing of personal experiences, etc. etc.
I experienced this the first few weeks, but then it was sort of surface issues, but after that I think as I didn't fall in line as I should things all went haywire for me, which is to put it quite mildly. But I could see how the others related and learn things from the other secretaries.
***
"...[T]he manner in which newcomers perceive their social roles and positions is a major influence on the organizational socialization process... At one polar position is the 'cosmopolitan' who is more committed to his specialized role than he is to the organization itself. At the other extreme is the 'local' whom Gouldner depicts as more committed to the organization than to his specialized role. For the cosmopolitan, his reference group is located outside the organization. Hence, socializing the new cosmopolitan member to organizational norms or values that differ from those of his reference group is bound to be difficult." (p. 93)
In many ways, I was a cosmopolitan coming into the mission. However, I didn't have an outside reference group in the sense of other professions (e.g., accountants with their American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). But I did have a sense of the ministry that I'd developed on my own, including not just formal study and part-time and short-term work, but also volunteering at a major center for research on religion in Eastern Europe, spending a week with a Russian pastor and his wife (the sister of someone at my church back home) to experience their ministry with refugees and truckers in Hamburg, trips and relations I'd developed on my own in East Germany, working at a mission library filled with resources on missions to Eastern Europe and preparing a monthly packet of relevant current events and issues gleaned from a wide variety of mission newsletters from many missions, etc. So I may not have had a formal outside reference group, but I certainly had a decent grasp of the profession, if you will of missions to that part of the world. There was this sort of nebulous commitment to what I perceived as that profession "missionary to Eastern Europe", which was based on a fair amount of experience and knowledge.
In my case, I don't think they knew what they were dealing with. They didn't know I was a "cosmopolitan" and I don't think they knew why I was evading their efforts to socialize me (again, assuming that's what they were trying to do). Maybe if there had been a professional association to join and I was a card carrying member I would have been easier to identify as a "cosmopolitan". Remember, too, that I'd written all those letters trying to find a mission that would be the best fit for me, so I had an idea of what I was looking for and not looking for. It just so happened that I, despite my best efforts to the contrary, fell into exactly what I was not looking for and it probably would have been nigh impossible to find a group that was what I was looking for, because, as I learned in Vienna, all these missions (at least the ones of any size) were in bed together and were of one ilk.
Please don't say it was my fault though, because who would have told me that they were all like that? Recently my mom asked me if I'd had any problems in Russia regarding religion. I'm not sure if I'd thought exactly in terms of that question (which came following a discussion about a couple working in China), but I never had any problems in Russia that could have been interpreted as religion-related, and I used my rented office were I taught English to have a women's introduction to the Bible class, which I advertised in the local newspaper. The ONLY reason I ever saw as to why I had any problems there was because it all started from my dad working at Boeing as a program manager in the Strategic Defense Initiative/Star Wars. I had no connections with a mission while there (although I toyed with the idea of working with a couple groups while there) and did everything in the open and honestly, which is how I think ministry should be done and that's why I had problems in Vienna. But let it be said that I lived there according to my beliefs and if anyone says it can't be done, you just bring them to me.
I'm not saying that I could do exactly what I did just anywhere, but I am saying that ministry could be done honestly, and while it's very possible that there could be problems, that doesn't justify doing Christian ministry dishonestly. My experience also demonstrates that I did have a fair understanding of the ministry possibilities in that part of the world.
***
Continuing with this discussion regarding possible conflict of allegiances, Van Maanen next addresses the issue of latent identities, which may not affect the socialization process unless a conflict arises between the two set of norms.
"For example, Burchard (1954) found that military chaplains were torn between the cross-pressures of professional and organizational norms. Thus, the new member's resolution of this dilemma has serious consequences for the outcomes of the socialization process." (p. 93)
I'm just itching to get to the file on military chaplains, but we've only just begun this file. Nevertheless, this topic keeps popping up as relevant in so many places. Matthew 6:24 says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Although the reference is to the choice of serving God or money, the principle still stands that "No one can serve two masters". So who do you think these chaplains serve? I think they don't serve God primarily, but their earthly master. Our 2-person human resources department was comprised of not one but two U.S. military reserve chaplains. Who do you think they were serving? Of course, when they weren't on military duty and were working with the mission, it would seem that the there wouldn't be a conflict because the whole purpose of the mission was to serve God, right? But why did they need 2 chaplains in those positions? To misquote the old bard (Shakespeare): "Something is rotten in ..." Vienna. Phew, I can smell it all the way over here.
Here's the million dollar question: If the military chaplains in the h.r. department gave me troubles (we'll get to that later), was it for the mission or because of my dad's work, or (even more insidiously) both?
***
That brings us to the end of this chapter section, and it's time for me to start getting ready for bed, which takes an hour or so with all the steps I have to take - mostly health-related tasks.
Good night.
~Meg
