Sometimes I think I'll never catch up on things, I mean get to where I was before I got sick with the neck problem (and related issues). I still get tired pretty easily, so I don't get as much done as I'd like, but at least I'm getting something done and I think I'm gradually making a little headway. I stopped off at Home Depot on my way home this morning and picked up a few more little projects that'll need to be added to my to do list; before they were just on my shopping list, so they've switched lists.
I was just at the G.I. doctor's and we agreed to wait and see how things pan out vis a vis the healing from possible permanent nerve damage. (There might not be any permanent nerve damage, but I guess you don't know until the healing seems to have stopped.)
***
Last night just before I fell asleep a thought related to the Capitalist/Communist economic comparison sheet from candidate's course hit me. It struck me that the comparison was tantamount to saying that we're bigger sinners in the West, since everyone knows that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (I Tim. 6:10). When you really think about it, that's a rather strange proposition to present in a mission candidate's course. The logic goes something like this:
Capitalism is better than Communism because Capitalist countries make more money, [hence they are bigger sinners because this demonstrates their greater love of money].
Now it seems a bit strange for a mission to be advocating sin. And I'm not even addressing whether or not this is the best way to present a very brief cultural overview of the Soviet Union; that is, I can think of a lot more relevant information to use.
However, this isn't the only way the logic could run. Here's another example:
The Soviet Union needs the gospel because they aren't as big of sinners as we are [by virtue of the demonstration of our love of money in amassing so much of it].
Ooops! Does that seem a little backwards or what? But here's another option:
In the spirit of Paul's sermon at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), to effectively reach the Soviets with the gospel, it is imperative that we understand their culture, and specifically we need to keep in mind that they don't have a strong enough love of money, as demonstrated by these statistics [on the handout] which clearly show their shortcoming in this regard. We must make them bigger sinners like ourselves.
This might sound ludicrous, if it weren't for the fact that we (a lot of Western mission work) actually think like this (without the reference to I Tim. 6:10, which was my addition), and it taints the work that they do. Did I tell you I mostly avoided Weterners altogether, including missionaries, while I was living deep in the bowels of Siberia?
And as to my use of Capitalism in the above discussion... I used it because Communism is at its heart an economic theory, so Capitalism (not Democracy) would be its Western counterpart. Also, I'm not a Communist, as I've said before, but I'm not very convinced that Capitalism is much (if at all) better. Just don't ask me what I think might be the best economic system, because I'm not sure, although I've read a bit about it. Basically, though, I think it's best to just not let money have power over you (i.e., beware the love of money pitfall.) Also, I could add that there are other ways to show love of money besides amassing it.
***
The last socialization method is "cooptation", now that I look over this short section, it doesn't seem very relevant. So I'm going to just skip over it.
With that we've just finished the "Methods of Socialization" sub-chapter and are moving to a new one: "Inefficacious Socialization."
***
"On one hand, individuals who are not integrated successfully into the organization are often stigmatized as socialization failures." (p. 107)
Towards the end of my time in Vienna I felt like this in that I was shunned socially, but I think there were things [mostly symbolic, rather than of any substance] done to mitigate this a bit too. I think it's safe to say that I was the only one who got this treatment, at least during the time I was there. My departure was not on very warm terms from either side (me and the mission).
***
"On the other hand, the socialization process is often deemed unsuccessful if it produces the overcomforming member." (p. 107)
It's hard for me to imagine this being an issue with the Vienna mission. The text goes on to describe this in terms of "institutional automation" or adhering ritualistically. If this were to happen they would, I think, view the individual as not having been yet properly socialized, rather than oversocialized. That is, the thought processes that might lead to "institutional automation" or adhering ritualistically to group norms would only be indications of still having a wrong attitude, for example, and thus be an indication that you weren't really socialized yet. The attitude was very important in Vienna, and this is a demonstration of that. You couldn't oversocialize in that context; you could only be socialized or not. I think this also shows some of why one could feel a comparison between their socialization and brainwashing.
***
A little later Van Maanen talks about the sequence of socialization.
It starts with "a new member's acceptance of role-behaviors which are 'pivotal' to the organization's mission. ==>
Then moves on to "induce or make salient certain 'relevant' role-behaviors. ==>
And finally ends with inducing "certain 'peripheral' role behaviors." (p. 108)
This makes sense, although it undoubtedly is oversimplified, leaving out looping back or consecutive processes.
If we apply this formula to the Vienna mission, the "pivotal" behaviors would most likely be mostly security related (all the various formal and informal steps they took to protect themselves from - ultimately - the Communists). Second would be the work role and possibly learning more about organizational relations and interactions. Lastly would be things like additional work skills, learning the organizational traditions, etc.
This is how I'd break it down, but I'm not terribly committed to my approach here. I never espoused the mission's "pivotal" behaviors in their entirety (that is, my espousal was only selective or partial at best).
***
"[Schein] notes that three basic responses can characterize socialization outcomes. The first is 'rebellion.' This outcome refers to a new member's rejection of all organizational demands. Hence, either the individual convinces the organization to alter its role demands or the person leaves the organizational setting (either he quits or is dismissed). The second type of response involves the new member's acceptance of the pivotal demands, but also involves the neophyte's rejection of most relevant and peripheral role-behaviors. This type of response is labelled by Schein, 'creative individualism.' This type of response is labelled by Schein, 'creative individualism.' The third response is called 'conformity.' This type of outcome involves the new member's acceptance of all role demands - pivotal, relevant and peripheral. Since all organizations, in the long run, require innovation and change, the results of conformity as a socialization outcome tend to be suboptimal, causing stagnation." (p. 109; bold script is mine)
This text is very helpful in trying to understand the Vienna situation in general and my experience in particular. I think that the only response that was acceptable to the mission was conformity; anything less than that was incomplete socialization and would indicate not having even past the first big socialization hurdle. Conformity was the only indication (using these options) of socialization of the individual.
In this set up, the Vienna mission's expectations were that you pretty much went right to conformity, and the sooner the better. Rebellion was a non-issue. Creative individuality probably had some place AFTER you had conformed, and new the bounds allowed for creative individuality. Under these circumstances, and only these circumstances, creative individuality could benefit the organization by way of problem solving and advancing the work in one way or another. It's like the went straight for the jugular, no pussy footing around.
I think this was universal, although "conformity" would be played out in different ways according to the person's position in the organization. If I had to place myself on this continuum, I'd on the rebellion end, although they probably saw me closer to creative individualism most of the time I was there. If they'd seen me more in the rebellion end my experiences with them would probably have been even worse (or shorter or both).
[4/7/2011 comment: In looking at this again, it seems to me that there should be a fourth option, which would more aptly describe my response and that is: rejection of pivotal demands, but acceptance of many of the 'most relevant and peripheral role-behaviors.' I'm not sure what to call this, though. Subterfuge?]
***
"[O]rganizational socialization processes which do not have sufficient flexibility to tolerate deviant cases are likely to produce conformity or rebellion as modal response categories." (p. 109)
I think the Vienna mission took a zero tolerance stance regarding security lapses which resulted in them not having flexibility to tolerate rebellion. Another contributing factor was the complexity of the mission's context, such as being composed of 15 contributing missions - all with their own organizational culture, and working in multiple countries with each with somewhat unique issues. At least that's how their rationale would go as to why they were inflexible in the ways discussed here.
***
I think I'm going to end here and it'll probably take 2 or 3 more posts to finish this subchapter. Since the subchapter isn't broken up some of my stopping points could be a bit arbitrary.
