Also, if I were to lead the mission candidate's course part on the USSR (this was 1985), and I wanted to bring out something more than the topic template that had been used for all the countries and wanted to say something about politics, economics or ideology I would not (as you might guess) have used the economics comparison approach, which I think was out of place (although it was an exception to an otherwise good course, but using it revealed some of their ideology, which I think I've already pointedly dealt with), but would rather have used something along one of these lines:
a. treatment of believers in the country, such as, for example, citing use/misuse of laws, punishments of believers, limitations on religious practice, etc.
and/or
b. since Leninist Communism as an ideology was pushed so ardently in the USSR (as well as the other Warsaw Pact countries), I might have made a comparison of Christian and Communist belief systems.
These are both approaches that would have, to me at least, seemed more relevant for mission work. However, I would also have tried to stay away from emotion-laden phraseology in my presentation. It's not like we were preparing to be medieval crusaders, after all. Our work was spiritual, and it was the souls of people we were concerned about. At least, that's what my perspective was (and still is). This might not have matched their interests, in which case, maybe the economics comparison handout was an accurate representation of the kind of thinking they thought missionaries needed.
By the way, what I said above about this handout sticking out as a sore thumb in an otherwise reasonably good candidate's course supports my belief that missions somehow lose all their theology of missions bearings when it comes to (former) East Bloc countries (I saw this in the 1990s too in Russia). Why is it that everything I learned in Bible school about missions theory does not apply in these countries? I submit that this handout is indicative of why/how that happens.
I've derided enough Communist ideological jibberish in my day, but, believe me, the West has its share of it too. And just as that Communist emotion-laden literature rests on a theoretical basis, so does its Western counterpart. Is it not possible to move past political sloganeering? Or maybe what I'm asking for is, shall we say, "beyond the capacity of" theologians and pastors to master.
I like having my own soap box. And, being unemployed and on disability, I set my own work-related norms.
***
Back to our text...
"...[D]eviancy is not a property inherent in a particular activity, rather it is an external property conferred upon certain behavior by members of the organization who come into contact with it. In a sense, behaviors which are labelled deviant define the contours of the organization." (p. 110)
As members of God's creation, He has the right to determine what is acceptable or not. But His ordinances are absolute because His authority is absolute. We little humans set relative norms for our various groupings (family, club, nation, business, etc.).
When God says to steal is sin, it's sin period, end of conversation. And since His jurisdiction is all of creation, no matter where we go it's still a sin.
But when a business, for example, says being late for work is an offense, it's only relative. That is, it only applies to that business. Another business might consider being an offense if you didn't make the time up and being late didn't affect the work getting done.
This is basically what this text is saying. So let's apply this to my experience in Vienna. In normal life, and I think under God's authority also, I can write letters as I see fit (so long as I don't sin, like lie or something, in the letter). But in Vienna, the leadership had me (and supposedly everyone else there too) submit their prayer letters for approval before they could be sent out to your mailing list. Then they told me my mailing list was too long and I should decrease the number of people getting my letters. These are not God's commandments, nor those of a particular country, for that matter, but the rules set by a particular organization, and disobedience of the rules would have been deviance. There's a lot more I could (and eventually will) say about these true life examples.
But it would be nice if things were that simple. Deviancy is not always blatantly spelled out, either written in employee handbooks or spoken by voices of authority, but may also be unspoken, informal rules of the game, if you will. The Vienna mission was rife with these.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Informal Organization:
"The informal organization is the interlocking social structure that governs how people work together in practice. It is the aggregate of behaviors, interactions, norms, personal and professional connections through which work gets done and relationships are built among people who share a common organizational affiliation or cluster of affiliations. It consists of a dynamic set of personal relationships, social networks, communities of common interest, and emotional sources of motivation. The informal organization evolves organically and spontaneously in response to changes in the work environment, the flux of people through its porous boundaries, and the complex social dynamics of its members.
Tended effectively, the informal organization complements the more explicit structures, plans, and processes of the formal organization: it can accelerate and enhance responses to unanticipated events, foster innovation, enable people to solve problems that require collaboration across boundaries, and create footpaths showing where the formal organization may someday need to pave a way."
Related terms are informal communication, informal norms, informal power, etc. These things all take place in the sort of underworld of an organization, and is the nemeses of new employees everywhere. But some places of employment make this aspect of the organization a virtual work of art that far outshadows the formal frame that encases it. The Vienna mission was one of those types of organization. They seemed to have it down to a science; at least that's how it appeared to me. Or maybe I'm just too dense, which explains why in a full 2 years I couldn't crack the code. Well, maybe I was afraid to crack it, didn't completely want to crack it, and/or was thinking it needed breaking more than cracking. (That said, I never, at least intentionally or that I know of, did anything to harm the mission. But I do think the organization would have benefited greatly from some breaking, but coming from some source more in a position to effectively do that than I was.)
But that statement belies the complexity, I think, of the situation. These mission-defined deviancies that "formed the contours of the organization" were, in practice often difficult to pinpoint. Sometimes it felt like my thinking was deviant, other times it was how I spent my free time, or still another time it was that I didn't go sobbing into my bosses office at the end of my ropes begging for sage advice on what to do, or the fact that I didn't hang around more with my reference group (the other secretaries). All of these things and more could be seen as deviancies. But it wasn't just a matter of figuring out the implicit rules, but also knowing when and how they applied or didn't. And above all (in my opinion), attitude was the defining factor of deviancy.
***
"It is probably correct to say that few persons find their organizationally defined mold suitable in all respects, and for many, such a mold is appropriately comparable to a strait jacket." (p. 110)
My sentiments exactly. Is this really what missions is all about?
***
"Another problem arises when a new member's socialization into the organization is carried on without reference to his other role requirements outside the organization. Since an individual always has difficulty satisfying all demands place upon his various memberships, role strain is likely to develop (Goode, 1960). The individual's response may be an attempt to manipulate the situation to some acceptable level of strain or to set limits upon the degree to which he will allow the organization to penetrate his life-space. Both of these response[s] influence the outcomes of the socialization process. Hence, success of the process depends in part upon the sensitivity exhibited by the organization to the new member's other obligations. If the organization is extremely insensitive, the new member is likely to assume peripheral role-behaviors calculated to minimize role strain and may force the individual to adopt an extreme location on the response continuum (rebellion or overconformity). For example, these considerations are inherent in the local-cosmopolitan issue discussed in a preceding section. If the organization attempts to force the new member into adopting the local orientation, it may lose his participation, or result in an overconforming member who no longer will contribute innovative suggestions developed from a cosmopolitan orientation. Some organizations - particularly the more coercive total institutions - attempt to overcome role strain by providing a new member with only one relevant role and setting - each one defined by the organization." (p. 111)
Is it stating the obvious to say that this is a mouth full? Might as well dive in head first...
To begin with we need to come to a common understanding that the Vienna mission was, in my experience, among "the more coercive total institution" and I my response was the only available extreme available, which is to way "rebellion". (Another way to look at the extreme conformity option could be that conformity, in the sense used in this text, was an act of rebellion in the Vienna mission context.
Here's how I understood the mission's desire of how I should organize my life and relationships.
- At work 9-5 (or something like that)
- Share an apartment with the other secretary on deputation who called me from Alaska when I was in Colorado
- Develop an endearing relationship with my boss' wife
- Befriend children of my boss
- Attend the English-speaking church where some half of the staff attended
- Spend inordinate quantities of my free time befriending and socializing with the secretarial set
- Indicate no or little interest in ministry in Austria itself
- Appear helpless upon arrival in einem neuen und unbekannten Land
- Limit my personal contacts outside of Austria
etc., etc.
This was all pretty much the "informal" organization, and it wasn't written down, although a few things were expressed explicitly verbally. In fact, I find it a bit odd that for an organization who feared the Soviet Union it seemed to take on similar characteristics in some ways. One way is their view of the law. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the rule of law in the early Soviet Union:
In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsarist legislation and established a socialist legal system. This system abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, the civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property.[2][3] According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law claimed the opposite.[4] Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state.
If you are interested in this topic, here's the lengthy transcript of a panel discussion on this topic sponsored by the New York Bar Association.
The point is, that laws in Russia had only tangential importance, and were used, misused or ignored by authority to best serve their perceived interests. The same could be said for the Vienna mission regarding how it treated its own workers, at least in my experience. Heck, my living in Siberia was better in many ways than their exiling me to Dallas. At least people sent to Siberia against their will under Communism probably knew what article of the law was the basis for their being exiled, even if the law was grossly misapplied to the person being punished.
On the other hand, my offense appeared to be not even written anywhere, but in the heads of those who planned and executed it. Their reasoning undoubtedly had roots in the general informal normative structure to which I was ever only nominally privy.
It has been said that if 15 people (the first Soviet Council of People's Commissars) could change the world via Communism, than surely we (missionaries) can do at least the same! Well, in this case even the numbers match up! (15 commissars = 15 missions) Matching modus uperandi is a bonus. We're waiting for the change the world part though.
The analogy, of course, has limits, but while I was in Vienna I was aware (as I think I've said in previous posts) of a comparison between my experience there and how Communist regimes treated believers. This comparison, maybe could use some flushing out, though. In any case, the rule of law comparison seems reasonably accurate. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, as they say.
Returning to our text... at the beginning of this (quite lengthy) paragraph, it says that "Another problem arises when a new member's socialization into the organization is carried on without reference to his other role requirements outside the organization."
I can hear the mission's response to the suggestion that I might want outside roles: "What outside roles? Who said anything about outside roles? You'll have outside roles when we say you can and no sooner." (This is hypothetical, but expresses my impression of how things worked there and their expectations of me.)
Without outside roles there was not problem... unless I deviated.
The next sentence (I'm repeating these so you don't have to go look for them again in the earlier quote):
"Since an individual always has difficulty satisfying all demands place upon his various memberships, role strain is likely to develop..."
I hope it's clear that there would be no role strain if I had no outside roles. However, there was another kind of strain: that of accepting the apparent (to me) limitations. Maybe this was then more of an identity stress, because I didn't see myself locked in as a secretary, while it seemed that formal role had pegged me into a whole lifestyle centered around it.
Skipping a bit because of things I've already addressed:
"If the organization is extremely insensitive, the new member is likely to assume peripheral role-behaviors calculated to minimize role strain and may force the individual to adopt an extreme location on the response continuum (rebellion or overconformity)."
I've already dealt with parts of this, but not everything. The organization was insensitive to the point of all but denying me outside roles (at least until I was properly socialized). To me that's extremely extreme insensitivity.
My intention would not have been calculated to minimize role strain, as this text suggests, but rather to minimize self identity-stress, since the organization and I had very different ideas of who I was and what roles might be appropriate based, at least in part, on this perceived identity.
Next section... "If the organization attempts to force the new member into adopting the local orientation, it may lose his participation, or result in an overconforming member who no longer will contribute innovative suggestions developed from a cosmopolitan orientation." (p. 111)
Local orientation, to refresh your memory is contrasted with cosmopolitan orientation in that the former focuses attention on the workplace, whereas the latter implies attachments to a profession at large. I don't think the mission realized my professional orientation, although I'm not sure how that could have been overlooked, especially to the extent it seemed to be, because they would have known about my background, that of all my earlier mission attachments and even working in a couple of centers of knowledge regarding ministry to this part of the world. But however it happened, it apparently did, or at least, it sure felt like it to me. I figure if they had realized that "cosmopolitan orientation" on my part, they wouldn't have been so bent on stuffing me into a box that didn't fit. Unless, of course, they didn't want or like that part of me. Or they wanted to debase me. Or...?
And finally: "Some organizations - particularly the more coercive total institutions - attempt to overcome role strain by providing a new member with only one relevant role and setting - each one defined solely by the organization."
Bingo! But sometimes when you try to fix one problem you create another, like identity strain and rebellion.
***
We're not done with this section, but we are done with the page, so I'm going to end on this note. We have 2 1/2 pages left of the section.
Good night.
~ Meg
