The one thing my family might have an advantage in, vis a vis their framing of events in my life, is their knowledge of me. Certainly, their knowledge of me from birth to age 22 is very good indeed, although even for that period there are a few things they didn't/don't know about me. And what parents (or family) do know everything about their teenage and young adult children?
But my contention is that after 22 their knowledge of me decreases as I move to locations and situations that they know much less about. In fact, this history of repeated dislocation in my adulthood has disrupted many a relationship and often isolated me. Not long ago I was at a doctor's office waiting to be called in and there was another lady talking on her cell phone in Russian. After she hung up I initiated a conversation with her and, incredibly in just a few short minutes I had connected with someone that really understood a part of me (and I her) that I guess I sort of bury because I think people can't relate to it. But in talking with this lady we found each other completing the other's sentences and nodding in understanding maybe like 2 long- married people do. My family doesn't understand that part of me. And that's not the only part they don't understand.
But it's in human nature to act on what one does understand and to simplify things we like to cram things into nutshells, slogans and stereotypes so that that becomes one less thing we have to think much about in our harried daily lives. And my family, I feel, has developed this image of me that becomes more and more distorted the farther in time we go from young adulthood, when I lived with my family or nearby and we interacted a lot. Every time I enter a new situation that they only know a little about (maybe through communications - phone, letter, etc., or from brief visits), their image becomes a little more inaccurate and it just snowballs like this until I become, to a large extent, a stranger in my own family.
That's not to say their image of me is totally wrong, but that's the irony of it - there's enough that probably fits that the images continue. And then there's the issue that there really is no one to offer a counter image because I'm single and now have few relations (not that I like it that way, though). So then it becomes their image of me vs. my image of me.
My image of myself, of course, can not be completely objective either. But I still think my image of myself is closer to reality than theirs. But just making this assertion is not going to convince them, I'm sure.
Another issue regarding how I'm viewed is that it's probably erroneous to say that everyone views me the same. But I do think that there is a lot of homogeneity by virtue of the fact that they are prone to share observations of me and accept one another's judgments and impressions.
But getting back to the initial question, regarding whether I like my family or not... So far I've just discussed background issues that could affect my feelings. At least, I hope you can see how these kinds of things could affect my feelings about my family. I'm not done with this topic, but I'm not sure yet where I'm going to take it yet. I have to think about it.
***
This new text I'm going to use as a sounding board in my efforts to try to understand my experiences in Vienna is:
Louis, Meryl Reis. (1980, June) Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226-251.
***
"Work on turnover among newcomers represents a special class of turnover research. Results of work on the antecedents of recruit turnover suggest that newcomers' expectations are a critical factor associated with voluntary recruit turnover... However, two different approaches to the role of recruit expectation in turnover have emerged. In the first, voluntary turnover among newcomers is attributed to unrealistic or inflated expectations that individuals bring as they enter organizations. In the second, turnover is attributed to differences between newcomers' expectations and early job experiences, called unmet expectations..." (p. 227)
On first sight it is unclear how these theories might apply to the Vienna context, so I'm left waiting to see how these ideas are fleshed out before I try to make any applications there. However, it does seem as if the concept of "turnover" would need to be modified for any possible fit to be found. I think it would be pretty difficult for any turnover, in the usual sense of the word, to be the result of either of these 2 scenarios in the Vienna mission context. It's more likely, as in my case, that instead of "turnover" a newcomer would just fail to be satisfactorily socialized and the mission would respond by, basically, marginalizing that person. But that's how the mission would respond, not how the individual would act in response to their early experiences in the mission. The other option, besides leaving the mission entirely, would be to become a rebel, in which case the individual would either, in effect, marginalize him/herself or just stifle his/her thoughts about the mission. Since there was no room for dissent in the mission, these would be the options, other than leaving altogether but I think it would be very hard to stifle one's thoughts without leading to the kinds of things I experienced. But it's very possible that others have successfully done this, especially if something like contradictions to firmly held values and beliefs weren't involved in these early impressions. But if this were the case, the person would, I'm sure, eventually overcome the initial surprises and, very likely with the assistance of a mentor, eventually overcome these rocky waters. I'm equating "turnover" with leaving before one's term has expired in this context. Although, in my case, it was my intention to make a career of working with the Vienna mission, but I was only formally committed to a two-year term (that's what was offered me, which was pretty standard there, at least for secretaries), which I served out.
***
"In general, a descriptively rich picture of the experience has been developed in the organizational literature on socialization. The experience is characterized by disorientation, foreignness, and a kind of sensory overload." (p. 230).
If this is true in standard new-job situations, it was even more so in entering job that was basically a total institution. So this statement would involve more of one's life, as the mission would effectively colonize the newcomer's entire life world (cp. Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action).
***
""Reality shock' is the phrase that Hughes (1958) used to characterize what newcomers often experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Time and space become problematic at the moment of entry. At that particular time, all surroundings, that is, the entire world, are changed. There are not gradual exposure and no real way to confront the situation a little at a time. Rather, the newcomer's senses are simultaneously inundated with many unfamiliar cues. It may not be clear to the newcomer just what constitutes a cue, let alone what the cues refer to, which cues require response, or how to interpret and select responses to them. Time and space remain problematic until, as Van Maanen (1977a) has suggested, the newcomer is able to construct maps of time and space specific to the new setting." (p. 230).
For the record, it seems to me that 'reality shock', as presented here, has a distinct similarity to what I understand 'culture shock' to be.
When I look back at my life, there have been 3 situations/positions that might fit this descriptions, none of which are jobs (professional or otherwise) in the USA. One of the other situations was my initial work in the USSR (months before the putsch). Because of these situations I don't take well to what I see as unreasonable demands on me that contradict my values. But I didn't know this yet, because my first experience of this was in Vienna. And the key word here is "unreasonable".
But getting back to the text, I think my Vienna experience was actually the only one that I had such difficulty that it practically mirrored this text's description. In fact, the whole time I was there - until the very day of my departure - I still had not cracked the code to make sense of "cues" and I suspect that a lot of what in actuality were "cues" the mission would deny altogether, and instead say the inductee was experiencing culture shock from life in a foreign country. My contention is - despite any protestations to the contrary by mission members - that this informal culture in Vienna was fully intentional and served a purpose - security.
***
This section title is: "Stages of Socialization"
"Coping with such differences and 'learning the ropes' of the new setting typically occupy the newcomer for the first 6 to 10 months on the job." (p. 231)
Or, as in my case, 24 months of a 24-month term. I guess Is was such a good worker and so agreeable that they couldn't find an excuse to get rid of me sooner. Need I say that there never was any talk of extending my commitment to the mission beyond those 2 years? My staying longer would have been, shall we say, mutually unbeneficial.
***
"Newcomers become insiders when and as they are given broad responsibilities and autonomy, entrusted with 'privileged' information, included in informal networks, encouraged to represent the organization, and sought out for advice and counsel by others." (p. 231)
This sentence seems to describe a situation in which these potential milestones are what the organization values most in a worker - proving oneself to be a good worker with or without close oversight, being judicious in one's use of information, etc. In the Vienna context, while these things probably were not unimportant, they weren't the most important thing. One still had to pass the trust barrier that involved becoming vulnerable, which often meant going through some kind of a debasement experience. Only after that hurdle had been successfully navigated would one go on to these other things mentioned in this text. And at that point these insider experiences would be arguably more like rewards that further tests to pass, probably because the newcomer had already gone through so much just to get there, including a lengthy application process followed by deputation, which involved speaking at churches and the like.
***
In this next section of the text, the author describes changing from something (vis a vis changing to something). That is, not just taking on new roles and the like, but also toying with already-existing aspects of self. In other words, socialization can involve not just a matter of adding to but also subtracting from aspects of the newcomer's identity.
"[T]he process of changing from has a significant impact on the success of the changing to process. For instance, the works of Lewin (1951), Argyris (1964), and Tannenbaum (1976) indicate that unfreezing, moving away, or letting go is a necessary preliminary step in effecting change at individual and group levels. Work in anthropology has focused on leavetaking and transition rituals in societal status passages (Van Gennep, 1960; Turner, 1969). Work on the resocialization of deviants and on brainwashing also bear on leavetaking aspects of assuming new organizational roles. In total institutional settings and tribal passage rites, recruits are processed as a group, isolated from former associates, stripped of prior status and individuality. Whether such transition rites are relevant in organizations that are not total institutions and in which individuals voluntarily elect to become members is questionable." (p. 231)
Have I mentioned that the Vienna mission is a total institution? Individuals might voluntarily elect to become members, but you will note that the conjuction used in that last sentence is "and" not "or", which leads me to believe that Louis is questioning the applicability to organizational settings that are BOTH "not total institutions AND in which individuals voluntarily elect to become members" (emphasis mine). In this understanding, these attributions could be applicable in cases where one (but not the other) of these two qualifying variables exist. In this case, the Vienna mission fits just fine, meeting the first but not the second criteria.
Second, you will notice the reference to brainwashing in this context, implying that the author must have considered the literature on that subject in helping him understand the socialization into a workplace context. I say this to point out that at least one author considers it reasonable to refer to brainwashing literature vis a vis the socialization experience in total institutions, which I take as confirmation that I wasn't out of line in my use of that literature in similar fashion to help me understand my experience in Vienna.
Now I don't think that this "changing from" focus is common among missions in general, except in work targeting "closed countries". As such, I didn't think I needed any "changing from", or certainly not to the extent the mission apparently deemed necessary. I suppose a certain amount of "changing from" might be acceptable, but not a (what seemed to me) wholesale sell-out to the mission, no holds barred. For one thing, it seemed peculiar that if they mistrusted me so much, why did they even accept me in the first place? This seems like a strange thing to do for a mission that was so obsessed with security.
[4/7/11 comments: Missions do often make demands, I think, on their workers so as to avoid, for example, needlessly offending the locals. But the missionary would know about and expect this kind of thing in advance, and this would probably fit within the sphere of how apostles and others in the New Testament ministered to new cultures. But Paul, for example, did not live a double life - complete with lies and deceit - and nor did he change wholesale who he was. He never, for example, pretended to be a Gentile. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about here.]
I'm sure there is more I could say about this, but I think there will be other opportunities if I missed something glaring.
***
But now it's time to get on with my day. I got a fair amount done yesterday, which felt good, considering I still don't have very high energy levels - I did have to take a nap still yesterday. I worked in the garden, worked on some paperwork/business things that needed addressing, did some cooking, etc. But there's still a lot left over today to keep me busy, and I have physical therapy in the afternoon, too.
~ Meg
