To be fair, my family wouldn't be the only ones who have frames through which they understand me and my life; it's just that they are amongst the most influential in my life in many ways and probably have the most well-developed frames about me also.
It also wouldn't be completely fair to out-of-hand reject their frames, as their probably are elements of truth in them, but there are certain areas that I think they've developed frames about me with not enough information (although they might not agree with me on the areas where they might or might not have adequate information for their frames).
But let's just say that understanding one's life (whether your own or someone else's) is sort of like qualitative research.
I'm in luck! All my qualitative research books (or at least the major ones) seem to be unpacked these include:
Merriam, Sharan B. (2002) Qualitative Research and Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, 1st ed.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln, ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Rev. ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, John W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Patton, Michael Quinn. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
LeCompte, Margaret D., Judith Preissle, & Renata Tesch. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Education Research, 2nd ed.. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., & Egon G. Guba. (1984). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
I present these texts here to give you an indication that I'm not just a sometime dabbler in these things. I do have formal education and experience that has laid a basis for much of my commentary on this blog, although I've greatly expanded on that institutional background as well. That being said, however, even this background (formal or otherwise) does not preclude the likelihood that my views of myself and my history are biased, to one extent or another.
In scanning through these texts I found a section, albeit a rather lengthy one, that might serve as a good starting point for what I want to say next. The following quote is from "Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education," chapter 5 "Being a Careful Observer", pp. 97-98. Although this text describes research in educational settings, I'm going to apply the principles to situations in my life.
"...[N]o one can observe everything, and the researcher must start somewhere... Here is a checklist of elements likely to be present in any setting:
1. The physical setting. What is the physical environment like? What is the context? What kinds of behavior is the setting designed for? How is space allocated? What objects, resources, technologies are in the setting? The principal's office, the school bus, the cafeteria, and the classroom vary in physical attributes as well as in anticipated behavior.
2. The participants. Describe who is in the scene, how many people, and their roles. What brings these people together? Who is allowed here? Who is not allowed here? Who is not here who would be expected to be here? What are the relevant characteristics of the participants?
3. Activities and interactions. What is going on? Is there a definable sequence of activities? How do the people interact with the activity and with one another? How are people and activities 'connected or interrelated - either from the participants' point of vieo or from the researcher's perspective?... What norms or rules structure the activities and interactions? When did the activity begin? How long does it last? Is it a typical activity, or unusual?
4. Conversation: what is the content of conversations in the setting? Who speaks to whom? Who listens?...
5. Subtle factors: Less obvious but perhaps as important to the observation are
* Informal and unplanned activities
* Symbolic and connotative meanings of words
* Nonverbal communication such as dress and physical space
* Unobtrusive measures such as physical clues
* 'What does not' happen - especially if it ought to have happened...
6. Your own behavior: You are as much a part of the scene as participants. How is your role, whether as an observer or an intimate participant, affecting the scene you are observing? What do you say and do? ..."
How likely are my family members, for example, to have understood what happened - and been able to answer these kinds of questions - in Vienna or Siberia from visiting me? (In Vienna mom stayed long enough to help out some at the new English-speaking Christian school, but she didn't have a position at the mission itself.) Think of all the background they would have had to have to understand what was going on in these settings anywhere as well as I did. In Russia they even had a language barrier!
This is why, in these settings, which are pivotal to how my family views me (how they frame my life), I find it pretty easy to mostly dismiss their observations and interpretations of what was going on there. But dismissing it isn't the same as disregarding it vis a vis my relationship with my family. Au contraire - in my dealings with them I generally must take into account what I see as their erroneous interpretations of some of my most pivotal life events, and, thus, their view of me as a person. In situations deemed convenient to them they are quite likely to dig up these events (as viewed through their frames) and use them in ways generally harmful to me.
This explains at least part of the ambivalence in my relationship toward my family, but not all of it.
Also, the text I've quote only provides a sampling of the potential barriers my family members would have had in understanding some of these specific situations in my life. There are a lot more possible difficulties that could be found in the literature on participant-observer research and the like.
***
Returning to our text, the next characteristic of socialization that can be seen as a continuum is that of tournament or contest.
"The practice of separating selected clusters of recruits into different socialization programs or tracks on the basis of presumed differences in ability, ambition, or background represents the essence of tournament socialization processes. Such tracking is often done at the earliest possible date in a person's organizational career. Furthermore, the shifting of people between tracks in a tournament process occurs mainly in one direction: downward. These people are then eliminated from further consideration within the track they have left. The rule for the tournament socialization strategy, according to Yale University sociologist James Rosenbaum, is simple: 'When you win, you win only the right to go on to the next round; when you lose, you lose forever.'" (p. 29-30)
Since the Vienna mission socialized newcomers individually this fact already points against tournament-style socialization. And since I wasn't, for the most part, privy to the socialization processes of non-secretaries, it's hard for me to make generalizations about socialization in general at the mission. It did seem, however, that socialization in Vienna fit the last sentence, though. But, as I've said there wasn't really much room for advancement, although it's possible that you might be given more responsibilities within your position if you did well. I felt like I had to pass a test to be able to hold the position I was brought over there for, and my moving around so much, in this way of looking at things, would indicate that I indeed had not past the test and so would not be able to hold that position.
***
"Even the so-called 'high-potential employee' has something to worry about in the tournament process. Often the training for the 'high potentials' is not the same as that for the other employees. The 'high potential' track will differ considerably from the track afforded the average or typical recruit. But tournament strategy dictates that even among the 'high potentials' once you are dropped from the fast track you can't get back on it." (p. 30).
There's one significant event that makes me think that I might have been a "high-potential employee" at the mission, but this is just one possible interpretation. The real shocker treatment that landed me back stateside (i.e., in Dallas) was a treatment that at least 2 other people before me had gone through (or so I was told), and these were the wives of the director and assistant director (my boss' wife and his boss' wife). The fact that they went to the extent they did in this and then (apparent) subsequent reinstatement of me does lend itself to the thought that maybe I was a "high-potential employee". There were a lot of inuendos (comments from various people) suggesting this or that might (promotional type) event might happen, but it was hard to tell what was actual and what was hype of one sort or another, so I'm not putting any importance on those suggestions, although, if there was any credence to them, they might have also supported this interpretation.
I'm assuming here a "tournament process" of one, i.e., not a group socialization process. In this case, I'd be competing against the ideal they've set for me rather than against other individuals, although towards the end of my stay with the mission there did seem to be some pitting of one person (me) against another for possible selection to a position. Again, I wasn't sure how much of this was hype and how much was real. In these kinds of cases, I acted based on what I knew (or was pretty sure) was real, which meant I didn't make any competitive moves to make myself look more eligible for whatever it was.
***
I should backtrack here to give you an idea what the contrast is to the tournament approach:
"Contest socialization processes, on the other hand, avoid a sharp distinction between superiors and inferiors of the same rank. The channels of movement through the various socialization programs are kept open and depend on the observed abilities and stated interests of all." (p. 30)
This seems way too straightforward and rational (vs. affect-oriented) than the Vienna mission way of operating in general. And while the mission leadership did promote camaraderie, everyone really knew their place in the power structure and how they were to defer to those with more clout. So contest socialization, in my opinion, can be rejected out of hand as having any applicability to the Vienna mission.
***
"One consequence is that when tournament processes are used, the accomplishments of an employee are more likely to be explained by the tracking system of that organization than by the particular characteristics of the person. Thus the person who fails in organization X might well have succeeded in organization Y. Also, those who fall out of the tournament at any stage can expect only custodial socialization in the future. They are expected to behave only in ways appropriate to their plateaued position, are treated coolly, and are discouraged from making further efforts. The organization, in other words, had completed its work on them. As can be seen, tournament socialization, more than the contest mode, can shape and guide ambition in a powerful way.
Consider, too, that in tournament processes, where a single failure has permanent consequences, those passing through tend to adopt the safest strategies of passage. Low risk taking, short cycles of effort, and ever-changing spheres of interest based primarily on what those above them deem most desirable at any given time are the norm. It follows that those who remain in the tournament for any length of time are socialized to be insecure, obsequious to authority, and differentiated, both socially and psychologically, from one another. On the other hand, those who do not remain in the tournament tend to move in the other direction, becoming fatalistic, homogeneous, and, to varying degrees, alienated from the organization." (p. 30-31)
This is a lot, but I didn't want to break it up. There is one difference, at least, between the Vienna mission and this text, and that is that more than one opportunity might be offered. That was probably at least partly due to having brought missionaries all the way there would make it impractical to offer just one opportunity. Also, being a total institution, they had the possibility of trying different ways to get through to the new recruit. Nevertheless, as in my case, it was possible to exhaust all of their efforts and still not be socialized ... and become, as this text says, alienated from the organization. I became alienated in various ways throughout my stay with the mission, and these partial alienations were probably warning signs, but I was eventually completely alienated from the mission, leaving on not very good terms and not maintaining contact with them afterwards, which a friendly departure would include.
Because it seemed that the values that led to the kind of things I disagreed with that I witnessed and experienced in this mission composed of 15 member missions, it is doubtful that I would have succeeded in any other mission to Eastern Europe. That's why I eventually decided to go there on my after leaving Vienna.
The second paragraph's description of individual adjustments to working in an organization with tournament-style socialization only partially fit the Vienna mission context, I think. Perhaps a new recruit does take these kinds of approaches, but later on I think these strategies might be viewed as just going through the motions and not being really socialized. "Adopting the safest strategies of passage" and "low risk taking" for example would probably not be accepted. However, the relationship to authority, in my opinion, isn't that far from the truth. But I'm sure they wouldn't agree with me. But the truth remains that dissent wouldn't be tolerated in the organization, so a certain amount of being "insecure, obsequious to authority," etc. was bound to be the result.
***
The next aspect of socialization in this text is that of serial methods on one hand, or disjunctive on the other. It's not that this issue is not relevant to the Vienna context, but rather, that it doesn't really present anything new that isn't offered elsewhere, so I won't deal with it here. Basically, though, it means that socialization can involve mentoring from someone more experienced, or, in cases where there isn't anyone available to do such mentoring, then the new recruit works on his own to figure things out.
I had some of both, and these two approaches probably were used strategically in my case in their effort to try to find the best hook(s) to socialize me.
***
There's just one more facet of socialization in this article, and that is whether socialization focuses more on investiture or divestiture.
"The last major strategy to be discussed concerns the degree to which a socialization process is set up to confirm or to dismantle the incoming identify of a newcomer. Investiture processes ratify and establish the viability and usefulness of the characteristics the person already possesses. Presumably, recruits to most high-level managerial jobs are selected on the basis of what they bring to the job. The organization does not wish to change these recruits. Rather, it wants to take advantage of their abilities." (p. 33)
This topic, although stated differently, came up in the previous text (the book chapter) I discussed, but I'm going to end out dealing with this a fair amount - now and also when discussing future texts.
It's possible that the mission's socialization tactics with the incoming theologians was more along the investiture style, but I tend to think that a certain amount of divestiture would even be necessary with them in order to make sure they understood the ropes, order of command, and security aspects of the position / organization.
***
"Divestiture processes, on the other hand, deny and strip away certain entering characteristics of a recruit. Many occupational and organizational communities almost require a recruit to sever old friendships, undergo extensive harassment from experienced members, and engage for long periods of time in what can only be called 'dirty work' (that is, low-status, low-pay, low-skill, and low-interest tasks). During such periods, the recruit gradually acquires the formal and informal credentials of full and accepted membership.
... As a result, closeness develops among the people... and a distinct sense of solidarity and mutual concern can be found. Pervasive and somewhat closed social worlds are formed..." (p. 33)
When I arrived in Vienna, the mundane (and completely unnecessary) task I was given was to read software manuals to try to learn the office software they used. So I dutifully poured over these books, trying things out from time to time on the computer. I think it very possible that something more or less akin to this type of thing could also have been given new theologians to do.
I wouldn't say, however, that this in and of itself was enough to develop the closeness of camaraderie here described (and that does fit the Vienna mission). Maybe these tasks weren't debasing enough. But the intention through these and other initial socialization efforts was to lead to an emotional crisis that the mission would use to its advantage to help you gain the correct disposition vis a vis the mission. Through this process mutual trust would be developed and you would begin the process of successful acculturation into the mission. Part of what bound the mission members (and families) together was that they were limited in their outside relations, so at least they could, more or less, have straightforward relations with others in the mission. Even with this, though, you had to know what you could and couldn't talk with other people about.
***
"Ordinarily, the degree to which a setting represents an ordeal to a recruit indicates the degree to which divestiture processes are operative." (p. 34)
The Vienna mission wouldn't have involved an ordeal along the lines of prisons, which this paragraph goes on to discuss, but it does represent an ordeal if you consider being uprooted to a new country with a different language and with work focused on a region not amenable to your work, then a certain amount of "ordeal"-type experience might be expected, and the mission could (and did in my case) use the difficulty of this transition as a cover for any possible debasement-type anguish you might experience.
***
"Yet the fact remains that many organizations consciously promote initiation ordeals designed primarily to make the recruit whatever the organization deems appropriate. In the more extreme cases, recruits are isolated from former associates, must abstain from certain types of behavior, must publicly degrade themselves and others through various kinds of mutual criticism, and must follow a rigid set of sanctionable rules and regulations.
This process, when voluntarily undergone, serves, of course, to commit and bind people to the organization. In such cases, the sacrifice and surrender on the part of the newcomers is usually premised upon a sort of institutional awe the recruits bring with them into the organization. Such awe serves to sustain their motivation throughout the divestiture process. Within this society, there are many familiar illustrations: the Marine Corps, fraternal groups, religious cults, elite law schools, self-realization groups, drug rehabilitations programs, professional athletic teams, and so on. All those organizations require a recruit to pass through a series of robust tests in order to gain privileged access to the organization." (p.34).
Since each new comer to the mission was socialized individually, I really can't say that organizational entry tests were uniform, and certainly they weren't formal tests, but I think that that there probably were tests of one sort or another that new workers faced. Since the mission would be considered a laudable effort and the leaders otherwise respected (some even having published Christian books or articles back home), new comers would have generally come with this "awe" factor described in this text. But (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you view it), I had been around enough influential people in the field and had even discussed differences with at least a mission head (the mission I had part-time/short-term work with before going to Vienna), and I had studied and come to enough conclusions on my own that I guess I didn't have sufficient "awe" to make me maleable enough, especially given the apparent differences in values between me and the mission (which I only realized after arriving in Vienna). I'd developed these values on my own, outside of a mission context, so that undoubtedly accounted for a lot of the differences.
***
"... [T]he ordeal aspects of a divestiture process represents an identity-bestowing, as well as an identify-destroying process." (p. 34-35)
This is a very good and succinct way of stating what happens in this process. In any case, those who worked in the East (i.e., Eastern Europe) had a certain persona they had to portray to the authorities, and then another to the believers they taught, still another to people they bumped into in Vienna (outside the mission), and yet another to the supporters back home. And they had to do this realistically, convincingly; sometimes failure in this regard could have significant negative consequences on your ministry, the mission at large and/or the believers in the East that you worked with. So it would actually be more accurate to say that this process was identities-bestowing, because you had to have multiple faces depending on your audience and the circumstances.
Regarding the "identity-destroying" process, this would involve learning to be able to sort of stifle certain aspects of your personality and/or redirect aspects of your personality to be appropriately displayed as per the situation.
In all of this, of course, there was the content of what you could/could not say. And these things generally weren't written down and would be denied as being policy in many or most cases. Instead, these were learned by example or pressure, or the like. As you can imagine, entering this world, even if you more or less expect it, might be traumatic enough, but the process of learning these things, I think, was in keeping with how relations and individuals in general were managed. It's just that it was the most traumatic at the beginning because of the steep learning curve and being re-oriented as to how you presented yourself in various situations.
***
That's all for this text, so tomorrow we'll move on to another.
