In saying that I was low on the totem pole at the moment in my family implied that there was a hierarchy, which indeed there is. Although it's possible that others might scoff at that statement, it's most likely that such apparent disbelief would come from that/those individual(s) currently with the most clout in the family. And it seems to me that to maintain full membership (with all the rights, responsibilities and privileges that come with that status) in the family, one needs to defer to those with the most power, who are the ones whose understandings of the family (and of the individuals that comprise it) hold sway. To disagree is to open the door to a degradation in family relations and/or in family standing (vis a vis the world outside the family), especially if such disagreements become known outside the family.
The hierarchy, as it seems to me, is based on a composite of many factors, of which I'll just name a few. These can include intelligence (but only as recognized by others), position (prestige factor), or money, to name a few. I think these standards were, in large, defined by my father, who still, it seems to me, even after death holds a sort of patron saint of the family position. This is exemplified by such thoughts or statements along the lines of: "You know that dad didn't like a lot of your cooking...", "According to dad...", etc.
In this view of the family, my impression is that the family will take advantage of positive and influential aspects (qualities, experiences, outside rewards, etc.) of an individual while trying to deflect how individual member's negative aspects (qualities, experiences, outside retributions, etc.) affect the family as a whole. This is done, at least in part, by increasing or decreasing that person's status in the family. Thus, the family, as a collective unit, would try to bolster its standing in the world by maximizing on the perceived strengths of its members while minimizing the weaknesses. It is in this way that the family demonstrates a "survival of the fittest" mentality vis a vis its members.
This whole set up is contrary to my way of thinking, at least in recent years. I pride myself that in one of my earliest classes, which was comprised of mostly middle management factory workers, in Siberia individual students on different occasions expressed amazement that I didn't favor the one higher management student in the class, but treated everyone the same. This was a novel experience for them, but exemplifies my values regarding how to treat people. That isn't to say that I expect others to necessarily treat me that way because, according to my world view and understanding of biblical teaching, I live in a fallen world. However, I can choose to opt out of the world's usual ways and act otherwise, and I do try to do that - and this is one instance that I think my actions mirror my beliefs fairly well. (Incidentally, I hope you can see how this perspective could also be a problem in my work in the Vienna mission.)
So far we have seen that the family is hierarchical and has entrenched views (frames) of me and my history, and how these tend to be contrary to my own understandings and values.
***
The next section in this article is titled "Content of Socialization."
"In order to perform adequately in a new role, an individual needs ability, motivation, and an understanding of what others expect..." (p. 231).
Seems reasonable... I think I had ability, even my secretarial skills were probably adequate, let alone other skills I brought to the table. I was definitely motivated, considering all I'd done and gone through to get there - 6 years of college and various related experiences (short-term mission work, volunteering, etc.), not to mention deputation.
But in the end I didn't understand what the mission really expected (the third need mentioned in this text) beyond the step of submission. I mean, it never was clear what I was committing to, and it didn't look like after succumbing there would be any room for independent consideration of further demands put on me, which I assumed there would be (further demands, I mean). It felt like they wanted me to submit. Stop. No questions asked. This is the way we do it around here. Take it or leave it. Period.
Maybe, if you can imagine wondering what was behind the wardrobe in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (by C.S. Lewis). In this analogy, it would be like the mission telling me to take the step into that other world, but not really knowing what it was like there or if you could even come back. But if you didn't take that step (which, I assume, would indicate you could trust the mission blindly, which I couldn't do), then you enter the magical kingdom. But if you don't take that step, you can't enter it. Socialization was impossible without that step.
It could be said that I wasn't motivated to take that step, to trust the mission blindly. But it could also be said that it wasn't clear what was expected of me. There was never any concern (that I could tell) about me doing the work they gave me well and responsibly. So that, clearly, wasn't what was really expected. Otherwise, things would have turned out quite otherwise from how they did turn out for me there. What was expected of me was not the literal job description but something under the radar, insinuated or implied or hinted at. Since I did everything I was given straight up to do and that wasn't the issue, it had to be those other under-the-radar things. Things, I suppose, that since I couldn't fathom, neither could Communists.
***
"...[B]oth organizations and newcomers seem to appreciate the need for role learnings.
In contrast, there is usually very little understanding by either organization or newcomer of the need to learn the 'culture' of the organization (Van Maanen, 1977a)." (p. 232)
Huh? Isn't this backwards? Or was the Vienna mission backwards? Or am I totally confused.
Here's how I remember it: The mission didn't give much of a hoot for the "role learnings" but gave über alle importance to culture... which culture was sure to shock anyone who was an idealist and believed in absolutes and in free will. Will someone please tell the mission they have this all backwards? Maybe they need a course in organizational management... or human resources development (my adult education colleagues will be only too happy, I'm sure, to oblige).
***
We'll move on to the next section, now that we've determined that the Vienna mission had the content of socialization all screwed up. On second thought, the next section, "Surprise and Sense Making," mainly provides possible paradigms researchers could use in flushing out this incipient aspect of socialization.
Whoa, Nellie! This sounds like a pretty important part of socialization! If you don't know how people actually get socialized, how are you going to know how to help them along? However, that being said, I don't think this explains why the Vienna mission was so screwed up in their socialization content. I doubt it would have mattered one iota if this aspect of socialization theory had been well-developed, fine-tuned and corroborated by double-blind studies, thorough triangulation and significance to the .000001 degree. They still would have held to their same practices, unless, of course, it was to make it even worse than it already was.
***
I'm going to skip over several other sections that likewise aren't very helpful in understanding my Vienna experience, in regards to socialization in it.
This next quote is from the section "A MODEL OF THE NEWCOMER EXPERIENCE", sub-section "Entry Experiences," sub-sub-section "Contrast."
"A special case of contrast is associated with the process of letting go of old roles, which often seems to continue well into the socialization process. The prolonged letting go in organizational entry seems to differ markedly from the situation in tribal rites of passage and total institution inductions, as described earlier." (p. 236)
In other words, in these total institutions letting go is just short of instantaneous. In the Vienna experience, I expect that the letting go happens the minute you go through the wardrobe door (drawing on my earlier analogy), which happens when you trust the mission to help you deal with your transitions struggles (debasement, etc.). However, you might not realize right away the significance and implications of what you've done by merely taking that simple step, but in essence you've opened the door to allowing them, at least in part, to help you manage your personal identity and the persona you take on in various settings. So it's quick in the sense that that first step is quick, although the lead-up to it, depends a lot on your willingness to take that step. I think this is the way it was.
***
The next sub-sub-section is called "Surprise."
"The subject of anticipation and, therefore, surprise may be the job, the organization, or self." (p. 237)
I think the biggest surprise for me was the organization, and this was especially a surprise because I thought my understanding of missions to Eastern Europe would prepare me better for the Vienna mission experience. I knew that some missions in that part of the world had issues, but I didn't think it was that all-pervasive and I also thought I had been careful enough in my selection to not end up in one of those types of missions.
To a lesser extent, however, the job was also a surprise. I didn't expect the mission to play games with my actual work responsibilities. My supporters had helped me get there to hold a specific job position. I'm sure they would have understood if there were changes along the way, but it was pure manipulation the way I was moved around from position to position. And I'd never experienced anything like it before or after my Vienna mission days.
***
The next sub-section has several insightful sections in it, but I'll wait till tomorrow to discuss them.
