In case you didn't catch that, I used a function of speech (my English as a Second Language background coming out) that some might call "sermonizing" in my last post.
***
"The rituals of other public celebrations carry corresponding symbolic messages regarding other aspects of the society's control over its environment. Without such periodic renewals of morale, Warner contended, people gradually would drift off into increasingly self-centered interests, to the point where they might hesitate or resist the orders of leaders in times of crisis.
So, you might ask, what specific variables are controlled by the ceremonials of the Memorial Day observances? The answer Warner gave looks very much like a system concept: identity of the community and nation. The controlled perception, repeated at each level of social organization, appears to be a 'self-image' of a group; family; parish; congregation; neighborhood; community; nation. Examples: 'We are all Chicagoans,' We are all Americans.' Sharing a common identity with others means recognizing common interests - sharing common principles or values which characterize the common identity." (p. 172)
I understood these types of "public celebrations" (organization-wide gatherings of various kinds) as helping create a sense of unity and accomplishment by opportunities to interact and share with others what each department had recently done. In that way, it helped avoid different sections of the organization getting too in-grown. As such it seemed reasonable enough to me and I don't remember ever having trouble with these kinds of meetings and events. But I think this passage makes a good point that these events could well also have served more of a control purpose. For example, it seemed clear to me that the language and public interactions also underscored the power structure in a pretty obvious (to me anyway) way. It was the type of thing where everyone is supposed to laugh at the boss's jokes and if there was any question about anything the senior members gave the definitive answer. These things were just a part of all the interactions, though, so it's possible that some may not have picked up on it. I think the administration level members (esp. the director) also set the tone and how people were supposed to interact (in general).
The other thing here is collective identity. There definitely was a collective identity, although I think there was a bit of variation between the departments. This was something that a newcomer, I think, was supposed to be socialized into. But I didn't share identity with anyone in the mission, really. I wasn't a secretary (I mean I was one there, but not at heart and not by profession), and I never was given very much opportunity to share identity with any other group in the mission. And the identity of the mission seemed somewhat repulsive to me once I got there and saw first-hand how things were. So these events probably did have an effect on me because I saw them as mostly acceptable, but this was just the formal culture side of the organization and the undergirding informal culture was what I had problems with. That informal culture came through more in casual interactions at these gatherings than during the formal presentation-type parts of them.
***
"The other institutions of modern society - work, friendship, marriage, citizenship, club membership, charity work, and socialization of the young - may also be viewed in terms of mutual actions, or control of perceptual variables (at various levels) by multi-person control efforts. Those which have been investigated in traditional social psychology research studies can be arranged roughly in ascending order of the controlled variables in the control-system hierarchy. For example, beginning at the bottom:
Intensity...
Sensation...
Configuration...
Transitions...
Categories, Sequences, Programs...
Principles (personal policies, attitudes, and values): all of the generalizations, stereotypes, and favorable and unfavorable prejudices which we tend to see confirmed in the actions we perceive in those with whom we interact - studied under topics like person-perception, attribution theory, attitudes, value-theory, policy formation, social exchange, and equity theory.
System Concepts: the social entities which we perceive and for which we control perceptions, such as our own family, 'our' organization, congregation, neighborhood, community, nation, and culture. We name social entities, such as married couples, friendship partners, and crony groups, and we identify the system concept which is involved with a common name (for example, a couple goes by a common name when they get married) - studied under topics like group psychology, organizational psychology, reference-group theory, relationship theory, and affiliation." (p. 172-172)
The last two variables, Principles and System Concepts, would have been the most pertinent to my Vienna experience. Regarding "Principles," I think I was the victim of at least three stereotypes, 1) secretary, 2) female and 3) single female. It felt like these 3 stereotypes virtually dictated my role in the organization and it was a straight-jacket type of stereotype, or at least that's how I experienced it. For example, I thought it was pretty sexist to expect that I should be expected to befriend my boss's wive and (in the end) she could even play a role in the success of my career, but not only that, but I was also expected to befriend their children, like a big sister. I sort of felt like if they knew they were going to have problems with bringing their 5 children to Vienna, why didn't they bring a nanny with them or hire one there? Why should I be expected to do that.. I don't mean to give the impression my time spent in these ways was all distasteful, but I did resent somewhat that I pretty well had to do these things.
My attitudes, as should be quite clear by now, played a big role in the success (or, more accurately, lack of success) of my socialization with the mission. I think they saw it as attitudes, though, and I saw it as a values difference. But I never voiced my values differences and I don't think they guessed them, although it's possible they had a certain amount of suspicion about it. But I'm just speculating on that, I don't know that they knew I had value difference.
Regarding "System Concepts" I was a shipwreck practically from the get-go. It's one thing to have misconceptions before coming to a new situation, but it's quite another to have misconceptions that by virtue of them (the misconceptions) existing results in a massive value conflict.
I think too, and this is something different from what I've mentioned here before, that the mission had a different concept of the religious situation in Eastern Europe, and I think this could be sort of a general system concept (i.e., including Polish Catholics, Romanian Baptists, Bulgarian Orthodox, etc.), but I think it could serve a useful purpose vis a vis my experience with the mission. But more than that, their view of the religious situation in Eastern Europe trumped pretty much everything else, including, I think, some basic Christian principles and teaching. They just made it all-consuming and everything else was less important.
Another thing is that I think they were more comfortable with the possibility of the work having political connotations and that's why we get things like the US military connections and that ghastly US-USSR economic comparison handout from my Candidates' Course. I didn't think politics should have anything to do with the work. I understand that all these major social factors (religion, economics, politics, etc.) inevitably affect one another, but I think they might have been a little too open to that possibility. I'm bringing this up, because I think that their "System Concept" regarding themselves and their work included the possibility of political involvement, at least to a certain degree.
***
Now this is really and truly it for today. Actually, it's tomorrow already, because my computer says it's 12:04 a.m.
Good night.
~ Meg
