I should be careful not to mislead my readers: I'm not sure what I might do regarding the bibliographic database I mentioned last time. There are some resources in it that I'm sure could contribute some interesting light to the sense-making of my life, but I have a feeling if I were to use it here it would most likely be in a later backtracking (i.e., out of chronological order) to hash out more aspects of the Vienna experience which was, in a lot of ways more foreign to me that being thrust into the wild outbacks of Siberia (5 time zones from Moscow). I also had a lot easier time adjusting to life in Siberia than I did to live in the Vienna mission (to be distinguished from life in Vienna as a whole).
***
This next section in the text presents a chicken or the egg type quandary:
"I (RJR) did my dissertation project on a related issue: whether people with similarities in their personalities tend to choose each other as friends or mates, or, conversely, whether people develop such similarities after becoming friends or spouses (Robertson, 1960). Like Newcomb, I found that - among a group of 40 junior executives who were brought together for a two-month training program - those who eventually paired off as friends were originally no more like each other than any of the others in the program. They did not average higher correlations with each other on measures of personal attitudes and values (gathered before they met) than the average correlations within the group as a whole. I did find friend-pairs to have somewhat higher correlations (on the average) than the group as a whole at the end of the training program. I took this as evidence that the friends were tending to become more alike as a result of their interractions. But the question of why they became friends in the first place remained unclear, as it did in Newcomb's larger study." (p. 175)
In applying this text to the Vienna mission context, I'm thinking in terms of everyone coming together in this one organization and becoming one big hyper happy insular extended family. Were these various individuals that came together like this more alike before they joined the mission (and this likeness formed part of the selection process, probably from both ends of the relationship) or did they change to become more alike each other after they melded? Actually, that's a trick question and should include an option C) all of the above, because I think that there was probably some of both going on there. However, I'm at a disadvantage compared to Robertson and Newcomb, because I don't have the research data to analyze and come up with a properly reliable answer to this question. So I will have to just rely on my experience and my memory of what was going on at the mission during the time I was a part of it.
I think I've already described how there was a lot of homogeneity at the mission, which I think mostly pre-dates individual's membership in the organization; that is, most people came to the mission already bringing with themselves this preexisting high degree of homogeneity. But I also think that the mission did a lot to create even more homogeneity. This mission-created homogeneity was partially intentional and partially a natural byproduct of working together and doing the kind of work that was being done. The intentional part included socialization (again, which the mission might well deny existed in any intentional fashion) and other internal control-type efforts, including building a strong organizational culture and organizational communications. The experiential aspect would include traveling together on mission trips into Eastern Europe or even just sharing the experiences of being foreigners together in Austria, for example.
Since I've already discussed the preexisting homogeneity, I'll just address some of what I think is the similarities that developed by virtue of being and working together. First of all, I think that values and beliefs about the work and about the particular mission field(s) where they worked was a pretty important aspect of how they became even more similar to each other after joining the mission. Also, I think that sharing the socialization process was also a very important binding experience. Again, I'm expecting mission leadership to deny this.
The thing about the socialization process is that it served to create a boundary between mission and non-mission, where the outside world couldn't really understand what it was like to face the issues they dealt with day in and day out. But not only couldn't they understand (fully, experientially), but they weren't supposed to understand. That is, mission members shared this insular life where there were lots of secrets and the bounds were set as to who could/should know what (or couldn't/shouldn't know what), what image to portray to whom, etc. There were some boundaries within the mission which had to be overcome to a certain extent to try to foster a shared sense of community, camaraderie and shared mission. But at least internally everyone knew that there were bounds like this and honored them, whereas outside the mission generally people weren't even supposed to know about bounds like this and there was more risk of compromising the mission, so this kind of shared experience and way of living not only resulted in mission members spending more time together, but also having a shared life experience that others wouldn't really understand. So in this kind of context I think it's highly likely that people would become more like each other even considering they came to the mission already with a lot of homogeneity.
***
"We have discussed the concept of the self-system as the highest control system in the individual, along with its implications and some of the research interpreted by this view, in previous chapters. What do we find when we look for an analogue of the system concept in couples, cliques, families, clubs, congregations, communities, and societies?
Recall the basic feature of any control system: it maintains its controlled variable constant (matched to its reference signal) against external interference. Thus, to employ the test for the controlled condition - to see whether a group's or a couple's system concept resists external disturbance - we must first define what it is controlling. I propose that it would the identity or 'image' of the 'system.' Next, I speculate as to what might constitute external disturbances to such variables. I propose that it is any type of 'insult' or challenge which states or implies that the group doesn't exist, or isn't what it defines itself to be." (p. 176).
While I'm leaving out some text for the sake of expedience, I am trying to keep surrounding text in mind as well (for contextual purposes) when I discuss these comments, although occasionally I might go off on my own interpretation if it seems more pertinent to the Vienna mission context. What the outside world knew of how it viewed the mission were exceedingly important. In fact, the range of faces the mission presented to the world might be a challenge to CIA operative... or maybe not. On one side of the equation - what a particular group could or could not know about the mission - there were extensive protective strategies in place (covers, etc.). On the other side of the equation - how a particular group was supposed to view the mission - involved more proactive (p.r., etc.) strategies. Therefore, image and information about the mission had to be carefully managed, and control in the mission, therefore, revolved around this issue to a very great extent (in my opinion) Simple examples include briefing on how to act & dress on the train in Romania (on a mission trip) or censoring our prayer letters. (By giving clear examples like this I'm hoping those who might want to dispute my interpretation of events will have a harder time doing so.)
'External disturbances', I think might be classed as contextual (type of government in the German Democratic Republic), potential (someone might recognize you as being a foreigner on a Romanian train), or actual (a worker is denied a visa to "their country" because the government has become suspicious about that person, and so that missionary has to be assigned to another country).
I also think, however, that the line between 'internal disturbances' and 'external disturbances' is fuzzy in the Vienna mission context. I think this is so because the internal disturbance has the potential of becoming an external disturbance and so might be treated more like an external disturbance, although the mission might have at its disposal in dealing with such threats that wouldn't be so appropriate or effective in usual external disturbance situations. So, for example, I could actually have been seen as an internal disturbance with (relatively) high external disturbance potential (in addition to any internal disturbance I could cause). Where internal control is crucial for external control (especially where external control takes on such importance - it takes on a life of its own, actually), any internal threat has direct implications for external control, and, as I experienced (at least I believe this explains a good chunk of how I was treated by the mission) can be treated with the same vehemence as external threat might be treated. However, the mission has at its disposal a whole different set of potential methods for addressing internal control issues. So in the Vienna mission setting the bounds between internal and external controls is fuzzy, although there are different control methods available.
Although the Vienna mission was a total institution, and I've discussed this at some length elsewhere, there were some differences between it and other total institutions. In fact the Vienna mission would probably fit (at least in part) in the following organizational categories:
1) total institution
2) international nonprofit
3) Evangelical Christian missionary organization
4) higher educational institution
There are probably other categories, but those are probably the most important ones. Does it sound natural or usual to you for any or all of these types of organizations to be also classified as a total institution? It doesn't to me, and this is the kind of thing that makes the Vienna mission in a rather tenuous position vis a vis it's total institution characteristics. I'm not saying it's not possible to be #2, #3 and/or #4 and also #1, but just that's not very probable. It's hard for me to imagine these combinations and the ones I do conjure up aren't very flattering. But the mission really has to maintain its images of #2, #3 and #4 without letting on that its also a #1 (total institution). As a total institution a whole range of methods become possible that would not otherwise be very accepted (by other organizations in the class or by society at large, for example) in the other types of organizations.
So now not only does the mission have to worry about the threat to the East, but also the threat to the West as well. That is, the threat of what would happen if others found out it was a total institution and used tactics more appropriate for those types of institutions than the other types; and that's not even mentioning the values orientation issues.
However, that being said the mission did (this was the 1980s) have the advantage of working in a politically charged context, which might result in a certain amount of latitude being granted to it by those who otherwise might object to the use of total institutions methods.
And all this is to say that the mission had a lot to consider vis a vis control of external disturbance possibilities. Not an easy tight rope to walk, I image. But this begs the question as to whether the state of the affairs described here was either necessary or biblical.
***
"If large and small groups do act to preserve their self-definitions, identities, or self-images, do the identities in question show other outputs beside actions to preserve the common identity? Here we come to the the subjects of conformity, attitudes, decision making and leadership. ..." (p. 177)
The authors are going to discuss this list of subjects one by one in the following sections, so consider this your "advance organizer", as they say in reading education. But I think this is a good stopping point so you'll just have come back to learn if, how and under what circumstances any of these things might apply to the Vienna mission as I experienced it.
In the meantime, I hope you have a nice day.
~ Meg
