A lot of my neighbors have been at a funeral and related activities for the daughter of one of the long-time residents here. I know her (the mother) probably as well as I know anyone here and better than most, but since I've been sick so much since I've lived here and have therefore not been so active, there hasn't been a lot of chance to get to know people very well here and vice versa. If I could have gone with someone I probably would have gone to the funeral, but I thought that I'd be with people who really know each other well and for a long time, so it would be awkward for me. I really have been trying to avoid morning commitments anyway as that gives me more time to get my day set up and go through everything I have to do in the morning (which involves some health-related things), but if I could have gone with someone I probably would have gone to the funeral. One of the neighbors let me read the bulletin, which was very nicely put together. It sounds like she was a very nice woman and was very involved in her church too.
***
"Attitudes usually are defined by psychologists as tendencies to evaluate or react to specific social 'targets' - groups or categories of individuals - in the same way over time. One whole class of attitudes involves stereotypes or prejudices. Another major class of attitudes involves values - valuing certain customs or objects over others. For example, Americans generally place a negative value on dogs as food, while some Asians place a positive value on them as food." (p. 177)
If values are a part of attitude, then the mission was right that I had a bad attitude, in as much as I had negative values towards some of the things they were doing (and/or how they did things).
***
"A famous study of attitudes was done by Theodore Newcomb (1958) with women at Bennington College. He lumped values toward specific subjects into two broad categories: liberal and conservative. His subjects were young women from mostly wealthy and conservative homes. Their teachers at the college were mostly liberal. In a study which lasted over several years, he found that most students' values became more liberal the longer they were at college. He also found that individuals students with higher status or prestige among their fellow students tended to be more liberal, while students who remained conservative tended to be less valued by their fellow students." (p. 177)
I actually had not marked up this paragraph from my earlier reading of it (in the mid 1990s), but I think it provides a useful jumping off point to ponder whether there was any attitude change among members of the Vienna mission from when they first joined the mission to after they had become seasoned missionaries (usually terms were 2 years or more, but could be extended or renewed - for another 2 years - if all parties agreed to it).
I've already discussed how there was a lot of homogeneity among mission members before they even arrived in Vienna, but it's quite possible that there were areas of belief or values that might have changed as a result (presumably) of being with the mission. If it is found to be true that everyone underwent some kind of an intentional socialization, then it would seem that that meant that a change was necessary. And if these required changes were more or less similar for everyone (taking into account the individualization of socialization at the mission), or at least involved some common elements, this would show that something about the mission commonly went against the pre-mission values or attitudes (and thus needed to change). This is speculation, to a great extent, because I had limited opportunity to see how people in other departments (other than secretaries) were being socialized. Here are some possibilities though (for mission-demanded change), that might be worth considering:
1. All interactions with the outside world would be subject to mission controls (not that they could check on all one's interactions, but you knew how the mission expected you to act / talk, so you had internalized the control.) Children and spouses also had to understand this demand and be able to live by it.
2. In 99% of instances the mission's demands are non-negotiable, so get used to it.
3. There is no neutral channel for grievances.
4. The mission knows more than you think it does about you, but you don't know exactly what they know or don't know.
5. If you don't have outside relations (or only very minimal ones as necessary) you will experience less stress and (or because?) the mission will trust you more. Certain specific relations are approved, such as participation at the Vienna International Chapel.
6. Whatever you think/thought you know about Eastern Europe is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the mission's interpretations.
7. If you are a trusted member of the mission you should enjoy your time of service with it; otherwise, anyone regarded as having trust issues will find their time with the mission very stressful.
8. Once the mission leadership has decided on an attitude towards a person, place or thing (e.g., me), everyone is expected to fall in line and take on the same attitude, which should be actively demonstrated, as appropriate.
etc.
I'm sure that there's probably some sort of rubric that could somehow tie these all together more elegantly, but for now this is at least something to start with.
Presumably, workers wouldn't come to the mission with these kinds of attitudes, so they would need to be inculcated via socialization. Since we're talking about Evangelical Christians from the USA (of which I am one) I think it's fairly safe to say that this kind of thinking, as represented by the above 8 attitudes, is not all that common amongst such people. However, within some Evangelical traditions there is more tendency to abdicate personal opinions and beliefs to church authority, like pope James Dobson. Of course, he's not really a pope, but just try disagreeing with him in some circles! In a best-case scenario you might be only lambasted as a lost liberal; worst case scenario? ex-communication.
The next question is, of course, that if these kinds of changes really did happen (i.e., that the pre-intervention missionary was significantly different from the post-intervention missionary), then how did said change occur? I mean really, how do you get a bunch the Th.M.'s and Th.D.'s to make these kinds of changes? Heck, I only had a Bible school graduate certificate. Maybe that was the problem, though - that I needed more theological training in order to be able to make the change.
***
The next topic is "Group Conformity," which you know is going to be salaciously good.
I hate to leave you hanging like this, but my lunch is finished so I have to get on to other things.
~ Meg
