I'd like to say a little more about my family. Again, my family is not a bad family, really. I discuss my family here because they have been a major part of my life in various ways. What I mean by family is birth family (parents, siblings) since I'm not married and don't have children.
It's only been in recent years that I have come to believe that there's a hierarchy in the family. When you're growing up it's pretty obvious that the parents are at the top of the family hierarchy, but when you grow up there are a lot of different configurations a family could take from there, so I don't think it's as predictable what form the relationships between family members will take. I'm saying this now as just casual observation and general information picked up here and there, not from having studied this issue.
So what kind of a hierarchy might my family have? And what might the hierarchy be based on? (i.e., What makes one person higher on it that another?). I'm not sure I can answer this question in any definitive way, in reference to my family, that is. I also don't know where this hierarchy came from - how it started. You'd think that there would be more of an egalitarian relationship among adult family members - at least I would. But that's probably naive of me to be surprised that a hierarchy exists.
I think there are a variety of possible factors contributing to the formation of hierarchy in my family, such as job/work position (prestige, etc.), money, possessions, travel, having children/grand children, etc. Spelling it out like this is actually a bit shocking to me - for a family that purports to be Christian these sure are worldly determinants of rank and influence in the family.
There's another aspect of this that I've just realized very recently and that is the tendency of some family members to sort of ride the coattails of those higher up in rank. I think this can serve to help the one "riding the coattails" or following in the footsteps of the other to rise a bit in rank, but it could also decrease the rank of the one being followed, because it makes that person's achievement less special and unique.
These are things that when I realized they might be operative in the family I thought back to past interactions and they seemed to fit. I'm not sure how conscious others are, though, of partaking in this process. I wasn't aware of it for a long time, I think, because I was the oldest child and didn't have anyone to compete against, so I just followed my own calling irregardless of what the others did. I don't know that the mechanisms and reasons for competitions early on are necessarily the same as they are now, and it's possible that once this set up was in place it became more or less self-perpetuating and took on a life of its own. Maybe it's sort of like doing something that you don't know why you're doing it or how it even started.
But at any rate, I think it's a big part of our family relations now and it's been affecting me more in the past few years, especially since I became sick in 2007 first with the thoracic stenosis and fibromyalgia, followed by supraventicular tachycardia and a cardiac ablation, then thoracic surgery, etc. up to the present. So I'm sort of in a needy position right now, but not desperately needy (since I do have a modest income at least and am not in agonizing pain, for example), which might make it difficult to think past basic physical needs. Therefore, I'm low on the totem pole, but in a position to observe and reflect on family relations.
I don't like this set up because I prefer more egalitarian relations, and this would also be reflected, for example in my management style. In the current context, however, having defined relationships probably helps my brothers, at least to a certain extent, manage their care-taking roles while in difficult situations apart from family relations. So in that regard it might be beneficial to have some clear boundaries regarding who does what and what to expect from different members, but I'm not sure even with that taken into account, that it needs to be as hierarchical as it is. And I don't think there's any good reason that mom and I should be in a hierarchical relationship, but we are and I think she wants it that way and probably always has wanted it that way (although she hasn't always been in a position where it affected me).
I know that mom told me once that dad was image-conscious, so it's possible that if he thought any of us kids, for example, could benefit him or the family image-wise maybe this thinking somehow got communicated in a way that led to competition for this affirmation from him. But I think mom has had a sort of female competition thing with me; at least that's how it feels to me. But, as I've discussed elsewhere, my family also has pretty traditional male-female role values, and I didn't follow the traditional female vocation (i.e., get married and have kids) which would have taken me out of the competition with my brothers. But since that didn't happen, they may have tried to compete with me at times.
I know I'm speaking in very general terms here, but maybe these things will make sense when from time to time I discuss specific situations and interactions involving my family.
***
I didn't realize last time (probably because there were so many pages left) that that was the last post on the Swann text. So we're starting another new one now:
Senge, Peter M. (1992, March/April). Mental models. Planning Review, 20(2), 4-10, 44.
Peter Senge is a well-known authority in the areas of learning organization and systems theory.
Also, I might mention that I'm using that APA (American Psychological Association) style for my notations because that's what is used mostly in the field of education (at least in the USA) and is also one of the more frequently used styles in the field of library studies, which fields account for most of my graduate education and work (other than graduate certificates in biblical studies and in teaching English to speakers of other languages).
***
"Individuals often become successful in part because of their abilities to debate forcefully and thus influence others." (p. 9)
This may be true in many contexts, but it's only very nominally true, I think, in the Vienna mission context. In order for this to be true in that context the person wanting to use this kind of skill would probably have to meet these criteria first for it to be effective (at least effective in the way intended, rather than disciplinary):
1. the person needed to be debating on a topic that was ithin the limits of what was allowed, which might be relative to the person's knowledge, power and rights in the organization or within more absolute rights (i.e., areas off-limits to virtually everyone);
2. the person needed to be debating a position that was within the limits of what was allowed, which might be relative to the person's knowledge, power and rights in the organization or within more absolute rights (i.e., areas off-limits to virtually everyone);
3. the person needed to be debating in a setting that was within the limits of what was allowed, which might be relative to the person's knowledge, power and rights in the organization or within more absolute rights (i.e., areas off-limits to virtually everyone);
4. the person needed to be debating in a manner that was within the limits of what was allowed, which might be relative to the person's knowledge, power and rights in the organization or within more absolute rights (i.e., areas off-limits to virtually everyone).
So for example, I probably would have been arguing within the realm of what was allowed for me if I gently suggested to my boss in his office that it might be better to type a specific letter in modified block style because it seemed to be what had been used in the past and what his boss' secretary used, and because it was the most versatile style, vis a vis formality.
In fact, in this situation I might well have been commended for 1) limiting my interests to that of secretarial concerns and 2) for taking initiative within that sphere. In this way I would be confirming their image of what I was supposed to be like and indicating concern regarding doing my job well, and also not, say, planning a slow-down strike or act of sabotage.
In any event, the things I was really concerned about would not have been open for debate and would probably have been responded to not unlike how they might have responded, for example, to an overly zealous East European border guard. (But my thoughts about the mission were not this clear while there, so I was going more on intuition as supported by my knowledge of things East European, for example.)
***
"As each side reasonably and calmly advocates his viewpoint just a bit more strongly, positions become more and more rigid. Advocacy without inquiry begets more advocacy. In fact, there is a systems archetype that describes what happens next. It's called 'escalation,' and it's exactly the same structure that fuels the arms race." (p. 9)
If things were only so simple... In the Vienna mission context, where disagreement outside of very narrowly specified boundaries, was disallowed, escalation took place by means of implicit action responses by the mission that could always be explained away in terms other than what it felt like. And since this sentence is so loaded, I'd better explain it and place some qualifiers on it before moving on.
1. I never explicitly disagreed with the mission in the manner used in this text. That is I never, for example, walked into my boss's office and said, "This exercise of having me read the software manuals is stupid, needless and a waste of time. Why didn't you guys let me take the software class I offered to take before coming here? And what is this not giving me any real work to do? What's going on here, anyway?" And it's just as well, as you might be able to imagine, that I didn't do that because I'm sure all the wrath of hell would have descended on me quicker than you can say "total institution." But since I never did this, I can't be 100% sure what would happen if I had.
2. Also, the part about how the mission would explain away its response in other terms might need to be fleshed out too. The only people, I'm pretty sure, who might be foolishly try to engage in unfettered debate with the mission would be those who weren't yet properly socialized into the mission. But such people also were the ones that would still be trying to understand how the mission operated, at least subconsciously if not also consciously, so as to know their place within it and how to act appropriately and what to expect from the organization in various circumstances. So if the mission responded to such an untimely attempt at debate instigation, it probably would have directly responded in a more or less friendly manner but indirectly in a more or less corrective manner. The new inductee might suspect that the indirect actions could be related to his or her attempt to engage the organization, but would probably have a tough time proving it. If this individual approached the mission directly about the suspected indirect results of his or her debate efforts the mission could pretty easily explain it away in some other terms and come out looking like a rose because the direct response was so other than the suspected indirect response. And besides, that individual was probably just experiencing culture shock and needed a rest, or some such other remedial treatment.
3. The very word "debate" as explained above in this post, needs to be understood in the context of the mission. In this setting, where debate in the normal sense of the word was all but nonexistence, "request for clarification" or "expressing trivial concerns" might be seen as "debate" while "debate", in the usual understanding of the word, would be seen as "all-out threat" or "challenging of total authority." In either case, while the nature and strength of organizational response would be quite different, both would most likely be seen as being contrary to group norms and in need of some kind of corrective response. Also, debate in the Vienna context could, I think, include more-or-less nonverbal flaunting or otherwise nonacceptance of group norms or mission directives (spoken or otherwise).
4. "Escalation" in the Vienna context could be either explicit or implicit, as described above, but the mission, of course, would have a lot more resources of various kinds at its command, putting the individual at a great disadvantage. In my experience, the mission was not only able but also willing to use some of these various resources, so it wasn't just hypothetical that they could use them; they actually did use them. So there was a certain amount of willingness to use various means at their employ in this process, although, as stated above, they would not admit to this happening - that they were intentionally doing these things in relationship to the individual's instigation (and persistence) of debate.
Here's a small example of how this escalation might have happened:
Mission: Secretaries provide a lot of opportunity for me to socialize with and learn from them.
Me: I don't limit myself sufficiently to interactions with the secretaries and don't respond properly to their (the secretaries') cues.
Mission: Begins to establish pressures on me that might be alleviated if I turned my attention more to the secretaries.
Me: I ignore the mission-induced stress as being 1) indirect and thus (I felt) manipulative; 2) contrary to my self-identity; and 3) proof that there are things going on in the mission that I didn't like nor agree with.
etc., etc.
***
"We often tape record meetings of management teams with whom we are working to develop learning skills. One indicator that a team is in trouble is when few, if any, questions emerge during the course of a several hour meeting." (p. 9)
I can't speak for what might have happened at mission leadership meetings, but my experience with the mission was that questions that might have been asked were not ones of any substance about the mission. Maybe the workers were so adept at deflecting outsiders' untoward questions that they just kept using it in their every day work; alternately, maybe these types of security concerns not only applied to outsiders of various kinds, but insiders too. The bounds of the permissible would just vary.
It would be interesting, though to see what Senge and company would find if they tape recorded a Vienna mission leadership meeting. It would be very interesting indeed.
***
"But pure inquiry is also limited. Questioning can be crucial for breaking the spiral of reinforcing advocacy, but until a team or an individual learns to combine and integrate both inquiry and advocacy skills, learning is very limited." (p. 9)
Since I'm not quoting the whole text, it might not be clear to you what Senge is advocating, so I'll give a descriptive example of how questions might break the gridlock of ever-increasing "advocacy" (adversarial?) responses.
The mission: You are a secretary. Period (i.e., You are a secretary, nor more, no less. End of story.).
Me: No I'm not.
The mission: What makes you think you are not just a secretary?
Me: Because that's not my profession, because I can do a lot more (by formal training and experience) than secretarial work, I don't see myself particularly as a secretary, and I aspire to more than being a secretary. I just see myself filling a secretarial role within the mission for now as a springboard to other roles more fitting to my training, experience and self-identity. Why do you insist on seeing me only as a secretary?
etc., etc. I think you get the picture. Of course, this didn't happen for many reasons, one of which was that we weren't interacting on a direct and explicit plane (because the mission, to a large degree, didn't operate in that manner) and two, because part of the issue was that I was supposed to understand my place in the power structure, which didn't allow for such questioning.
Senge, needless to say, would have had his hands full with remedial work at the Vienna mission, if he survived to tell about it, that is.
***
This paragraph continues...
"One reason that pure inquiry is limited is that we almost always do have a view, regardless of whether or not we believe that our view is the correct one. Thus, simply asking lots of questions can be a way of avoiding learning by hiding our own view behind a wall of incessant questioning." (p. 9)
Although this came nowhere close to being verbalized explicitly, probably both I and the mission were both guilty of "incessant questioning" (think: monkeys at the zoo ogling each other). The mission would, I think, not have wanted to state its position plainly and openly because some of these maneuverings and social engineering tactics might not have gone over well back home but also might have been useful to potential "enemies", much like how a CIA station being compromised by enemy agents learning of its structure and rules of engagement. But also, they might have not known what exactly I was questioning, since this whole process was mostly unspoken, and when it did reach the spoken realm was indirect. So they couldn't be sure what their position was vis a vis my questions because they didn't know for sure what they were. They did know, however, that I wasn't conforming appropriately or adequately and seemed to be (probably) alluding their efforts, which raised my risk potential even more.
I, on the other hand, also wasn't sure exactly what I was disagreeing with in as much as I wasn't sure what was going on. I probably had more information to go on, once I got to Vienna (but not before arriving), by virtue of me being only one person to watch and them being 60 people plus family members. But, on the other hand, there was more potential, I think for me receiving seemingly contradictory and confusing signals because of all the possible sources the signals would have been coming from and I was still in the early stages of developing a mental map, if you will, of the organization.
So, in effect, both of us, the mission and I, were probably most of the time in an "advocacy" (adversarial) and incessant questioning mode of relating to one another, where our positions and questions were all pretty much implied, rather than directly stated. This, as you might be able to imagine, left the door open for lots of misunderstanding, misinterpretation of signals and escalation.
The mission, on one hand, could see, at the very least, any indication of lack of submission or lack of internalization of group norms as being tantamount to personal insurrection and a challenge to their total authority. To see things this way it was not necessary for the mission to understand the particulars of my "advocacy" (adversarial position) and/or questioning; they could respond solely on the determination of whether or not such an adversarial position (and/or questioning) was held. In other words, the comprehension of the substance of my apparent position was not necessary to evoke a corrective response by the mission.
On my side of the relationship, the nature of their positions was important to me, but lacking such knowledge (with any certainty), I could respond to their tactics. So in some cases, I might disagree with the substance of a position (e.g., their defining me by my position alone), but often I had to revert more to responding to their actions (and my interpretation of them). This might play a role in how I take a stronger stand against their methods (modus operandi) than their ends (the mission work itself). It's possible that there could be something about their ends (objectives) I could find something disagreeable there too. But I am only aware of the plainly and openly stated objectives of the mission, which was to train church leaders in Eastern European countries.
Neither of us were willing to be direct and engage in "debate" about our positions and questions, certainly not in the way described here in this text. From my position, I was by far the weaker and most vulnerable and it would have been too risky for me to be direct, based on what I was learning about the mission. From the mission's perspective, I think it would have been impossible because that would have been inconsistent with how they operated and so it wouldn't have been acceptable. Besides, the point was, at least in part, to make me understand who was boss and who made the rules (of any consequence) around there. I might have been a little fly in the ointment, but flies weren't tolerated at all.
***
I hate to cut this off because these portions of text are so inter-related and I need to keep my train of thought, but I also have to get on with my day and I have a doctor's appointment in a while. So we'll just have to pick up on this in my next post.
