Both the field of literature (autobiographies) and qualitative research (biographical life history, biographical method, single-subject case studies) suggest possible paradigms that could guide me in this process. The options are further expanded when you consider that biographical literature includes: memoirs, occupational memoirs, religious autobiographies, adventure memoirs, psychological illness memoirs, confessional memoirs, complaint memoirs, family histories, etc. (see this web site for more options) and that qualitative research has its own variants: life history, oral history, autobiography, interpretive biography, etc. (cp. Creswell, John W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, p. 49-50). But pretty much all of these advocate for having a theme or purpose (statement).
Because of the wide spectrum of issues and types of events in my life I gave up on selecting one single type of autobiography, although I do find it helpful to recognize the distinctions between different aspects of and periods in my life as suggested by the various style options available. Then I could use these literature/research sub-types to guide me in the various portions of my autobiography composition. However, I won't admit to having mastered that skill as of yet.
But the issue of having a theme or purpose (statement) kept coming back to haunt me and it took the longest time to find one that fit my life as a whole and seemed relevant to the various major components of it. The theme that I selected some years ago now draws from the Greek tragedy genre.
Here are a couple of definitions of "Greek tragedy" available on the Web:
"As was noted in the discussion of the Iliad, the word "tragedy" refers primarily to tragic drama: a literary composition written to be performed by actors in which a central character called a tragic protagonist or hero suffers some serious misfortune which is not accidental and therefore meaningless, but is significant in that the misfortune is logically connected with the hero's actions. Tragedy stresses the vulnerability of human beings whose suffering is brought on by a combination of human and divine actions, but is generally undeserved with regard to its harshness. This genre, however, is not totally pessimistic in its outlook. Although many tragedies end in misery for the characters, there are also tragedies in which a satisfactory solution of the tragic situation is attained." (by Roger Dunkle, Brooklyn College)
"tragedy, Drama of a serious and dignified character that typically describes the development of a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny, circumstance, or society) and reaches a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion." (by Brittanica)
"Tragedy (Greek) Verse drama written in elevated language in which a noble protagonist falls to ruin during a struggle caused by a flaw (hamartia) in his character or an error in his rulings or judgments. Following are the characteristics of a Sophocles tragedy: (1) It is based on events that already took place and with which the audience is familiar. (2) The protagonist is a person of noble stature. (3) The protagonist has a weakness and, because of it, becomes isolated and suffers a downfall. (4) Because the protagonist's fall is not entirely his or her own fault, the audience may end up pitying him or her. (5) The fallen protagonist gains self-knowledge. He has a deeper insight into himself and understands his weakness. (6) The audience undergoes catharsis, a purging of emotions, after experiencing pity, fear, shock and other strong feelings. The people go away feeling better. (7) The drama usually unfolds in one place in a short period of time, usually about a day." (by Michael J. Cummings, former school teacher)
Using this as a starting point you may well wonder about the different aspects of my life that might make it fit this framework. But at the same time, I hope that you can already see a bit if how it might be possible to view my life in this way.
***
Returning to our text, the next chapter section is "When Self-Verification Fails" and the first sub-section is "The nature of Changes in Self-Conceptions."
"Moreover, those who have sought to alter people's self-conceptions have often failed, even after months and months of intensive therapy (e.g., Wylie, 1979). Similarly, practitioners of 'brainwashing' techniques in prisoner of war camps typically failed to change the self-concepts of their captives, despite their ability to exert nearly complete control over prisoners' physical and psychological environments (e.g., Schein. 1956)." (p. 50-51)
However you want to describe my Vienna years (therapeutic, brainwashing or something else), it seems that there can be little dispute that for most of the time I was there (including the months spent back in the USA while working with the mission) there was an active attempt to change me in some way. It's even possible that this describes in a nutshell what most of my time was like for me while with the mission. I'll get into the details of this when I return to my chronology.
***
I have to preface this next quote so you'll understand the context of it. It refers to a study done by the author in which people who saw themselves as either dominant or submissive were given feedback by another person that either confirmed or negated that identity. Then some of the participants were given further opportunity to respond to that feedback, but others weren't given that opportunity. Then all participants were given another opportunity to rate themselves as either dominant or submissive. The results of this structured study were different from similar non-laboratory studies.
"The results of this study suggest that people will change their self-ratings only when they receive self-discrepant feedback in highly structured situations in which they have little opportunity to influence or resist the treatment they receive." (p. 51).
I expect that the Vienna situation might have some similarity to either the laboratory or non-laboratory studies (having similarities to both). In this I'm not just referring to me, but assuming a certain amount of this kind of thing happening to all new-comers to the mission. It would be "laboratory-like" in as much as it involved, for example, intentional socialization efforts, you were more or less cut off from your familiar surroundings and relationships, and you were in a total institution context. But it wouldn't have been "laboratory-like" in as much as there might not be a directly recognizable attack on your self-image, for example, and there likely would also have been a lot of other things going on besides things addressing your self-image.
So how could a person's self-image be confirmed or negated in the mission context? Speaking for myself and my own experience, whether or not these were intended this way (and some I'm pretty sure were), various things made me think my whole life with the mission was laid out by virtue of my being a secretary with them, which didn't allow opportunity for me to display and act on other ways I saw myself. The only ways I had opportunity to show how I saw myself were unacceptable to the mission. Any disagreement with the mission like this was tantamount to flaunting their authority and them being the only ones who had the right to define things, including, it seems, how one views oneself. I imagine there are some personal identity issues that wouldn't have been a big deal. For example, if you also saw yourself as an artist and spent some free time painting, that probably would have been innocuous enough to not cause a problem. Unfortunately for me, an artist was one thing I didn't see myself as and the ways I saw myself were not innocuous enough.
In any event, the mission's vision of me and their efforts to get me to squeeze into it felt to me like being held back and being stuffed into a box, which, in effect denied a lot of my abilities and also my character, which is curious, adventurous and independent-thinking. I can't say I ever did see myself as a secretary in the way I think they would have liked (i.e., to have this image dictate virtually my whole life and relationships), but by the end of my stay with the mission I had begun to see myself in a box in a way that really crushed my spirit. I began to do things I wouldn't have done on my own, such as leave the Austrian church I liked and start attending the Vienna International Chapel and teaching Sunday School there - I really wanted to work with adults and women more than children, although I'd taught pre-school and kindergarten Sunday school at my home church as a teenager and during my undergraduate years. So they succeeded in crushing me, but not really molding me into the person they wanted.
As I write this it reminds me of the friend I had in Minneapolis - the one I stayed with while collecting all these articles. I think she was a really gentle and sensitive person, and, as a musician, it was like her character sort of flowed with the music she loved, like how a pianists whole body can move with and reflect the music their playing. That might seem a bit overly poetic, but it describes, at least in part, how I saw her. Then she married this man who just crushed her spirit. He knocked her down for virtually everything, even the pettiest little things, and after that marriage she seemed a shell of her former self, all broken and trying to find a new bearing. That month or so I spent with her while researching at the university there she had healed a lot, but still had a ways to go. She'd found friends and groups that she liked and fit her ways and thinking and that, I think, was a tremendous help to her.
Why I'm saying this is that the Vienna mission, in many ways, was like her husband, and my experience with the mission and afterward more or less mirrored her marriage and life after the divorce.
***
This next quote also needs some introduction. The text refers to Elia Kazan's 1967 novel "The Arrangement" in which a man comes to hate the identity he's built for himself, so divorces his wive, alienates friends, quits his job and spends time in a mental hospital. Then he rebuilds his life with a new wife, career and friends.
"What is instructive about this story is that the most dramatic aspect of the change in Eddie did not go on in his head; it occurred in his interpersonal environment. Eddie did not become a new Eddie until he had essentially 'switched worlds.' Only after he and his new self-concept were safely embedded in a new opportunity structure was the process of self-concept change complete." (p. 53)
This text is also in the larger discussion about how enduring self-identity changes are, and that laboratory-setting changes are only ephemeral. Unfortunately, in as much as the Vienna mission crushed my self-identity (but didn't effect the change they wanted), there was lasting effect on my personality. I did eventually bounce back to a large degree, and, like Eddie in the novel, did so in a way that redefined myself, but I really was forever changed in a lot of ways after the Vienna experience.
But there's more that I can glean from this text. For example, it could be said that the move to Vienna might also provide an opportunity to redefine oneself, and I think the mission probably tried to capitalize on this. For example, secretaries coming to work with the mission would generally have gained a new repertoire of international skills and knowledge, as well as full-time Christian service experience. So it might well be expected that others might notice a change in them upon their return home from serving in Vienna, and, assuming the change was in the realm of the expected, there should be no raised eyebrows back home concerning the changes. For example, a web site for parents of potential U.S. Army recruits describes the type of personal growth that might be expected in their adult children who join the Army:
"You’ve already developed your young adult into the solid individual he or she is today. The Army can help build on that.
Above all, Soldiers get things done. Protecting freedom. Building a better world. And building a brighter future for themselves by learning leadership skills and developing the kind of self-confidence and self-respect that comes from serving your country.
Your son or daughter will gain valuable interpersonal skills like teamwork, time management, problem-solving skills and professionalism. He or she will be challenged to accept a new sense of discipline and responsibility."
Soldiers returning home should be expected to exhibit these kinds of qualities because the Army is going to instill these things into its recruits. This process, as we all know, is infamously started in boot camp, a socialization tool of sorts.The Vienna mission might not have had boot camp, per se, but I think it did have socialization efforts and it utilized these kinds of personal growth traits (or "spiritual growth") for its own socialization interests.
When a soldier leaves the Army, s/he should be able to distinguish how to act in civilian life in as much as it might differ from the military... and I think the same was supposed to be true for the Vienna missionaries returning home. The reason there would have been a difference between mission life and back-home life is the Eastern European (Communist regime) factor, which the mission used to dictate certain aspects of life with the mission.
I think that in as much as a change was instilled in a recruit to the Vienna mission, it usually was a lasting one and had a positive and constructive affect on members, much as the home-coming Army soldiers might have, for example, a life of relative discipline, and/or self-confidence, etc.
I imagine some of these lasting traits could have included things like composure, tactfulness, astuteness, etc. all of which would be helpful in the mission context. That is, if you can imagine any kind of possible security confrontation (a stranger entering the mission building, a newcomer at church asking untoward questions, a Czech border guard trying to make you angry, etc.), these kinds of traits would be very useful.
In closing, I just realized that this isn't the first time in this blog that I've found a similarity between the military and the Vienna mission. They're both total institutions, for example.
***
Back to my real-time life... I'm tired again. I worked in the garden a bit, did my taxes, and almost finished doing a thorough cleaning of the counter tops (I have a small kitchen so the counter top is pretty full). I don't have a huge problem with cockroaches here, but it's always a challenge to keep them under control down here in southern Florida. I recently bought new cockroach bait "stations" - little containers they enter and take the poison back to their nest to kill them off. So I'm starting to do a thorough kitchen cleaning and replacing the old stations while I do this. Because of my fatigue problem it's might to take a while to finish this, though.
My neighbors, I think, are also tired of looking at the holes I've been digging in the dirt to the left of my stoop. Eventually I'll have dug out most of the rocks and have 12-inch deep trenches around the parameter where I'll stick boards (to try to limit soil contamination from outside the parameter) and also clear plastic that will go down these trenches and cover the entire surface for a couple months to try this solarization technique that's supposed to kill all the plant viruses and the like in the soil. You have to do it when it's warm enough though, which is practically all the time here - except maybe for a few days in January when everyone complains about the 60 degree F cold.
I expect I'll stop being tired in an hour or so and enter my "second wind" phase of the day. I just hope against hope that this isn't chronic fatigue syndrome...
~ Meg
