Continuing where we left off...
"Roy (1952, 1955) has dramatically shown that in some organizations a worker will not be taught the necessary skills and secrets of his relevant work group until he is accepted as trustworthy by his fellow workers. The acceptance process may be rapid or slow depending on the nature of the secrets of the particular group." (p. 90)
Wow! This really fits my experience of the Vienna mission. However, that said, I'm not sure if this was a usual method of induction or not, as I can't remember other cases, besides my own, where I think this is true. If indeed I was unique in this regard - how I was treated in this way - then that might argue for something going on related to my dad rather than just a part of the mission's way of inducting people. In effect, I never was really accepted and so never knew much by way of the mission's secrets and towards the end it seemed they were trying to confuse me so I wouldn't know what was what by way of secrets.
Another possible explanation if I was really a unique case in this regard, is that no one else ever refused to accept the group's norms like I did. If my treatment was because of my dad's work, you'd expect that they never intended for me to be really integrated into the mission, but if it was just because I didn't accept their ways, then they sincerely tried to socialize me, but I didn't cooperate enough for them. I can think of one other possibility, but it would (in my opinion) paint the mission even worse than either of these other two options. Of course, it's possible they did treat others this way, but, like I said, I'm not aware of such cases, and if they did happen I didn't know it was happening because I wasn't in a position to know who might or might not have access to secrets, other than the assumed things like the head of the East German group should have known the most about the mission's work in East Germany.
***
"...[I]f the new member is approved, the work group will defend the newcomer's right to make mistakes." (p. 91)
It did seems as if mistakes took on a different light if one was accepted (had past the introductory socialization hurdle) or not. Part of it was the new comer's own attitude toward the mistake, and part of it was the group. The new comer would most likely be more or less insecure or unsure of him/herself, perhaps not knowing whether what s/he was doing or saying was acceptable. This was at least a part based on the individual's own make up, as to how or how much s/he'd feel this way. The group, on their part, could act in a variety of ways, depending on several variables, such as whether or not the individual was perceived as really trying and having the right attitude, or whether it was regarding something of vital importance to the group or not, for example. It seemed that each individual was treated as an individual in this way and it wasn't an assembly line affair that spit out socialized members at the end. Rather, it was more like the work of a craftsman that hand creates each piece taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the raw materials for each project and fashioning unique objects each time, even if there were some similarities in the process used.
Once a person was accepted, mistakes were generally treated differently. No longer was there such an issue as to whether the person had the right attitude or motive, as they'd proven themselves in that regard to be accepted. That's not to say that a person, I think, also had to continue to prove themselves on the right track, at least for some time, when given new challenges and information to deal with. So most mistakes, I think, at this point were treated as honest and simple errors, although some errors might have been more potentially detrimental to the group, it's mission and the people it worked with than others, but there were lots of opportunities in safe situations to get these bugs worked out of newly accepted members. Once the person was accepted than attention could be turned more to skills and specific knowledge needed for the work. Needless to say, I never reached that point.
Some of these things are based on my impressions, but I think this is generally the way it was.
***
"Presumably, the power of the group's influence upon the initiate is determined by the degree the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. Size of the group - smaller groups are generally more influential.
2. Homogeneity of the group - homogeneous groups are generally more influential.
3. Communicative isolation - isolated groups are generally more influential." (p. 91)
Of these 3 I think the third one especially stands out, since members are geographically separated from family and friends in most cases by thousands of miles. However, that set, although the mission itself was rather large as far as mission groups go (especially all - or mostly all - in one place), influence was mainly by the immediate cohort, which for me was the other secretaries, and one's superiors. So in that way the first criteria was met, at least to a certain degree. As to homogeneity, the group was homogeneous too, despite representing 15 different missions. Somehow they had come together and did seem pretty cohesive and I think I was about the only sore thumb miscreant of the lot. Everyone else was quite amenable to the way things were done. (I was tempted to say "seemed amenable" but I'm pretty sure they actually were, and "seem" seemed unnecessarily hedgy.)
***
Next the author goes on to discuss how people consciously or otherwise act in such a way as to placate those around them. Why oh why didn't someone tell me this earlier! My goodness, and I've been so caught up on right and wrong, biblical mandate and universal truths and now I learn that this is how people are supposed to act. This way of acting, the author explains, is how people become more like those around them. At least in Russia people were willing to be my friends even if I wasn't exactly like them. Think of it, I was an Evangelical Christian in my 30s and my friends included: a 50+ year old sakhadja yoga follower with m.s. and a ca. 70 year old Russian Orthodox believer! Maybe in Russia they don't know about this principle, which is something the Vienna mission could rectify, I'm sure, given half a chance.
Anyway, as you can guess, I somehow didn't become like those around me in the Vienna mission and, while I did try to do my work pleasantly and well and be social as well, I continued to reject certain demands I felt were unreasonable, although towards the end they sort of wore me out and I began to acquiesce too little too late (but from my viewpoint it was too much too soon; I felt coerced). But rest assured, I never did anything intentionally against the group, although I may not always have been the wisest in my extracurricular pursuits and activities. But mostly I can't imagine my outside activities doing any harm to the group.
***
Time for another break until tomorrow.
~ Meg
