Then on my way home some guy insisted I hit him. Actually he drove up to me I guess about 2 or 3 blocks after the alleged incident and started yelling at me asking if I wasn't going to pull over because I hit him and I said I didn't know what he was talking about (I really didn't) because I didn't hit him. So then he followed me all the way home and he even lives in my complex, so he followed me in through the gate. I got out of the car and he said he reported the incident to the police and he asked if I wanted to see it and he said it probably wasn't much that I just bumped him. But I said no I really had no recollection of hitting anyone and I wasn't going to act as if I did.
I told him about the incident a week or so ago when I did hit someone when I was parking and I left a note on their windshield, when a lot of people wouldn't have done so, but in this case I really didn't think I hit the car. He could have reported it as a hit and run, though, which is pretty serious. So as I sat at home thinking about everything I decided I should probably call my insurance company, so I did that. I didn't have any information about the driver, the car or anything - I wasn't even sure about the details about the alleged incident except I think it is supposed to have happened in the vicinity of the I-95 northbound exit 16 (Ives Dairy Rd.) and/or the overpass heading West.
IF I did in fact hit this other car then I'm afraid that the affects of fibrofog and this headache are affecting me in a way to sometimes make me not attentive enough, which is very probable. I've been thinking I should probably start taking STS (Special Transportation Services - a country transportation service for handicapped people, like a group taxi for $3 a ride). It only goes in the county, and some of my doctors are in the neighboring county, and if I need/want to make multiple stops it's not very practical. But if I'm going to start having accidents and things like that I should start using STS more. I think that this would be the only explanation if I did hit this other car, because when that other driver started yelling at me I really didn't know what on earth he was talking about. I had absolutely no recollection of hitting anyone. I'm only going to bring up this possible explanation if it becomes evident through the various investigations (insurance, police, etc.) that I did in fact hit the other driver.
Anyway, back to the lightheadedness/heart issue, I have a history of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), rapid heart beat. I had a cardiac ablation in 2007 and had no problems until possibly today. If today's incident is another SVT, possibly an early sign of one, than it's a new SVT, because the ablation cured the old one. That is, it's when there's an extra nerve pathway in the heart that makes the heart get stuck like a broken record. So now I wonder if my cardiologist is in network... (i.e., takes my insurance).
But let's forget about my problems and get back to Katz...
***
This section is titled: "Motivational Patterns: Consequences and Conditions" and the first sub-heading is "Compliance with legitimized rules."
"In discussing bureaucratic functioning Max Weber pointed out that the acceptance of legal rules was the basis for much of organizational behavior (Weber, 1947). Compliance is to some extent a function of sanctions but to a greater extent a function of generalized habits and attitudes toward symbols of authority... A great deal of behavior can be predicted once we know what the rules of the game are." (p. 135)
There is really a lot here as several individual words and phrases need commending on and parsing. So I'll take them one by one.
Bureaucratic functioning. The Vienna mission did have a fair amount of this, some of which I think was serendipitous, as in, "oh, how convenient that we can hide behind all this bureaucracy" or "oh, well, we have to document everything very carefully and make sure that only those who need to know know but that they do know or have access to know." And the hierarchical aspect of bureaucracy has already been discussed. But in the Vienna situation, there is an assumption that the mission leadership, the top/heart of the bureaucracy are paragons of Christian spirituality and as such will develop "legal" rules according to Biblical norms and values. So everyone (workers, supporters, board members, in-country believers, etc., etc.) pretty much assumes this. No one questions this or holds them accountable for reasons discussed elsewhere in this blog. So we have to sort of take Kierkegaard's leap of faith that their rules are "legal" - although I think that I'd rather stand with Kierkegaard on this one and take a leap of faith in God than in the legality of the rules of the Vienna mission (vis a vis biblical teaching).
Legal rules. The rules of the Vienna mission were legal based on pragmatic principles, as I've stated before. As I think through the various rules I think this is the main principle, pragmatism - what works. So as long as it was pragmatic, it was "legal" to them.
I'm not sure to what extent in the Vienna mission compliance was a function of sanctions, but for me this seemed to be largely the case. That is, I wasn't evidently complying by other ways so I became the subject of sanctions. Of course, that's assuming they wanted me to comply. And, as I'm mentioned before, sometimes I didn't really know what they wanted me to do or how I should comply.
Generalized habits and attitudes toward symbols of authority. This is sort of the kind of thing I've meant when I've talked about complete submission to the mission, but I don't think that Katz necessarily means that here. The difference is that the Vienna mission was a total institution, where as corporations, for example, usually aren't. This is where you internalize the culture (habits and attitudes), but also take part in some of the traditions.
A great deal of behavior can be predicted... The problem in Vienna was that I remained enough of an outsider the whole time I was in Vienna that I never became very good at predicting behavior there. But, as I've said elsewhere, I think a lot of this was purposeful, because they had layers of secrecy that you could only gain access to by being trustworthy and barring that you would remain on the fringes.
...once we know what the rules of the game are. If you don't know what the rules of the game are you can't predict behavior. I came to Vienna thinking I understood the rules of the game - that is the rules of ministry to East Bloc countries. But I didn't understand the rules of corrupt, paranoid, politicized ministry to East Bloc countries. So that's where I messed up. Big time.
***
"It is not necessary to take representative samplings of the behavior of many people to know how people will conduct themselves in structured situations. All we need is a single informant who can tell us the legitimate norms and appropriate symbols of authority for given types of behavioral settings." (p. 135)
So this is exactly what the Vienna mission tried to do in setting me up with the secretaries, especially the secretary of my boss's boss to be sort of my mentor. As I've said before, however, that was okay, except that I didn't really see myself as a secretary other than that was my job for 2 years, but not my persona and how I viewed myself. That one secretary was good for giving tips and instructions, but I didn't really relate to any of the secretaries such that I really clicked with any of them.
Then some of the norms that they shared with me were really insulting and degrading, although I did try to do my best to go along with them. I've mentioned them before, it's the old single missionary help with the married missionaries' children bit. Or the wife of the boss is jealous because you spend all day with her husband so you should pay some attention to the wife too to make her feel better about the situation. (Sheesh, send them to marriage counseling if she's so vulnerable!)
***
"In the third area of behavior necessary for effective organizational functioning, namely innovative and spontaneous acts, which go beyond the call of duty, rule compliance is useless by definition... organizations cannot stimulate actions by decreeing them. In general the greater the emphasis upon compliance with rules the less the motivation will be for individuals to do more than is specified by their role prescriptions." (p. 135)
In the Vienna organization there were at least two areas where this kind of innovation was particularly needed, and that was in the teaching & textbook writing end of things and in the in country aspect of the work. The former is sort of the typical academic type of license you'd expect in a higher education institution and academic publishing institution, and the latter is what you'd expect in a spy agency, for example, for all the secrecy and elaborate precautions that were taken. Innovation was necessary because one had to be on one's feet and able to make snap decisions as needed.
***
I'm tired and it's late, so I'm going to take another break. Sorry this is going so slowly.
