Otherwise, I've just been working on things at home, and I watched a little TV too, for a break.
***
We're still (!) in the section titled "Motivational Patterns: Consequences and Conditions," but now we're in the sub-section "Conditions conducive to internalization of system goals."
"Internalization of organization objectives can come about through the utilization of the socialization process in childhood or through the adult socialization itself. In the first instance, the selective process, either by the person or the organization, matches the personality with the system. A youngster growing up in the tradition of one of the military services may have always through of himself as an Air Force officer. Similarly, the crusader for civil liberties and the American Civil Liberties Union find one another.
The adult socialization process in the organization can build upon the personal values of its members and integrate them about an attractive model of its ideals. People can thus identify with the organizational mission. If the task of an organization has emotional significance, the organization enjoys an advantage in the creation of an attractive image. If the task is attended by hazard, as in the tracking down of criminals by the FBI, or of high advanture, as in the early days of flying, or of high service to humanity , as in a cancer research unit, it is not difficult to develop a convincing model of the organization's mission." (p. 143)
Okay, once again, there's really a lot here.
The childhood socialization would have applied probably in most cases - with most of the workers - in the mission in Vienna. Some may not have been raised in Christian families or became Christians later, in their teens or as young adults, so this wouldn't be relevant to them. Others might have been raised in a Christian family or church that might not have socialized them properly for work with the mission - and I would fall in this category because I came from a church background that welcomed questioning things, which in my experience generally would only come back to haunt you if you did question something there.
Anyway, getting back to childhood socialization, for those who were raised in the churches that would have prepared them to go to the right seminary and then on to the mission, they undoubtedly had a leg up on transitioning into the system there. They may have already more or less understood the value system that led to the kinds of precautions and deceptions and they probably even had the appropriate political viewpoint to facilitate going along with these things.
And it did seem to me like the mission was getting a lot of theologians from one particular seminary, so I wasn't sure if it was a conscious effort on the part of the mission or whether it was just that there were a lot of interested people at that seminary or a combination, so I don't know who was more responsible for the selection, the individual or the mission, or maybe it depended on each case.
As far as adult socialization is concerned, I've discussed this in quite some depth already.
So the things is, though, that if the person doesn't come already with the internalized goals from childhood socialization, than this would have to come via adult socialization if it is going to come at all. This author has said that it isn't necessary for everyone to have internalized values and goals, except some voluntary organizations want at least some of their rank and file members to share these traits, and I've already demonstrated that the Vienna mission was a total institution and as such demanded that all it's members shared these traits, so it pretty well had to use adult socialization to make sure all its members shared the appropriate values and objectives. Unfortunately, however, I tried mostly to take it (the organization) at face value and only got mud in the face, and the thing was to get to the core values and objectives - what they really would have wanted from me - they would not put in black and white, write them down in clear English, etc. So you had to sort of guess them like a game of charades or something. One thing I do know, though, is that when I left Vienna I was "standing up on the inside" which is not what they wanted.So now to the part in this quote about the type of organization, if it has emotional significance, an attractive image, is hazardous work, is adventurous, is in service to humanity, etc. The Vienna mission really was all of these, when you think about it. It was a Christian mission. Churches and Christians back home often look in awe at missions and missionaries, maybe more so than they should sometimes, so it's attractive to many people. Because the mission was working in clandestinely Communist countries it was hazardous work. Because the work was cutting edge and involved setting up new groups and courses and trying to meet the needs of a wide variety of groups in different countries it was adventurous. Because we were helping church leaders in difficult situations so that they could do the work in their own countries when they otherwise wouldn't have the resources for this kind of training and we were doing it free of charge to them, it was a kind of service to humanity. So there were a lot of potential kudos going on there that could very easily draw anyone in to share the missions goals and values.
But in my mind, all of that is still not enough to justify deception, the kind of treatment I got, including the misuse of psychology, their friendship with goverment/military & their demand for unquestioning submission. I don't give anyone that kind of submission. EVER! (unless your name is God.) That means, if you say, "Jump!" I might not necessarily answer, "How high?" Rather, I might respond, "Why?"
***
I'm skipping a couple paragraphs about internalization that aren't very helpful for my purposes...
"This suggests three additional factors which contribute to internalization of group objectives: (1) participating in important decisions about group objectives; (2) contributing to group performance in a significant way: and (3) sharing in the rewards of group accomplishment. When these three conditions are met, the individual can regard the group as his, for he in fact has helped to make it." (p. 144)
Here is another good example of why I did not internalize the group objectives in Vienna. In the context I think Katz is talking about subgroups, but that's even worse because I moved around so much with the mission that I never got a chance to internalized group objectives or become very attached to any group. I never ever participated in an y important decisions about group objectives. I contributed to group performance, but not so as to really leave a mark. It's not as if I was going to be missed from my position or anything, or like I was indispensable or hard to replace. No, because I moved around to much and wasn't given a chance to do anything but grunt menial tasks. As to the third item here, I'm not aware of any "awards of group accomplishment" as pertaining to anything I was involved in in Vienna.
Since none of these were met while I was in Vienna, is it no surprise that I didn't feel like any group was mine? (including the secretaries?) So much for identification.
***
Can you believe it? We've finally reached the end of this article! So next time I'll start with another article.
