How can it be that I can't write the the family members closest to me? It's so awful and it's not how I wan't it to be, but they'll never believe me. All the stuff I'm writing here they'll just tear to pieces. It might even be almost like being in Vienna again. Mom believed me I think, but that was because dad had been dead already a few years. Otherwise he would have blown it away too, just like my brothers, so my brothers are being true to what my dad would say. And the thing is that it's political. For me to overcome it I would have to come home from Russia go through the education program and straight to work. And that's the only way. Then dad would believe me that the Austria stuff might have been political and that there might have been some funny business going on there.
Beyond that I was on my own and dad wasn't going to believe me and dad was going to make sure that everyone saw things his way. So if I wanted anyone to see things my way, I was going to have to leave his circle of influence. It's funny but of family the people we did understand me were his mom and also an cousin of his, both of whom are dead now. So one was a cousin older than him and another was wise in the world in academic circles and the like and didn't live nearby. Now I live far from the family, so I don't know too much what they think of me at this point. It's hard to tell. There's not much I can do about it. I really wanted to make a trip back home last summer but health precluded that and I have a feeling I may well be stuck here for the rest of my life. It's possible.
But that's how my family goes as far as framing the issues is concerned. Right now my brother back home is the major framer. And he is nuts as far as I'm concerned. I want to stay as far away from him as possible. He's the one that verbally and emotionally abused my mom resulting in her leaving a note with words referring back to his words said in anger the day before when she committed suicide. She did have emotional problems, but that doesn't make it right, that kind of anger. And I was trapped with no power really to do anything, although I did ask some people to look out for signs of this kind of abuse, but no one believed me. So that's the brother that's framing issues for the family, I think, now. I mean he's setting the stage for what the extended family should think of all of us - me down here, our other brother and his kids, also out of state. So I am not sure they are getting the best image of me. My parents might have been giving a better image of me than my brother is giving of me, so now if I went home it would be totally different because my brother had changed my image back there. Because he's the one framing things now that our parents are both dead now and he's the only one left back at the home turf.
***
Emler (1983) claims that the themes of rationalism, individualism, and liberalism are overemphasized in Kohlberg's scheme. His moral dilemmas concentrate on issues of property, liberty, life, and individual rights, all of which are traditional liberal values. (p. 168)So this is looking at value development or how far along one is in value growth, and there are different ways of looking at it. The Vienna mission wouldn't have wanted you to overrationalize it, I don't think. I mean, they didn't really want you to understand what was going on, like what I've been doing here as the the socialization goals and why they might have been doing it, what their purposes were, how come they chose this method here and not the other one, etc. They didn't like me just sitting and watching, although I don't think they knew that's what I was doing, but if they knew, they wouldn't have liked it and they would have just started to play with my mind all the more, I think.
Individualism? Heavens no! That doesn't even need any discussion.
Liberalism? These are Conservative Evangelical Christians, the kind that come close to idolizing James Dobson. Liberalism is out of the question.
Property. I don't see that as much of an issue... unless it refers to wanting to have an apartment to yourself. Then it becomes an issue. So the mission does concern itself with property under certain circumstances.
Liberty. This is somewhat related to individualism, but not exactly the same. I eventually learned that when you join the mission, once you arrive in Vienna you have absolutely no liberty. Any liberty you think you have is an illusion, because it is just something they give you on a short reign.
Life. Well, they can't deny you life. But they can in a way, on the other hand, deny you your personhood, your identity. They don't really care about that, it's not important. Once you join the mission they can do with you as they wish; you are theirs, as so much chattel. I can't speak for other people, but that's how I felt. Again, though, this was under my veneer.
Individual rights. Those were as illusive as the infamouse staff manual that nobody honored.
So much for traditional liberal values.
***
Indeed, the fact that we are motivated to be active at all is probably the best evidence for such correlations. If we did not have reasonably invariant action-outcome relations, goal-orient behavior would be unknown. Studies of '"learned helplessness" have demonstrated how humans (and other animals) become inactive when their actions do not lead to somewhat predictable consequences (Seligman, 1975).This is pretty significant too. I eventually felt some of this in Vienna when I couldn't figure things out, when I couldn't figure out how things worked in the mission, what some of the norms were. So then I began to play it safe so I could watch others and at least not make any noticeable gaffs that would break my cover after I started having the alter ego - when I returned from the stint in the USA.
But, take for example the switches in jobs. I was the only one to be moved around like that, and that's a fact that no one can argue with. I couldn't figure out what the "action-outcome" was that had resulted in some of these. What had I done? So if I can't figure out anything, then there's nothing I can improve on, right? So this would also definitely have been part of my self esteem issues the year after I left the mission.
I wasn't socialized completely, and so I didn't know all the things they thought I did. Keeping a bit of distance was also a self defence. It was a fine line to know how far to go either way and psychologically it was very difficult sometimes, so it wasn't something I took lightly to just choose when and how to keep my distance (rather than make myself available specifically to learn more of the mission's norms).
***
There is a certain similarity between the fulfillment of expectations formulation and other analyses in which objective and equal treatment for all plays a central role, most notably the world of Rawls and Kohlberg. At the heart of the latter's concept of justice is the notion of extablishing consistent action-outcome expectations, so consistent in fact that they should be applied impartially and universally.None of this sounds like my experience in the Vienna mission. Consisten action-outcome expectations applied impartially and universally is a joke because I was singled out and treated singly probably the worst in their history ever, and for what? You'd think I did some egregious sin or something. So scratch that one.
There is alwo a certain similarity between Gilligan's "ethic of care" and the humanitarian standard of justice outlined here; both are concerned with individual well-being per se, and in particular with avoiding hurt and suffering. (p. 187)
On to Gilligan and the Humanitarian standard. Concern with individual well-being, in particular with avoiding hurt and suffering?! The mission was the very cause of my suffering as much as they will forever deny it. They were not concerned for me; their tears were crocodile tears. If they wanted to see strength, if they wanted to see someone survive in the lions den, I survived being myself 18 months and they didn't know it. When they sent me to the States they sent me off with the verse
Jeremiah 12:5
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Lord Answers Jeremiah
5 “If you have run with the footmen, and they have wearied you,
Then how can you contend with horses?
And if in the land of peace,
In which you trusted, they wearied you,
Then how will you do in the floodplain[a] of the Jordan?
Then how can you contend with horses?
And if in the land of peace,
In which you trusted, they wearied you,
Then how will you do in the floodplain[a] of the Jordan?
And I tell them that I survived worse: I survived living among them and I refused to take on their hideous values - including their misuse of Scripture like this. Because that's what it is.
Don't tell me that working in the Vienna office is akin to running with footmen, because it isn't. and don't tell me that working in the East Bloc is akin to contending with horses. I had worked in East Bloc countries before and I was fully capable of doing it again and I could. So this is a huge misuse of Scripture to say your little psychological mantra or something. But it was bogus and I knew it was bogus then too.
Did the mission really use Scripture like this on the theologians too? Or maybe they got the theologians to use Scripture like this too, like a secret language or something. But it's totally a misuse of Scripture. They're really playing with fire there and I think they should rethink their approach and some of the supporters should start asking about this kind of thing to find out if it's going on, like in missions to closed countries. This is not what the Bible is for and it's totally screwing up the minds of the missionaries too, I think. I think it's at least a part of it.
So anyway, the H.R. director/Military chaplain who sent me back to the states with this verse as a send off was all concerned about me being strong enough for ministry in Eastern Europe - well remember that I lived from 1991 to 1997 in Siberia 5 time zones from Moscow so that's a complete joke. But my concern was I scared spitless how I was going to survive staying in the mission. Forget Eastern Europe; that's a piece of cake. I got a mission to worry about, like big time. So to survive I had to do my big mental trick that I've talked about so much wherein I sucked it up, eventually, and managed to keep all my same old ideas, thoughts and values inside, but I put on this veneer that I knew they wanted. They wanted smiley, smiley concessions. So that's what I gave them. And I only held on to as much of the external activities on my own as I had strength to without risking caving in.
So you see, they could not have wanted to avoid hurt and suffering, because all they wanted was for me to be tested as to see whether I could content with horses.
***
In psychology, a critical tenet of much of the work on justice is that the perception of injustice leads to internal discomfort, which then motivates efforts to redress the injustice. (p. 191)Early on, I asked for a couple of things that were my rights that I learned about in the staff manual that I'd been given and in both times I'd been denied, for different reasons (I've discussed these in some details in other places). After these incidences and then building on other experiences, I learned that there really wasn't a grievance system in place - that is, not an effective one. Everyone was just going to support each other and there wasn't anyone that was going to even try to be a neutral party. Basically the mission was a machine that no one dared counter. So much for redress.
***
If a given justice criterion is perceived as legitimate, it will be accepted and supported. The establishment of legitimacy is, at least in large part, a social affair; People must be convinced that specific justice criteria are proper. (p. 192)This is a good point. The summer was a whirlwind for me in a lot of ways, getting settled in, having a teacher with junior high students come through, starting in at the Austrian church, etc. But the problem area was at work. So the crisis would have had to have been dealt with the say in August. But the thing was that I didn't want to approach the mission because I didn't trust them, right? I was watching them and just doing my work even though I was having all these unexplained problems with the computer and all (that I was sure was rigged). So my stress levels were through the roof. But I wasn't talking. But that's exactly what I should have done. But if I came to them, then I would have been hooked, I might not have ended out going to the U.S. though. But there's no way in heaven's name I could have agreed to or liked some of the stuff they were doing, so if I started talking I'm not sure where that would have led, to be honest. Maybe I would have been in even worse trouble than doing it as I did with my not talking and them not knowing what I was thinking.
Well, if I did, in the course of things, reveal my true thoughts about things, they would have for sure tried to convince me otherwise, I'm sure. I can't imagine it any other way.
But anyway, when I had my office at one of the rooms upstairs being the secretary I was supposed to be the director borrowed my "War and Peace" by Lev Tolstoy. I think he read the whole thing because he had it long enough and it looks well-read. Was that another one of those sort of symbolic meaning actions pointing to my dad (the war part) that my life seems to be riddled with?
So basically, what I needed, really, was an alibi, someone who was withi me 24/7 just to witness everything so that they could see the mess I was dealing with. How could I know that this was going to go this way?
***
The "conflicts of interests" view holds that it is social structures that create equal opportunities and outcomes, whereas the "missed opportunities" view focuses on the disadvantaged individual. The former emphasizes social justice (i.e., intergroup contexts) and often advocates group struggle to change the system as the solution to injustice. The latter emphasizes intra-and interpersonal justice and tends to view social benevolence and remedial aid for disadvandaged indivduals as the solutions. (p. 192-193)The Vienna mission and I did not really have a conflict of interest because we were both interested in missions in Eastern Europe. That being said, since I did not really see myself as a secretary and I wanted more people ministry I focused more on Austrian ministry than the mission seemed to want, although the authorities, per se, never actually said so, but I'm pretty sure that's the case all the same. I think that not everything had to necessarily come through the authorities. So in that issue there may have been a conflict of interest, although I had cleared it before I came to Vienna, so it shouldn't have been an issue.
Missed opportunities might fit, I'm not sure. Again, that would be if I should have gone in and talked with my boss. The model was for socialization - and I mean for the secretaries especially here - that the boss had a special place as a kind of counsalor or confidante or something. Maybe even a sort of father away from home (although there was only something like 10 years difference between my boss and me). We did talk some but I never broke down, like I think I was supposed to with all the problems I was having at work and the pettiness of some of the work. Instead I bottled it all up inside and the stress just grew and grew and I took up running and biking and started taking these Austrian herbs, it was crazy the stress was so bad. I'd literally never had anything like it and I still did not break down to talk.
Then the U.S. military reserve chaplain/H.R. director decides I have culture shock (I was doing just fine at the Austrian church and getting around, etc., etc.) and wants to sent me home to the US for counseling - and this is where the horses verse comes in.
So the thing is, did I have a missed opportunity, in not coming in to talk to my boss sooner? Is that what my injustice experience is all about? Somehow I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the possibly of the answer being yes, so I'm going to say no.
After that the injustice was already done, so it was too late then.
***
There, we finished Furby. And my day is mostly gone!
