169. Socialization File, Pt. 52 (Robertson, pt. 6)

The next area for social control is: social roles and group leadership.

"As individuals begin to form group system concepts, one of the specializations which develop is the specialization of seeing the 'social system' from the point of view of its principles. By the definition of the concept of control systems which we are employing here, the individual who perceives the maintenance of the group's principles as if they were his or he own is viewing them from above. That is, he or she is viewing them from the position of controlling the system concept of the group as a whole. The is exerting leadership, as he or she acts automatically to reduce errors affecting the preservation of the system concept, or identity, of the social 'organism.'" (p. 180)

I think this description fits, at least in part, what I've meant when I talk about individuals internalizing the mission's norms, which happens through socialization. Once these norms (including values and attitudes) have been internalized then the person not only serves as a control for his or her own actions but also takes on responsibility for controlling others as well.

In the Vienna context, though, where information is so segmented between the different departments and within the (mostly formal) hierarchical system, it could be hard for a single individual to know if another member has overstepped the group's normative bounds, especially if the person doesn't have significant contact with the potentially errant member. (I think in the Vienna mission context determining whether an individual was out of bounds might be relative to 1) how that individual should be acting/thinking in his/her designated role within the mission and also to 2) the summation of the individual's actions and apparent attitudes. That is what would be considered out of bounds would, to a certain extent, be relative, so it might not be immediately obvious to everyone as to whether the individual has erred or how serious was the erring.)

Within one's sphere of influence (those who were to see you as a reference [informal power?] and/or superior [formal power?]) you were expected to use your influence, at least in part, to correct infringements of group norms. However, I think that those with formal power mainly only stepped in concerning especially egregious errors or recalcitrant members, whereas those with only informal power served more as guides to guide their assignees through routine adjustment/socialization processes. In this way reference persons probably were more likely to wield corrective influence, whereas those with more formal power could also use punishments, but might also guide the reference persons in their informal power wielding.

I think the statement about individuals exerting leadership in this controlling manner would also refer to the individual exerting internal leadership in controlling his or her own actions, attitudes and the like. This put a lot of pressure off of the group for performing external leadership in making sure that person stayed within the parameters of the permissible. However, that being said, I think that even once one had internalized the group norms and seemed to be acting and thinking in a reliably appropriate manner, you still knew that in as much as everyone was being vigilant to errors, you had to keep on your guard and not let your self corrections slip or you might find yourself the target for external corrections, which would be mostly casual "friendly" corrections that everyone might be subject to. I think the more you knew about the group norms and values and had repeatedly proven yourself faithful to them, the more you would take take on external corrective responsibility for others. I think that this also involved monitoring of external relationships (to some extent) and that type of control might be more akin to gatekeeping (maintaining proper bounds between the mission and the outside world).

The last thing I want to discuss from this paragraph is the concept of "social system." I think systems theory is very interesting, but I don't know as much about it as I'd like. I think I first got interested in it because of my interest in program evaluation. If I can use cellular biology (which I actually know even less about than of systems theory) as an illustration, I think that the Vienna mission basically treats newcomers as potentially foreign substances that had breached the cell wall. The mission responds by creating a protective layer between the foreign substance (i.e., new comer) and itself, which (the protective layer) only begins to erode as the foreign substance (the new comer) takes on characteristics recognizable as part of the cell. When that happens (the new comer taking on these characteristics), then the substance, which is now a part of the cell, begins to take on an integral function of the cell, including, perhaps becoming part of the protective layer for future foreign substances (new comers). Of course, if the foreign substance (new comer) fails to metamorphose into a cell-like object, then continued protective measures need to be taken, including such things as minimizing potential harm to the cell, quarantining the foreign substance (new comer), or taking action to expel it.

You might be able to guess that I didn't metamorphose very well.

Another aspect of systems theory that I would like to bring in here is that of open or closed systems. The Vienna mission wanted terribly to be a closed system, but it couldn't really be that because of various connections it had to maintain with the outside world. Nevertheless, it took every measure reasonably (and unreasonably) available to it to make itself as much like a closed system as it possibly could. This could potentially involve limiting who could/could not enter the confines of the organization, limiting and/or controlling member outside interactions, and constructing images the mission was to convey to various outside audiences, for example. I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive, but hopefully it's at least suggestive.

***

That's all for this text and I need to get going. I'm hoping to be able to make it to church this morning.

38. Cults & Brainwashing File, Pt. 7 (Kent, pt. 1) (Was: The Attribution System)

This next article in general only very tenuously applies to the situation I experienced in Vienna, but there are a couple illuminating points that I could relate to in my attempt to better make sense of what was going on there.

Kent, Stephen A. (1994) Misattribution and social control in the Children of God. Journal of Religion and Health, 33(1), p. 29-43.

I'm citing the abstract here as background to the sections I want to comment on:

"ABSTRACT: This article argues that deviant religions use supposedly godly justifications for their punishment systems by establishing theologies in which members misattribute divine authority to leaders whom they relate to emotionally as to demanding parents. These misattributing theologies 'sanctify' the harsh suffering that members often experience. Illustrations of the theoretical points come from texts published by the Children of God in its early period (the 1970s), supplementd by accounts given by two women who have left the group." (p. 29).

***

"After people accepted the attribution system that Berg [a leader in the movement] provided through his interpretation of Christianity, they would be operating within a social psychology in which all good things - immediate and compensatory rewards - came to them through Berg's revelations of God's intentions, and all bad things - immediate and compensatory punishments - occurred through the workings of their own egos." (p. 34)

This does seem to fit what I experienced in Vienna, that the leadership or specifically one's boss was that bearer of all things good, but we brought with us qualities and beliefs that hindered us in the work we had to do and kept us from receiving the good things offered. In this respect, as was brought out in another earlier article, this was very much a win-lose relationship and also one-directional, where there was no room for things to flow in the opposite direction, at least not regarding anything of consequence. [4/6/2011 clarification: This was my experience, but I don't know that others would have had the same treatment as I did.]

***

"Numerous accounts show how members criticized themselves either for harboring doubts about Berg or his Mo Letters, or for engaging in what they concluded was self-interested, selfish, or self-centered behavior." (p. 34)

In other words, they couldn't be independent in any way, which is what my father's explanation was for my experiences in Vienna, that I was "too independent." You'll see later (I'm sorry to have so many things "later" but I can't cover everything at once) in my post-Vienna journal entries that I expressed a fair amount of this self-flagellation, especially at the beginning of my entries. But I was also ambivalent, and also in one way or another blamed the Vienna leadership and even staff as a whole as I was pretty universally cut off at the end of my time in Vienna.

***

"In other words, COG members, and especially their leaders, were required to obey God, through Berg, in a manner like that of children who obey their parents blindly or forcibly." (p. 40).

I think the likening my experience in Vienna with this description is plausible. The knowledge structure, secrecy and position of dependence of the novice and those privileged to less inside knowledge gave those over the initiate little option but to obey like children. Everything that the novice had done to actually get them to Vienna (minimally, the process of getting accepted by a mission and raising funds) made one very vulnerable, since you couldn't just walk out and look for another job if you disagreed with the leadership, and the leadership also wasn't terribly open, especially coming from people below a certain level, to have a say in anything. And besides, so much information was a secret that you had to just trust anyway, without having the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision. So, in practice, it was like the parent-child relationship in many ways.

***

"Since one implication of the misattribution system that this study describes involves the disempowerment of people by both childlike self-images and group-sanctioned immediate and compensatory punishment (especially against members who doubt or challenge leadership)." (p. 40).

I agree with this two-pronged concept of disempowerment, but I would also add that in the Vienna context there was also a sense of empowerment as the opportunities to get involved in hands-on or meaningful ministry increased as one accepted the group norms, value systems and modus operandi. I don't know what psychologists would call that empowerment, but I think it should be acknowledged in the Vienna context along with the individual disempowerment and almost stripping of self to accept the group as one's surrogate... parent? id? superego? I'm not sure what to call it, but I felt that there was this stripping of (at least part of) self and replacing it with the group and the group's will.

***

And if psychology and social psychology are not your thing, don't worry, we'll get to other topics eventually. If it feels like a lot now, just imagine what it felt like for me... for 2 years!

And, as the saying goes, you ain't seen nothin' yet...

Until next time...

~ Meg