267. Reprieve: Family Time-Out

It's hard to know sometimes what to write here about "private" family issues. The thing is, as in all such issues of "privacy" (including regarding internal workings of the Vienna mission), it's not always easy trying to determine...

1. what ethically / biblically / legally should (or should not) be "private";
2. what the effects might be of not keeping any particular thing "private" (including a) how others involved might respond; b) how innocent bystanders might be affected; c) how I might be affected (and I may or may not fit into b) in any particular issue);
   
3. what my intentions might be of revealing something that at least some people consider should be ethically / biblically private;
4. if the ethical / biblical mandate argues against something being / remaining private, what the best way is to reveal the heretofore private issue; and/or
   
5. the relevance of the private issue to my autobiography, which is what this blog is all about.
   

Regarding #1 above, if biblical mandate argues against something being/remaining private, such as in the case where sin is involved, I really should reveal it, and not doing so might even make me an accomplice, or at the very least an enabler. Ethical mandate is contingent upon what the ethical framework might be for determining whether something should or should not be kept private, and even the understanding of the biblical mandate could be subject to somewhat different interpretations of Scripture. However, biblical mandate should be based only on Scripture to be truly biblical, and any determination relying on extra-biblical sources and mandates would not be fundamentally biblical in nature. Legal mandate might be subject to how one views the Scriptural legitimacy of a legal determination. That is, if one believes that government mandates regarding family issues are unbiblical interference in the family, then one would therefore not recognize the legitimacy of legal mandates regarding family issues, in which case one is left with the biblical mandate and/or other ethical mandate(s), which, presumably, should not contradict the determination that the legal mandate is illegitimate.

Regarding the second issue, if one holds pragmatism (ends justifies the means and/or group consensus of right and wrong being the final yard stick) as having ultimate authority in determining what should or should not be revealed, than this concern would be the overriding issue in deciding whether a private concern should be revealed or not. If something other than pragmatism is accepted as the final moral measure, than #2 should not be a primary concern.

As to #3, my intentions would only be of issue if the basic value structure which allows for the maintenance or non-maintenance of secrecy makes my intentions a matter of concern. If it is determined that my intentions are an issue, this would likely be so out of concern for a) my moral, spiritual or psychological condition out of concern for me; b) my moral, spiritual or psychological condition because of concern for the affect intentions might play on how I carry out any revelation or non-revelation of a heretofore private issue; and/or c) the validity of my assertion regarding the heretofore private issue.

Point a) here seems irrelevant if taken purely and simply as a concern for my condition, as this says nothing about the heretofore private issue. (This isn't to say this concern might not be important on other grounds, but not vis a vis whether a heretofore private issue is rightfully private and/or should be revealed).

B) would be of concern for some methods of reasoning, as there could be determinations regarding better or less good ways of revealing or not revealing something something by which I might be judged, and this might include judgment of my intentions. However, this does not address the issue of whether something should or should not be revealed, just how it should or should not be revealed. In this light, then, I might be chided for revealing or not revealing something in the wrong way, but that would not discredit the revelation or non-revelation itself. For example, I might reveal something in a way someone views as wrong, while still recognizing that I was right in revealing the issue in general; I just did it in the wrong way, in such a case. This issue, I think, is separate from the the heretofore private issue itself and also the basic determination of whether or not something should or should not be revealed. Whether or not I reveal something in the right way or not, however, has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of the issue itself. So, for example, if someone is involved in child abuse, and I reveal it incorrectly, my revealing such a situation in a "wrong" way says nothing about whether the child abuse itself is right or wrong and should not be used as a way to detract from the wrongness of the child abuse.

Option C) above could well be combined with B), but could also be completely separate from B). In the case that it is completely separate from B), there would be no actual concern for me at all, but only for the heretofore private issue and perhaps those individuals that it involves. That is, in this case a determination concerning the correctness or incorrectness of my intentions includes no consideration for my moral or spiritual well-being.

The fourth issue would affect #3 as described above, but here the focus is on the yardstick for determining rightness or wrongness / better or worse approaches to revealing or not revealing heretofore private issues. In other words, this point pushes us to establish guidelines, apart from what I might or might not actually do. Presumably, this could come chronologically before some of the above issues, but not necessarily. That is, one might not think through this aspect of the dilemma, and just come to conclusions more or less by the seat of one's pants - that is, as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. In this case, it is quite possible (or even likely) that attributing all these moralistic aspects of the process (of determining what and how to reveal or not reveal something) to real-life contexts might be assigning more intentionality to the parties involved than is actually the case. This would not mean that there is necessarily no logic in such cases, but rather than any logic is quite likely less conscious than I'm assuming here. I don't think this fact (that reasoning might be more unconscious than otherwise), negates the above discussions, however, because these kinds of considerations could still be relevant, just less consciously so.

Finally, there is the issue (#5) as to whether, from a literature standpoint, the heretofore private issue is relevant to my autobiography. I think the family issues are generally relevant in as much as family is a big part of my life, in various ways. As such, it comprises a big part of who I am and also my concerns and, to a certain extent, how I might be the way I am. Some things about who I am might be difficult to understand apart from family, but also, when I eventually arrive at the present in my autobiographical chronology, it might be difficult to understand why and how certain things happen without understanding private family issues. Whether or not this is enough to justify revealing these issues here in this blog is subject to the other considerations (1 through 4). The thing for me that is so difficult is that so much of my life seems to have been subject to this secrecy rule that if I were to refrain from discussing private things altogether the reader would basically have an understanding of my life that everyone else (not myself) frames for me as they desire for their own ends, and my understanding gets completely lost in the shuffle. In such a case it seems like I would have to turn this blog into a biography, rather than an autobiography, because my own views of my life would be buried and ignored. In this case, where does one draw the line in knowing what to reveal (let alone how to reveal things)? It seems that there is always some justification or another for maintaining secrecy, which always argues against revealing heretofore private things. That is, it seems that most everyone in my life appears to be dead set on framing my life (or certain aspects of it) in their terms, which is contingent upon the maintenance of secrecy, that is keeping heretofore secret things secrets. Where, then does my perspective fit in? It doesn't. In this way my perspective, pure and simple, is wrong, illegitimate, or otherwise immoral in one way or another, according to all my detractors, some of whom are otherwise relationally quite close to me.

And there you have my dilemma(s) in a nutshell.

***

I'm sorry if I've missed something here, and I should say that I'm not really a philosopher by training, but I hope I'm making some sense here.

***

So why am I going through all the trouble to discuss this here? I'm doing this because I want you to understand some of the issues I'm grappling with in trying to decide what to write here and what not to write... or how to write something. Right now the big issue is regarding present-day interpersonal relations and the like, because of recent events in my life. So I want you to see that when I write something here, especially something of more current concern, I'm not writing it heedlessly or without at least some thought. In turn, I hope the reader will likewise keep in mind some of these concerns I've discussed in this post when assigning moral determinations related to what I post here.

Also, while I do have some protection of anonymity here, there are a few people who know who I am. And although I could decide at a later date to change or delete any particular comment or post, as anyone who knows how the Internet works, such later change or deletion is not necessarily a fool-proof option. That is, even if I make changes, the earlier version of this blog or a particular post could well be cached somewhere else on the Internet.

The other immediate reason for writing this post is that there are several issues currently that are distracting me and might fall within this "family secrets" category. So I'm trying to decide what to do about these things in real life and also vis a vis this blog.

146. Socialization File, Pt. 29 (Van Maanen, pt. 4)

To be fair, my family wouldn't be the only ones who have frames through which they understand me and my life; it's just that they are amongst the most influential in my life in many ways and probably have the most well-developed frames about me also.

It also wouldn't be completely fair to out-of-hand reject their frames, as their probably are elements of truth in them, but there are certain areas that I think they've developed frames about me with not enough information (although they might not agree with me on the areas where they might or might not have adequate information for their frames).

But let's just say that understanding one's life (whether your own or someone else's) is sort of like qualitative research.

I'm in luck! All my qualitative research books (or at least the major ones) seem to be unpacked these include:

Merriam, Sharan B. (2002) Qualitative Research and Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, 1st ed.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln, ed. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Rev. ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, John W. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Patton, Michael Quinn. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

LeCompte, Margaret D., Judith Preissle, & Renata Tesch. (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Education Research, 2nd ed.. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., & Egon G. Guba. (1984). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

I present these texts here to give you an indication that I'm not just a sometime dabbler in these things. I do have formal education and experience that has laid a basis for much of my commentary on this blog, although I've greatly expanded on that institutional background as well. That being said, however, even this background (formal or otherwise) does not preclude the likelihood that my views of myself and my history are biased, to one extent or another.

In scanning through these texts I found a section, albeit a rather lengthy one, that might serve as a good starting point for what I want to say next. The following quote is from "Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education," chapter 5 "Being a Careful Observer", pp. 97-98. Although this text describes research in educational settings, I'm going to apply the principles to situations in my life.

"...[N]o one can observe everything, and the researcher must start somewhere... Here is a checklist of elements likely to be present in any setting:

1. The physical setting. What is the physical environment like? What is the context? What kinds of behavior is the setting designed for? How is space allocated? What objects, resources, technologies are in the setting? The principal's office, the school bus, the cafeteria, and the classroom vary in physical attributes as well as in anticipated behavior.

2. The participants. Describe who is in the scene, how many people, and their roles. What brings these people together? Who is allowed here? Who is not allowed here? Who is not here who would be expected to be here? What are the relevant characteristics of the participants?

3. Activities and interactions. What is going on? Is there a definable sequence of activities? How do the people interact with the activity and with one another? How are people and activities 'connected or interrelated - either from the participants' point of vieo or from the researcher's perspective?... What norms or rules structure the activities and interactions? When did the activity begin? How long does it last? Is it a typical activity, or unusual?

4. Conversation: what is the content of conversations in the setting? Who speaks to whom? Who listens?...

5. Subtle factors: Less obvious but perhaps as important to the observation are
* Informal and unplanned activities
* Symbolic and connotative meanings of words
* Nonverbal communication such as dress and physical space
* Unobtrusive measures such as physical clues
* 'What does not' happen - especially if it ought to have happened...

6. Your own behavior: You are as much a part of the scene as participants. How is your role, whether as an observer or an intimate participant, affecting the scene you are observing? What do you say and do? ..."

How likely are my family members, for example, to have understood what happened - and been able to answer these kinds of questions - in Vienna or Siberia from visiting me? (In Vienna mom stayed long enough to help out some at the new English-speaking Christian school, but she didn't have a position at the mission itself.) Think of all the background they would have had to have to understand what was going on in these settings anywhere as well as I did. In Russia they even had a language barrier!

This is why, in these settings, which are pivotal to how my family views me (how they frame my life), I find it pretty easy to mostly dismiss their observations and interpretations of what was going on there. But dismissing it isn't the same as disregarding it vis a vis my relationship with my family. Au contraire - in my dealings with them I generally must take into account what I see as their erroneous interpretations of some of my most pivotal life events, and, thus, their view of me as a person. In situations deemed convenient to them they are quite likely to dig up these events (as viewed through their frames) and use them in ways generally harmful to me.

This explains at least part of the ambivalence in my relationship toward my family, but not all of it.

Also, the text I've quote only provides a sampling of the potential barriers my family members would have had in understanding some of these specific situations in my life. There are a lot more possible difficulties that could be found in the literature on participant-observer research and the like.

***

Returning to our text, the next characteristic of socialization that can be seen as a continuum is that of tournament or contest.

"The practice of separating selected clusters of recruits into different socialization programs or tracks on the basis of presumed differences in ability, ambition, or background represents the essence of tournament socialization processes. Such tracking is often done at the earliest possible date in a person's organizational career. Furthermore, the shifting of people between tracks in a tournament process occurs mainly in one direction: downward. These people are then eliminated from further consideration within the track they have left. The rule for the tournament socialization strategy, according to Yale University sociologist James Rosenbaum, is simple: 'When you win, you win only the right to go on to the next round; when you lose, you lose forever.'" (p. 29-30)

Since the Vienna mission socialized newcomers individually this fact already points against tournament-style socialization. And since I wasn't, for the most part, privy to the socialization processes of non-secretaries, it's hard for me to make generalizations about socialization in general at the mission. It did seem, however, that socialization in Vienna fit the last sentence, though. But, as I've said there wasn't really much room for advancement, although it's possible that you might be given more responsibilities within your position if you did well. I felt like I had to pass a test to be able to hold the position I was brought over there for, and my moving around so much, in this way of looking at things, would indicate that I indeed had not past the test and so would not be able to hold that position.

***

"Even the so-called 'high-potential employee' has something to worry about in the tournament process. Often the training for the 'high potentials' is not the same as that for the other employees. The 'high potential' track will differ considerably from the track afforded the average or typical recruit. But tournament strategy dictates that even among the 'high potentials' once you are dropped from the fast track you can't get back on it." (p. 30).

There's one significant event that makes me think that I might have been a "high-potential employee" at the mission, but this is just one possible interpretation. The real shocker treatment that landed me back stateside (i.e., in Dallas) was a treatment that at least 2 other people before me had gone through (or so I was told), and these were the wives of the director and assistant director (my boss' wife and his boss' wife). The fact that they went to the extent they did in this and then (apparent) subsequent reinstatement of me does lend itself to the thought that maybe I was a "high-potential employee". There were a lot of inuendos (comments from various people) suggesting this or that might (promotional type) event might happen, but it was hard to tell what was actual and what was hype of one sort or another, so I'm not putting any importance on those suggestions, although, if there was any credence to them, they might have also supported this interpretation.

I'm assuming here a "tournament process" of one, i.e., not a group socialization process. In this case, I'd be competing against the ideal they've set for me rather than against other individuals, although towards the end of my stay with the mission there did seem to be some pitting of one person (me) against another for possible selection to a position. Again, I wasn't sure how much of this was hype and how much was real. In these kinds of cases, I acted based on what I knew (or was pretty sure) was real, which meant I didn't make any competitive moves to make myself look more eligible for whatever it was.

***

I should backtrack here to give you an idea what the contrast is to the tournament approach:

"Contest socialization processes, on the other hand, avoid a sharp distinction between superiors and inferiors of the same rank. The channels of movement through the various socialization programs are kept open and depend on the observed abilities and stated interests of all." (p. 30)

This seems way too straightforward and rational (vs. affect-oriented) than the Vienna mission way of operating in general. And while the mission leadership did promote camaraderie, everyone really knew their place in the power structure and how they were to defer to those with more clout. So contest socialization, in my opinion, can be rejected out of hand as having any applicability to the Vienna mission.

***

"One consequence is that when tournament processes are used, the accomplishments of an employee are more likely to be explained by the tracking system of that organization than by the particular characteristics of the person. Thus the person who fails in organization X might well have succeeded in organization Y. Also, those who fall out of the tournament at any stage can expect only custodial socialization in the future. They are expected to behave only in ways appropriate to their plateaued position, are treated coolly, and are discouraged from making further efforts. The organization, in other words, had completed its work on them. As can be seen, tournament socialization, more than the contest mode, can shape and guide ambition in a powerful way.

Consider, too, that in tournament processes, where a single failure has permanent consequences, those passing through tend to adopt the safest strategies of passage. Low risk taking, short cycles of effort, and ever-changing spheres of interest based primarily on what those above them deem most desirable at any given time are the norm. It follows that those who remain in the tournament for any length of time are socialized to be insecure, obsequious to authority, and differentiated, both socially and psychologically, from one another. On the other hand, those who do not remain in the tournament tend to move in the other direction, becoming fatalistic, homogeneous, and, to varying degrees, alienated from the organization." (p. 30-31)

This is a lot, but I didn't want to break it up. There is one difference, at least, between the Vienna mission and this text, and that is that more than one opportunity might be offered. That was probably at least partly due to having brought missionaries all the way there would make it impractical to offer just one opportunity. Also, being a total institution, they had the possibility of trying different ways to get through to the new recruit. Nevertheless, as in my case, it was possible to exhaust all of their efforts and still not be socialized ... and become, as this text says, alienated from the organization. I became alienated in various ways throughout my stay with the mission, and these partial alienations were probably warning signs, but I was eventually completely alienated from the mission, leaving on not very good terms and not maintaining contact with them afterwards, which a friendly departure would include.

Because it seemed that the values that led to the kind of things I disagreed with that I witnessed and experienced in this mission composed of 15 member missions, it is doubtful that I would have succeeded in any other mission to Eastern Europe. That's why I eventually decided to go there on my after leaving Vienna.

The second paragraph's description of individual adjustments to working in an organization with tournament-style socialization only partially fit the Vienna mission context, I think. Perhaps a new recruit does take these kinds of approaches, but later on I think these strategies might be viewed as just going through the motions and not being really socialized. "Adopting the safest strategies of passage" and "low risk taking" for example would probably not be accepted. However, the relationship to authority, in my opinion, isn't that far from the truth. But I'm sure they wouldn't agree with me. But the truth remains that dissent wouldn't be tolerated in the organization, so a certain amount of being "insecure, obsequious to authority," etc. was bound to be the result.

***

The next aspect of socialization in this text is that of serial methods on one hand, or disjunctive on the other. It's not that this issue is not relevant to the Vienna context, but rather, that it doesn't really present anything new that isn't offered elsewhere, so I won't deal with it here. Basically, though, it means that socialization can involve mentoring from someone more experienced, or, in cases where there isn't anyone available to do such mentoring, then the new recruit works on his own to figure things out.

I had some of both, and these two approaches probably were used strategically in my case in their effort to try to find the best hook(s) to socialize me.

***

There's just one more facet of socialization in this article, and that is whether socialization focuses more on investiture or divestiture.

"The last major strategy to be discussed concerns the degree to which a socialization process is set up to confirm or to dismantle the incoming identify of a newcomer. Investiture processes ratify and establish the viability and usefulness of the characteristics the person already possesses. Presumably, recruits to most high-level managerial jobs are selected on the basis of what they bring to the job. The organization does not wish to change these recruits. Rather, it wants to take advantage of their abilities." (p. 33)

This topic, although stated differently, came up in the previous text (the book chapter) I discussed, but I'm going to end out dealing with this a fair amount - now and also when discussing future texts.

It's possible that the mission's socialization tactics with the incoming theologians was more along the investiture style, but I tend to think that a certain amount of divestiture would even be necessary with them in order to make sure they understood the ropes, order of command, and security aspects of the position / organization.

***

"Divestiture processes, on the other hand, deny and strip away certain entering characteristics of a recruit. Many occupational and organizational communities almost require a recruit to sever old friendships, undergo extensive harassment from experienced members, and engage for long periods of time in what can only be called 'dirty work' (that is, low-status, low-pay, low-skill, and low-interest tasks). During such periods, the recruit gradually acquires the formal and informal credentials of full and accepted membership.

... As a result, closeness develops among the people... and a distinct sense of solidarity and mutual concern can be found. Pervasive and somewhat closed social worlds are formed..." (p. 33)

When I arrived in Vienna, the mundane (and completely unnecessary) task I was given was to read software manuals to try to learn the office software they used. So I dutifully poured over these books, trying things out from time to time on the computer. I think it very possible that something more or less akin to this type of thing could also have been given new theologians to do.

I wouldn't say, however, that this in and of itself was enough to develop the closeness of camaraderie here described (and that does fit the Vienna mission). Maybe these tasks weren't debasing enough. But the intention through these and other initial socialization efforts was to lead to an emotional crisis that the mission would use to its advantage to help you gain the correct disposition vis a vis the mission. Through this process mutual trust would be developed and you would begin the process of successful acculturation into the mission. Part of what bound the mission members (and families) together was that they were limited in their outside relations, so at least they could, more or less, have straightforward relations with others in the mission. Even with this, though, you had to know what you could and couldn't talk with other people about.

***

"Ordinarily, the degree to which a setting represents an ordeal to a recruit indicates the degree to which divestiture processes are operative." (p. 34)

The Vienna mission wouldn't have involved an ordeal along the lines of prisons, which this paragraph goes on to discuss, but it does represent an ordeal if you consider being uprooted to a new country with a different language and with work focused on a region not amenable to your work, then a certain amount of "ordeal"-type experience might be expected, and the mission could (and did in my case) use the difficulty of this transition as a cover for any possible debasement-type anguish you might experience.

***

"Yet the fact remains that many organizations consciously promote initiation ordeals designed primarily to make the recruit whatever the organization deems appropriate. In the more extreme cases, recruits are isolated from former associates, must abstain from certain types of behavior, must publicly degrade themselves and others through various kinds of mutual criticism, and must follow a rigid set of sanctionable rules and regulations.

This process, when voluntarily undergone, serves, of course, to commit and bind people to the organization. In such cases, the sacrifice and surrender on the part of the newcomers is usually premised upon a sort of institutional awe the recruits bring with them into the organization. Such awe serves to sustain their motivation throughout the divestiture process. Within this society, there are many familiar illustrations: the Marine Corps, fraternal groups, religious cults, elite law schools, self-realization groups, drug rehabilitations programs, professional athletic teams, and so on. All those organizations require a recruit to pass through a series of robust tests in order to gain privileged access to the organization." (p.34).

Since each new comer to the mission was socialized individually, I really can't say that organizational entry tests were uniform, and certainly they weren't formal tests, but I think that that there probably were tests of one sort or another that new workers faced. Since the mission would be considered a laudable effort and the leaders otherwise respected (some even having published Christian books or articles back home), new comers would have generally come with this "awe" factor described in this text. But (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you view it), I had been around enough influential people in the field and had even discussed differences with at least a mission head (the mission I had part-time/short-term work with before going to Vienna), and I had studied and come to enough conclusions on my own that I guess I didn't have sufficient "awe" to make me maleable enough, especially given the apparent differences in values between me and the mission (which I only realized after arriving in Vienna). I'd developed these values on my own, outside of a mission context, so that undoubtedly accounted for a lot of the differences.

***

"... [T]he ordeal aspects of a divestiture process represents an identity-bestowing, as well as an identify-destroying process." (p. 34-35)

This is a very good and succinct way of stating what happens in this process. In any case, those who worked in the East (i.e., Eastern Europe) had a certain persona they had to portray to the authorities, and then another to the believers they taught, still another to people they bumped into in Vienna (outside the mission), and yet another to the supporters back home. And they had to do this realistically, convincingly; sometimes failure in this regard could have significant negative consequences on your ministry, the mission at large and/or the believers in the East that you worked with. So it would actually be more accurate to say that this process was identities-bestowing, because you had to have multiple faces depending on your audience and the circumstances.

Regarding the "identity-destroying" process, this would involve learning to be able to sort of stifle certain aspects of your personality and/or redirect aspects of your personality to be appropriately displayed as per the situation.

In all of this, of course, there was the content of what you could/could not say. And these things generally weren't written down and would be denied as being policy in many or most cases. Instead, these were learned by example or pressure, or the like. As you can imagine, entering this world, even if you more or less expect it, might be traumatic enough, but the process of learning these things, I think, was in keeping with how relations and individuals in general were managed. It's just that it was the most traumatic at the beginning because of the steep learning curve and being re-oriented as to how you presented yourself in various situations.

***

That's all for this text, so tomorrow we'll move on to another.

145. Socialization File, Pt. 28 (Van Maanen, pt. 3)

It seems to me that the only people who might be interested in my ramblings would be social scientists or psychologist, and this would be for research purposes, and I'd become the subject of some kind of qualitative research project. Other than that, people who were interested in this or that part of my postings might be interested in portions of the content. To reach a broader audience, I'd have to do a lot of redaction, which I'll, hopefully, eventually get around to. It's not as if this is particularly easy reading; there are a lot of details that would be hard to connect. But they were/are also often hard for me to connect, as this project, from the beginning - meaning, I suppose, when I actually experienced these things - was hard to understand.

***

The next thing I'd like to say about my relationship with my family is regarding framing.

I first became aware of framing in my social movement studies, beginning in 1999, and, as it turns out, that area of research has been one of the main areas to more fully develop the concept of framing. Other social and psychological specialties also use the term, however, sometimes with their own unique twists to defining the term. This paragraph from a Wikipedia entry seems like a good synopses of my understanding of the term:

"In his 2009 work, Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action^[3] Kuypers offers a detailed template for doing framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. According Kuypers, "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea." ^[4] Kuypers’ work is based on the premise that framing is a rhetorical process and as such it is best examined from a rhetorical point of view."

How this relates to my family is that individuals within it have developed various understandings of various events, and these understanding or meanings are the framing. Once a frame is developed, at least in my family, it seems that other events are interpreted also from the standpoint of that frame. This ends out affecting not only the understanding of events and series of events, but also understandings of individuals and their character or personality. Some of these frames refer to me or refer to situations that are somehow related to me. Over time these frames build up, and if subsequent events seem to confirm (or at least not contradict) these frames, then the frames become stronger and may even grow in strength or become applied to more situations. As this happens, things that don't fit the frame may be either not noticed or ignored, especially if the frame has sort of taken a life of its own and there is some stake built up around it. These frames often involve some emotional attachment, which can be a positive emotional attachment towards something/someone and/or a negative emotional attachment against something/someone.

My family has a lot of these frames regarding me and my life. There are at least a couple difficulties with this, however. The first is that I have moved around a lot (although I never really wanted to move so much, and this will come up much later in my chronology), and some of my living situations have been ones that the family would not have had a lot of experience with; Vienna is one of these situations, but Siberia even moreso. But the other issue here is that family members are about the only people who have at least known me through all these moves and visited me in a lot of them, so apart from my perspective, they would be the next best ones to have any insight into them, at least in a composite way - taking them all together. There are others along the way that could or could have (some are deceased now, for example) vouched for my claims about my life at any given point.

Another issue is that of self-interest. Each family member, including myself, is likely to have a stake in various understandings of my life. That is to say that any given frame might be advantageous, neutral or disadvantageous for any particular individual. Needless to say, there would be a tendency, at the very least to avoid disadvantageous perspectives.

The last thing I want to say about this right now is that each individual has a power standing within the family and each frame also has a certain power standing within the familial psyche or memory. At the moment I'm low on the totem pole, and in as much as my framing of my life differs from anyone else's in the family the impact of my frames will be greatly affected by my standing within the family. If at any time my power might change then the impact of my frames would likewise change. This change would happen because individuals in the family would re-visit what frames about me might be more or less advantageous at that point. In this way their framing of me and my life fluctuates, not so much based on what they think or understand as being true or not, but based more on what they think might be more or less in their personal self-interest.

I've said a lot by way of theory, and it's definitely colored by my perception of the family (i.e., I have no great claim to objectivity here), but I hope you can see where these things could have impact on my attitude towards the family, at least in a very general way. Of course, I haven't mentioned any details here, such as specific examples, and I'll try to fill that in in later posts.

Back to the text...

***

The next descriptive continue regarding socialization methods is that of how sequential or nonsequential a method is.

"Sequential socialization refers to transitional processes marked by a series of discrete and identifiable stages through which an individual must pass in order to achieve a defined role and status in the organization ... Nonsequential processes are accomplished in one transitional stage..." (p. 26)

I don't think this really applies to the Vienna mission context because it was very rare that a person would be promoted to another position. In other words, once a secretary, always a secretary. It wasn't completely unheard of to have such changes, but there weren't any while I was there. An example of a possible promotion would be if the (for example) Romania country coordinator left the mission and another missionary on the Romania team was chosen to take his place. Since these events would have been rare I'm going to move on.

***

The fixed/variable continuum is the next variable in socialization methodology.

"Organizational socialization processes differ in terms of the information and certainty an individual has regarding his transition timetable. Fixed socialization processes provide a recruit with a precise knowledge of the time it will take him to complete a given step... Variable socialization processes do not give those being processed any advance notice of their transition timetable." (p. 28)

The Vienna mission clearly used a variable socialization process. They would most likely deny that they even used any socialization methods at all, but in any case, the job wasn't done until the person was socialized, and even then it (the need for socialization) was probably also open to future consideration as the need arose.

***

This next quote comes in the context of discussing how fixed socializations can sometimes become variable ones, which is irrelevant to the Vienna context. I'm including it here, though, because it, nevertheless, contains some helpful insights:

"Some organizations even go so far as to provide a special membership category for certain types of role failures. Some police agencies, for example, give recruits unable to meet agent demands long-term assignments as city jailers or traffic controllers. Such assignments serve as a signal to the recruit and to others in the organization that the individual has left the normal career path.

To the extent that these organizational 'Siberias' [!] exist and can be identified by those in the fixed setting, chronic side-tracking from which there is rarely a return is a distinct possibility." (p. 29; bracketed exclamation mark mine)

How this fits my Vienna experience... well I can imagine that you foresee that I'm going to say that I was sidelined like this. As to Siberia... my contention is that that experience (my initial contract work in Siberia) was a politically devised recruitment. Also not very helpful from a career perspective. But back to Vienna...

I held 2 positions with the Vienna mission that could be, I think, understood in the manner described by this text. The first such position was in Dallas - the State-side branch of the mission. In this case I was demoted by about 5500 miles. I held this office position for about 3 months or so. In the second case, in which I was demoted to receptionist, involved only a demotion from the second floor of the Vienna office to the 1st floor. But in either case I was only a hairbreadth away from the front door (in the latter case literally and figuratively both).

The Dallas demotion could have served as an observation point to see how well I did and whether I should be returned to Vienna (although all my belongings were still there, so in any case I'd have to return there long enough to pack up at least) or sent home. In the second demotion, my time (2-year commitment) was coming to an end and there was no indication that anything other than that was going to happen. However, it wasn't general practice to demote someone before they left (at least not that I was aware of), so doing this probably meant that they needed to do some protective work on me before I left, and indicated that I was leaving on less than ideal terms, which is an understatement, to say the least. I'm sure that they had to find a balance from getting me overly upset and causing them problems and leaving on standard terms, which would mean leaving with some confidential knowledge, and potentially causing them harm with that knowledge. I don't think they fully understood my mindset - why I wasn't being socialized properly. I'm sure they had theories, but I think I was probably a bit of an enigma to them. In the end, though, they hurt me more than I could ever have hurt them, which is a very missionary way of acting (although it certainly would be far from the first time any such thing has ever happened in the history of missionary service, even if the exact circumstances might be quite different from mine).

I think this topic comes up in other articles too, if I remember correctly.

***

I'm going to end here for now.

~ Meg

84. Defense & High-Reliability Firms File, Part 9 (Radine, pt. 3)

After I finished writing my last entry last night I was up till after 2 a.m. going through the material I'd found... and I couldn't find the specific articles I'm looking for. So now I'm really tired and frustrated. I can't think where else I could have put them. So I'll probably now have to go through all my unpacked boxes of books (I don't want to put my wall shelves up until I know I'm going to be here for a while, and even then, knowing my luck, once i do that I'm sure something will happen so that I have to move again... that's how my life goes.)

But while I do my morning stimulator session I can't do much else other than sit here at the computer, especially since some of my electrodes are losing their stickiness, so I'll continue on with the next chapter of Taming the Troops.

***

Chapter 3: Professional Paternalist Control

***

This chapter begins by comparing how different groups of people view autocratic leadership in the military, where the nonveterans polled thought that autocratic means must be the only way they could get people to do that they do in the military (e.g., kill). But people with military experience thought that using autocratic techniques was a sign of being a poor combat leader and led to low morale. "Generally, they believed that fear techniques should be used only when all else had failed." (p. 55)

"... Why do these ex-military people place such an emphasis on morale and de-emphasize autocratic, punishment-oriented techniques of control? As we have shown, it is because they have seen that people will do far more if they are willing to do something than if they are forced to. Forcing people is inefficient; it inevitably seems to result in resistance of some kind, such as go-slows and mistakes." (p. 55)

First of all, it should be noted that the earlier discussions (in chapter 2, which I discussed in my last post) of uses of autocratic control were used with a specific group of soldiers (dissidents and organizers) and not with units as a whole. As far as that goes for Vienna, I don't think others got the treatment I did. Even such concrete things as moving around in offices and positions was unusual from what I saw there, so it could be that I was treated differently than others this way, although a lot of it would be hard to disentangle as such. But there were a few concrete things that point to my being treated differently. Since one of the main indicators comes up fairly early in my time in Vienna, this does seem to point in favor of my theory that at least part of what I experienced in Vienna might have been an effort to try to get me out of there because of my dad. I don't know why I would have been singled out like that so early in my time there. One possibility of why they might have treated me that way starting so early, though, would be that since I was living alone and had some grasp of the language and culture I was harder to sort of coral into their group.

***

The author, by citing a military officer's telling of an incident, which the author sums up as his having struck a balance "between military objectives and group morale. Contrast this with a coercive leader who would simply follow orders and deal with the consequences after they arose." (p. 58).

As such, I don't think the leadership in Vienna took this tack. Instead, I think they got such a commitment to their leadership that people were so used to portraying an image, whether to other people around them in Vienna, to their supporters back home, or as part of their trying to avoid suspicion by authorities & snitches while "in-country" (in an East Bloc country). So the Vienna missionaries got so much into this mode of living, where they were sort of living double lives, that it was pretty easy to lead them along, and I think that anything perceived as being otherwise (not acting as a sheep in the flock following their caring shepherds) would have led to a sort of identity crisis wherein the double living could be at risk of unraveling for anyone not following the flock, which would put their sanity (whether in appearance only or otherwise) at risk. It's sort of like there was this "secret life of missionaries" that was under the radar, and it was so well lived out that trying to unravel it, describe it or prove it would be difficult. That's despite being told by one of our military chaplain h.r. staff that they were "not professionals." He didn't say professional what but it seemed like it was "professional spy/intelligence" workers, because they were obviously professional theologians and missionaries.

This being said, can you imagine what my thought was when a few short years later I was asked by this Soviet guest during the Seattle Goodwill Games, who was undoubtedly a Soviet intelligence worker, if my dad paid me? First of all, I was surprised at the bluntness of the question and the question itself, but I even right then almost laughed inside myself (I didn't actually demonstrate any sign of humor), thinking "No, whatever I learned that might make you ask this I learned from missionaries in Vienna! Boy are you off-track - way off-track." Heck, my dad had even suggested I apply to be a Russian translator for Boeing, to which I, without even thinking, unhesitatingly answered a forceful, "No." I thought, what on earth would I do at Boeing (this was the year or more before the Soviet putsch) with Russian? The last thing by that point that I wanted was to get anywhere near sensitive-type work, and I was mad that his line of work had apparently hindered me so much - although I don't think I ever thought that my experiences in Vienna were totally connected to him. After all, the missions there had to have been in a position to start with to be able to treat me like that at all.

***

I've finished my stimulator, which means 45 minutes has already gone by, and I've hardly even started on this chapter. I'm going to get my breakfast now though, and then I'll continue on.

***

I'm back now, and I just had another thought that maybe I could add here in case I miss it later on: While I was in Vienna one of my responses to what I felt were authoritarian/cult-type authority relations was, "The only person I let have that much authority over me is God, not even pastors or mission leaders have that much authority over me. I still maintain the right to "search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" like the Bereans in the New Testament, and come to conclusions apart from these supposedly spiritual leaders (leaders who are not perfect). I was, after all, the renegade woman in Bible school who exhibited markedly unfeminine characteristics in engaging in theological discussions (this gender role issue is cultural among certain Protestants, and seemed to be strong amongst student in my school, although this aspect was not necessarily pushed by the school administration). My God has many names, none of which are "(human) missionary leader" or "(human) pastor".

Leaders, and probably others in Vienna too, would argue that they never required this kind of submission, but they are referring to their "on the surface" and "literal" requirements, not how things were actually done. And in response to some specific examples, I can just see even right now years later, the lead chaplain in h.r. saying with sort of a boyish innocence (raised eyebrows, a bit of a pout), "We have your best interests at heart." It's very disarming, even approaching an interrogation technique (this subject is part of another file).

I would love to meet that same chaplain again now and say, "Gee remember how I had 'culture shock' after 5 months in Vienna? Well, it's a good thing that I stayed out of missions after I left Vienna, and went to Siberia on my own. After all, it seems my 'culture shock' only happens when I'm with a mission, apparently. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...? Any ideas, Mr. Chaplain,... sir?"

***

Getting back to our chapter...

In this next section, that continues directly from the last piece, a situation is described where this same officer who gave the earlier narration, describes a situation in which he had to defuse some building tension between squads that ended up being uniformly of differing races. He handled it by moving people around.

"Both of these instances show a tendency on the part of the officer to take a quick, decisive action... This officer also demonstrates a nonconfrontation style of dealing with his subordinates." (p. 59)

I'm sure that in the case of the racial issues the soldiers probably had an idea of why the moves were happening, but, although the text doesn't explain this, I suspect that another ostensible reason(s) was/were given. But since the officer is the more powerful one, especially as formal power is concerned (power by virtue of his rank), he gets to frame the issues (I learned about this topic in my social movement learning research). That means if he says the moves were done for thus and such reasons, even if those under him suspect otherwise, he can make this be the formal understanding by things like what he puts on the paperwork involved in such moves (I assume there is paperwork - since we're talking about a major bureaucracy here) and perhaps in things like company newsletters. For example, he could write something like: "We are sorry to see Pvt. Smith move to unit XXX, but he has skills that are much needed there and I'm sure he will be a great asset to that unit." I'm just being hypothetical here, but this is how framing is done by those with more power that have more access to and control over these kinds of things. The newsletter might even go into Army archives where it will be used by historical researchers down the road.

This happens in missions too, and I'm rather aghast at the newsletters I found yesterday... newsletters that I wrote! Now people will look at these and say, but you wrote them, why are use saying something different now? I wrote what I wrote, especially the newsletter which the mission had to approve, almost under duress knowing that if I wrote anything differently there would negative consequences/reinforcements for me. In Pavlovian terms, that would mean I'd get a swift kick in the behind to teach me to do otherwise. I face the threat of my double life caving in; of course, I suppose most missionaries eventually meld the worlds - the facade they've carefully built up for the mission - and the rest of their being, so that they don't have much if any conflict between the two and for all practical purposes they meld together to become one. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for me, I never accepted their norms and the two standards never even came close to melding. If there ever would have been a potential, given more time, of them melding in me, it would have been from being worn down and coalescing as a self-preservation method, which would have, I suppose, eventually been indistinguishable from other roads leading to melding. Of course, some would call this process socialization. Other might call it brainwashing. Can you see the potential for seeming psychotic in the midst of this? That's the threat of not playing along... fully playing along... brainwashing-type playing along.

***

I with there were section breaks in these chapters, but there don't appear to be. But I do need to start getting cleaned up and start on my weekly laundry. I'll be back later on, though.

~ Meg