I suppose I should be numbering these "reprieve" entries. I want to continue calling them reprieves, though, because they are interruptions from my regular posting about my history, which currently means the "organizational behavior" file article comments.
There are a few things that have happened that I would like to comment on here. One involves family and the other is regarding church. These are the main things I want to discuss here.
Regarding family, I decided about a week ago I wanted a break from the close communications with my brothers. At the end of my phone conversation with one of my brothers saying how I couldn't believe I'd forgotten my physical therapy appointment, he made a comment comparing me to mom but saying at least I didn't do it repeatedly (that was the gist of his comment). This made me thing that he (if not both of my brothers) were going to look for chances to find me with emotional problems similar to mom. This I understand to be because that's the script the family has for me (which I think was laid out by dad years ago, which may have served, at least in part, to let dad off the hook for the impact his work has had on me. It also undoubtedly served to keep the male and female distinction all that much clearer in the family, regarding roles, stereotypical characteristics and expectations by other members of the family.)
This brief comment had several implications for me. One was that it demonstrated that nothing had changed with mom's death, and that they were still going to look for ways that I am like mom. I attribute this to being at least in part because they have a vested interest in maintaining their privileged position in the family, where the men "where the pants" so to speak. But, as I told my brothers a few weeks ago in an e-mail, I am not their wife and they are not my "head" (I Cor. 11: 3ff). That is, if they want to wear the pants in reference to a woman they are going to have to find themselves wives, because I'm not going to let them play this role vis a vis myself. I understand that rejecting this type of relationship opens myself to being left completely alone, however, because I don't know that they know any other way to relate to women, so if they can't relate to me in this way they aren't going to relate to me in any way at all.
So anyway, the long and the short of it is that I haven't had contact with my brothers for a week or so now. I just told them in an e-mail that I needed some space, but I did comment about how I didn't want to be compared to mom. The fact that I missed one appointment does not make me like mom, it only means that I'm frazzled and at my limits as to how much I can take... which I hope the reader can understand if you've followed how much I've been through just in this one year alone, let alone what immediately preceded this year (i.e., before I started writing this blog). It's not like I am just laying down in bed depressed and not doing anything. Rather, my being at my limits (including declining health from the new stenosis) has resulted in me making errors on various fronts as I try to keep up with everything, but am not so successful at it despite my best efforts.
One thing I will say is that it's possible my brothers might not be completely conscious of doing this or taking this position, but, if I may, I'd like to make a comparison to another social reality that I learned about while in my doctoral studies (which I left before completing). That is, regarding white people's "superiority" as far as social positioning in U.S. culture is concerned. That is, being white has it's advantages here. As far as an individual white person's belief about this in regards to his or her self is concerned, they may deny this as being true, and really believe that there is no difference, at least as far as he or she is concerned. But for the people on the other end of the stick - the non-whites - they feel it more clearly and are more sensitive to this kind of thing because they know they have to overcome this social inequality to be able to function on an even keel with whites. The advantaged party in this kind of relationship is more or less blind to inequalities, but the less advantaged party experiences it more clearly. This is the case with being woman in relation to men in many contexts too.
But my brothers may also be more aware of this relationship with women, and maybe with me in particular, than I give them credit for, in as much as they may realize their is sibling rivalry going on and they understand that the male card is one way they can try to maintain or gain superiority over me (or at least equality with me if they feel like they are disadvantaged in some other non-gender-related way). Also, they may have this image of maleness that disallows for a woman being strong. Having a strong woman, I suspect, can have at least two implications. One is that the woman could be labeled a "feminist," which is a bad thing. The other is that the existence of a strong woman could mean that they are emasculated, failing in their manliness whereby they should be the caretaker and authority over women (or at least women they have close relations with).
It may seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, that is, reading more into a passing comment than is warranted. But I've been in this family 51 years now and my experience and understanding leads me to understand that this comment rests on an underlying pathological (in my opinion) mental construct.
The other thing I'd like to bring out from this brief exchange is how it exemplifies that men (cp. In the Company of Women) don't reveal their weaknesses and to do so is seen as weakness. The context of my admission of having forgotten that physical therapy appointment was in my explaining how I was getting overwhelmed and not keeping up with things very well - that there are just too many things going on in my life. The fact that that brother should verbally compare me to mom (who missed several appointments in the past several months, often for very real physical problems that had nothing to do with her emotional health), is somewhat ironic, however, because the paperwork he sent me regarding the estate had a few pages stapled out of order and one page in duplicate. So he is also having trouble keeping up with things and, if the golden rule is in play here, how he treated me is how he himself would like to be treated. In this case, I would say that when dad died they found his then recent affairs uncharacteristically not in as good an order as one would think considering he was a program manager in the control of very expensive military contract programs. That is, towards the end of his life he wasn't doing so well. I'm not sure how I can compare my brother to him in this situation, however. Might it mean that my brother will die shortly? Or maybe he is becoming overwhelmed with the care of his handicapped son similar to how dad was becoming overwhelmed with the care for mom, especially after she had attempted suicide that winter. This is the kind of thinking that one might expect in a tit for tat comparison of weakness of (adult) children following the weakness of a same-gendered parent. The logic, I think, is rather faulty, but this is how my brother apparently thinks. Or maybe he doesn't want a tit for tat (or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thought process.
***
The other thing that I would like to discuss here involves church. Months ago pastor decided to have a membership class with me and another person who'd indicated an interest in joining the church. To accommodate me with my health limitations, he'd offered to have the 3 orientation sessions at my place and even brought the other person here. From the beginning he set timelines so that we could be brought into the church at such and such a specific Sunday. There were a couple delays because of the other person or him. And then somewhere along the line they decided to have refreshments after church on the day were were publicly admitted as members. Towards the end, though, as I was feeling worse and worse and not attending church regularly (first because of being away when mom died and then not wanting to try to attend the Mother's Day service, followed by declining health.
The week before the service he said that he might have us both share our testimony and do something during the service, and asked me to read Scripture. The middle of the week before the induction I e-mailed him that I was getting worse and didn't want to be asked to do anything extra besides just doing the vows, but later that day he called to ask me to read Scripture, saying he was also asking the other person to do something. It seemed to me that he hadn't read my e-mail yet; otherwise, if he was intentionally ignoring it, that would have worse implications as to what was going on. He was so enthusiastic and made it difficult to opt out, so I rather reluctantly agreed to do it. In the above discussed conversation with my brother I told him about what was going on and he said to just say no.
Meanwhile, I was keeping him and the church updated as to my health issues and finally late last weak I e-mailed him saying I was feeling pressured and "railroaded" into doing more than I could and I said I couldn't promise I would be at church on Sunday because I was feeling so badly. Rather in alarm the pastor called me and said that people were bringing refreshments and making rather a big effort to...
June 14, 2011
I can't remember what interrupted me when I started this post, but I'll try to pick up where I left off.
... celebrate the entrance of 3 new members to the church. He suggested someone drive me to church, so I agreed and a while later he called to let me know about the arrangements to get me to church... but we'd find someone at the time to take me home.
I was feeling so crummy that I didn't even stand for any of the singing and they even had to bring a chair up for me to sit on when taking the vows. I stayed long enough to get just enough refreshments to take my noon meds & supplements, which included pain medicine. One couple had kindly prepared cards to welcome each of us, which was a nice gesture. Otherwise, me and the other gal who had gone through the orientation classes together sat at a small table alone and I was really feeling so badly that I even forgot her name, if you can imagine that! I was so bad off that I should not have been there and I think everyone recognized that and it was pretty awkward.
It would have been better to just say that I was ill and couldn't make it, instead of going through all that to get me there. I felt like I was sort of an object, something to add to someone's trophy case. To make it worse, no one from church has even contacted me since.
***
Well, I'll leave that subject for now.
The past couple of weeks have been a wild roller coaster of crises regarding my health and/or the condo search. I asked for some space from my brothers, which allowed me to sort of shelve the whole family thing, including dealing with mom's death. I was in survival mode, which is something, in case you haven't figured that out yet, that I'm quite familiar with. At least my doctors this time around have been on the ball and everyone's doing what they're supposed to be doing, which is a tremendous relief, to say the least. What I went through with the cervical thing this past fall and winter is something that was mostly avoidable... that is, my symptoms should have been dealt with quicker and better. Well, eventually they were handled well, once I found someone who was willing and able to do something about the problem.
This condo thing has been pretty stressful at times, though, and I think my realtor and I have at times had a bit of a love-hate relationship. Well, both of those terms (love and hate) actually exaggerate things, but you get the idea (I hope).
Today and tomorrow could potentially be watersheds in my living situation. This afternoon I meet with my financial adviser and hopefully things will begin to solidify in that regard, although it's still not 100% what my ongoing housing costs will be. Then tomorrow me, my realtor, the listing agent and a general contractor are all convening at the current unit of interest. This should lead to a pretty good estimate of what it would cost from the repair and renovation standpoint (i.e., not counting furniture). I'm trying to stay within a certain amount and I've been spending a lot of time on line trying to realistically figure things out.
For example, I've found various on-line venders that sell everything from furniture (general or specialized), blinds, flooring, paint, blinds, etc. I found 6 venders that have at least one option for each of my main needs (such as dinette set, patio furniture, etc.). Then I went through and selected the best in each category from each vender. The total costs range from about $13k to about $22k. But that's not counting shipping. I've found that most venders have free "curb side shipping," which means they delivery truck will park in front of the building. Beyond that, it's up to you to take it off the truck, bring it inside, bring it in the room of choice, unpack it, and assemble it (if necessary). That is, if you want those things you can have them... for a price. To learn the price for a particular item you usually have to call to ask about it. However, several venders to offer free "white glove" service on specific items, usually the more expensive ones, like large wall sets or china cabinets. Nevertheless, going through this process has let me know what might be reasonable to expect as far as how much to spend on furniture and what types of things are out there to choose between. I've been hampered by my health in doing much running around to local stores, though.
But beyond that I've turned to focus more on preparations for tomorrow's meeting with the general contractor. If the contractor is going to give me a useful and more accurate estimate, I have to provide certain information. For example, cabinet refacing, which this unit needs in the kitchen and also both bathrooms. It would be helpful if I suggested what type of cabinetry I'd like, including hardware. And the flooring and blinds/shades are even more important, because what type of flooring and blinds affect the installation process which directly affects the cost of installation. So I have to have these things reasonably decided upon.
The emotional part of all this has involved things like my realtor getting impatient with me, the interface between me, my lawyer, the realtor, the selling agent, the selling agent's lawyer, the seller, etc. And these communciations are generally not direct but funneled through someone else. Sometimes time has been of the essence. Sometimes it seems as if there has been some miscommunication, etc.
***
As to my health, I had an epidural shot last Thursday for the lumbar. The neuro-surgeon thinks it's lumbar, but the neurologist suspects it's thoracic. I don't have the results of the thoracic MRI yet, although I have the images themselves, which they gave me right afterwards. The thoracic MRI was problematic because hardware from my first spinal diskectomy & fusion (T11-L1) interfered with the imaging, so I had to re-schedule at another location (same company) where they had an open MRI.
Having the epidural allowed me to stop the tramadol, as I was up to 100 mg four times a day. But yesterday and today I've taken 50 mg at lunch.
The past week and a half my legs have been bothering me more, meaning it's become harder to walk. I had a couple good days in there, but it seems to be getting more constant. So whereas the epidural can help the pain, it can't necessarily help the other neurological symptoms, such as muscle weakness. Also, my gastrointestinal system has been affected and a few weeks ago I was prescribed this stuff you drink before having a colonoscopy. Then I was told I could increase my genrlac to 30 ml twice a day (up from once a day). The increased genrlac has helped a lot.
***
Last weekend I started getting caught up on some things so that I didn't feel so all over the place and focused only on whatever was happening at the moment. I hadn't had any contact with my brothers until yesterday and I think that was good, to have that break. Also, having so much to do with such urgency has helped keep my mind of mom and the family. Eventually that will catch up with me, but hopefully by then it will be more manageable to deal with constructively. In this regard, I've been more fortunate than my brothers because they've been working all this time on things regarding mom and even if they've been busy they haven't had the benefit of being able to step back from it. I did scan in and e-mail them a few more sympathy cards I received from the notices I sent out (from all of us). When I get the list, I will likewise send out thank you notes to those who made donations to the church in mom's name. But this is a lot less intense and demanding then the kind of things my brothers have been doing.
***
Well, this is a long enough post, so I'm going to end here. Can you believe my life? If I told you I feel like my whole life has been like this since more or less 1987 would you believe me? I won't make firm statements about whether or not I'm sane or how sane I might be, but I do think that altogether I've dealt reasonably well with everything I've faced. That doesn't mean I've always done everything right though (who has?), or that I haven't had my moments when things got to me. But I think all in all I'm a pretty strong person and fairly observant. I may be too analytical for my own good, but sometimes I feel like I'm treated like a "dumb blond" or "just a woman" or "an easy push over", and I think being observant and intentionally reflective has been one way to deal with these attitudes from others. I'm not saying it's the best way, just that it's something I do and I think it's at least a fairly good approach, especially within my personality.
***
One more thing: I know it may seem like I'll never get back to the chronology, but that's how I've felt about a good part of my life for years now. I'm always thinking things will normalize and then when it appears they are I start to take advantage of that and WHAM! something throws everything out of kilter again and off I go on another crisis and/or tangent...
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
273. Family-Related Reprieve
I believe I've discussed the issue of power in my family, but, as you can well imagine, the death of our last parent changes the dynamics. However, I don't think the rules have really changed. I may not like what I'm going to talk about here, but it's the way things are.
Mom's power was based on her financial resources.
One thing that I've had thrown at me from time to time since I returned to the States from Russia in 1997 is the idea that I'm selfish because I only have myself to worry about. Until now my brother in Seattle had one or both of our parents to care for, and my other brother has his two boys.
The options for me, as far as how things could acceptably be different, putting me in a position of having someone else to care for are basically limited to getting married and having a husband to care for. I can't have children at this point in my life, so that possibility is out. So how would the power distribution look if I got married? A lot, of course, depends on how I might marry, but if the power issues if I were to marry were to remain as they currently are in the family I would be under my husband and the family would be run by a cabal of men. My brothers would quickly latch on to my husband to ensure that the family values and modus operandi remain as they are, which is heavily biased in favor of men's superiority of position and power. Male manliness would be in question if anything but male domination were to play out in family relations.
The power of my brother in Seattle is also, however, also affected by mom's death. Now the same accusation of having only himself to care for can also be used against him too. So he has to now secure his power footing in the family in the new configuration sans mom. He has some power in his stability and also his not having so many problems as me and our other brother. That is, he is not very vulnerable in comparison to us. My vulnerability is based on my health and also my poverty as well as the basic vulnerability that comes with being female in this family. Our other brother's vulnerability is based on his familial problems, being divorced, his having a handicapped child, and his being on his ex-wife's turf in a semi-rural area where she and her birth family have some clout. The brother in Seattle also has power in the form of close contact with other family members, since he's living where we were raised, and also the church we were raised in. Church-related clout doesn't affect the other brother because he's settled enough in his church and also friends elsewhere he went to Bible school with.
My brother in Seattle will want to secure his standing in the family by confirming his manliness. This might be acted out in strengthening male bonding with the other brother and our nephews. It could also affect his relationship with me if he tries to take a male dominant relationship with me. To a certain extent I have some power to avoid this happening, but that depends on my health too, which I don't have so much control over. So if my health deteriorates and he steps in to help me and I accept his help, the price for accepting that help will be (tacitly) agreeing to his male dominance over me, with all the nuances that includes. He could also try to shore up his local relations, with family and church, to limit his vulnerability and provide a buffer against any weakness he might have vis a vis our other brother and me.
The brother in New England, on the other hand, has lost a grandmother to his two boys. And mom did cherish her grandsons and went to great lengths to send personalized gifts, including some heirloom and written things. This was a boon to my brother as a buffer against his ex-wife's family's influence on his sons. However because of our falling out that landed me back in Florida a year ago, he will be reticent to let me fill in any gap left by mom. If he were to allow me any contact with his boys it would be highly regulated by him and I would make myself quite vulnerable to him opening myself up to the same kind of thing that I witnessed and experienced living in his apartment (above his office).
As to myself, I have to decide whether any of the male scripting is going to change in the family. If not, should I open myself up to closer ties with my brothers I am putting myself at risk for falling into the same male dominated relations that existed before mom died. My cousin (the one who agreed that my family - and hers too - operate on a survival of the fittest basis) thinks I shouldn't have signed the document my brother with the two sons had me sign before I returned here to Miami. She said she thought my nephews acted like they were abused and she was concerned that I had agreed, by signing the document, to forego contact with my nephews. However, she doesn't appreciate how vulnerable I was, living in his apartment free of charge on his turf, and being sick myself. I'm not sure I am strong enough to be able to deal with any gaff from my brother and be any help to my nephews. Instead, I may actually strengthen my brother's hold on them by opening myself up to my brother to have contact with them. My brother's position vis a vis his boys could be strengthened because of his confirmation of his manliness through his relations with me, but also serve as an excuse to further tighten his control over his boys to protect them from such mal-intentioned individuals as myself (that is, that's how he would describe me, at least in part).
So what can or should I do under such circumstances? I don't think either of my brothers are malicious, but "just" want to maintain the power-holds that they think they "should" have and maintain the public image they want to have. But the potential end result of this is, I think, not dissimilar to what it would be if they were just plain malicious. Because of my health and poverty I don't think that I can expect to have much influence on my nephews, so I think that that's pretty much a moot issue. So then it just has to do with
These are some of the things I and my brothers have to deal with regarding our relations with one another as also in adjusting to our new lives without mom.
Mom's power was based on her financial resources.
One thing that I've had thrown at me from time to time since I returned to the States from Russia in 1997 is the idea that I'm selfish because I only have myself to worry about. Until now my brother in Seattle had one or both of our parents to care for, and my other brother has his two boys.
The options for me, as far as how things could acceptably be different, putting me in a position of having someone else to care for are basically limited to getting married and having a husband to care for. I can't have children at this point in my life, so that possibility is out. So how would the power distribution look if I got married? A lot, of course, depends on how I might marry, but if the power issues if I were to marry were to remain as they currently are in the family I would be under my husband and the family would be run by a cabal of men. My brothers would quickly latch on to my husband to ensure that the family values and modus operandi remain as they are, which is heavily biased in favor of men's superiority of position and power. Male manliness would be in question if anything but male domination were to play out in family relations.
The power of my brother in Seattle is also, however, also affected by mom's death. Now the same accusation of having only himself to care for can also be used against him too. So he has to now secure his power footing in the family in the new configuration sans mom. He has some power in his stability and also his not having so many problems as me and our other brother. That is, he is not very vulnerable in comparison to us. My vulnerability is based on my health and also my poverty as well as the basic vulnerability that comes with being female in this family. Our other brother's vulnerability is based on his familial problems, being divorced, his having a handicapped child, and his being on his ex-wife's turf in a semi-rural area where she and her birth family have some clout. The brother in Seattle also has power in the form of close contact with other family members, since he's living where we were raised, and also the church we were raised in. Church-related clout doesn't affect the other brother because he's settled enough in his church and also friends elsewhere he went to Bible school with.
My brother in Seattle will want to secure his standing in the family by confirming his manliness. This might be acted out in strengthening male bonding with the other brother and our nephews. It could also affect his relationship with me if he tries to take a male dominant relationship with me. To a certain extent I have some power to avoid this happening, but that depends on my health too, which I don't have so much control over. So if my health deteriorates and he steps in to help me and I accept his help, the price for accepting that help will be (tacitly) agreeing to his male dominance over me, with all the nuances that includes. He could also try to shore up his local relations, with family and church, to limit his vulnerability and provide a buffer against any weakness he might have vis a vis our other brother and me.
The brother in New England, on the other hand, has lost a grandmother to his two boys. And mom did cherish her grandsons and went to great lengths to send personalized gifts, including some heirloom and written things. This was a boon to my brother as a buffer against his ex-wife's family's influence on his sons. However because of our falling out that landed me back in Florida a year ago, he will be reticent to let me fill in any gap left by mom. If he were to allow me any contact with his boys it would be highly regulated by him and I would make myself quite vulnerable to him opening myself up to the same kind of thing that I witnessed and experienced living in his apartment (above his office).
As to myself, I have to decide whether any of the male scripting is going to change in the family. If not, should I open myself up to closer ties with my brothers I am putting myself at risk for falling into the same male dominated relations that existed before mom died. My cousin (the one who agreed that my family - and hers too - operate on a survival of the fittest basis) thinks I shouldn't have signed the document my brother with the two sons had me sign before I returned here to Miami. She said she thought my nephews acted like they were abused and she was concerned that I had agreed, by signing the document, to forego contact with my nephews. However, she doesn't appreciate how vulnerable I was, living in his apartment free of charge on his turf, and being sick myself. I'm not sure I am strong enough to be able to deal with any gaff from my brother and be any help to my nephews. Instead, I may actually strengthen my brother's hold on them by opening myself up to my brother to have contact with them. My brother's position vis a vis his boys could be strengthened because of his confirmation of his manliness through his relations with me, but also serve as an excuse to further tighten his control over his boys to protect them from such mal-intentioned individuals as myself (that is, that's how he would describe me, at least in part).
So what can or should I do under such circumstances? I don't think either of my brothers are malicious, but "just" want to maintain the power-holds that they think they "should" have and maintain the public image they want to have. But the potential end result of this is, I think, not dissimilar to what it would be if they were just plain malicious. Because of my health and poverty I don't think that I can expect to have much influence on my nephews, so I think that that's pretty much a moot issue. So then it just has to do with
- whether I agree with my brothers on how things should be and what they want out of the relationship,
- how much I disagree with them, and
- what I'm willing to accept as consequences of holding my ground on areas we might disagree on.
These are some of the things I and my brothers have to deal with regarding our relations with one another as also in adjusting to our new lives without mom.
Monday, March 28, 2011
199. Socialization File, Pt. 81 ( Oyserman & Markus, pt. 3)
This next text comes in the context of Blacks having to constantly fend of the identity White's have created for them, but in the sense that there was a great power divide between me and the mission, I think it might be helpfully applied to my experience in that context:
"Pemberton (1992) has recently graphically described this identity work for Blacks and claims that the 'necessity of concentrating on surviving in Black skin saps the energies; not only does it keep real political and social power in the hands of Whites, but it makes the self no more than a sociological fact, dancing marionette-style, to a degrading tune.' She argues that confronting the meanings that others provide can be a full time task, leaving little room for self-constructed individuality." (p. 202)
If there were stereotypes vis a vis me and the mission it would be stereotypes of me as both a woman and also a secretary. I do think that the mission was particularly sexist, and it's perhaps the most gender-confining organization of any kind that I've ever been a member of. And I think its stereotype of secretaries was arguably equally all-pervasive, at least I experienced it that way.
But for me in that context, I think it was impossible to split things apart like that (e.g., gender & secretary) with any certainty because 1) everything was pretty much a package deal - take it or leave it; and 2) disentangling and distinguishing between the root causes of all the different elements (e.g., gendered or secretarial issues) of what was expected of me was probably a lesson in futility better left undone. I don't mean to imply by the second point that it was unimportant (to try to disentangle these things), just that there under the circumstances getting too obsessed with trying to dissect what was going on (and thereby diverting my attention away from other things that might have been more urgent and pressing) might not have been the most important thing I had to think about at the time. I think it's safe to say, though that to the extent that I felt the mission's behavior towards me as being prejudicial and stereotypically biased towards me as a woman and secretary, it was degrading to me and I took it that way. But I think the two issues were interrelated in as much as the secretarial role was viewed in a "pink collar" fashion, that is, woman's work.
Now before anyone gets all hot under the collar and excited about how this kind of gendered thinking was only a reflection of the reality of church life in Eastern Europe, I'd like to proactively cut such protestations off at the pass. You see, I lived in the heart of Siberia from 1991 to 1997, almost totally cut off from flesh and blood contact with foreigners (i.e., not counting contact by mail, for example). Where I lived there were at least two things that might argue in my favor that the extent of gendered discrimination at the Vienna mission was unfounded from the perspective of work in the USSR/Russia. The first of these arguments was the existence of women preachers, that is, women who preached sermons during Sunday morning services from the pulpit. This was especially true in the Pentecostal church (which was a registered church under Communism), where women determined to have sound Bible knowledge and wisdom were allowed to preach regular sermons. The second example comes from another source altogether: the local unregistered Baptist church/Christian library, which was operated virtually single-handedly by a woman. Furthermore, I contributed as much as anyone else by way of biblical insights, interpretation and application in the Pentecostal house church I attended, despite the fact that I am a woman. (Theological note: The Pentecostal churches where I lived didn't seem to practice the sign gifts, but they were open to them.) I can provide names and addresses if need be to back up these claims. I also think it's safe to say that believers there had a more lenient view towards women in ministry than I even had before I arrived.
The issue in Vienna wasn't that I demanded to be a pastor or something and I certainly wasn't any kind of raving feminist or the like. Rather, I just never saw myself in such a confining box because of my gender as what I experienced there in my two years with the mission. I'm sure they did work with some very conservative (gender-wise) groups and individuals in Eastern Europe, but I think that the mission was more solidly sexist (in an unnecessary, overblown fashion) than a lot of the people they probably worked with in those countries. Even if you consider the preferences of the 15 member missions on this issue, I venture to say you'd probably have found a lot more diversity of responsibility and service for women in these member denominational mission boards and nondenominational missions than you'd have found in the Vienna composite mission I worked at. Certainly churches back home would have been more welcoming of women in different kinds of ministries than the Vienna mission was. And women are more than just decorative figureheads on the bow of a ship, too, they can actually do things of substance and significance, and right alongside men too (and sometimes even over them).
One last comment: I submit that in as much as there is any truth in my claims that the Vienna mission's apparent view on the role women had in the USSR (if not also in other East European countries) was lacking, I'd like to suggest that my claims that their overblown security measures, which skewed their whole value structure and how they treated people, was also wrong and unnecessary. [I'm assuming here that how they viewed women in Eastern European churches was reflected in what I saw and experienced in the mission.]
I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any security measures, but just that they should have been held in the proper biblical perspective and not been allowed to have free rein in practically controlling every aspect of the mission and it's view of itself. Maybe they went the way of the medieval Scholastics (in fretting over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin) in taking a good thing too far. And they were a bunch of theologians in Vienna, too, just like the Scholastics. Maybe, just maybe, they needed a woman to bring them to their senses. And I hope the mission (if they're reading this) is aware by now that I reserve the right to disregard any demands put on me that I think run contrary to God's Word, even if it comes from someone with a penis. Yeah, that's crass, but that's what it comes down to, isn't it?
End of sermon.
***
Before I move on, in the text, I'm going to do things backwards here and make my usual preamble a postscript instead. We're already fairly familiar with faulty logic, especially regarding how I supposed mission leadership might respond to this blog. But this time I'd like to apply the faulty logic paradigm to how they tried to lure me in (assuming that's what they were trying to do) a/k/a socialize me. If my audience now were just the mission I might title this piece: "Oh, How You Failed, Let Me Count the Ways".
I'm going to use the same book I used before:
Hoover, A. J. (1982). Don't You Believe It! Poking Holes in Faulty Logic. Chicago: Moody Press.
I'll probably miss some things, but this should be enough to give you a good idea of what might have been going on in this regard. I'm going to speak in the present tense, but understand that I'm referring to how things were (from my vantage point) for me while with the Vienna mission from 1987 to 1989.
1. (Chapter 1): The Principle of Contradiction
1A. Law of Excluded Middle:
> The mission: You are either totally committed to us (i.e., your entire existence while with us) or not committed at all.
[My response: You don't have the right to demand that kind of total commitment from me.]
2. (Chapter 3): The Reductive Fallacy (I didn't know the book I'm using is online!)
> The mission: All you have to do is trust us....
[My response: Trust is only the first step of what you want; it's a lie to imply otherwise.
3. (Chapter 5): Faulty Dilemma
> The mission: It is impossible to be both a fully functioning member of the mission and also have a fully function Austrian life (i.e., outside of the mission)
[My response: It is possible to have both, unless the mission admitted to being a total institution and thus having the right to full control over a member's life. If it made this admission there would not have been a contradiction in assuming members could not have fully functioning lives in both worlds.
4. (Chapter 7): Begging the Question
> The mission: Our policies were decided on by competent leaders well-versed in the field.
[My response: Will you please give me more specifics, like what exactly are these things that can apparently make or break my success with the mission and on what basis they were decided?]
5. (Chapter 8): Misuse of Authority
> The mission: Our policies, procedures and organizational culture were developed by the greatest minds in the leading missions working in Eastern Europe.
[My response. Nice. Could you please tell me the basis for your policies, how you came to decided on them, what purpose they serve, and how the informal organization ties to the formal organization?
6. (Chapter 11): Argument to the Man
> The mission: Look, you're just an over-stressed female secretary, you don't know anything (or much) about this work. Take a little rest and come back when you feel better.
[My response: Oh. If I come back will you have changed? Or will I still have to put up with the same B.S.?]
7. (Chapter 12) Poisoning the Well
> The mission: No one's going to believe an over-stressed emotional female!
[My response: Maybe. But they might believe an intelligent one.]
8. (Chapter 13) Appeal to Pity
> The mission [H.R. director in particular]: Look, we only want to help you! (with nice big puppy dog eyes).
[My response: You still haven't convinced me. I little more proof would be nice.
9. (Chapter 14) Appeal to Force
> The mission: You're under a lot of stress and we want to send you away to get some help. [Implied: Option B is to quit now.]
[My response [what I wish it had been]: How about if I see my doctor here and see what she thinks first; there's no need to be hasty, now, is there? OR Well, that's interesting why don't I go home to my family instead and see my doctor there. If I need any counseling I'm sure he can arrange it at that point. If not, I'll come back with the doctor's bill of health.
10. (Chapter 15) Appeal to the People
> The mission: We don't see what your problem is with the mission, everyone else seems to think that things are functioning as they should be.
[My response: Maybe so, but I think the mission has a lot of basic issues and I have enough background in this area to stand my ground until proven otherwise.]
11. (Chapter 16) Appeal to Ignorance
> The mission: We don't know of any harm you might have done or intended to do to the mission, but we don't trust you because you won't submit totally.
[My response: I have never done anything that I know of that might have harmed the the mission nor have I ever had any intention to do such. I'm sorry you are so suspicious and untrusting, but I do not give anyone total obedience by God.]
12. (Chapter 18) Fallacy of Extension
> The mission: If you won't submit how do we know that you're not some spy sent to destroy us? How will we know if you turn on us? If you won't submit we'll welcome you the same way we would a Communist spy.
[My response: I'm sorry you're so paranoid. Have you gotten help for this?]
13. (Chapter 21) Cliche Thinking
> The mission: You're just experiencing culture shock, that's all.
[My response: Huh? The shock I'm having is from the mission!! I'm getting along just fine except for the mission. Maybe we should look into this a bit deeper to find the true cause of my stresses.]
14. (Chapter 25) The Ultimate Fallacy (Pigheadedness)
> The mission: There's nothing wrong with this mission!
[My response: I can't make you believe; I've given you enough arguments [assuming I had], now it's between you and God.]
***
That's it for this post. This list of fallacies isn't comprehensive, I'm sure, but at least you should get the idea. You might not know the context of some of them, though, unless you've picked it up from my posts so far.
"Pemberton (1992) has recently graphically described this identity work for Blacks and claims that the 'necessity of concentrating on surviving in Black skin saps the energies; not only does it keep real political and social power in the hands of Whites, but it makes the self no more than a sociological fact, dancing marionette-style, to a degrading tune.' She argues that confronting the meanings that others provide can be a full time task, leaving little room for self-constructed individuality." (p. 202)
If there were stereotypes vis a vis me and the mission it would be stereotypes of me as both a woman and also a secretary. I do think that the mission was particularly sexist, and it's perhaps the most gender-confining organization of any kind that I've ever been a member of. And I think its stereotype of secretaries was arguably equally all-pervasive, at least I experienced it that way.
But for me in that context, I think it was impossible to split things apart like that (e.g., gender & secretary) with any certainty because 1) everything was pretty much a package deal - take it or leave it; and 2) disentangling and distinguishing between the root causes of all the different elements (e.g., gendered or secretarial issues) of what was expected of me was probably a lesson in futility better left undone. I don't mean to imply by the second point that it was unimportant (to try to disentangle these things), just that there under the circumstances getting too obsessed with trying to dissect what was going on (and thereby diverting my attention away from other things that might have been more urgent and pressing) might not have been the most important thing I had to think about at the time. I think it's safe to say, though that to the extent that I felt the mission's behavior towards me as being prejudicial and stereotypically biased towards me as a woman and secretary, it was degrading to me and I took it that way. But I think the two issues were interrelated in as much as the secretarial role was viewed in a "pink collar" fashion, that is, woman's work.
Now before anyone gets all hot under the collar and excited about how this kind of gendered thinking was only a reflection of the reality of church life in Eastern Europe, I'd like to proactively cut such protestations off at the pass. You see, I lived in the heart of Siberia from 1991 to 1997, almost totally cut off from flesh and blood contact with foreigners (i.e., not counting contact by mail, for example). Where I lived there were at least two things that might argue in my favor that the extent of gendered discrimination at the Vienna mission was unfounded from the perspective of work in the USSR/Russia. The first of these arguments was the existence of women preachers, that is, women who preached sermons during Sunday morning services from the pulpit. This was especially true in the Pentecostal church (which was a registered church under Communism), where women determined to have sound Bible knowledge and wisdom were allowed to preach regular sermons. The second example comes from another source altogether: the local unregistered Baptist church/Christian library, which was operated virtually single-handedly by a woman. Furthermore, I contributed as much as anyone else by way of biblical insights, interpretation and application in the Pentecostal house church I attended, despite the fact that I am a woman. (Theological note: The Pentecostal churches where I lived didn't seem to practice the sign gifts, but they were open to them.) I can provide names and addresses if need be to back up these claims. I also think it's safe to say that believers there had a more lenient view towards women in ministry than I even had before I arrived.
The issue in Vienna wasn't that I demanded to be a pastor or something and I certainly wasn't any kind of raving feminist or the like. Rather, I just never saw myself in such a confining box because of my gender as what I experienced there in my two years with the mission. I'm sure they did work with some very conservative (gender-wise) groups and individuals in Eastern Europe, but I think that the mission was more solidly sexist (in an unnecessary, overblown fashion) than a lot of the people they probably worked with in those countries. Even if you consider the preferences of the 15 member missions on this issue, I venture to say you'd probably have found a lot more diversity of responsibility and service for women in these member denominational mission boards and nondenominational missions than you'd have found in the Vienna composite mission I worked at. Certainly churches back home would have been more welcoming of women in different kinds of ministries than the Vienna mission was. And women are more than just decorative figureheads on the bow of a ship, too, they can actually do things of substance and significance, and right alongside men too (and sometimes even over them).
One last comment: I submit that in as much as there is any truth in my claims that the Vienna mission's apparent view on the role women had in the USSR (if not also in other East European countries) was lacking, I'd like to suggest that my claims that their overblown security measures, which skewed their whole value structure and how they treated people, was also wrong and unnecessary. [I'm assuming here that how they viewed women in Eastern European churches was reflected in what I saw and experienced in the mission.]
I'm not saying there shouldn't have been any security measures, but just that they should have been held in the proper biblical perspective and not been allowed to have free rein in practically controlling every aspect of the mission and it's view of itself. Maybe they went the way of the medieval Scholastics (in fretting over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin) in taking a good thing too far. And they were a bunch of theologians in Vienna, too, just like the Scholastics. Maybe, just maybe, they needed a woman to bring them to their senses. And I hope the mission (if they're reading this) is aware by now that I reserve the right to disregard any demands put on me that I think run contrary to God's Word, even if it comes from someone with a penis. Yeah, that's crass, but that's what it comes down to, isn't it?
End of sermon.
***
Before I move on, in the text, I'm going to do things backwards here and make my usual preamble a postscript instead. We're already fairly familiar with faulty logic, especially regarding how I supposed mission leadership might respond to this blog. But this time I'd like to apply the faulty logic paradigm to how they tried to lure me in (assuming that's what they were trying to do) a/k/a socialize me. If my audience now were just the mission I might title this piece: "Oh, How You Failed, Let Me Count the Ways".
I'm going to use the same book I used before:
Hoover, A. J. (1982). Don't You Believe It! Poking Holes in Faulty Logic. Chicago: Moody Press.
I'll probably miss some things, but this should be enough to give you a good idea of what might have been going on in this regard. I'm going to speak in the present tense, but understand that I'm referring to how things were (from my vantage point) for me while with the Vienna mission from 1987 to 1989.
1. (Chapter 1): The Principle of Contradiction
1A. Law of Excluded Middle:
> The mission: You are either totally committed to us (i.e., your entire existence while with us) or not committed at all.
[My response: You don't have the right to demand that kind of total commitment from me.]
2. (Chapter 3): The Reductive Fallacy (I didn't know the book I'm using is online!)
> The mission: All you have to do is trust us....
[My response: Trust is only the first step of what you want; it's a lie to imply otherwise.
3. (Chapter 5): Faulty Dilemma
> The mission: It is impossible to be both a fully functioning member of the mission and also have a fully function Austrian life (i.e., outside of the mission)
[My response: It is possible to have both, unless the mission admitted to being a total institution and thus having the right to full control over a member's life. If it made this admission there would not have been a contradiction in assuming members could not have fully functioning lives in both worlds.
4. (Chapter 7): Begging the Question
> The mission: Our policies were decided on by competent leaders well-versed in the field.
[My response: Will you please give me more specifics, like what exactly are these things that can apparently make or break my success with the mission and on what basis they were decided?]
5. (Chapter 8): Misuse of Authority
> The mission: Our policies, procedures and organizational culture were developed by the greatest minds in the leading missions working in Eastern Europe.
[My response. Nice. Could you please tell me the basis for your policies, how you came to decided on them, what purpose they serve, and how the informal organization ties to the formal organization?
6. (Chapter 11): Argument to the Man
> The mission: Look, you're just an over-stressed female secretary, you don't know anything (or much) about this work. Take a little rest and come back when you feel better.
[My response: Oh. If I come back will you have changed? Or will I still have to put up with the same B.S.?]
7. (Chapter 12) Poisoning the Well
> The mission: No one's going to believe an over-stressed emotional female!
[My response: Maybe. But they might believe an intelligent one.]
8. (Chapter 13) Appeal to Pity
> The mission [H.R. director in particular]: Look, we only want to help you! (with nice big puppy dog eyes).
[My response: You still haven't convinced me. I little more proof would be nice.
9. (Chapter 14) Appeal to Force
> The mission: You're under a lot of stress and we want to send you away to get some help. [Implied: Option B is to quit now.]
[My response [what I wish it had been]: How about if I see my doctor here and see what she thinks first; there's no need to be hasty, now, is there? OR Well, that's interesting why don't I go home to my family instead and see my doctor there. If I need any counseling I'm sure he can arrange it at that point. If not, I'll come back with the doctor's bill of health.
10. (Chapter 15) Appeal to the People
> The mission: We don't see what your problem is with the mission, everyone else seems to think that things are functioning as they should be.
[My response: Maybe so, but I think the mission has a lot of basic issues and I have enough background in this area to stand my ground until proven otherwise.]
11. (Chapter 16) Appeal to Ignorance
> The mission: We don't know of any harm you might have done or intended to do to the mission, but we don't trust you because you won't submit totally.
[My response: I have never done anything that I know of that might have harmed the the mission nor have I ever had any intention to do such. I'm sorry you are so suspicious and untrusting, but I do not give anyone total obedience by God.]
12. (Chapter 18) Fallacy of Extension
> The mission: If you won't submit how do we know that you're not some spy sent to destroy us? How will we know if you turn on us? If you won't submit we'll welcome you the same way we would a Communist spy.
[My response: I'm sorry you're so paranoid. Have you gotten help for this?]
13. (Chapter 21) Cliche Thinking
> The mission: You're just experiencing culture shock, that's all.
[My response: Huh? The shock I'm having is from the mission!! I'm getting along just fine except for the mission. Maybe we should look into this a bit deeper to find the true cause of my stresses.]
14. (Chapter 25) The Ultimate Fallacy (Pigheadedness)
> The mission: There's nothing wrong with this mission!
[My response: I can't make you believe; I've given you enough arguments [assuming I had], now it's between you and God.]
***
That's it for this post. This list of fallacies isn't comprehensive, I'm sure, but at least you should get the idea. You might not know the context of some of them, though, unless you've picked it up from my posts so far.
Friday, March 11, 2011
149. Socialization File, Pt. 32 (Louis, pt. 3)
I know I'm sounding more and more like I don't like my family, but eventually I'll get to its good qualities too, because there are some good qualities too.
I want to talk about gender in my family, the gendered roles and attitudes. To start with I will say that I think of myself as somewhat of a feminist, but I don't think there's anything wrong with traditional gender roles if the people involved feel comfortable with that. But what I do object to is expecting that everyone is going to be willing to likewise adopt traditional views and roles in this regard.
Now to insinuate that there is any sexism in my family will most certainly raise all kinds of protests. But, to be fair, our family constitution lends itself to internal sexism, even if the individuals involved don't otherwise consider themselves thus.
I could go into some history on this subject, but I'm going to, instead, just deal with the present (and near past). Probably a big impetus in this regard actually comes from mom. What I mean is that she is helpless in many ways, such as anything technical and finances.
But there has also been a history (I guess I have to go back a bit on this one) of sort of a familial version of the "good old boys' club". Dad did special things with my brothers that developed a kind of relationship that I am not privy to. Some of these things include river rafting down the Colorado River (in the Grand Canyon) and biking 400 miles from Seattle to the town in British Columbia where mom is from.
On the other hand, I think the relationship between my mom and I has been more adversarial, so that in recent years I've begun to think she has thought of me in a more competitive way. I'm not positive, but I don't think this has been so present in the male relationships in the family.
But in the several years before dad died, when I called (long-distance from the US Midwest or East Coast) more often than not if dad answered the phone he'd only talk briefly with me and say that when I called mom always perked up, so he'd hand the phone to mom. Maybe I don't fit the typical female stereotype, such as having to take female friends with me when I go to the bathroom. Why would I perk mom up any more than my brothers? I know they both did a lot along these lines, especially the brother in Seattle, but dad's repeated assertions made me think that mom wanted a unique female bonding with me. Since mom is so frail and there has turned out to be virtually nothing else I can do to help her that my brothers aren't already doing, this is the only think I can help with. But there still remains this sense that this bonding somehow includes a female competition element, which I don't really like.
So, in my family, relationships are pretty well defined along gendered roles and there appears to be little to nothing I can do about it, but I don't really like it, especially with the other distasteful (to me) elements. Again, it appears that over and above anything else you can say about me, I am a woman and that defines who I am, what I can and should do, etc. Hopefully you expect me to say that I'm not at all comfortable with this state of affairs.
So what are my options vis a vis all these things I don't like about the family? The options are precious few, but include 1) accepting the rules of play and joining in, 2) minimize my contact with the family so as to try to avoid as much of the yuck as I can, or 3) abandon the family altogether. I can't think of any other options, but I'm open to suggestions on that one. The positive qualities of the family, as a unit, will need to be seen against the backdrop I've presented in these past few posts and evaluated accordingly.
***
We're still in the chapter section "A MODEL OF THE NEWCOMER EXPERIENCE," but now we're in a new sub-section - "Sense Making" - and a new sub-sub-section - "The role of conscious thought in coping."
"[Langer (1978: 58)] proposed that conscious thinking is necessary when the outcomes of our acts are inconsistent with anticipated outcomes or when scripted behavior is effortful or interrupted." (p. 240)
This does make a certain amount of sense... to an extent, but I don't think it's entirely true either. That is the aspects of a situation that strike you as unusual could well lead to your being conscious about them and thus result in your consciously trying to make sense of them, whether by trial and error or asking other members of the organization.
But I think that there could be things that are sort of under the radar, where you may feel some discomfort or uncertainty, but you don't quite understand it. In these situations, I think there would be a lot that you're not conscious about. Also, you could just be oblivious to signals from the organization or to potential cause-effect relationships between your actions (or words) and those of the organization (or individuals within it).
Since I have some language learning/teaching background (English as a second/foreign language), I'm going to turn to that background now, without looking up references and the like, however. In language learning - whether first language or second (or third or...) language - generally young children pick up this skill more or less unconsciously. But they don't particularly know the rules of the language, hence grammar instruction in school. As you get older, though, you tend to rely more on conscious rule making and trial and error, or listening to others for examples of how to speak.
In language teaching, some methodologies (for teaching older youth and adults) have tried to replicate the early childhood experience of language learning, but there are limitations with these approaches, although they do have some benefits too, such as the risk of errors becoming fossilized if not corrected, which (the act of correcting) would most likely mean reverting to conscious language learning. That being said, however, relying completely on conscious language learning could lead to halting communication as the learner attempts to think through each grammatical issue while in the act of communicating.
I don't think this comparison is completely unwarranted, for at least a couple reasons. Language is a special skill that is fundamental for how we think and practically everything else in life depends on language. Also, language involves special psychological and physiological factors that generally aren't nearly so relevant for other areas of learning. Likewise, understanding one's socio-cultural milieu involves (I think - I'm not so sure of my theoretical underpinnings here) aspects that we just take for granted and never really thought about. For example, even people who generally are aware of the issue of body language might not know that personal space is an issue in body language and so would not pick up on any disparities in new situations (unless, perhaps, someone pointed it out to them). As an adult you might have the socio-cultural equivalent of a reasonably good grammatical knowledge, but there would be gaps in your basic knowledge that would make learning a new socio-cultural context could be a hindrance, although, again, children could pick this up unconsciously more easily than adults. Part of the reason for this, I expect, is the hard-wiring of our brains and the signal pathways in it (one thing teaching tries to do is strengthen desirable pathways or mental connections) is more well-set and we're more blinded by our native (first language/first culture) way of sense-making. Young children might not be so hindered.
Still, as I already said, it seems there would be a certain amount of truth to the statement here, as long as you keep in mind the limitations I've just discussed. In this light, I expect that things that are glaringly different (black and white, not light gray and white) and things that touch on areas you otherwise recognized as being cultural you would be more likely to be conscious of. However, in cases where there is a broad swath variance from what you are familiar with and/or in situations that involve more subtle differences or cues a child, adapting unconsciously to the situation might have advantage of the adult, much as in language learning. Working with Soviet emigrants I witnessed enough cases where the children served as interpreters for their elders, and anyone familiar with the world of immigrants can vouch for this phenomena. I think it's also true for culture, not just language, but the child might not be as helpful to their elders in this sphere.
Returning to the Vienna context, however, I think that the mission had developed a fine-tuned ability to reveal or hide organizational truths, at least in part, but intentionally making cultural cues confusing. In such a situation it would be nigh impossible to make sense of things, no matter how conscious you were of cultural differences. I think you'd have to have some understanding of other fields of study to make sense of the "whys" and "what fors" of apparently conscious activities that went beyond just routine cultural norms. In other words, a course in cross-cultural communication or language studies, for example, wouldn't cut it. In my case, my understanding of how the Soviet Union treated believers was my reference point as did my understand of how cults operated, which were specific cultural reference points that guided me in my sense making of the mission's organizational culture. Unfortunately, the usefulness of these reference points remained throughout my tenure with the mission. And with these reference points I was made conscious of things I witnessed or experienced in the Vienna mission that seemed relevant, in one way or another, to standards in my mind. But the veritable plethora of signals at times and the frequent changes made it difficult and confusing, although I could compare even this to my theoretical guideposts (USSR, cults).
I think probably once you entered the belly of the beast - became an insider in the mission - you would be guided into a certain logic that would translate the things I, as a veritable outsider or quasi-insider, that would reframe the meaning of how the mission operated so that it would be not just more comprehensible, but also more somehow more palatable to Christian and theological sensibilities.
***
"[W]hen scripts fail, the individual must develop explanations for why the actual outcomes occurred and why the predicted outcomes did not." (p. 240)
Very conveniently for the mission, new missionaries would be adapting to both mission life and life in a foreign country, so the mission could defer causation of any difficulties in making the transition as being due to life in the Austrian context, thus alleviating any possible repercussions the mission might face due to there being any possible problems inherent in the mission itself and how it treated its newcomers.
The mission would say (using the text's terms) that the scripts only failed vis a vis the Austrian context, not the mission context. After all, the mission was just an extension of Evangelical life and culture back home, right? (If so, that's pretty scary; it gives a whole new perspective on Evangelical life and culture back home. Unfortunately, I think there is some truth to this concern, however, inasmuch as what I witnessed in Vienna is an outgrowth of church life back home.)
***
"In attribution research, individuals have been viewed as naive scientists, who make sense of events on the basis of available information..." (p. 240)
This paragraph goes on to address areas along this line that have or have not been adequately researched. I won't comment on this now, because I already said enough in my comments above regarding language and cultural learning. It's been years since I've read these texts and I'm not reading ahead, for the most part, as I go. If I did that I'd really never get done with this project. Eventually, though, I'll have to go back and try to tie everything together, streamline it, etc.
***
I'm going to stop here, but we should finish with this article with my next post.
I want to talk about gender in my family, the gendered roles and attitudes. To start with I will say that I think of myself as somewhat of a feminist, but I don't think there's anything wrong with traditional gender roles if the people involved feel comfortable with that. But what I do object to is expecting that everyone is going to be willing to likewise adopt traditional views and roles in this regard.
Now to insinuate that there is any sexism in my family will most certainly raise all kinds of protests. But, to be fair, our family constitution lends itself to internal sexism, even if the individuals involved don't otherwise consider themselves thus.
I could go into some history on this subject, but I'm going to, instead, just deal with the present (and near past). Probably a big impetus in this regard actually comes from mom. What I mean is that she is helpless in many ways, such as anything technical and finances.
But there has also been a history (I guess I have to go back a bit on this one) of sort of a familial version of the "good old boys' club". Dad did special things with my brothers that developed a kind of relationship that I am not privy to. Some of these things include river rafting down the Colorado River (in the Grand Canyon) and biking 400 miles from Seattle to the town in British Columbia where mom is from.
On the other hand, I think the relationship between my mom and I has been more adversarial, so that in recent years I've begun to think she has thought of me in a more competitive way. I'm not positive, but I don't think this has been so present in the male relationships in the family.
But in the several years before dad died, when I called (long-distance from the US Midwest or East Coast) more often than not if dad answered the phone he'd only talk briefly with me and say that when I called mom always perked up, so he'd hand the phone to mom. Maybe I don't fit the typical female stereotype, such as having to take female friends with me when I go to the bathroom. Why would I perk mom up any more than my brothers? I know they both did a lot along these lines, especially the brother in Seattle, but dad's repeated assertions made me think that mom wanted a unique female bonding with me. Since mom is so frail and there has turned out to be virtually nothing else I can do to help her that my brothers aren't already doing, this is the only think I can help with. But there still remains this sense that this bonding somehow includes a female competition element, which I don't really like.
So, in my family, relationships are pretty well defined along gendered roles and there appears to be little to nothing I can do about it, but I don't really like it, especially with the other distasteful (to me) elements. Again, it appears that over and above anything else you can say about me, I am a woman and that defines who I am, what I can and should do, etc. Hopefully you expect me to say that I'm not at all comfortable with this state of affairs.
So what are my options vis a vis all these things I don't like about the family? The options are precious few, but include 1) accepting the rules of play and joining in, 2) minimize my contact with the family so as to try to avoid as much of the yuck as I can, or 3) abandon the family altogether. I can't think of any other options, but I'm open to suggestions on that one. The positive qualities of the family, as a unit, will need to be seen against the backdrop I've presented in these past few posts and evaluated accordingly.
***
We're still in the chapter section "A MODEL OF THE NEWCOMER EXPERIENCE," but now we're in a new sub-section - "Sense Making" - and a new sub-sub-section - "The role of conscious thought in coping."
"[Langer (1978: 58)] proposed that conscious thinking is necessary when the outcomes of our acts are inconsistent with anticipated outcomes or when scripted behavior is effortful or interrupted." (p. 240)
This does make a certain amount of sense... to an extent, but I don't think it's entirely true either. That is the aspects of a situation that strike you as unusual could well lead to your being conscious about them and thus result in your consciously trying to make sense of them, whether by trial and error or asking other members of the organization.
But I think that there could be things that are sort of under the radar, where you may feel some discomfort or uncertainty, but you don't quite understand it. In these situations, I think there would be a lot that you're not conscious about. Also, you could just be oblivious to signals from the organization or to potential cause-effect relationships between your actions (or words) and those of the organization (or individuals within it).
Since I have some language learning/teaching background (English as a second/foreign language), I'm going to turn to that background now, without looking up references and the like, however. In language learning - whether first language or second (or third or...) language - generally young children pick up this skill more or less unconsciously. But they don't particularly know the rules of the language, hence grammar instruction in school. As you get older, though, you tend to rely more on conscious rule making and trial and error, or listening to others for examples of how to speak.
In language teaching, some methodologies (for teaching older youth and adults) have tried to replicate the early childhood experience of language learning, but there are limitations with these approaches, although they do have some benefits too, such as the risk of errors becoming fossilized if not corrected, which (the act of correcting) would most likely mean reverting to conscious language learning. That being said, however, relying completely on conscious language learning could lead to halting communication as the learner attempts to think through each grammatical issue while in the act of communicating.
I don't think this comparison is completely unwarranted, for at least a couple reasons. Language is a special skill that is fundamental for how we think and practically everything else in life depends on language. Also, language involves special psychological and physiological factors that generally aren't nearly so relevant for other areas of learning. Likewise, understanding one's socio-cultural milieu involves (I think - I'm not so sure of my theoretical underpinnings here) aspects that we just take for granted and never really thought about. For example, even people who generally are aware of the issue of body language might not know that personal space is an issue in body language and so would not pick up on any disparities in new situations (unless, perhaps, someone pointed it out to them). As an adult you might have the socio-cultural equivalent of a reasonably good grammatical knowledge, but there would be gaps in your basic knowledge that would make learning a new socio-cultural context could be a hindrance, although, again, children could pick this up unconsciously more easily than adults. Part of the reason for this, I expect, is the hard-wiring of our brains and the signal pathways in it (one thing teaching tries to do is strengthen desirable pathways or mental connections) is more well-set and we're more blinded by our native (first language/first culture) way of sense-making. Young children might not be so hindered.
Still, as I already said, it seems there would be a certain amount of truth to the statement here, as long as you keep in mind the limitations I've just discussed. In this light, I expect that things that are glaringly different (black and white, not light gray and white) and things that touch on areas you otherwise recognized as being cultural you would be more likely to be conscious of. However, in cases where there is a broad swath variance from what you are familiar with and/or in situations that involve more subtle differences or cues a child, adapting unconsciously to the situation might have advantage of the adult, much as in language learning. Working with Soviet emigrants I witnessed enough cases where the children served as interpreters for their elders, and anyone familiar with the world of immigrants can vouch for this phenomena. I think it's also true for culture, not just language, but the child might not be as helpful to their elders in this sphere.
Returning to the Vienna context, however, I think that the mission had developed a fine-tuned ability to reveal or hide organizational truths, at least in part, but intentionally making cultural cues confusing. In such a situation it would be nigh impossible to make sense of things, no matter how conscious you were of cultural differences. I think you'd have to have some understanding of other fields of study to make sense of the "whys" and "what fors" of apparently conscious activities that went beyond just routine cultural norms. In other words, a course in cross-cultural communication or language studies, for example, wouldn't cut it. In my case, my understanding of how the Soviet Union treated believers was my reference point as did my understand of how cults operated, which were specific cultural reference points that guided me in my sense making of the mission's organizational culture. Unfortunately, the usefulness of these reference points remained throughout my tenure with the mission. And with these reference points I was made conscious of things I witnessed or experienced in the Vienna mission that seemed relevant, in one way or another, to standards in my mind. But the veritable plethora of signals at times and the frequent changes made it difficult and confusing, although I could compare even this to my theoretical guideposts (USSR, cults).
I think probably once you entered the belly of the beast - became an insider in the mission - you would be guided into a certain logic that would translate the things I, as a veritable outsider or quasi-insider, that would reframe the meaning of how the mission operated so that it would be not just more comprehensible, but also more somehow more palatable to Christian and theological sensibilities.
***
"[W]hen scripts fail, the individual must develop explanations for why the actual outcomes occurred and why the predicted outcomes did not." (p. 240)
Very conveniently for the mission, new missionaries would be adapting to both mission life and life in a foreign country, so the mission could defer causation of any difficulties in making the transition as being due to life in the Austrian context, thus alleviating any possible repercussions the mission might face due to there being any possible problems inherent in the mission itself and how it treated its newcomers.
The mission would say (using the text's terms) that the scripts only failed vis a vis the Austrian context, not the mission context. After all, the mission was just an extension of Evangelical life and culture back home, right? (If so, that's pretty scary; it gives a whole new perspective on Evangelical life and culture back home. Unfortunately, I think there is some truth to this concern, however, inasmuch as what I witnessed in Vienna is an outgrowth of church life back home.)
***
"In attribution research, individuals have been viewed as naive scientists, who make sense of events on the basis of available information..." (p. 240)
This paragraph goes on to address areas along this line that have or have not been adequately researched. I won't comment on this now, because I already said enough in my comments above regarding language and cultural learning. It's been years since I've read these texts and I'm not reading ahead, for the most part, as I go. If I did that I'd really never get done with this project. Eventually, though, I'll have to go back and try to tie everything together, streamline it, etc.
***
I'm going to stop here, but we should finish with this article with my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)