421. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 39 (Sehested, pt. 1)

This next text is:

Sehested, Ken. (1994, March 2). The case of of Chaplain Robertson: loyalty test. Christian Century, 111(7), 212-214.

***

Lieutenant Colonel Garland Robertson is an Air Force chaplain at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas, whose military record includes a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he won by rescuing a reconnaissance team in Vietnam.  He has also commanded a nuclear missile site.  Despite these credentials, Robertson is on the brink of being discharged from the Air Force.  Stripped of all duties, he has been removed from the chapel offices and sequestered in a windowless, closet-sized room adjacent to the base runway where he spends his days writing book reviews for a chaplain's resource bureau.

Robertson is accused of 'flouting' the very authority of the president.  In January 5, 1991, letter printed in the Abilene Reporter-News, he responded to a speech by then Vice President Dan Quayle assuring U.S. troops mobilized in Saudi Arabia that "the American People are beyind you." must be clarified to indicate that the American people are not united in their decision to support a military offensive against the aggression of Saddam Hussein in Kuwait." The letter was, he thought, a modest attempt to raist the question of what is a justifiable use of deadly force.

Behing Robertson's desire for public debate on the topic lay his own experience as a pilot in Vietnam.  "I assumed that our leaders were telling us the truth" about the need to support democracy and oppose tyranny in Vietnam, Robertson in a recent interview.

Robertson resigned from active duty as a line officer in 1976 to pursue a theological degree.  He earned both an M.Div. and a doctorate in theology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas.  In 1982 he was reactivated as an Air Force chaplain..." (p.212)

That's a lot to quote, but I felt like I needed to include the background material.  The main thing I want to discuss is the second part of the first paragraph, starting with "Stripped of all duties..."
The rest is there so you know the context.

Is this something that has "symbolic meaning"?  Is Robertson supposed to understand these moves symbolicly?  Yes and no.  I was moved around a lot, from the second highest position a secretary, at least, could be in (although I didn't want to be a secretary and fought against the mission's attempts to limit me to that straight jacket).  So that's one issue.  It wasn't symbolic because he actually was stripped of his real professional responsibilities, so that's not symbolical.  However, there were also symbolical meaning to each aspect of it that Robertson and others could pick up on and tuck away in their psyche for further reference (For example, "Note: freedom of opinion is not allowed here, remember to not attempt it or you will end up like Chaplain Robertson."). 

My situation was similar, there were actual aspects of my job changes, but there were also symbolic meanings to to each move as well. Generally, I could tell if I was in their good graces or not by where I was (physically in the organization).  The ironic thing was that I don't think I particularly changed that much through this whole time, except over the two years I eventually wore down, as much as I hated it, and started attending the English-speaking church, But somehow it was their perceptions of me that changed at various times.  For example, at some point they determined I could go back to Vienna, but I don't know what the basis was for deciding I could return at that point.  I don't think I'd done anything to change or anything.  So I returned and I think they thought I was at least more socialized than when I left some 7 (!) months earlier. 

But the main things I had gained was an internal strength to be able internally to maintain my own value structure (as distinct from theirs, which I refused to even entertain, except maybe individual values that I had no problem with, making it a smorgasbord style of values and norms acceptance which would never in a million years have been acceptable to them) and externally give not a hint of my having "a secret life of Meg".  The idea was for them to think that what they saw was what they got.  It was self preservation, although, as I recognized not long ago in a post, it really was deception.  I knew what I was doing so I wasn't deceiving myself, but I was deceiving absolutely everyone else, no exceptions.  So that's lying, and I really should have gotten out of there instead of going that route.  Its's the same thing they were doing for security's sake.  So I was really no better than they were in that regard. 

But I was so horrified - scared spitless - that that was taking the forefront and also my career was on the line and I'd prepared so long and hard for this.  I just couldn't wrap my head around the possibility that could possibly be as bad as it looked, like maybe there was some kind of explanation that I didn't understand and there would be an explanation and things would work out.  And I didn't know what other options, professionally, there might be, as I'd gone through pretty much everything before deciding on that mission.  So for these kinds of reasons I found it very difficult to just leave the mission.  But it only just recently struck me that it was deceptive to live that sort of double life where I hid my true thoughts and values from the world for that time with the mission.

 ***

"He knew the letter would raise objections, but the resulting furor caught him by surprise.  As revealed in documents and testimony at his September 1993 Board of Inquiry disciplinary hearing, Air Force superiors hoped to force him out of the service... The same psychologist who provided him a clean bill of health the first time concluded, after the third exam, that Robertson exhibited a "personality disorder so severe as to interfere with the normal and customary completion of his duties." This evaluation was made without an examination, breaching the most elementary rules of conduct for the profession." (p. 213)

I never had anything like a hearing with the Vienna mission (they didn't have a grievance process nor any disciplinary process where the mission would need evidence to "convict" the errant one of anything.  I don't even know if they gave out warnings, like in a regular job.  But anyway, the one thing that does clearly compare here with my experience at the Vienna mission, is that without any kind of exam at all, based only on rumors, the military chaplain/H.R. director at the Vienna mission declared that I had culture shock.  And not only did I have culture shock, but that the degree to which I had culture shock was bad enough to send me home to the U.S. for hospitalization.  I don't know about you, but to me if I was happy in the culture, had no complaints about it, spoke the language, when to an Austrian church, etc. This doesn't sound like culture shock in the first place, let alone that bad.  And diagnosed without an exam, but someone who was just a chaplain, not even a medical professional.  This is what I call, at the very least, unprofessionalism, and at the very worst, criminal use of one's position.  Maybe if I'd just left there I'd have had enough to suit him on...

***

"A civilian employee testified that her former boss, the senior chaplain at Dyess, had taken her aside after a Sunday morning service " to ell me he had to get Chaplain Robertson out of the service.  Chaplain Elwell went on to tell me that this task must be accomplished by a certain date ... so that [Robertson] would be entitled to full retirement benefits." It seemed evident, she said, that he "had been told that part of his job was to remove Chaplain Robertson."

Robertson was removed from the chapel's preaching schedule rotation "until the completion of Desert Shield/Desert Storm" (and later in the year, removed permanently)... One by one his other pastoral duties were withdrawn... Later a full-scale inquiry by the Office of Special Investigations was investigated.  Robertson was cleared of a mysterious charge of fraud." (p. 213)

If a good chunk of my problems with the Vienna mission were actually due to my relationship with my father, then there could have been some of this involved too.  And this would have even been more sensitive than if it were just a matter of regular socialization with the mission, because none of the parties involved (e.g., U.S. government, Vienna mission leadership, military chaplains/H.R. staff would ever have wanted my treatment to be connected to that.  It would have been one thing if I had told them upfront what my dad did and they had rejected my application for the position from the getgo.  That would have been understandable and would not have needed to have involve anything other than mission policies. But that's not what happened and nothing was ever voiced by anyone that that was an issue, although there may have been hints.

For me in Vienna moving me to lower positions where I would have less interesting work, less influence and clout, very limited access to interesting information, a much more tangential role in the work, was used, and as much as it hurt, I had to learn to take everything without complaining.   Once you start complaining than that's when they have an in to start getting to you, and I wasn't going to give them that, so I was going to stand above the fray.  So I was always happy, composed and never complaining.  That's not how I felt though.  It was the ultimate poker face. 

While I never had the level of position that Robertson had, before Vienna I had worked in some prestigious organizations, so I had that background at least and knowledge based on some firsthand experience as well as even primary sources research materials.  So no matter what the Vienna mission thought of me, I still had that background and knew I was capable of more than they ever used me for.  Although towards the end they were beginning to see, I think, what I could do. 

***

"At one point an officer from the Chief of Chaplains office in Washington, D.C. paid a visit. "He indicated that compromise was essential for becoming a successful military chaplain," Robertson said. "I suggested that 'cooperation' was the more suitable word, but he quickly confirmed his intentional use of "compromise." "If Jesus had been an Air Force chaplain,"He told me, "he would have been courtmartialed." But he said that compromise is necessary in order to maintain a presence." In a letter to the secretary of the Air Force, Robertson said, "If thise senior command chaplain is correct -- that compromise is necessary to survive in the Air Force as a chaplain -- then reveal this restriction.  The Air Force maintains that chaplains are free to proclaim and practice their witness without fear of reprisal .... It is important that we not deceive persons who look to chaplains for assistance in spiritual growth and faith development." (p. 213)

 Yeah, and I would like to have known from the getgo that people with parents in nationally security-sensitive positions are not actually free persons.  In fact, I never realized the full extent of what dad did until I had to think about it in relation to it's impact on me, which was way after I'd already spent years in preparation for my career in East European missions.  It would, indeed, be nice to know these things in advance.  But these are things that no one is going to tell you, because they are not "convenient truths." That is, they don't particularly make certain powreful parties look good, or they are potential bad p.r. harbingers.  So better left unsaid, except for people like me and Robinson who get the raw end of the stick just because the powerful party didn't want to look bad, so it thought it better to neglect to bring to light (or something more active than "neglect") these life-changing truths.

As to the word "compromise," the Vienna mission might not have used that word, exactly.  I'm not sure it would have gone over with the theologians.  After all, this was a Christian mission, not a secular armed force, that we're talking about, so the missioinary-theologians would have expected more of a theologically correct reasoning than the need to compromise, even if the end result was the same.  So they'd use some Scripture, or more likely, they'd use the "we know more about the East European mission scene and the full scope of our ministry (including in-country translators and textbook delivery, finances, etc.), so you should trust us that we know what's best for the mission" approach.  It sounds good, anyway.  And because this makes sense, because you really just know theology, you trust them and compromise in some areas ends out being an end result anyway, more than likely. The thing is that if you had to trust the mission completely, blindly really, then it seems to me that compromise at some point would be hard to avoid.   It's possible, though, that I got worse treatment than others because of my father and others can't relate well to my experience.

Also, what happens here, then, with the call for chaplains to have a prophetic role in the military?  If they are to compromise, as the Chief of Chaplains states, then chaplains will rather quickly lose their saltiness and their lights will be hidden under bushels.   So what role could there possibly be for chaplains in the military (or at least the Air Force) with such a mindset?  I can't see any.  I think in such a situation it would be better to have a ministry to them external to the Air Force and just work extremely hard at raising up lay leaders among the soldiers.'

Robertson's letter was probably naive, but if he sent it in he should have done so as a citizen, not as a chaplain or officer.  That would mean stripping all of his credentials and affiliations from his name; he could have even submitted it anonymously or requested that it be published anonymously, at least, even if the newspaper knew who he was.

***

"The [Chief of Chaplains] even went to the trouble of rewriting the official statement of the mission of Air Force chaplains... Chaplains, in other words, were to function as morale officers in the service of command directives.  In a February 1993 letter to officials at the National Council of Churches, Robertson wrote: "No minister of a faith community can comfortably encourage anyone to follow the direction of the state as a way to be at peace with God.  By functioning as a morale officer, the chaplain only succeeds in encouraging soldiers to accept the preferences of the state without questions."" (p. 213)

Nothing like this ever happened to me in Vienna because written documentation meant zilch to them.  You had nothing to fall back on as support; it was just you and the leadership.  If it looked like you might be right (let's just say, hypothetically), there was not written document they chould monkey around with to fix to back their position.  They wouldn't have had to do that.  They had brute force to do whatever they wanted.  Who needs documentation in the face of that?  And anyone who disagrees with them is certifiably crazy; everybody knows that.  It's like a law of physics or something that it was impossible to disagree with them.

I like this guy.  What he is doing is taking a logic and following it to the end.  He's my kind of guy.  I did that once while I was in Bible school and working part time at Pizza Hut.  We had an interesting collective of workers... very diverse.  Well, we got in a discussion about creation vs. evoluation.  It was me and a couple of muslims (!) vs. a satanist (practicing) and another guy.  Over a couple weeks' time when we could get in the back room, maybe while we were doing prep or something, we'd pick up on this discussion and I followed them through so that if you believe in evolution than this must be true, then if that is true, then this must be true... So finally the way we were going, the path we ended out on, led to communism.  So I told the one guy finally that if you believe this then that leads directly to communism.  And then he said that indeed he was a communist.  Then we had another whole discussion about communism, because I wasn't completely ignorant about that either.  He said that perfect communism was in Cuba (where I live now I'd have to maybe run for my life if I said that too loud). 

Going from chaplains being morale officers to following the direction of the state as being a way to be at peace with God is a kind of following an idea to its end.  It's a way of showing the ugly side of a thing or an idea, showing it's true colors, getting past the fluff.  It depends on the issue as to what exactly it (following something to the end) does.  I think he uses it very well here, though.

***

"Thus far, however, Robertson has maintained private support and official recognition of his certifying agency, the Southern Baptist Convention, along with the very public support of a Southern Baptist congregation in Abilene.  "We are supporting Chaplain Robertson, and we have no intention of revoking his endorsement," said Lewis Bernett, director of military chaplaincy for the SBC, in a telephone interview." (p. 213).

My home church and my other supporters did stick with me while I was in Vienna.  Of course, they didn't have a clue what was really going on.  It did bother me that I didn't think I was using using the mission support well.  That is, when you think about it, most of the time I wasn't really doing a lot of useful work.  The first 5 months I didn't do much, then 6 weeks lost then a few months part-time in the U.S. office, then about 8 months where I did real work then about 5 months where I wasn't doing that much again, although I was full-time.  .  But I was on full mission support the whole time.  I was really disappointed, though, that when I returned home for good my home church only just expressed sympathy, and that's all.  So I didn't have any support from them when I came home.

***

"Garland is the kind of person who stands up for his convictions, and that sometimes hurts him," Burnett told the New York Times." (p.213-214)

On the other hand, some people play it too safe and are too averse to troubles and their primary goal seems to be to be comfortable and please everyone.  But here's a couple verses to make at least Christian's think:

2 Timothy 3:12

King James Version (KJV)

¹² Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Jesus' words to the disciples:

John 16:33

King James Version (KJV)

³³ These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Jesus' prayer for the disciples:

John 17:14

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

 Something tells me that these verses would not describe Burnett. 

But I'd like to also turn my attention to the Vienna mission.  The thing is that the Soviets were accusing Western missionaries (en masse and a few spacific ones) of being or cooperating with spy agencies (CIA or whatever).  So if there actually was any of that or possibly if there was "the appearance of evil" (I Thes. 5:22) in this regard then in as much as this was true, suffering wasn't actually for godly purposes but for something else, possibly for sin (e.g., being unequally yoked with the world).   But the mission never stood up for any convictions; it only sought to draw new missionaries into its net and make them unquestioningly trusting, and this way the mission never had to really develop a rationale for certain aspects of its work that were not open for questioning (because of security most likely, of course)

 As for myself, I would most certainly have liked to have discussed my concerns with the leadership, but I wasn't going to be the one to aproach them on it, because I knew there was an obvious (!!) power difference to begin with and these weren't things I was going to be man-handled into just changing.  So they would have had to start a serious dialog with me on the straight up where I knew that I was being taken seriously and they weren't going to just manipulate me or force me into anything.  When they never ever made any more like that then that said something too.  That wasn't how they operated and they never ever intended to treat it's workers respectfully, or at least they never ever intended to treat me that way.  I wonder what kind of theology or psychology that is.

***

There is a paragraph discussing the regulation about writing letters to the editor, which they can do as long as it's not partisan.

"But according to the Air Force's own case against Robertson, heard by the Board of Inquiry last September, the letter to the editor was 'irrelevant.' Three ellegations ("Statement of Reasons") were brought to the BOI administrative hearing.  The first was that Robertson was "disrespectful in words and actions towards his immediate superior." the second: his "leadership skills were below standard. The third: he was diagnosed as "having a personality disorder."

After hearing extensive testimony, the BOI threw out the allegations about being disrespectful and about the personality disorder.  The remaining charge of substandard leadership was sustained, along with the recommendatioin of an honorable discharge.  The charge was supported by an annual evaluation written in April 1991 noting that Robertson's "leadership style produced minimal results." This contention marked a radical reversal, however, from the previous assessment, in which Robertson was characterized as "an outstanding pastoral chaplain always eager to help others and consistently displays industriousness, conscientiousness and diligence in his ministry."  The same senior chaplain and base commander wrote and approved both reports." (p. 214)

I never had a hearing at the Vienna mission, and I've had to try to piece together and figure out what happened, which is why I did all this research.  The mission didn't want it's members to understand and scrutinize things there.  I was in the outs a good chunk of the time I was there so I had maybe more reason to want to figure things out, but since I wasn't a part of the beast I could analyze it more objectively, except when they were trying to confuse me (different people telling me different stories about what was going on or what was going to happen).  And, of course, people on the inside had access to more information, but they couldn't think independently, I don't think, because they'd pretty much given that up to enter the mission, unless my experience is that different from everyone else's that only I was expected to do that, in which case, that would have either been because of some job they wanted for me or because of my dad, or both.

***

"The allegation was further contradicted by the sworn statements of two parish council members of the Dyess AFB chapel community, one of whom testified that she felt "that [Robertson] was being censored ... If our chapel is going to be the type of chapel where our chaplains are going to be told what they can and what they cannot say when they come before the flock, then we may as well disband the chaplaincy." (p. 214)

I'm sure some pastors from the former East Bloc countries can provide tips on how to survive in such a climate. 

I experienced censorship from the Vienna mission too, in that I had to have my prayer letters vetted and I even had to pare down my list of recipients.    That was before the common ownership of computers, so it was hard to keep up with writing to everyone if I didn't have them on my prayer letter list.  If I had a computer I could just have printed out the letters on my computer and mailed the extra ones myself.  (The other ones were mailed from a place that specialized in missionary prayer letters.)  But back then it wasn't like that. 

***

"If the government discharges chaplains who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs, speech and teachings to appease military commanders, we will ... have created a religious body, under federal salary, that exists solely to support government polity and objectives.  Yes, this is government establishment of religion in its purest form." (p. 24)

Where did the Vienna mission military chaplain/H.R. staff stand on this issue?  It seems like a continuum to me, from far right establishment of religion in its purest form to far left freedom of religious practice for the chaplains.  I knew the H.R. director better than the assistant director (also a military chaplain, though),  and my sense is that he was somewhere on past the middle on the right side, maybe pretty far over on the right even, because I don't think he was the kind of person to stand up for anything.  He was more the kind of person that would support the military and help soldiers see things the military's way.  I think he really bought into the military and its ideals and values and what it did.

***

I didn't get to church today.  I got out to the car and I realized I wasn't feel very well.  It seems like it's my migraine, but I'm not sure.  I didn't notice it as long as I was sitting and just walking around here a bit was okay.  So I don't know, I'll have to see what's going on.  Hopefully it's nothing new, and just my migraine.

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.

170. Socialization File, Pt. 53 (Swann, pt. 1)

It would be fool-hardy of me to pretend that all of my insights into the Vienna mission's operations were 100% accurate, but I'm pretty sure I have a generally correct understanding. One of the areas I could err in is over- or under-generalization of my experiences and observations to the mission as a whole. For example, it could be that my experience was more (or less) unique than I give it credit. Or it could be that my observations were too limited and my interpretations are therefore likewise limited. For example, maybe secretaries were socialized more (or less) uniquely than I think. If it becomes apparent that my experiences were even more unique than I have been thinking all these years, then the question arises as to "why?" (as well as "in what way?"). If any of these cases is so, then the ramifications of these errors might also need to be considered.

But at this point in history (years after the fact), how might we ever know if I'm wrong (and in what way I'm wrong)? If I am at all right then the mission might well even to this day want to, at the very least, respond with some image control measures. I can't speak at all for what kinds of measures they might use today; I can only speculate as to ones I think they could realistically have used if I'd written this shortly after my departure.

I'll use as my springboard the book Don't You Believe It! Poking Holes in Faulty Logic, by A. J. Hoover. Of course, this assumes their response will involve faulty logic. But just in case they might, maybe this guide will help cut to the chase. Also, I hope my own use of any of these types of faulty logic has been at the most negligible, and if such is found in any of my words it will have been only by oversight and not intentional. I have, likewise, tried to mention as I go along the limitations of my insights, so as to be as transparent as possible (without yet identifying my name and the organizations and individuals by name).

For more description on these logical errors, here are a couple of resources: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html; http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html (index is on left; click on letter for list of fallacies beginning with that letter); http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm. That should be enough to get you started.

1. (Chapter 4): Genetic fallacy

> They might say that I was just a secretary when I was with the mission and so I couldn't have possibly noticed and understood the things I'm saying.

[My response: I'm trying to be careful here to identify the things I was aware of at the time and those that I only later came to understand as I do. Also, they evidently disregarded my past experiences and education, because I did in fact have background to understand a lot.]

2. (Chapter 5): Faulty dilemma

> They might accuse me of providing an undue limited number of options regarding any of my statements.

[My response: I have tried to include as many possible options as I can and to leave the door open for other possibilities that I might have missed. Also, many of my assertions have not been either-or propositions by more-or-less ones (meaning anywhere along a continuum).]

3. (Chapter 6): Argument of the beard

> They might say that it's ridiculous of me, for example, to say their modus operandum was unbiblical, because they did such and such that might indicate otherwise. In this case, I think, the issue would be: What constitutes being biblical and/or being unbiblical? At what point does one reach either biblical or unbiblical status?

[My response: Point taken. My assertion is, however, that the security issue was so overriding in the modus operandum sphere, that it permeated everything else, and that this was unbiblical, is enough to push them over the line to the unbiblical sphere.]

4. (Chapter 7): Begging the question

> They might disagree with me because they all (e.g., mission leadership, board members, etc.) agree together that I'm wrong.

[My response: That proves nothing. You are biased co-actors with virtually the same value sense, so of course you'd agree among yourselves.]

5. (Chapter 9): Misuse of analogy

> They might claim that a certain analogy I've used to describe the mission or various aspects of it, is errant.

[My response: Okay, I'm open to alternate analogies, what is yours? Then let me determine whether it fits my experience with the mission, and if it doesn't let me ask why my experience didn't fit our analogy.]

6. (Chapter 11): Argument to the man (ad hominem)

> They might balk at anyone taking credence in my assertions, saying that I'm crazy (and therefore unreliable) or I don't know what I'm talking about (and therefore unreliable), or some other discrediting of me as a person.

[My response: I'm not asking anyone to accept (or like) me as a person. Rather, I'm asking them to consider my words and see if there is any truth in them. I could also answer some of their put downs about myself, however.]

7. (Chapter 12): Poisoning the well

> They might revert to plain old fashioned name calling, although undoubtedly cushioned in genteel garb, with the effect of intimidating and/or biasing others who might otherwise be sympathetic to my words and/or see some validity in them.

[My response: Whether or not what you say about me is true, it doesn't make my words any more or less true. You still have to address my words. I'm trying to be upfront about what I see as my errors and flaws.]

8. (Chapter 13): Appeal to pity

> They might act shocked and/or hurt that I could think or say such things about them when they are trying to do so much good.

[My response: I'm not denying that the work itself (the biblical instruction to raise up and equip Warsaw Pact nation church leaders) is noble or otherwise lacking in virtue; my assertion is that the modus operandi and the mindset that undergirds these means of operation are errant (i.e., the means, not the ends, are wrong). Also, it wouldn't be the first time in history or in church history that things have gone wrong, even in high places.]

9. (Chapter 15): Appeal to the people

> They might say that everyone in the mission disagrees with me, or that they didn't do anything that is not commonly done in mission, or that they have x number of supporters, etc. all of whom the mission is doing a great job.

[My response: I'm not concerned with what all these people think; I'm concerned about whether your modus operandum is biblical or not. People can be wrong, people can be affected by groupthink, and people's views can be affected (for good or bad) by the information and views fed them.]

10. (Chapter 16): Appeal to ignorance

> They might try to discredit me by saying I had only a very limited understanding of how the mission operated.

[My response: That's true, which is why I am trying to focus on only my experience of working with the mission and what I observed. I have also tried to point out limitations regarding issues that might have been only specific to certain parties (e.g., me, secretaries, etc.), and indicate where I had more uncertainty and where I was running more on speculation. Perhaps, think of it like a super-big expression of "I feel ..... when you do ....." I have gone somewhat beyond that phrase, but only to try to make sense of why I felt, witnesses or experienced whatever I was feeling, witnessing or experiencing. If they want to discredit me, they'll have to take my assertions pretty much as a whole, at least in as much as there is consistency in my words here.]

11. (Chapter 17): Special pleading

> They might respond in a way to deny anything potentially derogatory about them while confirming all the positive statements.

[My response: The mission is no more sinless than is any individual Christian, despite our blameless stand before God. As such, it is incomprehensible that the mission could be as perfect as they (might) claim.]

12. (Chapter 18): The fallacy of extension (straw man)

> They might make me out to be (now) a left-winger with ideas not unlike the communism, and a bra-burning feminist to boot. (If this one were used, I expect it would be used in a way more subtle than I've stated it here though.)

[My response: I think that these issues are not irrelevant to the discussion, so I would answer these kinds of "straw man" assertions directly, although if they used one that I didn't think was relevant I'd point that irrelevancy out and move on in the discussion from there. As to the communist and feminist "straw man" assertions, the former isn't nor ever was true of me and I've explained that elsewhere on this blog. Regarding the feminist epithet, I most definitely was not a feminist at all during my time in Vienna (although I did resent being put in a restrictive box because of my gender). At that time I held strongly to the role of men and women in the church and, I think, in the family as well. But I didn't think that that should define my whole existence, or so much of it as it seemed to include in Vienna. Currently I believe that men and women should have more equality, although I allow for a lot of latitude for how that might be lived out, including traditional roles. I think I'd be a poor candidate of a wife to, say, "Peter, Peter, Pumpkin eater" who, as the nursery rhyme goes, put his uncontrollable wife in a pumpkin shell where we was able to manage her better. (That's a liberal paraphrase).

So, while my political views are now more left-wing (think Green Party), I was virtually a-political during my Vienna years, when I made these observations. When I collected the articles that I'm now using in this blog, I had my first real first-person interaction with liberal ideas, because my friend there had moved in that direction. She participated in a book study at a Catholic Worker house, for example. But my thinking along hadn't developed enough to affect the selection of topics and articles to study.

Even if this logic (the logic I suggest the mission might use) has any credence at all, it is not enough to detract from the content of what I'm saying.

13. (Chapter 19): Fallacy of causation

> The mission might question any of my assertions of how or why things came to pass as I'm describing.

[My response: If I have done anything, it is to clarify my thought processes. I have not infrequently expressed uncertainty or suggested that there could be other theories or explanations about any specific event or phenomena. If they have alternate explanations for how or why different things happened, I'm willing to hear them out, but since they are an interested party, I will keep their bias in mind and compare their explanations against what I do know about them and what my experience was with them.]

14. (Chapter 20): Hypothesis contrary to fact

> The mission might say I misunderstood them and if I'd done x then y would have happened, for example. (There are undoubtedly other ways they could use this fallacy.)

[My response: I think on this one it would depend on the specifics of the assertion as to how I'd respond to it, at least on one level. If I were to consider their assertion I'd have to compare it to my own experience with and knowledge of the mission. Also, I would want to make sure they would be talking from a late 1980s perspective and not making claims based on how the mission operates now. Because the mission is at a power and numeric advantage, I would have to be careful that other fallacies along these lines (e.g., argument to the people or appeal to force) weren't used to support these kinds of statements.]

15. (Chapter 21): Cliche thinking

> If they were to use this I suspect it would be in a sort of friendly goading manner, to present themselves as good humored/natured, and/or to rally support by others to their position. In either case it would be to sort of disarm me and/or encourage others to think something along the lines of my making a mountain out of a molehill.

[My response: They trained me so well how to recognize various tactics by Communist officials that even a probably spy I (inadvertently) helped host during the Seattle Goodwill Games (1990) asked me if my dad paid me! My thought at the time was, "Gee, I guess the Vienna mission really did train me well." I'm saying this to tell you you need to cut the b.s. and get to the point. (One tactic border guards in Communist countries could use to disarm you was to play buddy-buddy and be very friendly and helpful.)]

16. (Chapter 22): Fallacies of composition and division

> They might accuse me of wrongly overly applying my impressions to other individuals or groups in the mission; or they might say I was wrong in the way I separated out various components or the mission; or... something similar.

[My response: I've tried to be careful in this regard, in trying to identify experiences that might have been unique to me, experiences that I think were common among secretaries, and experiences that were common in the mission as a whole, for example. I've also tried to be honest as to where I wasn't very certain about an assertion of this nature, or when my thoughts were more speculative in nature. However, I'm sure there have been things even so that I've erred on. But one thing I would address in this regard is that the last 2 or 3 months of my time in Vienna I felt an increase of ambiguity as to what was going on in the mission, so I think it's possible there was some disinformation or misinformation going on, and I wouldn't put it pass them, unless they've changed considerably, to do that again, so I'd be very slow to accept just any assertion of this type.]

I don't mean this to be exhaustive, because that would probably be impossible anyway. But it should at least be suggestive.

Also, I should add that this all is assuming that the mission would even bother to respond to any of the allegations I'm making here. I imagine they would respond in the manner the feel best suits their interests, and that may mean non-response.

***

Since we finished the last article, we're moving on to a new one this time. This next one is actually a book chapter:

Swann, Jr., William B. (1983). Self-verification: bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In Suls, J., & Greenwald, A.G., Eds., Psychological Perspectives on the Self, v. 2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 33-66.

***

This section of the text discusses a study wherein players of a game were at one point asked about what position they'd like to play next and also given feedback about their personality that would seem to either affirm or deny the person's apparent suitability for a position.

"If the feedback confirmed their self-conceptions, they did not do much of anything - they more or less passively accepted the confederate's appraisal. In contrast, if the feedback disconfirmed their self-conceptions, they reacted quite vehemently, resisting the feedback and bending over backwards to demonstrate that they were not the persons the confederate made them out to be." (p. 40)

I think my reaction to being confined to a secretarial role that went beyond just the job itself to define my whole identity (and primary social group) in the organization was like this, but there enough other things going on that I'm not sure it's the most important aspect of my initial reaction to the mission (once I arrived in Vienna). Since I never have liked being pigeon-holed or put in a box, that was bound to disagree with me, possibly even if it was a position more in tune with how I saw myself. But with everything else going on, I don't think I would describe my reaction as "vehement", largely because I was trying to figure things out.

***

In this section, the author is discussing strategies a person might use to get their self-identity confirmed by another. He gives an example of someone who thinks of herself as athletic and her boyfriend won't acknowledge that, so she "refocuses" and satisfies herself that at least he will acknowledge that she's a good musician. But, as the author says, this doesn't always work....

"For instance, if the woman's athletic prowess is a central feature of her self-concept, it will be especially difficult for her to cope with her boyfriend's refusal to recognize her athletic ability. As a result she may utilize one of three self-verification strategies that are still available to her. She may simply ignore her boyfriend's appraisal. She may attend to his evaluation but fail to encode and/or retrieve it. Or she may nullify his appraisal by systematically distorting the feedback she receives from him. Each of these three strategies is discussed in the next section." (p. 41)

I think I probably ignored the mission's attempt to paint me into a secretarial corner. I understood that that was my job there and I accepted that, but I didn't let them affect my self-identity nor my acting in accordance to my own self-identity. Of course, a control-freak organization might go into a tizzy with a reaction like this. It wouldn't matter that I meant no harm or that I had no evil intentions; all that would matter is that I was something other than they expected and they couldn't get a hold of slippery me to got properly socialized.

***

"People attend to information more if they are highly motivated to digest it." (p. 42)

I think it's safe to say that I was very highly motivated to attend to and digest any and all information that might provide a clue as to what was going on there. This might argue for the possibility that I might have remembered things if I thought they might be important.

***

"When people receive feedback there are a number of questions they might ask themselves: Is the feedback valid? Is the source of feedback reliable and trustworthy? What implications does the feedback have in light of what I know about myself?" (p. 44)

Regarding the feedback that I was a secretary - period - I thought it was invalid because they didn't know me, although I had thought they knew me better than that. I didn't think it was terribly reliable and trustworthy because of all the other stuff going on that seemed manipulative. I don't think I was so concerned about the implications of being pegged a secretary; rather, I think I was more concerned about the implications of all the other stuff going on that I hadn't been prepared for.

***

"It should also be noted that although their cognitive processes may make it difficult for people to identify and correct self-conceptions, they do not ordinarily make it impossible to do so. In fact, it is critical that these strategies do not work too well. If they do, large discrepancies may develop between the person's conceptions of self and the appraisals of others. In such instances the person may be labeled maladjusted or, in extreme cases, mentally ill." (p. 45)

In my case it was the mission in Vienna that was providing feedback regarding my identity. And they had known me how long? I think I had enough different confirmation from other sources that didn't peg me as a secretary - period, that I could rely on those affirmations of my self-identity to help bolster me against the counter-identity given me by the mission. But the problem was that the mission was a total institution and I was thousands of miles from anyone who might disagree with the mission's assessment of me. So, for all practical purposes, they had a monopoly on defining my identity, and if I didn't like it... well that was a big chunk of my problem, although not all of it, for sure. But it was my different self-identity that sent me going off to a German-language church, taking a German conversation course at a Volkshochschule (adult folk school), making friendly overtures to my landlady and another neighbor, etc. And that, of course, was way to independent of me, especially that early on.

So, since they virtually had the monopoly on my identity, they had the power, if they wanted to use it, to make me look crazy. I'm not saying that they did that, just that hypothetically they could have. But I don't think that's exactly how things went. Nevertheless, I think there are some helpful threads here in this text.

***

I'm going to end here for now. I've actually spent a lot of time today on this blog working on the logical fallacies, etc. I went to church and chatted with a neighbor today too, but I'm pretty tired now. I just don't have the energy to do much, and then I get tired. Writing and working at the computer isn't too tiring though. My rheumatologist said on Monday that if this fatigue doesn't improve in the next month I should probably see my primary care doctor to rule out possible causes. I'm half afraid I have chronic fatigue syndrome now too.

158. Socialization File, Pt. 41 (Pascale, pt. 5)

The next section, is called "The Case for Socialization" and, as the title suggests, it goes to some length to argue for the need for socialization, particularly in corporations. I'm going to skip over a lot of it that, I think, isn't so relevant to the Vienna context, mostly because it just deals with large corporations and so the arguments would need to be, I think, greatly changed to fit a mid-sized religious nonprofit setting.

***

"It is useful to distinguish between norms that are central to the core factors that drive business success and social conventions that signal commitment and belonging. The former set is most essential as it ensures consistency around certain crucial activities that link to a firm's strategy...

The second second set of norms are, in effect, organizational equivalents of a handshake. They are social conventions that make it easier for people to be comfortable with one another. One need not observe all of them, but as some conventions count more than others, one strives to reassure the organization that one is on the team... The important aspect of this second set of social values is that, like a handshake, they are usually not experienced as oppressive. Partly, this is because adherence is only skin deep. (Most of us don't feel our individualism is compromised by shaking hands.) In addition, these social conventions are usually self-evident to prospective members and self-selection eliminates many whose integrity would be violated by observing them." (p. 36)

The way the author distinguishes types of organizational culture would not fit in the Vienna mission context; that is "social conventions that signal commitment and belonging" would be seen as just as critical as "norms that are central to the core factors that drive business success" and as such becomes virtually indistinguishable from the latter, or at least the lines demarcating them would be very blurry.

That being said, however, I think it might be possible to find a different way to separate out different types of culture and (sticking with just two types of culture), I'd like to suggest another commonly used way of looking at this issue, which is to divide them into formal and informal culture (or Culture vs. culture), which are defined in the Sensagent.com dictionary as:

"In the context of intercultural learning, it is important to be aware of different subcategories of culture, such as "little c" and "big C" culture. While the latter one is also called "objective culture" or "formal culture" referring to institutions, big figures in history, literature, etc., the first one, the "subjective culture", is concerned with the less tangible aspects of a culture, like everyday patterns. In intercultural learning, a mixture of these two is to be employed, but it is especially the apprehension of subjective culture that triggers the development of intercultural competence."

Although this definition refers to culture in society at large I don't think it would take much effort to apply it to the Vienna mission setting. This would put things like aspects of the monthly organization-wide women's meetings, the monthly staff meetings, having monthly birthday cakes for all staff with birthdays in that month, the monthly newsletter, as well as specifics of these traditions, such as who does what, how institutional memory is formally developed within these vehicles, etc. These were issues that, as the author suggest (in reference to his "organizational equivalents of a handshake") were not a problem for me and did not feel my individualism compromised by them. They were also straightforward and, as such, often included explicit instructions on what I should do, such as signing up to bring the birthday cake one month.

But the little "c" culture, where all the most basic norms and values of a society (or, in this case, organization) lie, and which are for the most part not explicitly stated, are where I had problems. In society at large, these things often grow up in and of themselves (but not always) and are not necessarily intentional in a "social engineering" sense. But in some kinds of organizations there is more of a tendency towards the top-down intentional development of informal culture; I hadn't made that connection with East European missions prior to my arrival in Vienna, but it soon became apparent that, despite my unconscious assumption to the contrary, I was wrong on this count, and that there indeed was some social engineering going on there.

What might give the impression of such informal cultural traits being top-down is how they were enforced and what the possible consequences of infraction of those aspects of culture. In the case in Vienna, it was the leadership that was offended more than the rank and file organizational membership, and this was exhibited in how I was moved around so much, for example. That had to come from leadership and, since there was nothing wrong with my adherence to formal cultural norms, I assumed that it should be somewhere in the bowels of the informal cultural apparatus that was offended by something I did or did not do appropriately.

The last thing I'd like to comment on in this part of the text is that I would have had no opportunity to de-select myself from the Vienna mission because I hadn't been exposed to it (other than bringing a light table there in the summer of 1983, which hardly counts for much of an encounter). I would have had to make broad assumptions about only a couple question-raising interactions with the mission, but both of these could be (and were) easily dismissed as likely being unintentional (in the sense of involving something other than what they were on the surface). Alternately, I could have interpreted issues that had raised questions regarding other East European missions and applied that to the universe of all East European missions and as a result decided from the get-go to have an independent ministry in that part of the world apart from any mission connection. All of these possibilities are somewhat far-fetched and I wouldn't have had a very convincing basis on which to explain my decisions.

And, unlike my first librarian position here where I now live, I wasn't invited to Vienna for an in-person extended interview, which may have served to raise questions on both sides of the interview table (mine and theirs). So, in these ways, self-selection was highly unlikely vis a vis my possible work with the Vienna mission, because I didn't know enough about their informal culture.

***

The next (and last) section in this article is called "Misconceptions."

"There is, of course, an ever present danger of strong culture firms becoming incestuous and myopic - the 'General Motors syndrome.' Most opponents of socialization rally around this argument. But what is learned from the firms that have avoided these pitfalls is that they consciously minimize the downside of socialization by cultivating obsessions - not just any obsession, but ones that serve to continually wrench attention from the internal matters to the world outside. The four most common 'obsessions' are quality, competition, customer service, and productivity. Each demands an external focus... It should be noted that organizations which tend to be obsessive over internal matters, such as Delta's with 'the family feeling,' may be riding for a fall." (p. 37)

I'm not sure where to put the Vienna mission on this issue; I think there were elements of both inward and outward looking "obsessions." But on the other hand, I think it would be actually very difficult to disentangle which "obsessions" might be inward and which outward looking, or which are both. The outward looking aspect would be the response to the (real and/or perceived) security threats because of the nature of their mission field (but also Vienna as a jumping off point, being a virtual hotbed of spies). But was there a point where an outward impetus might have resulted in an inward obsession? I think this question could easily be a point of contention, and open to discussion, depending on your perspective and values, which, in the mission's case is (at least part of) their organizational culture. In that case, it might be easy to find oneself inextricably entangled in either circular reasoning or guilty of "begging the question", or both, and end out on a wild goose chase (begging the question) or dizzily trying to extricate oneself from a revolving door.

Here's an example of what I mean (by way of taking the liberty of putting words in the mouths of the mission leadership):

Circular reasoning: "We've developed our outward-looking obsessions largely in response to threats to our ministry, but to fully develop these obsessions we've found it necessary to also develop inward-looking obsessions, which thus serve to support the more directly outward-looking obsessions, which we developed in response to threats to our ministry, but to fully..."

And round and round you go, and where it stops nobody knows...
In this manner, inward obsession might be acknowledged, but justified in a circular manner.

Begging the question: East European mission experts agree with us that unusual measures are warranted in response to [potential] threats to our ministry.

In other words: We agree with ourselves that unusual measures...
In this way, there is not even an attempt to differentiate inward and outward looking obsessions, but instead they are all lumped together in the phrase "unusual measures" and justified based on, basically, their own say-so.

Again, these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, nor necessarily the only ways to understand the reality of what was going on regarding the organizational culture of the Vienna mission, but it might give you an idea of some of the possible ways of understanding these phenomena, and I find either (or both) of these ways of thinking to be reasonably believable interpretations, or at least partial explanations or contributing factors.

In any case, my contention remains that many of these cultural measures were excessive and based on erroneous (as defined by biblical mandates) foundations.

***

That's all for this text and for this post. I have physical therapy in an hour and I haven't even showered yet, so I have to run!

93. Defense & High-Reliability Firms File, Part 17 (Radine, pt. 11)

I still can't find the MIA articles.

I enjoyed a walk earlier in the day than usual today because it was overcast and cooler, although my Weather Bug reading says it's currently 89.5F.

***

Chapter 7: Military Prisons and Rehabilitation

***

"Unlike inmates in the [United States Disciplinary Barracks(USDB)], soldiers who pass through the [Correctional Training Facility (CTF)] are fully expected to return to active duty, and the CTF are fully expected to reintegrate them into the rest of the Army. It does this (and maintains social control internally) by manipulating the convicted GI's self-image and his 'definition of the situation.' CTF principles may well be an anticipation of future trends in Army corrections." (p. 221)

I felt like I was experiencing some of this for the 6 months I was in the States (including time spent working at the U.S. office). I guess I was eventually deemed "reformed" enough (take that as you wish) to return to my original post, at least for a while. I never did fully conform, though, and I think they knew that, although they didn't know what I was thinking, because I never gave them any opportunity to know. But I was intentional about that too.

There are some other things I could say here, but it would be difficult without going into the narration of what exactly happened, so I'll just have to hold off and hope that I remember my train of thinking.

***

"A legal clerk, whose responsibility it was to interview stockade prisoners prior to their trials gave me his impression of stockade conditions at a large midwesern Army post:

... Once you come in, you're assigned to a barracks and you go to the barracks on the first night and that's invariably when the beating takes place... [and if] the guy says anything at all they put him in the box ["administrative segregation"] and continue to beat him, [and leave] him in the box for a couple of days... Then that subdues him... and they let him out of the box. By then they're pretty well beaten into the system... You can't get these guys who were beaten in pre-trial to testify to anything because they know they're going to be convicted and that they're going to go back." (p. 225; brackets in the original in this case)

That's a lot how I felt. Being sent to a mental hospital was like getting beat up and tossed down the stairs (this is in the original text) and scared out of my pants. The text tells about a guy with a cast on who comes to his trial and he's asked how he got the cast, to which he answers that he fell down the stairs. Then he's asked if he was beat up and he denies it. Then he's asked if anyone pushed him and he denies that too. This is how you learn to lie. This is how you learn to say "I work for an international publishing company." I know, I know, it's a partial truth. But another part of the truth is that the publishing end is NOT in Vienna. The closest thing Vienna has to the publishing end is (or was) people involved in the writing of the textbooks - authors, if you will. Just for clarification purposes I would like to explain here that authors are not the same as publishers. I know this can be confusing to certain people who've been taught to say otherwise, but I think you'll find that Webster's and Collegiate and Oxford and whatever English language dictionary source you choose will bear this out.

And yes, I was pushed down the stairs (figuratively, I mean).

***

Oh, here's a good one.

"In 1954, according to the provost marshal general of the Army, each new prisoner at the USDB was given an indoctrination session concerning the purpose of the prison and an orientation interview by the commandant or one of his representatives, where he would be assured that 'he is part of an institution where the entire staff from the top officer down through the enlisted ranks has a warm interest in her personal problems and needs and his future welfare.' Later on he would be given what GIs call an 'attitude check' to see how well he had responded to the 'warm' concern. He was also interviewed by a social worker who elicited information on previous problems with school authorities, pastors, relatives, and employers, which was then worked up into a report of the psychiatry and neurology division... Thus, the main functions of psychiatrists and social workers were in screening and classifying. Psychiatrists kept a close watch on each soldier-prisoner to determine when he had 'improved' himself sufficiently to be released before his full term had been completed. A chaplain was involved in this setting, although only in an advisory capacity to the classification board. He was to ascertain the influence of religion in the prisoner's life... Rehabilitation in 1954, then, was officially a combination of some indoctrination, vocational training programs, and several 'open doors' back to duty or out to civilian life... From the recent prison experiences of Dr. Howard Levy, the basic principles of the USDB seem relatively unchanged." (p. 227-228)

The author goes on to describe some modernizations (as of the late 70's), but I'm going to stop here for now.

The attitude check is something that was informally in place in Vienna. I don't think I ever had a problem with that - like I said, I wasn't a complainer or anything. I think my taking everything in stride might have made me more of an enigma and it would have been easier for them to deal with me if I had complained or raised a fuss.

I am not sure whether I thought about this so explicitly, but I think I felt that I didn't understand enough of what was going on to make a fuss; I was still trying to figure out the rules. So I left there not really ever understanding them. But since I didn't understand them I didn't know what kind of response I'd get anyway if I, for example, complained too much about not having enough work to do. Most of the time I was in Vienna I felt like my time and the money of my supporters was wasted because even though I did my best, including outside efforts, I was just doing grunt work which a lot of the time didn't really need to be done. But there was something else going on, I think, and these things were intentional, so I just smiled and did my job the best I could. I was friendly and sociable and took initiative in social activities several times. So I passed the attitude check.

That having been said, though, I'm not sure what kind of a change they might have expected or wanted from sending me home. I probably was somewhat subdued by that experience, but I certainly wasn't overcome by it. The last six months or so I think it was starting to get to me more so I was starting to cave in to pressures, such as attending the English speaking church (instead of the Austrian one I was going to), even though it wasn't really what I wanted. But that was about a year after I was sent back to the States, so it wasn't a direct consequence to that action they took against me (that's how I perceived it and still do).

***

"Psychology (and psychiatry) in the last few decades has taken the place of religion in maintaining mass discipline. Like religion, it operates by trying to convince the individual that it is trying to help him and has his interests at heart, all the while fairly self-consciously going about its role in creating and maintaining social order. Psychology not only provides techniques of control, such as various types of therapy and consultative assistance to those in authority, but it also parallels religion in providing an ideology. This ideology is one of 'cooperation,' 'communication,' 'normalcy,' and a distinct view of reality. In addition, psychology has a normative function, creating in individuals a sense of guilt, such as the anxiety that comes from feeling that one is not normal or socially acceptable. Instead of being sinful, today one is 'sick.' Like religion, psychology ministers to the guilt and anxiety that it was instrumental in creating." (p. 230)

This sounds a lot like Vienna: We care a lot about you and want you to succeed here, this is what you need to be able to succeed. I think the head of h.r., a military chaplain, even said something like this. Of course, under the circumstances I wasn't sure that I believed him, but that seemed to be what they wanted me to believe, and in this I don't think I was alone. It's just that I got worse treatment than others, so maybe he had to come out and say that before breaking the news, with the journal article on culture shock that they thought I was having culture shock and should go home for treatment. If taken at face value, this kind of approach cold be disarming, I think. I think I signed the papers to go not really believing it was actually going to happen. Maybe I was in shock or denial that this could be happening. And the thing was I was only having problems because of the mission, not in my Austrian activities and functioning. I'll go more in to this in the chronological narration though.

The army ideology of cooperation, communication, etc., has a counterpart in the Vienna mission, that's not exactly the same. I have a whole file on organizational behavior that touches on this too.

***

"... Another correctional therapist said that the character and behavior disorder (a category that includes most soldiers who get in trouble with the Army) must 'be made to see that there is something wrong with him and not with society.'" (p. 231)

I really feel like a fish swimming upstream here. I have a strong enough sense of who I am and my values that I'm able to get by and stick by what I believe even if I'm the only one. This might not be as bad as what the Nazis did, but Bonhoeffer is a good role model for me in standing up to what I believe is wrong. I don't always do it right, but I do the best I can in whatever given situation I'm in.

A textbook of mine from an apologetics class in Bible school has gotten a lot of use throughout the years: it describes various logical fallacies.

Here's a description of "Appeal to the People" a/k/a argumentum ad populum:

"As Immanuel Kant said, 'seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of the few and number not voices, but weigh them.

As C.S. Lewis was fond of saying, counting noses may be a great method of running a government (even there it has limitations), but it is no necessary criterion for truth. Another name for ad populum could be 'Misuse of Democracy.' If the majority thinks something is true, it must be true. If the majority is doing something, it should be done. The majority is reading this book, therefore it must be a good book. Non sequitor!

Nietzche quipped that 'public opinion is nothing but private laziness.' Ad populum is a lazy way of thinking, a device to bypass independent reasoning. Let the people do your thinking for you. Just drift along with the popular current." (Hoover, A. J. (1982). Poking Holes in Faulty Logic: Don't You Believe It! Chicago: Moody Press).

You will note that in my chronology Bible school came before Vienna, so I had that text with me in Vienna too and had long since studied it for class. Just because you're different doesn't make you wrong or bad.

***

"Since World War II, psychiatrists have been expanding their role in corrections. They have had a greater hand in designing corrections programs, and their participation as therapists rather than screening agents has increased somewhat. But this increased involvement has not come without costs to psychiatry. Psychiatrists have increasingly been compromising their techniques of therapy with military techniques of control.

In particular, the practice of therapy becomes much more oriented to social control of the individual by the small group or team, which is characteristic of military organization in general. I have suggested that the offenders who must see therapists do not view themselves as ill... This new role for therapists, that of forcefully attempting to transform soldiers' minds, results in a shift in the therapists' role." (p. 238-239)

My knee jerk reaction to these texts at this point in time is: Does Guantanamo and water-boarding ring a bell? How about those mental health workers involved?

Okay, that's another subject, but the Guantanamo situation didn't get where it was in a vacuum, and what this text describes sounds like it's the kind of setting that could eventually lead to the Guantanamo participation of psychologists.

Although military chaplains aren't mentioned in this text, it seems that they must at the very least be aware of this kind of thing going on in a field not so completely detached from their own. How would this be affecting them? Is it possible that the military chaplains in Vienna understood this reformative use of psychiatry? I'm not sure I want to go farther with this or not... There's a part of me that says do it, and another part that is more hesitant, but I'll just lay it out since I've been trying to be open and not have to deal with this horrible secrecy stuff that I just have grown to hate. Is it possible that the military chaplains / human resource staff at the Vienna mission intended this (mental "transformation," "personality changes") to be the end result of my going to the states for counseling?

***

"Some of these young men may be able to lead fuller, more developed lives with the benefit of some kind of therapy. But the value of personal freedom, it seems to me, requires that these people should have the choice of whether they want to undergo such personality changes. The only real alternative they have to undergoing therapy is being sent to a harsher prison." (p. 239)

In Vienna they would call this kind of thing "spiritual growth", which has a decidedly chaplain-y ring to it. I hate to say this, but over the years, including some things even after Vienna, I have come to approach pastoral leading more critically.

***

I'll just put this here for further documentation, but I've already commented on the substance of it:

"The most important function of the interview, which each prisoner went through when he arrived at the stockade, was to lay the groundwork for the rest of the program... The prisoner was shown that lack of social conformity had been of little value to him." (p. 242)

***

In another Army correctional facility the soldier-prisoners basically have to go through a repeat of basic training, perhaps with closer supervision. This process is intended to be "useful in helping to restore the offenders to duty (but this time with an acceptable attitude)." (p. 242)

Attitude was really important in Vienna too, mostly expressed indirectly, and this was part of what made my experience there feel like brain washing.

***

"The chaplain branch of the [Army's Correctional Training Facility (CTF)] appears to be quite active, offering a series of day-long retreats, formal instruction in 'Life Issues Series' classes, and group counseling sessions that stress 'freedom of expression on appropriate issues' and understanding the rights of others... In a manner consistent with my earlier commentary about psychology supplanting religion, the chaplains brought two California psychologists to the facility to present a series of lectures and conferences on gestalt psychology and transactional analysis to selected CTF cadremen." (p. 245)

I know there had to be a stronger connection between the chaplains and psychiatry! So here we have it. I wonder if either of the chaplains in Vienna had ever worked at this particular Army prison. Also, however, I don't think the chaplain/HR director in Vienna was working alone, so it's not completely fair to just single him/them (I didn't have much contact with the other one), when probably other leaders of the mission were involved in that decision. How exactly that transpired (the decision to send me back to the States) is something that we may never know.

***

"What is the best explanation for deviance? I have suggested that some correctional psychiatrists and social workers argue that deviance resides in the sick individual. Yet, oddly, psychiatry does not come into the military setting with a notion of what the diseases are that it should be curing. Psychiatry's definition of the individual as ill is based on the Army's response to that person's behavior." (p. 246).

If I may, I would like to insert a quotation from another source (I'm finding all these things in search of the 2 MIA articles):

"Security professionals must strive to be extra vigilant about their own ethics. It is too easy to say, 'everyone is doing it' and look the other way from such behavior or even join in... The bottom line is this: If your professional code of ethics conflicts with company policy and management's behavioral standards, you may have to stop being a part of the management team and uphold your professional ethics... you will be expected to make ethical decisions that may conflict with administration or corporate policy. Making these decisions won't be easy, but it is the only way to live up to - and with - your professional ethics." (Simonsen, Clifford E. (1992). what value to ethics have in the corporate world? Security Management, 36(9), 224-226)

What we have here is a clear case of the Army co-opting (not the rank and file soldiers but) professionals. How could they not have a pre-existing definition of such a basic part of their work?

Be this as it may, I submit that whether or not I was considered ill in Vienna was purely and simply seen as a matter of how I related to the mission, similar to how the Army viewed it in their soldiers.

Maybe we should send a few security professionals to Vienna (or the Army) to teach ethics to certain professionals there. Just don't send send any evangelical protestants to Vienna, please; they won't be at all objective.

***

"The result of allowing the military to define psychiatrists' problems is that the therapists dutifully adapt their definitions of syndromes to match the criminal act. Specifically, in terms of labeling the deviant, one finds circular, ex post facto clinical terms of personality and character disorders. A passive-aggressive personality is really someone who resists in a covert way. A disorder of the 'immature' category is a soldier who impulsively reacts against domination.

There are other explanations for the character of deviance. Some sociologists have asserted that there is nothing inherently deviant about any act, either in terms of individual pathology or societal needs. Deviance is something that is created 'by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.' Thus, persons in the social system take actions that define or confer on certain behavior the label as deviant. If the definition of deviance is located in the reaction rather than in the act or the actor, then there is little necessarily in common in terms of clinical characteristics among individuals who perform the same deviant behavior.

Looking at deviance as residing in the labelers might result in psychiatrists' examining their own preconceptions and affiliations. But this analysis is avoided as a consequence of focusing exclusively on the characteristics of the deviants themselves." (p. 246-247)

I like this discussion about deviance. I don't know if you follow it or not, but it's basically saying that a norm-setting group decides if someone is not following their norms and the person who is not following their norms is deviating in relation to their norms.

One thing that this does is makes deviation a very relative "truth": It only has meaning in reference to something normative. For example, lying in some cultures might be perfectly acceptable, but in other cultures it's not and the act of lying would be considered deviant in reference to their norms, but not to the norms of the other culture. So deviance is not a static thing in and of itself. It only has meaning in relationship to a particular set of norms.

On a certain level I was "deviant" in Vienna in not fully and completely 100% submitting to their norms. It felt like that's what was required to succeed there, and, like I said earlier it felt like brainwashing.

***

"Deviance is something that is created 'by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders... Thus, persons in the social system take actions that define or confer on certain behavior the label of deviant...

As I have emphasized, the self-image can be manipulated. One continues on as a soldier or an offender mostly on the basis of pressures of the small group and other reference persons. So managing the definition of the situation becomes very important for the rationalized co-optive style of corrections." (p. 247-248).

The Army sets the rules and makes the definitions, take it or leave it. Not a very forgiving (or democratic) approach to things, but you almost expect that in the Army (not that that makes it right).

But should this also be so in missions? In some ways, such as the theology, you might expect this to be reasonable. But should it be as totalitarian as an Army correctional facility? I don't think so, but the mission leaders might take issue with this either by asserting that they do have the right to do this, or by denying that they do it (the totalitarian aspects I mean).

I think this kind of thing could be true in the Army too, although I don't really know that, but sometimes I wondered how much of the social pressures were intended and sort of masterminded in a top-down way (like my feeling like I was being pitted against another gal for a certain position towards the end). Was this just sort of common office politics, or was it intentional. There were enough things going on that I wasn't always sure, and still am not. Since there was such a high level of secrecy, I think it's possible that some of these things were intentional, for whatever reason. I mention this in this context because that would also be part of the mission leadership controlling things and defining the issues and norms. I think that once you control the knowledge base you can do a lot with that by withholding something or strategically revealing something else, and in that context I don't think it would have been beneath them to have used disinformation (intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately).

***

It's late again, and I've got to start getting ready for bed. We finished this chapter and it's also the end of the book.

Good night.

~ Meg