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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

127. Socialization File, Pt. 10 (Dubin, pt. 10)

I'm finding more sections in this chapter to comment on than in previous texts I've discussed on this blog that I hadn't marked up in my initial reading of it. Here's an example of that...

"...[P]art of the organizational process involves the individual's continual adjustment to the demands of the various subgroups in which he participates within the social system.

...[T]he term 'reference group' is used here to signify the group whose perspective is used by the novice as a frame of reference for defining his organizational experiences and expectations." (p. 91)

I really should have continue with this last night, but I hadn't realized that these unmarked-up sections needed commenting on.

I think this is really significant in terms of my Vienna experience. Who did I see as my reference groups? In looking back, I think that I saw as my reference groups mainly the people in Eastern Europe and Vienna that I might have ministry with, and I saw the mission itself only in secondary terms as a vehicle for reaching those people... at least at first I did. But then gradually I think the role of the mission in my "reference group" options greatly diminished as I realized that we had pretty divergent views on what was needed for ministry. I wasn't really aware of this, I don't think, at the time, because I couldn't imagine ministry without going through a mission and refused to give up the desire of ministry. Of course, this became a great conflict, then, for me. Eventually the mission did take on a greater "reference group" role, but it was, ironically, at the expense of the ministry target people as a "reference group" in my life. My view of the target peoples (Austrians, East Europeans) as a reference group had developed over the years (1979-1985) of my formal higher education, short-term and part-time ministries and living and studying in that part of the world. I don't think my view of the target people really changed during this time, or even later when I actually lived in Siberia for several years, but it began to take a back seat to the mission as a reference group the last months of my tenure with the mission.

Now this, as you can imagine, is not really how organizations, especially total ones, expect things to be set up. No, they want the front seat from the get go. But I hadn't joined the military (or the CIA) and I expected the mission to be a reasonable organization, which was (in my view) an errant perspective. That is, unlike many (but not all) other ministries, they didn't seem very open to new ideas about ministry and the issue was only, plain and simple, how well you were going to accept their way of doing things (and if you asked too many questions you probably didn't have the right attitude yet, although by asking the questions you'd undoubtedly clarify where exactly the problems were coming from in your not conforming.)

Another problem here is that it was pretty hard for me to identify with the reference group that I was supposed to be the most like - the other secretaries. The thing was, and I think I've mentioned this before, that I didn't really see myself as a secretary. All my studies had been for full-time mission work and I'd only taken on office jobs (often temp jobs) to earn money while I prepared for the professional work I'd studied for. It's very possible that if the mission had give me a different reference group I'd have succumbed more easily.

***

"To an individual, a reference group is an audience - shared, real or imagined - to whom certain values are assigned. More importantly, this audience is the one before which the individual is trying to maintain or increase his standing." (p. 91)

This most definitely does not describe my view of the other secretaries as a reference group. It's not that I didn't want to associate with them, it's just that they weren't my reference group and I didn't particularly see them in that way, as I've just explained above. I didn't really care too much what the other secretaries thought of me and I didn't want to be like them, not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren't what I aspired to or how I viewed myself. I didn't see a conflict between working as a secretary and having people-ministry, where the people ministry was more fundamental to my view of myself and working as a secretary was just a stepping stone along the way. Even at the time I was conscious of not viewing myself as a secretary, but I might not have realized the significance of that vis a vis the mission's socialization attempts.

Here I'm going to sort of go off in a tangent, but not a totally irrelevant one.

In recent years I've come to the realization that Evangelical groups are mostly pretty sexist and the roles for women in them are rather limited; being a secretary is one possibility, for example. There were a couple women instructors with the Vienna mission that taught courses for women in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but there weren't any male secretaries, for example.

Another role that, apart from my experience with the Vienna mission, that I found might have been open to me is that of translator to help men gain access to ministry in Russia, for example. This, to me, is pretty demeaning because I only learned the language as part of the whole package of preparing for ministry and not to be some man's translator. To many in Evangelical circles, as you maybe can imagine, this kind of thinking is feminist, and I mean that very derogatorily, because that's how they'd use the word to describe such thinking.

I've been trying to find a short quote I know I've heard several times (but not recently), but in looking for it I found some close cousins to it:

"Being a Heartless Bitch isn't about stepping on other people, or reality TV-style sabotage antics. Its about working hard for what you want, and knowing when to stand up for what you deserve. Its not about demoralizing others; its about self-empowerment. Its not about being arrogant; its about displaying your confidence and intellect as a badge of pride. Its not asserting any inherent superiority or self-entitlement, but recognizing your own self-worth and value."
-- Kat D.

"I do get called a bitch quite often. What I do NOT get called is pushover, stupid, sweetheart, dear or doormat. Works for me."
-- Rebecca M.

Here's one that really touches a nerve for me (pun intended - sorry):

"The brain is connected to the spine. Try to get them working in tandem for a change."

-- Fabulana

Finally...

I'm a strong woman who strives for excellence in all my endeavors. It used to bother me that strong women are termed "bitches," while strong men are seen as "go-getters." But I now wear the Bitch label with pride.

If a bitch is someone who goes after what she wants, then I am a bitch.

If a bitch is someone who stands up for her beliefs while surrounded by opinionless idiots, then I am a bitch.

If a bitch is someone who despises weakness and ineptitude, then I am a bitch.

I LOVE being a bitch. It feels good to be strong and confident, not giving a damn what others think. I'm not a man-hater; in fact I like men a lot, at least the ones with big brains. I am an equal-opportunity bitch. I hate stupidity, no matter from which gender it originates.

There, I've gotten it off my chest, I'm a bitch. At least according to the above definitions. Back then I was maybe an incipient bitch, with elements of it, but not quite with the belief that I could do things on my own without following in the shadow of someone else (usually a man).

I wish I knew this earlier in life, but I had a lot going against me, including family and church upbringing, and it took a lot, mainly being separated from those two influences by half a world (geographically - and I mean Siberia here, not Vienna), to grow more fully in my confidence that I could do significant things on my own.

In any case, returning to my Vienna years now, I didn't exactly see things in this way; I just knew what I believed and didn't like what a lot of what I saw and experienced in Vienna, although much of it was very difficult to make sense of at the time. I didn't think of it in gendered terms, for example. Still, the training and knowledge that I did have even then was enough to help me try to hold my own in the midst of tremendous forces working against that. And don't get me wrong, the gender issue was not necessarily the worst thing I disagreed with. There was, for example, also the politicization of the ministry and the pragmatism (ends justifies the means) mentality.

But getting back to the reference group issue, the "target people" (it really is insensitive to use that term though, like for a marketing campaign in which people take on object status; if I think of a better term that isn't overly convoluted I'll try to start using it, but maybe this one's not completely inaccurate either) were a significant reference for me in that I wanted to really understand them and lower barriers as much as was possible without compromising my faith (e.g., without doing something that would be sin, like joining them in their vodka drinking), but I thought the mission and my church(es - the one in Vienna and back home too) should provide the Christian guidance. Boy, was I mistaken. What I learned in Vienna about that is that the Bible is a tool to be used to back up anything and everything the mission does and to reveal my errors (sins?) in not conforming.

So the mission never really did become a strong reference group for me, I guess, and that proved a barrier to my working with them. But I did see them as holding the golden key to a life of ministry, without which (the key), the ministry I so desired as a career would be virtually impossible (or so I thought at the time). I think this isn't the first time I've shown you the conflict I experienced, but here's another take on it.

I did want to "maintain or increase" my standing with the group, but I equally did not want to compromise my beliefs and values based solely on the desire to "maintain or increase" that standing. That is, I felt that I was being asked to change things that would have implications beyond the isolated context of that ministry, and would have affected some of my most basic beliefs and values. I think it's safe to say that I was conscious of this at the time, which is part of why I could resist succumbing to their ways as much as I did. And when I did in the end begin to succumb it was late enough that they were setting the stage for my departure and I didn't really ever change my thinking (at least not in ways they would have wanted), just my external relations. And when I get to this in the chronology, you'll see that they understood this too.

***

I need to go because I finished my morning stimulator (like a souped up TENS unit) long ago and I need to get breakfast.