In case you didn't catch that, I used a function of speech (my English as a Second Language background coming out) that some might call "sermonizing" in my last post.
***
"The rituals of other public celebrations carry corresponding symbolic messages regarding other aspects of the society's control over its environment. Without such periodic renewals of morale, Warner contended, people gradually would drift off into increasingly self-centered interests, to the point where they might hesitate or resist the orders of leaders in times of crisis.
So, you might ask, what specific variables are controlled by the ceremonials of the Memorial Day observances? The answer Warner gave looks very much like a system concept: identity of the community and nation. The controlled perception, repeated at each level of social organization, appears to be a 'self-image' of a group; family; parish; congregation; neighborhood; community; nation. Examples: 'We are all Chicagoans,' We are all Americans.' Sharing a common identity with others means recognizing common interests - sharing common principles or values which characterize the common identity." (p. 172)
I understood these types of "public celebrations" (organization-wide gatherings of various kinds) as helping create a sense of unity and accomplishment by opportunities to interact and share with others what each department had recently done. In that way, it helped avoid different sections of the organization getting too in-grown. As such it seemed reasonable enough to me and I don't remember ever having trouble with these kinds of meetings and events. But I think this passage makes a good point that these events could well also have served more of a control purpose. For example, it seemed clear to me that the language and public interactions also underscored the power structure in a pretty obvious (to me anyway) way. It was the type of thing where everyone is supposed to laugh at the boss's jokes and if there was any question about anything the senior members gave the definitive answer. These things were just a part of all the interactions, though, so it's possible that some may not have picked up on it. I think the administration level members (esp. the director) also set the tone and how people were supposed to interact (in general).
The other thing here is collective identity. There definitely was a collective identity, although I think there was a bit of variation between the departments. This was something that a newcomer, I think, was supposed to be socialized into. But I didn't share identity with anyone in the mission, really. I wasn't a secretary (I mean I was one there, but not at heart and not by profession), and I never was given very much opportunity to share identity with any other group in the mission. And the identity of the mission seemed somewhat repulsive to me once I got there and saw first-hand how things were. So these events probably did have an effect on me because I saw them as mostly acceptable, but this was just the formal culture side of the organization and the undergirding informal culture was what I had problems with. That informal culture came through more in casual interactions at these gatherings than during the formal presentation-type parts of them.
***
"The other institutions of modern society - work, friendship, marriage, citizenship, club membership, charity work, and socialization of the young - may also be viewed in terms of mutual actions, or control of perceptual variables (at various levels) by multi-person control efforts. Those which have been investigated in traditional social psychology research studies can be arranged roughly in ascending order of the controlled variables in the control-system hierarchy. For example, beginning at the bottom:
Intensity...
Sensation...
Configuration...
Transitions...
Categories, Sequences, Programs...
Principles (personal policies, attitudes, and values): all of the generalizations, stereotypes, and favorable and unfavorable prejudices which we tend to see confirmed in the actions we perceive in those with whom we interact - studied under topics like person-perception, attribution theory, attitudes, value-theory, policy formation, social exchange, and equity theory.
System Concepts: the social entities which we perceive and for which we control perceptions, such as our own family, 'our' organization, congregation, neighborhood, community, nation, and culture. We name social entities, such as married couples, friendship partners, and crony groups, and we identify the system concept which is involved with a common name (for example, a couple goes by a common name when they get married) - studied under topics like group psychology, organizational psychology, reference-group theory, relationship theory, and affiliation." (p. 172-172)
The last two variables, Principles and System Concepts, would have been the most pertinent to my Vienna experience. Regarding "Principles," I think I was the victim of at least three stereotypes, 1) secretary, 2) female and 3) single female. It felt like these 3 stereotypes virtually dictated my role in the organization and it was a straight-jacket type of stereotype, or at least that's how I experienced it. For example, I thought it was pretty sexist to expect that I should be expected to befriend my boss's wive and (in the end) she could even play a role in the success of my career, but not only that, but I was also expected to befriend their children, like a big sister. I sort of felt like if they knew they were going to have problems with bringing their 5 children to Vienna, why didn't they bring a nanny with them or hire one there? Why should I be expected to do that.. I don't mean to give the impression my time spent in these ways was all distasteful, but I did resent somewhat that I pretty well had to do these things.
My attitudes, as should be quite clear by now, played a big role in the success (or, more accurately, lack of success) of my socialization with the mission. I think they saw it as attitudes, though, and I saw it as a values difference. But I never voiced my values differences and I don't think they guessed them, although it's possible they had a certain amount of suspicion about it. But I'm just speculating on that, I don't know that they knew I had value difference.
Regarding "System Concepts" I was a shipwreck practically from the get-go. It's one thing to have misconceptions before coming to a new situation, but it's quite another to have misconceptions that by virtue of them (the misconceptions) existing results in a massive value conflict.
I think too, and this is something different from what I've mentioned here before, that the mission had a different concept of the religious situation in Eastern Europe, and I think this could be sort of a general system concept (i.e., including Polish Catholics, Romanian Baptists, Bulgarian Orthodox, etc.), but I think it could serve a useful purpose vis a vis my experience with the mission. But more than that, their view of the religious situation in Eastern Europe trumped pretty much everything else, including, I think, some basic Christian principles and teaching. They just made it all-consuming and everything else was less important.
Another thing is that I think they were more comfortable with the possibility of the work having political connotations and that's why we get things like the US military connections and that ghastly US-USSR economic comparison handout from my Candidates' Course. I didn't think politics should have anything to do with the work. I understand that all these major social factors (religion, economics, politics, etc.) inevitably affect one another, but I think they might have been a little too open to that possibility. I'm bringing this up, because I think that their "System Concept" regarding themselves and their work included the possibility of political involvement, at least to a certain degree.
***
Now this is really and truly it for today. Actually, it's tomorrow already, because my computer says it's 12:04 a.m.
Good night.
~ Meg
Showing posts with label social psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social psychology. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
164. Socialization File, Pt. 47 (Robertson, pt. 1)
I'm sort of sad... I'm writing this after just having returned home form physical therapy (and I'm somewhat tired too from it). The reason I'm sad is because I feel like today was another goodbye experience. They hadn't received a new faxed in receipt from my doctor to extend my session; not that I expected them to have received one since my doctor and I discussed this last Monday and agreed I should continue p/t in his office. Still, it sort of ends an another era in my life in a way. That is, the first year I came here for a good career job and then shortly after arriving began to get sick, then lost my job and spent months scrambling trying to find out what was wrong with me, and finally I found it in this one group of medical facilities and received such wonderful care that when it became necessary to move from my out of state residence (a family member had extended help to me since I had no income at that point), the care at those medical facilities was one of the two main reasons I came back here just over a year ago (the other reason was the weather was good for my fibromyalgia).
But then when I started having new health problems there was so much bungling of my care that when they dropped my insurance I didn't change insurances to keep them, and after that physical therapy was the only service (besides the hospital itself) that I could use. There were a lot of doctors, though, that I was sorry to leave; it's just that they weren't the central ones to get me the care to help me through this crisis. So now I don't have any medical providers at any of those facilities and it seems sad to me. This is an example of how I really don't like to move around so much, but there always seems to be something that makes me do so.
***
The thought occurred to me that there is a subject that I studied in a later area of professional interest (separate from issues around my life) and that is aspects of social psychology. The topic of study involved certain aspects of social movements. I have a ReferenceManager (bibliographic software) database and just did a quick search using only "social psychology" and came up with 23 results. "Power" got 5 hits. "Social control" got 3. "Power" got 99.
Here's an interesting title from that bibliography:
The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-Organisation and Ethics, by Douglas Griffin. (book)
This book even deals with ethical issues!
Or here's a journal article:
How Identity and Perspective Constrain Moral Choice, by Kristen Monroe.
The abstract alone is enough to send my mental wheels racing full speed:
What drives moral action? A narrative analysis of rescuers of Jews during World War II suggests it is not reason or religion (the explanations most frequently offered by scholars), but rather identity and a particular view of self in relation to others. Findings suggest the tremendous power of identity to constrain choice, reveal the complexity of the moral life, underscore the importance of identity for moral motivation, and fill in critical gaps in our understanding of the moral psychology. In particular, an examination of moral exemplars focuses attention on the self concept, especially the extent to which critical values are integrated into one's sense of self and the extent to which a particular perspective (a way of seeing one's self in relation to others) triggers a sense of moral salience. The analysis suggests that if we can understand how people see the world and themselves in relation to others, if we can decipher their cognitive frameworks, perceptions, and categorization schema, we may begin to determine why identity exerts such a powerful influence on our treatment of others.
Really, what did drive the moral actions of the mission and its members in Vienna?
Unfortunately for you this database has 5,505 entries. Seriously, though, there are a few duplicates that need to be deleted and not all of them would be relevant or very helpful in understanding my Vienna experience.
***
I changed my mind and decided there wasn't anything else in the Jones article to comment on, so I'm moving on to the next one:
Robertson, R. J. & W. T. Powers. (1990). Introduction to Modern Psychology: The Control Theory View. Gravelswitch, KY: The Control Systems Group.
Specifically, I'm going to discuss chapter 13, "Social Psychology: Multi-System Control of the Environment." (p. 171-181)
I also want to assure you that this is NOT one of the 5,505 items in my bibliographic database, but just one more article in my socialization file.
***
"The traditional field of social psychology is something of a hodgepodge. Different psychologists have seen it various as the study of interactions between individuals, the influence of groups upon individual behavior and development, the process of group formation and action, or the principles of communal/organizational behavior. Others organize the subject in terms of supposedly different, basic processes of social behavior, such as attitudes, social motives, social perceptions, social norms, interpersonal attraction, and affiliation. However, some anthropologists, and notably the American investigator of social class, Lloyd Warner (1952), view all social behavior - all forms of group action, as well as cooperation and competition between individuals - as expression of one basic principle: control over the environment." (p. 171)
I just present this text to give you an idea of the types of things that social psychology might provide by way of helping me understand my experiences in Vienna and what was going on there. However, there is a limit as to how much I can address because discussing these issues assumes that I know enough about specific aspects of what has happening, that my memory is good and/or that I have other lasting documentation to rely on.
***
"But the postulate that social behavior, like all other behavior, serves the survival of the organism (and hence the species) helps to organize our thinking about social behavior." (p. 171)
In the Vienna mission context, this would mean that the behavior of the organization as a collective entity acted as it did in order to ensure its continuance/survival. I think this is more true than it should (biblically) be. What I mean is that the mission was obsessed with survival, by way of security concerns in particular. My understanding of ecclesiology and missiology (theological studies of the Church and missions, respectively). Is that, in short - very short, is as follows:
Ecclesiology
"[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118.8)
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
Missiology
"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Philippians 1:29).
18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me." (I John 15:18-21)
"20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (I Pet. 2:20-21)
Summary:
I know these (for most Christians anyway) sound obvious and simple or even simplistic, but I'm putting them out here because I don't think the mission lived by these, and one would usually expect to receive reliable leadership in the very fundamentals of the faith by a Christian mission, and one no less than a theological institution! Maybe their heads got in the way of their hearts?
My contention is simple and it rests now and rests then (at least I had come to this way of thinking by the end of my time in Vienna):
Collective Christian life should live out the spiritual reality that Christ is the Head of the Church. Living in a permanent state of fear and trusting in human machinations is about as antithetical as you can get to a Christian life of faith. So they failed the ecclesiology test with flying colors. On to missiology...
If we are personally living by faith, collectively following the Head we should expect to suffer for our faith. I don't find that Scripture says to go to great lengths to create some tower of Babel to man's intellectual ability to protect oneself against the Evil One and his emissaries, especially not using his (the Evil One's) own tactics. Or maybe you've joined with him? (e.g., military connections). Look at who you're emulating! Personally, I'll stick with Christ as my model and my Rock.
[4/7/11 Comments: Translation - Regarding the Church, it is ultimately Christ's responsibility to see to the 'survival' of the Church. Our responsibility is to do what He's called us to do and trust Him for the 'survival' part. And, yes, while we are doing what He's called us to do we might well suffer. Moral of the story: Trust in God for 'survival' of the Church. I don't think the mission did this or it wouldn't have been willing to make the kinds of compromises it did for the sake of 'security'.]
Okay, so how did I get off on that tangent now. Oh, yes, survival of the organism. In short, ultimately that's in God's hands, especially if we're talking about Christian organizations. It's our job to be faithful and He's given us enough to do without trying to take over His responsibilities too.
***
I'm going to break now, but it's a bit disconcerting that I only got one sentence-length quote covered here. I may sneak in another post tonight.
But then when I started having new health problems there was so much bungling of my care that when they dropped my insurance I didn't change insurances to keep them, and after that physical therapy was the only service (besides the hospital itself) that I could use. There were a lot of doctors, though, that I was sorry to leave; it's just that they weren't the central ones to get me the care to help me through this crisis. So now I don't have any medical providers at any of those facilities and it seems sad to me. This is an example of how I really don't like to move around so much, but there always seems to be something that makes me do so.
***
The thought occurred to me that there is a subject that I studied in a later area of professional interest (separate from issues around my life) and that is aspects of social psychology. The topic of study involved certain aspects of social movements. I have a ReferenceManager (bibliographic software) database and just did a quick search using only "social psychology" and came up with 23 results. "Power" got 5 hits. "Social control" got 3. "Power" got 99.
Here's an interesting title from that bibliography:
The Emergence of Leadership: Linking Self-Organisation and Ethics, by Douglas Griffin. (book)
This book even deals with ethical issues!
Or here's a journal article:
How Identity and Perspective Constrain Moral Choice, by Kristen Monroe.
The abstract alone is enough to send my mental wheels racing full speed:
What drives moral action? A narrative analysis of rescuers of Jews during World War II suggests it is not reason or religion (the explanations most frequently offered by scholars), but rather identity and a particular view of self in relation to others. Findings suggest the tremendous power of identity to constrain choice, reveal the complexity of the moral life, underscore the importance of identity for moral motivation, and fill in critical gaps in our understanding of the moral psychology. In particular, an examination of moral exemplars focuses attention on the self concept, especially the extent to which critical values are integrated into one's sense of self and the extent to which a particular perspective (a way of seeing one's self in relation to others) triggers a sense of moral salience. The analysis suggests that if we can understand how people see the world and themselves in relation to others, if we can decipher their cognitive frameworks, perceptions, and categorization schema, we may begin to determine why identity exerts such a powerful influence on our treatment of others.
Really, what did drive the moral actions of the mission and its members in Vienna?
Unfortunately for you this database has 5,505 entries. Seriously, though, there are a few duplicates that need to be deleted and not all of them would be relevant or very helpful in understanding my Vienna experience.
***
I changed my mind and decided there wasn't anything else in the Jones article to comment on, so I'm moving on to the next one:
Robertson, R. J. & W. T. Powers. (1990). Introduction to Modern Psychology: The Control Theory View. Gravelswitch, KY: The Control Systems Group.
Specifically, I'm going to discuss chapter 13, "Social Psychology: Multi-System Control of the Environment." (p. 171-181)
I also want to assure you that this is NOT one of the 5,505 items in my bibliographic database, but just one more article in my socialization file.
***
"The traditional field of social psychology is something of a hodgepodge. Different psychologists have seen it various as the study of interactions between individuals, the influence of groups upon individual behavior and development, the process of group formation and action, or the principles of communal/organizational behavior. Others organize the subject in terms of supposedly different, basic processes of social behavior, such as attitudes, social motives, social perceptions, social norms, interpersonal attraction, and affiliation. However, some anthropologists, and notably the American investigator of social class, Lloyd Warner (1952), view all social behavior - all forms of group action, as well as cooperation and competition between individuals - as expression of one basic principle: control over the environment." (p. 171)
I just present this text to give you an idea of the types of things that social psychology might provide by way of helping me understand my experiences in Vienna and what was going on there. However, there is a limit as to how much I can address because discussing these issues assumes that I know enough about specific aspects of what has happening, that my memory is good and/or that I have other lasting documentation to rely on.
***
"But the postulate that social behavior, like all other behavior, serves the survival of the organism (and hence the species) helps to organize our thinking about social behavior." (p. 171)
In the Vienna mission context, this would mean that the behavior of the organization as a collective entity acted as it did in order to ensure its continuance/survival. I think this is more true than it should (biblically) be. What I mean is that the mission was obsessed with survival, by way of security concerns in particular. My understanding of ecclesiology and missiology (theological studies of the Church and missions, respectively). Is that, in short - very short, is as follows:
Ecclesiology
"[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118.8)
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
Missiology
"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake." (Philippians 1:29).
18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me." (I John 15:18-21)
"20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (I Pet. 2:20-21)
Summary:
I know these (for most Christians anyway) sound obvious and simple or even simplistic, but I'm putting them out here because I don't think the mission lived by these, and one would usually expect to receive reliable leadership in the very fundamentals of the faith by a Christian mission, and one no less than a theological institution! Maybe their heads got in the way of their hearts?
My contention is simple and it rests now and rests then (at least I had come to this way of thinking by the end of my time in Vienna):
Collective Christian life should live out the spiritual reality that Christ is the Head of the Church. Living in a permanent state of fear and trusting in human machinations is about as antithetical as you can get to a Christian life of faith. So they failed the ecclesiology test with flying colors. On to missiology...
If we are personally living by faith, collectively following the Head we should expect to suffer for our faith. I don't find that Scripture says to go to great lengths to create some tower of Babel to man's intellectual ability to protect oneself against the Evil One and his emissaries, especially not using his (the Evil One's) own tactics. Or maybe you've joined with him? (e.g., military connections). Look at who you're emulating! Personally, I'll stick with Christ as my model and my Rock.
[4/7/11 Comments: Translation - Regarding the Church, it is ultimately Christ's responsibility to see to the 'survival' of the Church. Our responsibility is to do what He's called us to do and trust Him for the 'survival' part. And, yes, while we are doing what He's called us to do we might well suffer. Moral of the story: Trust in God for 'survival' of the Church. I don't think the mission did this or it wouldn't have been willing to make the kinds of compromises it did for the sake of 'security'.]
Okay, so how did I get off on that tangent now. Oh, yes, survival of the organism. In short, ultimately that's in God's hands, especially if we're talking about Christian organizations. It's our job to be faithful and He's given us enough to do without trying to take over His responsibilities too.
***
I'm going to break now, but it's a bit disconcerting that I only got one sentence-length quote covered here. I may sneak in another post tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)