I guess I'm warming up to writing in this blog again, because I've started thinking about it between posting. And I did some thinking in the shower just now.
***
I realize those "bitch" quotes had a bit of the shock factor in them, but I don't apologize for that. As you can see, winning a lot of friends is not one of my objectives in writing this blog. In fact, maybe it would be more accurate to say that I would be more pleased to have a any friends I may have at the end of it all be true friends that have been filtered through all the false veneers. That is to say, you, the reader may well not be part of my reference group, although it's also possible that you are - after all I don't know who is reading this.
I don't know about you, but sometimes it's quite irksome when people seem to agree with you but you feel like they don't really understand what you're saying. And then it can be hard to get them to see that they really don't understand, despite their profuse objections to being labeled as such.
That's not why I included those quotes though; I included them because it seemed to feed off of the discussion at hand and it does fit how I feel, at least now. This kind of sentiment, if it existed at all in me when I was in Vienna, would only have been in the very earliest stages of development and as such not very identifiable yet.
***
Another issue that it might be good to clearly identify, although I have been mentioning it here and there all along, is that of anachronism. Although anachronism can take many forms, for our purposes I am specifically talking about when during my life I held different attitudes and the like. For example, in talking about a specific time period (e.g., my Vienna years), I am trying to let you know if a perspective wasn't held (or developed or become conscious) until a later time.
It's hard to avoid talking about things before and after the specific period being covered, but this could result in some confusion for the reader. Some of the texts I'm using, however, are so enlightening regarding other times in my life that I'm afraid if I don't mention the pertinence to these other time periods in my discussion of a text these insights to other phases of my life might go overlooked altogether. Or sometimes it's hard to explain the relevance (or irrelevance, as the case might be) of the text at hand without bringing in other phases of my life.
Nevertheless, I hope you don't come away with a Raphaelesque anachronostic sense of my life (cp. the Wikipedia article on his painting "The Marriage of the Virgin"). Sure, there were elements of my present make-up that were in existence in the 1980s, but I wasn't then what I am now in a whole lot of ways. The same can generally be said of most everyone, but I think some people experience more changes (how many changes) than others and/or greater (more substantial) changes than others, for a variety of reasons. The aspects in my life that have been especially potent drivers of change are, first of all, my pensive and reflective personality, but also my work/career changes and changes in living circumstances. That is, these things were drivers of change, not the change themselves, and there were external and internal drivers that facilitated change.
If you knew my life at all (which you only know precious little of yet, unless you know me personally outside of this blog), I think you'd see that what I'm saying about myself is a no brainer. So I'm saying this for those who don't know me outside this blog or have only known me for a limited time that doesn't include some of these life-changing situations and/or the opportunity to really know my personality.
A final caveat: Although I've thought about many of the things I discuss on this blog a lot over the years and am a relatively introspective and astute person, there is always the chance that I inadvertently involve myself in some anachronism. This is hard to avoid, much in the same way that researchers have a hard time extricated themselves from research to reach some golden objective standard, which may actually be impossible to obtain despite the best precautions.
So what I'm saying is, I'm doing my best to keep the time frames clear to the reader, but I may not be perfect. So do as I say and not as I do: cut me some slack. And if you notice such apparent anachronisms (or just plain confusing mumbo-jumbo) and want to point them out I'm willing to entertain them. It could be a simple mistake (like a big typo) or unclear language, or it could be a more substantial conceptual issue that I need to address.
While I shouldn't need to apologize for some chronological skipping around, since that is a fairly common stylistic tool in literature, it should be clear as to what belongs in what time period even with the skipping around. If the skipping around results in something along the lines of Raphael's "Wedding of the Virgin", then communication has gone haywire somewhere along the line, and my hope is that my writing isn't that glaringly anachronistic! Nevertheless, even lesser anachronisms should probably be clarified.
~ Meg
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
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): -- Fabulana
Finally...
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.
"...[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."
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.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
126. Socialization File, Pt. 9 (Dubin, pt. 9)
Continuing where we left off...
"Roy (1952, 1955) has dramatically shown that in some organizations a worker will not be taught the necessary skills and secrets of his relevant work group until he is accepted as trustworthy by his fellow workers. The acceptance process may be rapid or slow depending on the nature of the secrets of the particular group." (p. 90)
Wow! This really fits my experience of the Vienna mission. However, that said, I'm not sure if this was a usual method of induction or not, as I can't remember other cases, besides my own, where I think this is true. If indeed I was unique in this regard - how I was treated in this way - then that might argue for something going on related to my dad rather than just a part of the mission's way of inducting people. In effect, I never was really accepted and so never knew much by way of the mission's secrets and towards the end it seemed they were trying to confuse me so I wouldn't know what was what by way of secrets.
Another possible explanation if I was really a unique case in this regard, is that no one else ever refused to accept the group's norms like I did. If my treatment was because of my dad's work, you'd expect that they never intended for me to be really integrated into the mission, but if it was just because I didn't accept their ways, then they sincerely tried to socialize me, but I didn't cooperate enough for them. I can think of one other possibility, but it would (in my opinion) paint the mission even worse than either of these other two options. Of course, it's possible they did treat others this way, but, like I said, I'm not aware of such cases, and if they did happen I didn't know it was happening because I wasn't in a position to know who might or might not have access to secrets, other than the assumed things like the head of the East German group should have known the most about the mission's work in East Germany.
***
"...[I]f the new member is approved, the work group will defend the newcomer's right to make mistakes." (p. 91)
It did seems as if mistakes took on a different light if one was accepted (had past the introductory socialization hurdle) or not. Part of it was the new comer's own attitude toward the mistake, and part of it was the group. The new comer would most likely be more or less insecure or unsure of him/herself, perhaps not knowing whether what s/he was doing or saying was acceptable. This was at least a part based on the individual's own make up, as to how or how much s/he'd feel this way. The group, on their part, could act in a variety of ways, depending on several variables, such as whether or not the individual was perceived as really trying and having the right attitude, or whether it was regarding something of vital importance to the group or not, for example. It seemed that each individual was treated as an individual in this way and it wasn't an assembly line affair that spit out socialized members at the end. Rather, it was more like the work of a craftsman that hand creates each piece taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the raw materials for each project and fashioning unique objects each time, even if there were some similarities in the process used.
Once a person was accepted, mistakes were generally treated differently. No longer was there such an issue as to whether the person had the right attitude or motive, as they'd proven themselves in that regard to be accepted. That's not to say that a person, I think, also had to continue to prove themselves on the right track, at least for some time, when given new challenges and information to deal with. So most mistakes, I think, at this point were treated as honest and simple errors, although some errors might have been more potentially detrimental to the group, it's mission and the people it worked with than others, but there were lots of opportunities in safe situations to get these bugs worked out of newly accepted members. Once the person was accepted than attention could be turned more to skills and specific knowledge needed for the work. Needless to say, I never reached that point.
Some of these things are based on my impressions, but I think this is generally the way it was.
***
"Presumably, the power of the group's influence upon the initiate is determined by the degree the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. Size of the group - smaller groups are generally more influential.
2. Homogeneity of the group - homogeneous groups are generally more influential.
3. Communicative isolation - isolated groups are generally more influential." (p. 91)
Of these 3 I think the third one especially stands out, since members are geographically separated from family and friends in most cases by thousands of miles. However, that set, although the mission itself was rather large as far as mission groups go (especially all - or mostly all - in one place), influence was mainly by the immediate cohort, which for me was the other secretaries, and one's superiors. So in that way the first criteria was met, at least to a certain degree. As to homogeneity, the group was homogeneous too, despite representing 15 different missions. Somehow they had come together and did seem pretty cohesive and I think I was about the only sore thumb miscreant of the lot. Everyone else was quite amenable to the way things were done. (I was tempted to say "seemed amenable" but I'm pretty sure they actually were, and "seem" seemed unnecessarily hedgy.)
***
Next the author goes on to discuss how people consciously or otherwise act in such a way as to placate those around them. Why oh why didn't someone tell me this earlier! My goodness, and I've been so caught up on right and wrong, biblical mandate and universal truths and now I learn that this is how people are supposed to act. This way of acting, the author explains, is how people become more like those around them. At least in Russia people were willing to be my friends even if I wasn't exactly like them. Think of it, I was an Evangelical Christian in my 30s and my friends included: a 50+ year old sakhadja yoga follower with m.s. and a ca. 70 year old Russian Orthodox believer! Maybe in Russia they don't know about this principle, which is something the Vienna mission could rectify, I'm sure, given half a chance.
Anyway, as you can guess, I somehow didn't become like those around me in the Vienna mission and, while I did try to do my work pleasantly and well and be social as well, I continued to reject certain demands I felt were unreasonable, although towards the end they sort of wore me out and I began to acquiesce too little too late (but from my viewpoint it was too much too soon; I felt coerced). But rest assured, I never did anything intentionally against the group, although I may not always have been the wisest in my extracurricular pursuits and activities. But mostly I can't imagine my outside activities doing any harm to the group.
***
Time for another break until tomorrow.
~ Meg
"Roy (1952, 1955) has dramatically shown that in some organizations a worker will not be taught the necessary skills and secrets of his relevant work group until he is accepted as trustworthy by his fellow workers. The acceptance process may be rapid or slow depending on the nature of the secrets of the particular group." (p. 90)
Wow! This really fits my experience of the Vienna mission. However, that said, I'm not sure if this was a usual method of induction or not, as I can't remember other cases, besides my own, where I think this is true. If indeed I was unique in this regard - how I was treated in this way - then that might argue for something going on related to my dad rather than just a part of the mission's way of inducting people. In effect, I never was really accepted and so never knew much by way of the mission's secrets and towards the end it seemed they were trying to confuse me so I wouldn't know what was what by way of secrets.
Another possible explanation if I was really a unique case in this regard, is that no one else ever refused to accept the group's norms like I did. If my treatment was because of my dad's work, you'd expect that they never intended for me to be really integrated into the mission, but if it was just because I didn't accept their ways, then they sincerely tried to socialize me, but I didn't cooperate enough for them. I can think of one other possibility, but it would (in my opinion) paint the mission even worse than either of these other two options. Of course, it's possible they did treat others this way, but, like I said, I'm not aware of such cases, and if they did happen I didn't know it was happening because I wasn't in a position to know who might or might not have access to secrets, other than the assumed things like the head of the East German group should have known the most about the mission's work in East Germany.
***
"...[I]f the new member is approved, the work group will defend the newcomer's right to make mistakes." (p. 91)
It did seems as if mistakes took on a different light if one was accepted (had past the introductory socialization hurdle) or not. Part of it was the new comer's own attitude toward the mistake, and part of it was the group. The new comer would most likely be more or less insecure or unsure of him/herself, perhaps not knowing whether what s/he was doing or saying was acceptable. This was at least a part based on the individual's own make up, as to how or how much s/he'd feel this way. The group, on their part, could act in a variety of ways, depending on several variables, such as whether or not the individual was perceived as really trying and having the right attitude, or whether it was regarding something of vital importance to the group or not, for example. It seemed that each individual was treated as an individual in this way and it wasn't an assembly line affair that spit out socialized members at the end. Rather, it was more like the work of a craftsman that hand creates each piece taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the raw materials for each project and fashioning unique objects each time, even if there were some similarities in the process used.
Once a person was accepted, mistakes were generally treated differently. No longer was there such an issue as to whether the person had the right attitude or motive, as they'd proven themselves in that regard to be accepted. That's not to say that a person, I think, also had to continue to prove themselves on the right track, at least for some time, when given new challenges and information to deal with. So most mistakes, I think, at this point were treated as honest and simple errors, although some errors might have been more potentially detrimental to the group, it's mission and the people it worked with than others, but there were lots of opportunities in safe situations to get these bugs worked out of newly accepted members. Once the person was accepted than attention could be turned more to skills and specific knowledge needed for the work. Needless to say, I never reached that point.
Some of these things are based on my impressions, but I think this is generally the way it was.
***
"Presumably, the power of the group's influence upon the initiate is determined by the degree the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. Size of the group - smaller groups are generally more influential.
2. Homogeneity of the group - homogeneous groups are generally more influential.
3. Communicative isolation - isolated groups are generally more influential." (p. 91)
Of these 3 I think the third one especially stands out, since members are geographically separated from family and friends in most cases by thousands of miles. However, that set, although the mission itself was rather large as far as mission groups go (especially all - or mostly all - in one place), influence was mainly by the immediate cohort, which for me was the other secretaries, and one's superiors. So in that way the first criteria was met, at least to a certain degree. As to homogeneity, the group was homogeneous too, despite representing 15 different missions. Somehow they had come together and did seem pretty cohesive and I think I was about the only sore thumb miscreant of the lot. Everyone else was quite amenable to the way things were done. (I was tempted to say "seemed amenable" but I'm pretty sure they actually were, and "seem" seemed unnecessarily hedgy.)
***
Next the author goes on to discuss how people consciously or otherwise act in such a way as to placate those around them. Why oh why didn't someone tell me this earlier! My goodness, and I've been so caught up on right and wrong, biblical mandate and universal truths and now I learn that this is how people are supposed to act. This way of acting, the author explains, is how people become more like those around them. At least in Russia people were willing to be my friends even if I wasn't exactly like them. Think of it, I was an Evangelical Christian in my 30s and my friends included: a 50+ year old sakhadja yoga follower with m.s. and a ca. 70 year old Russian Orthodox believer! Maybe in Russia they don't know about this principle, which is something the Vienna mission could rectify, I'm sure, given half a chance.
Anyway, as you can guess, I somehow didn't become like those around me in the Vienna mission and, while I did try to do my work pleasantly and well and be social as well, I continued to reject certain demands I felt were unreasonable, although towards the end they sort of wore me out and I began to acquiesce too little too late (but from my viewpoint it was too much too soon; I felt coerced). But rest assured, I never did anything intentionally against the group, although I may not always have been the wisest in my extracurricular pursuits and activities. But mostly I can't imagine my outside activities doing any harm to the group.
***
Time for another break until tomorrow.
~ Meg
125. Socialization File, Pt. 8 (Dubin, pt. 8)
I was going to end where I did last time, but pastor came by just as I was finishing up. I did a little work in the garden and then laid down to rest and after awhile mom called. I still have to really pace myself and avoid doing too much that will result in a setback (from healing from the surgery). It could be that my digging little trenches to covering an area with plastic is pushing the limit (see http://www.ecocomposite.org/restoration/soilsolar.htm or http://www.ehow.com/how_4037_solarize-soil.html for example). At least I was pretty tired afterwards. I might have to wait a while to continue with that project if I'm not ready yet for this kind of work.
***
Continuing with the rather long chapter section on socialization upon entry to an organization:
"If the new member has been preceded by others who have been through the same situation and can instruct him about the setting, the pattern is considered to be serial." (p. 89)
From what I observed in Vienna, this was the set up there. I don't know if it applied to all parts of the organizations, but I suspect it did. Generally, at least according to my observations, it was people in the more or less same type of position who would be involved in this kind of peer socialization. Sometimes they would use their experience as a source of "understanding what you're going through" because they'd been there. This may or may not exactly be true, depending on how similar, in the end, your socialization was to your mentor's.
Others involved in the newcomer's socialization might be his/her superiors and their family members and sometimes others with some kind of (potential) relationship to the newcomer's work. Their parts in the socialization effort didn't seem to be so much based on an "I've been there" rationale, which would be too egalitarian for the Vienna mission.
***
"Certain organizations possess selection devices which reduce the importance of the socialization process. For example, some organizations select only those individuals who have already assimilated the proper attitudes, values and motivations required for membership." (p. 89)
This was partially, but not entirely, true for the Vienna mission. The thing was that some of the "attitudes, values and motivations" were, it seemed to me, under wraps. The mission had a fairly elaborate selection process, but I'm not sure it was any more involved that is usual for nondenominational Protestant missions. I'm sure the mission would also try to assess the unspoken desired traits, but if they didn't want some of these requirements for success with the organization to become widely known they couldn't be direct in assessing them, which could leave room for error. Also, workers to the mission actually came from some 15 different participant missions, each of which had its own intake process, so there would have been some variation in this, possibly very great variation. It took me about 2 years to go from initial application, getting a response, raising funds and prayer support, and actually leaving for Vienna.
On this account I can only speak for myself, and I'm not sure what anyone else experienced before arriving in Vienna, so I would not even venture to suggest this could be generalized to other inductees. But for myself, once I was accepted but before I arrived in Vienna there were at least a couple incidents in relation to the Vienna mission that, if intentional, could have been tests or lessons. I'm not sure they were intentional though or intended this way, however. The two events were 1) the issue of living by myself and the phone call from the gal in Alaska when I was on the road in Colorado visiting churches, and 2) the last minute request for my to raise more money. If intentional, they could have taught me group centrality (i.e., no lone horses) and submission, or they could have been tests to see how I responded to these kinds of demands on me. Again, I am not at all certain these two events were intentional in these ways, but in hindsight the did seem rather prescient of things to come in Vienna. I believe I already discussed these events in my chronology.
***
This is it for this subsection, so I'll break off here. The next section discusses "Relevant Group Factors."
***
Continuing with the rather long chapter section on socialization upon entry to an organization:
"If the new member has been preceded by others who have been through the same situation and can instruct him about the setting, the pattern is considered to be serial." (p. 89)
From what I observed in Vienna, this was the set up there. I don't know if it applied to all parts of the organizations, but I suspect it did. Generally, at least according to my observations, it was people in the more or less same type of position who would be involved in this kind of peer socialization. Sometimes they would use their experience as a source of "understanding what you're going through" because they'd been there. This may or may not exactly be true, depending on how similar, in the end, your socialization was to your mentor's.
Others involved in the newcomer's socialization might be his/her superiors and their family members and sometimes others with some kind of (potential) relationship to the newcomer's work. Their parts in the socialization effort didn't seem to be so much based on an "I've been there" rationale, which would be too egalitarian for the Vienna mission.
***
"Certain organizations possess selection devices which reduce the importance of the socialization process. For example, some organizations select only those individuals who have already assimilated the proper attitudes, values and motivations required for membership." (p. 89)
This was partially, but not entirely, true for the Vienna mission. The thing was that some of the "attitudes, values and motivations" were, it seemed to me, under wraps. The mission had a fairly elaborate selection process, but I'm not sure it was any more involved that is usual for nondenominational Protestant missions. I'm sure the mission would also try to assess the unspoken desired traits, but if they didn't want some of these requirements for success with the organization to become widely known they couldn't be direct in assessing them, which could leave room for error. Also, workers to the mission actually came from some 15 different participant missions, each of which had its own intake process, so there would have been some variation in this, possibly very great variation. It took me about 2 years to go from initial application, getting a response, raising funds and prayer support, and actually leaving for Vienna.
On this account I can only speak for myself, and I'm not sure what anyone else experienced before arriving in Vienna, so I would not even venture to suggest this could be generalized to other inductees. But for myself, once I was accepted but before I arrived in Vienna there were at least a couple incidents in relation to the Vienna mission that, if intentional, could have been tests or lessons. I'm not sure they were intentional though or intended this way, however. The two events were 1) the issue of living by myself and the phone call from the gal in Alaska when I was on the road in Colorado visiting churches, and 2) the last minute request for my to raise more money. If intentional, they could have taught me group centrality (i.e., no lone horses) and submission, or they could have been tests to see how I responded to these kinds of demands on me. Again, I am not at all certain these two events were intentional in these ways, but in hindsight the did seem rather prescient of things to come in Vienna. I believe I already discussed these events in my chronology.
***
This is it for this subsection, so I'll break off here. The next section discusses "Relevant Group Factors."
124. Socialization File, Pt. 7 (Dubin, pt. 7)
I just spent a good part of the morning placing a Vitamin Shoppe order. I mistakenly thought that their semi-annual sale on store brand products was in March, but it's in April. So I had to redo the whole order I'd planned to place today.
***
"The more pervasive the normative system, the more important the organizational socialization process... The ideology, if accepted by the new member, creates a sort of psychological barrier prohibiting the individual's desertion of the organization." (p. 88)
Since the normative system of the Vienna mission seemed pretty all-inclusive/total/pervasive, the apparent importance of the socialization process shouldn't come as a surprise, at least if the theory advanced by this text is at all true. In fact, in Vienna it seemed that until you passed that first hurdle, the initial socialization, there really wasn't a future for you in the organization at all, in any capacity whatsoever. If you did not meet these criteria than you were persona non gratis, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Thus, even if Superman (or Wonder Woman) had offered their services, if they didn't pass the socialization test they'd be, without ceremony, issued directly to the door. And possibly a whole mythology would have developed around them about what happens to people (even super heroes) who try to buck the system.
As to the second half of this quote, in Vienna there was indeed a kind of "psychological barrier" as described here. In Vienna this, according to my experience and observations, served as a kind of intermediary between the organization and the rest of the world. It provided (often unwritten) guidelines as to how to interact in various contexts with the rest of the world. And since much of life was spent with others in the mission, there was always a sense that you were being observed as to adherence to these group norms. It's possible, though, that the more one internalized these norms the less there would be a sense of being observed, because even if one were being observed it didn't matter much because by then you acted inherently as you should anyway. I imagine that once being observed didn't bother you there would be a great psychological stressor lifted, which would be a reward (in the carrot/stick manner) of being acculturated into the organization.
As to the effect on possible desertion, I think there may be some viability to this in the Vienna context, but I'm not sure. On one hand, I think this is clearly true in that you would be less likely to (whether inadvertently or not) compromise the work of the group by your words or actions. This would include having any negative attitudes about the organization and leaving because of that, especially leaving in a way that could harm the organization. If you were going to leave, it had to be on their terms - as was the case for me. I left with bad attitude (although I'm not sure the extent and level of the bad attitude was understood upon my departure), but the mission seemed to do whatever it could to minimize any possible negative repercussions upon my departure after a troublesome tenure with the mission.
But on the other hand, the mission was not created with the intention that all members would stay on indefinitely with them. So there had to be a way to allow for this coming and going that would both maximize the benefit to the mission and minimize any potential problems from it. Thus, a successful departure, as I understand it, would have the leaving individual be one who had satisfactorily internalized the group's norms (relative to the position the individual held with the mission) and so would not compromise the mission upon leaving (i.e., carelessly divulge secrets) and would be a spokesperson for the mission to their supporting churches and individuals back home. I think sometimes alumni members of the mission became mission p.r. contacts for some time after their departure.
***
This next discussion is difficult to cite snippets from without loss of understanding, so I'll try to summarize it instead.
If a newcomer isn't explicitly taken in as a "learner", then "much of the learning takes place via the informal organization". The contrast to this is an organization where newcomers aren't explicitly thought of as "learners"; these organizational settings are considered more "formal" and they put "more stress... upon influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes, and [have a] more severe... socialization process." (p. 88 - both quotes)
I don't think this fits my Vienna experience. To a certain extent one might have been considered a "learner", but really one generally hit the ground running. For example, 3 days after I landed in Vienna I was already on the job, although that doesn't mean I was doing everything right away. And looking at other newcomers, I think pretty much the same could be said across the board. I do think, however, that newcomers (including myself) were given things to do right away that might have (depending on the position and person) been specifically learning-the-ropes tasks. For me it was reading software manuals, which I did in addition to other secretarial duties given me from the get-go.
Even so, the mission did stress "influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes"... a lot. However, this was often sort of under the radar or cloaked in theological or psychological mumbo-jumbo (I reveal my bias here, I know), which was used to integrate one into the group in whatever fashion seemed necessary for the individual. These processes seemed pretty taylor-made to the individual, although some aspects of it seemed to be common, at least to groups of individuals (e.g., to all secretaries).
In summary, the text here says that informal organizations (ones that didn't identify newcomers as "learners") didn't put much emphasis on values and attitudes and the converse also being true (formal organizations did put such emphasis). In fact, the Vienna mission, if I understand the text correctly, would be an informal organization that DID put such emphasis on newcomer socialization.
***
"The length of the formal socialization period is often a good indication of the organization's desire to influence deep or surface characteristics of the recruits." (p. 88)
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, because there really wasn't a "formal socialization period" in the Vienna mission, although to me it's clear that such a period existed (albeit, simultaneously with performing one's duties). I have a feeling that the individual his/herself, their superiors and possibly other mission leadership knew how a person was coming along in their "adjustment to life" in the mission and if there were any serious deficiencies.
In the same vein, it was somewhat difficult to determine the length of time any particular individual experienced the initial socialization to the organization. But again, probably the individual and relevant leadership, including at least the key members involved in socializing the person would know how long the person was going through the initial process. Once a person had passed that hurdle they were more accepted into the organization, and it seemed recognizable to others when a person had reached this point or if there were serious problems, especially, as in my case, apparently recalcitrant problems.
***
"The more pervasive the normative system, the more important the organizational socialization process... The ideology, if accepted by the new member, creates a sort of psychological barrier prohibiting the individual's desertion of the organization." (p. 88)
Since the normative system of the Vienna mission seemed pretty all-inclusive/total/pervasive, the apparent importance of the socialization process shouldn't come as a surprise, at least if the theory advanced by this text is at all true. In fact, in Vienna it seemed that until you passed that first hurdle, the initial socialization, there really wasn't a future for you in the organization at all, in any capacity whatsoever. If you did not meet these criteria than you were persona non gratis, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Thus, even if Superman (or Wonder Woman) had offered their services, if they didn't pass the socialization test they'd be, without ceremony, issued directly to the door. And possibly a whole mythology would have developed around them about what happens to people (even super heroes) who try to buck the system.
As to the second half of this quote, in Vienna there was indeed a kind of "psychological barrier" as described here. In Vienna this, according to my experience and observations, served as a kind of intermediary between the organization and the rest of the world. It provided (often unwritten) guidelines as to how to interact in various contexts with the rest of the world. And since much of life was spent with others in the mission, there was always a sense that you were being observed as to adherence to these group norms. It's possible, though, that the more one internalized these norms the less there would be a sense of being observed, because even if one were being observed it didn't matter much because by then you acted inherently as you should anyway. I imagine that once being observed didn't bother you there would be a great psychological stressor lifted, which would be a reward (in the carrot/stick manner) of being acculturated into the organization.
As to the effect on possible desertion, I think there may be some viability to this in the Vienna context, but I'm not sure. On one hand, I think this is clearly true in that you would be less likely to (whether inadvertently or not) compromise the work of the group by your words or actions. This would include having any negative attitudes about the organization and leaving because of that, especially leaving in a way that could harm the organization. If you were going to leave, it had to be on their terms - as was the case for me. I left with bad attitude (although I'm not sure the extent and level of the bad attitude was understood upon my departure), but the mission seemed to do whatever it could to minimize any possible negative repercussions upon my departure after a troublesome tenure with the mission.
But on the other hand, the mission was not created with the intention that all members would stay on indefinitely with them. So there had to be a way to allow for this coming and going that would both maximize the benefit to the mission and minimize any potential problems from it. Thus, a successful departure, as I understand it, would have the leaving individual be one who had satisfactorily internalized the group's norms (relative to the position the individual held with the mission) and so would not compromise the mission upon leaving (i.e., carelessly divulge secrets) and would be a spokesperson for the mission to their supporting churches and individuals back home. I think sometimes alumni members of the mission became mission p.r. contacts for some time after their departure.
***
This next discussion is difficult to cite snippets from without loss of understanding, so I'll try to summarize it instead.
If a newcomer isn't explicitly taken in as a "learner", then "much of the learning takes place via the informal organization". The contrast to this is an organization where newcomers aren't explicitly thought of as "learners"; these organizational settings are considered more "formal" and they put "more stress... upon influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes, and [have a] more severe... socialization process." (p. 88 - both quotes)
I don't think this fits my Vienna experience. To a certain extent one might have been considered a "learner", but really one generally hit the ground running. For example, 3 days after I landed in Vienna I was already on the job, although that doesn't mean I was doing everything right away. And looking at other newcomers, I think pretty much the same could be said across the board. I do think, however, that newcomers (including myself) were given things to do right away that might have (depending on the position and person) been specifically learning-the-ropes tasks. For me it was reading software manuals, which I did in addition to other secretarial duties given me from the get-go.
Even so, the mission did stress "influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes"... a lot. However, this was often sort of under the radar or cloaked in theological or psychological mumbo-jumbo (I reveal my bias here, I know), which was used to integrate one into the group in whatever fashion seemed necessary for the individual. These processes seemed pretty taylor-made to the individual, although some aspects of it seemed to be common, at least to groups of individuals (e.g., to all secretaries).
In summary, the text here says that informal organizations (ones that didn't identify newcomers as "learners") didn't put much emphasis on values and attitudes and the converse also being true (formal organizations did put such emphasis). In fact, the Vienna mission, if I understand the text correctly, would be an informal organization that DID put such emphasis on newcomer socialization.
***
"The length of the formal socialization period is often a good indication of the organization's desire to influence deep or surface characteristics of the recruits." (p. 88)
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, because there really wasn't a "formal socialization period" in the Vienna mission, although to me it's clear that such a period existed (albeit, simultaneously with performing one's duties). I have a feeling that the individual his/herself, their superiors and possibly other mission leadership knew how a person was coming along in their "adjustment to life" in the mission and if there were any serious deficiencies.
In the same vein, it was somewhat difficult to determine the length of time any particular individual experienced the initial socialization to the organization. But again, probably the individual and relevant leadership, including at least the key members involved in socializing the person would know how long the person was going through the initial process. Once a person had passed that hurdle they were more accepted into the organization, and it seemed recognizable to others when a person had reached this point or if there were serious problems, especially, as in my case, apparently recalcitrant problems.
Monday, February 28, 2011
123. Socialization File, Pt. 6 (Dubin, pt. 6)
I'm not sure why I'm so tired. After the surgery I was pretty tired the first couple weeks, and then when I could take the neck brace off I got tired again and it's been almost 2 weeks and I'm not sure it's getting better. The second half of the day I'm pretty wiped out. I rest some, but I still get stuff done, but I feel like I'm just dragging myself around I'm so wiped out. But I wake up refreshed in the morning.
***
Anyway, one thing I wanted to say before hitting the book again is that my experience in Vienna could be taken alone as it is, OR... it could be taken in the context of my whole life, especially some things that happen after my Vienna experience. It'll take a lot to wind my way through that experience, but even when it's over, it might not really be over, because it could just be a harbinger of other things to come.
What I mean is, how much of what happened in Vienna was just because of the erroneous ways of the mission (and my vulnerabilities), and how much of it was related to my dad's work. I don't want to give you the impression that I know the answer to that question definitively, but my hunch is that at least a certain amount of the Vienna experiences had some relation to my dad's work. I can't be certain of this, however, but at the very least there are enough indications that this theory could be plausible.
***
Next Van Maanen discusses Etzioni's theory of different types of organizations requiring different types of compliance.
"Normative organizations are characterized by a high moral commitment of their members to the mission of the organization. These organizations stress 'expressive' socialization aimed at insuring that the individual's values, attitudes and motives are congruent with the mission. While normative organizations may be dependent upon outside agencies for support (e.g., educational institutions), they must still develop some internal mechanisms for the socialization of their members. On the other hand, utilitarian organizations emphasize 'instrumental' socialization - aimed primarily at controlling only the overt behavior of the members. Values, attitudes and motives are considered largely irrelevant providing the new member's behavior is in the organizationally defined direction. Hence, utilitarian organizations orient their socialization procedures toward supplying novices only with the knowledge and behavior required of the specific role they are to perform. Finally, Etzioni perceives coercive organizations as most concerned with obedience. The organizational socialization process is punishment-centered and, as such, is conducive to an alienating form of individual compliance." (p. 86)
It seems pretty clear that the Vienna mission was of the first type - normative. In a way that's not too surprising considering it was a missionary organization and also the nature of the mission field. That is, missions would want the new missionary to share their theology and values, and there would undoubtedly be some care taken to work in countries otherwise not terribly friendly towards religious activity. But the problem is that I didn't foresee how far they had taken the precautions, and how that had somehow mutated the mission into something that I could barely recognize as a mission, and a theological institution to boot - filled with theologians who evidently had no qualms with the way things were done.
The Vienna mission was clearly in the normative camp.
***
"Normative organizations, because of the reliance and concern with the values, attitudes and motives of their members, are likely to be most concerned with the socialization of their new participants. Hence, these organizations usually have time-consuming and intensive socialization methods." (p. 86)
The problem (well, one of the problems) with the Vienna mission was that it was hard to tell what was socialization and what wasn't. It's not as if it was clearly labeled as being socialization or something else, so eventually I began to think that just about everything was socialization. That might not have been true if I'd have been a more responsive subject, in which case I might not have felt that everything was socialization because I'd been socialized already. Then I'd become part of the socialization machine ready for the next recruit to be properly molded. In fact, it did seem, in my observations of others, that once you successfully pass the first battery of tests than part of your initiation was being entrusted to help socialize other new comers. To be able to do that you would have had to have internalized their values and ways of doing things, their norms.
***
Next Van Maanen looks at another way to classify organizations. In this system, the differential is how "total" an institution is (or isn't).
"...[T]he main issue is not which organizations are total, but rather how much totality does each display.
In strong institutions, such as the army, persons are socialized normally by harsh methods. Shiloh (1971) suggests that initiates to these organizations are 'profaned' by a standardized series of abasements and degradations. The organizational machinery is directed toward the classification of the initiates. As the socialization process progresses, tests of obedience are administered under tight supervision. These tests are considered necessary if the individual is to learn a new role." (p. 87)
I've discussed this some in earlier posts, that the Vienna mission was pretty much a total institution. In a sense you might have been freer to leave than, say the military or prison, but if you did you'd have a lot of explaining to do to your supporters (churches and individuals) back home, not to mention any other such life-changing consequences. And there you were plopped in a foreign country, although that didn't phase me personally much, but I think it was used with a lot of people as a way to keep them closely in the fold. Most missionaries who came had a profession (theologian, secretary) and didn't necessarily know German, for example.
***
"In Etzion's terms, coercive organizations are the most like total institutions. Virtually all facets of an individual's life are controlled within these organizations." (p. 87)
It sure felt like this - coercive and total - to me. If you consider that even in the military soldiers have free and leave time, but that setting is still considered coercive and total. So it was in Vienna, and it felt to me like the more I did apart from the group the more I felt the coercion, which was expressed in a variety of ways, such as socially shunning me or changing my work position. I don't want to go into this too much now, but, believe me, I'll get to it.
***
"[S]ome organizations require the recruit to learn a new style of life. Such learning places the members in a community (or subculture) whose claims over their daily existence exceed their official duties. Socialization into such organizations is generally harsh and attempts to force the novice to break old patterns and relationships. The new member is expected to emerge from the organizational socialization process with a strong identification with the collectivity. Moore (1969:879) notes that in such organizations, the process invariably involves suffering." (p. 87)
This was true, I think, of the mission in Vienna. I mean, it's not as if newcomers had to forsake a wanton lifestyle, but they did need to change to fit the way the organization thought and acted, and this did seem pretty all-inclusive. The initiated managed to use all facets of their life for the benefit of the organization. Thus, working to found a Christian school where the missionary kids (MKs) could attend would fit that bill, and would include a few people from the mission, so that it would be possible to make sure that the mission's interests were followed. That would be an activity outside the primary mission of the organization, but within the bounds of what was in the interests of the mission, so that outside activities like this were pretty integral to success in the organization - you couldn't just do your job well and go home and do what you wanted, even if it wasn't necessarily something that would hurt the mission. For the most part, to succeed there at least most, if not all, of your life had to be for the mission's interests, as they defined their interests.
***
"The existence of danger in an occupation or organization is another characteristic having implications for the socialization process. Janowitz (1964) and Van Maanen (1972) note that organizations involved in the performance of crucial life-death functions develop far-reaching claims over the participant's life." (p. 87)
This clearly describes the Vienna mission working in Communist countries. However, as mentioned earlier, this was a Christian mission and as such should have operated under biblical principles, which is exactly where I think they lost the mark. Try explaining that to a bunch of theologians, however. At least you can't accuse me of being intimidated. Back then I did eventually become intimidated through those 2 years of hell on earth (for me), but I grew through those experiences and I've faced a lot of things since then, so I'm pretty hard to intimidate now.
***
It's after midnight and I'd better go for now. Good night.
~ Meg
***
Anyway, one thing I wanted to say before hitting the book again is that my experience in Vienna could be taken alone as it is, OR... it could be taken in the context of my whole life, especially some things that happen after my Vienna experience. It'll take a lot to wind my way through that experience, but even when it's over, it might not really be over, because it could just be a harbinger of other things to come.
What I mean is, how much of what happened in Vienna was just because of the erroneous ways of the mission (and my vulnerabilities), and how much of it was related to my dad's work. I don't want to give you the impression that I know the answer to that question definitively, but my hunch is that at least a certain amount of the Vienna experiences had some relation to my dad's work. I can't be certain of this, however, but at the very least there are enough indications that this theory could be plausible.
***
Next Van Maanen discusses Etzioni's theory of different types of organizations requiring different types of compliance.
"Normative organizations are characterized by a high moral commitment of their members to the mission of the organization. These organizations stress 'expressive' socialization aimed at insuring that the individual's values, attitudes and motives are congruent with the mission. While normative organizations may be dependent upon outside agencies for support (e.g., educational institutions), they must still develop some internal mechanisms for the socialization of their members. On the other hand, utilitarian organizations emphasize 'instrumental' socialization - aimed primarily at controlling only the overt behavior of the members. Values, attitudes and motives are considered largely irrelevant providing the new member's behavior is in the organizationally defined direction. Hence, utilitarian organizations orient their socialization procedures toward supplying novices only with the knowledge and behavior required of the specific role they are to perform. Finally, Etzioni perceives coercive organizations as most concerned with obedience. The organizational socialization process is punishment-centered and, as such, is conducive to an alienating form of individual compliance." (p. 86)
It seems pretty clear that the Vienna mission was of the first type - normative. In a way that's not too surprising considering it was a missionary organization and also the nature of the mission field. That is, missions would want the new missionary to share their theology and values, and there would undoubtedly be some care taken to work in countries otherwise not terribly friendly towards religious activity. But the problem is that I didn't foresee how far they had taken the precautions, and how that had somehow mutated the mission into something that I could barely recognize as a mission, and a theological institution to boot - filled with theologians who evidently had no qualms with the way things were done.
The Vienna mission was clearly in the normative camp.
***
"Normative organizations, because of the reliance and concern with the values, attitudes and motives of their members, are likely to be most concerned with the socialization of their new participants. Hence, these organizations usually have time-consuming and intensive socialization methods." (p. 86)
The problem (well, one of the problems) with the Vienna mission was that it was hard to tell what was socialization and what wasn't. It's not as if it was clearly labeled as being socialization or something else, so eventually I began to think that just about everything was socialization. That might not have been true if I'd have been a more responsive subject, in which case I might not have felt that everything was socialization because I'd been socialized already. Then I'd become part of the socialization machine ready for the next recruit to be properly molded. In fact, it did seem, in my observations of others, that once you successfully pass the first battery of tests than part of your initiation was being entrusted to help socialize other new comers. To be able to do that you would have had to have internalized their values and ways of doing things, their norms.
***
Next Van Maanen looks at another way to classify organizations. In this system, the differential is how "total" an institution is (or isn't).
"...[T]he main issue is not which organizations are total, but rather how much totality does each display.
In strong institutions, such as the army, persons are socialized normally by harsh methods. Shiloh (1971) suggests that initiates to these organizations are 'profaned' by a standardized series of abasements and degradations. The organizational machinery is directed toward the classification of the initiates. As the socialization process progresses, tests of obedience are administered under tight supervision. These tests are considered necessary if the individual is to learn a new role." (p. 87)
I've discussed this some in earlier posts, that the Vienna mission was pretty much a total institution. In a sense you might have been freer to leave than, say the military or prison, but if you did you'd have a lot of explaining to do to your supporters (churches and individuals) back home, not to mention any other such life-changing consequences. And there you were plopped in a foreign country, although that didn't phase me personally much, but I think it was used with a lot of people as a way to keep them closely in the fold. Most missionaries who came had a profession (theologian, secretary) and didn't necessarily know German, for example.
***
"In Etzion's terms, coercive organizations are the most like total institutions. Virtually all facets of an individual's life are controlled within these organizations." (p. 87)
It sure felt like this - coercive and total - to me. If you consider that even in the military soldiers have free and leave time, but that setting is still considered coercive and total. So it was in Vienna, and it felt to me like the more I did apart from the group the more I felt the coercion, which was expressed in a variety of ways, such as socially shunning me or changing my work position. I don't want to go into this too much now, but, believe me, I'll get to it.
***
"[S]ome organizations require the recruit to learn a new style of life. Such learning places the members in a community (or subculture) whose claims over their daily existence exceed their official duties. Socialization into such organizations is generally harsh and attempts to force the novice to break old patterns and relationships. The new member is expected to emerge from the organizational socialization process with a strong identification with the collectivity. Moore (1969:879) notes that in such organizations, the process invariably involves suffering." (p. 87)
This was true, I think, of the mission in Vienna. I mean, it's not as if newcomers had to forsake a wanton lifestyle, but they did need to change to fit the way the organization thought and acted, and this did seem pretty all-inclusive. The initiated managed to use all facets of their life for the benefit of the organization. Thus, working to found a Christian school where the missionary kids (MKs) could attend would fit that bill, and would include a few people from the mission, so that it would be possible to make sure that the mission's interests were followed. That would be an activity outside the primary mission of the organization, but within the bounds of what was in the interests of the mission, so that outside activities like this were pretty integral to success in the organization - you couldn't just do your job well and go home and do what you wanted, even if it wasn't necessarily something that would hurt the mission. For the most part, to succeed there at least most, if not all, of your life had to be for the mission's interests, as they defined their interests.
***
"The existence of danger in an occupation or organization is another characteristic having implications for the socialization process. Janowitz (1964) and Van Maanen (1972) note that organizations involved in the performance of crucial life-death functions develop far-reaching claims over the participant's life." (p. 87)
This clearly describes the Vienna mission working in Communist countries. However, as mentioned earlier, this was a Christian mission and as such should have operated under biblical principles, which is exactly where I think they lost the mark. Try explaining that to a bunch of theologians, however. At least you can't accuse me of being intimidated. Back then I did eventually become intimidated through those 2 years of hell on earth (for me), but I grew through those experiences and I've faced a lot of things since then, so I'm pretty hard to intimidate now.
***
It's after midnight and I'd better go for now. Good night.
~ Meg
122. Socialization File, Pt. 5 (Dubin, pt. 5)
Now remember that I did the research that resulted in my having all these articles and book segments in the mid 90's, so my thinking along these lines has stayed pretty constant all this time and that was much closer to the time when all this happened to me - specifically the Vienna years.
Also, the fact that I've kept them all this time is an indication of my continual intention of using them eventually, when life circumstances permitted it.
***
"When an individual enters an organization as a newly recruited member, he is likely to experience what Hughes (1958b) calls a 'reality shock.' The extent to which the shock affects the outcome of the organizational socialization process depends largely upon the extent to which the person has correctly anticipated the various expectations of the organization." (p. 84)
Whoooa, Nelly! Need I say that I didn't anticipate "the various expectations of the organization" very "correctly"? I got along pretty well in Austria apart from my dealings with the mission, which indicates that I knew the Austrian culture better than I understood the organizational culture mostly made up mainly of fellow Americans, and evangelical Christian Americans at that. How can that be? Where had I ever had problems among American evangelical Christians? So as you can see, this is not just any ordinary group of (mostly) American evangelical Christian. No, this is a group of (mostly) American evangelical Christians who had developed a way of thinking and doing that seemed very foreign to my American evangelical Christian experience, which spanned about my whole life.
Now it's one thing to do things a little differently, but how could more fundamental things like way of thinking and rationalizing ways of doing that seemed antithetical to all that I knew about my faith and biblical teaching? Had I been mistaught? Had I all these years misunderstood the Bible?
If these perceived differences were real, and not just ephemeral or a misunderstanding somewhere along the line on my part, how could these seemingly astute theologians and Bible teachers come to such divergent understandings and ways of thinking?
If they were correct, was their way of thinking something that needed to be taught back home too - after all if they were right, surely they should spread it to Christians back home (and elsewhere) too, right? Or was it that they were right only in the narrow context of working in Eastern Europe (or "closed countries" anywhere), which mandated a different reality, a different understanding of things?
But if there was a real gap between the mission's reality and what I'd been taught, experienced and read in the Bible, how could they bridge that gap? I can tell you my theory on this: they were convinced that these differences were necessary to be able to "successfully" carry out their work... in the context of Communist countries. So then the issues become: 1) What is "successful"? 2) Was this really necessary to be "successful"? and 3) Was it biblical?
Here are my answers to these questions:
1) "Successful" in their eyes involved minimal human suffering (e.g., imprisonment of nationals, missionaries being banned from countries, etc.) and more equipped national church leaders to build the Church in those countries. I think the first part of this equation is based on our modern/cultural thinking and does not biblically justify their tactics (although if broken down into specific individual tactics, some might not have been an issue).
2) To meet their idea of "successful" (as I've just surmised) the complete package of their tactics might have been more or less necessary. But since I disagree with their concept of "successful" (as I've interpreted it), I also don't agree that their means were necessary.
3) No, I don't think it was biblical. If it were possible to have one of the leadership (i.e., one of those that would have had the greatest knowledge and understanding of the tactics used) list out the various specific tactics - including the things not written down - and then give a biblical/theological explanation for each of them, I would be very interested in seeing such a list. But first of all, there would need to be corroboration that the list was relatively complete and accurate and not snow job. But since I think that these tactics are still in use in other "closed" countries (i.e., countries not open to Western missionaries), I highly doubt that you'll find anyone willing to do this, unless there was someone else out there (besides me) who was disgruntled about these things but had more insider access than I did.
So all that is to say that I had a very incorrect understanding of the "various expectations" of the mission before arriving in Vienna.
***
"In many cases, anticipatory socialization sharpens the positive features of the organization and dulls the negative features. For example, recruitment procedures seek to present the organization in its most favorable light. Consequently, the encounter period is likely to be an extremely trying period." (p. 84)
Hah! Missions give EVERYONE a glossed over view of their work!! Of course, the more deviance in the mission the more "glossing over" you'd expect. Most missions with any deviation, though, would be expected to having something like disagreements among workers or something scandalous about a particular missionary, or the like. But the glossing over that missions to Eastern Europe did involved intentionally hiding a major part of what they did!
Of course, in general terms I anticipated this, but the kind of discretion I imagined paled in comparison to the whole-scale spy-like institutionalized deception I encountered. You've heard of front companies? Here's something from the Sept. 17, 2008, Los Angeles Times:
The CIA set up a network of front companies in Europe and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a constellation of "black stations" for a new generation of spies, according to current and former agency officials. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/17/nation/na-intel17)
That's about what it felt like.
***
I'm going to break off for now...
Ciao...
~ Meg
Also, the fact that I've kept them all this time is an indication of my continual intention of using them eventually, when life circumstances permitted it.
***
"When an individual enters an organization as a newly recruited member, he is likely to experience what Hughes (1958b) calls a 'reality shock.' The extent to which the shock affects the outcome of the organizational socialization process depends largely upon the extent to which the person has correctly anticipated the various expectations of the organization." (p. 84)
Whoooa, Nelly! Need I say that I didn't anticipate "the various expectations of the organization" very "correctly"? I got along pretty well in Austria apart from my dealings with the mission, which indicates that I knew the Austrian culture better than I understood the organizational culture mostly made up mainly of fellow Americans, and evangelical Christian Americans at that. How can that be? Where had I ever had problems among American evangelical Christians? So as you can see, this is not just any ordinary group of (mostly) American evangelical Christian. No, this is a group of (mostly) American evangelical Christians who had developed a way of thinking and doing that seemed very foreign to my American evangelical Christian experience, which spanned about my whole life.
Now it's one thing to do things a little differently, but how could more fundamental things like way of thinking and rationalizing ways of doing that seemed antithetical to all that I knew about my faith and biblical teaching? Had I been mistaught? Had I all these years misunderstood the Bible?
If these perceived differences were real, and not just ephemeral or a misunderstanding somewhere along the line on my part, how could these seemingly astute theologians and Bible teachers come to such divergent understandings and ways of thinking?
If they were correct, was their way of thinking something that needed to be taught back home too - after all if they were right, surely they should spread it to Christians back home (and elsewhere) too, right? Or was it that they were right only in the narrow context of working in Eastern Europe (or "closed countries" anywhere), which mandated a different reality, a different understanding of things?
But if there was a real gap between the mission's reality and what I'd been taught, experienced and read in the Bible, how could they bridge that gap? I can tell you my theory on this: they were convinced that these differences were necessary to be able to "successfully" carry out their work... in the context of Communist countries. So then the issues become: 1) What is "successful"? 2) Was this really necessary to be "successful"? and 3) Was it biblical?
Here are my answers to these questions:
1) "Successful" in their eyes involved minimal human suffering (e.g., imprisonment of nationals, missionaries being banned from countries, etc.) and more equipped national church leaders to build the Church in those countries. I think the first part of this equation is based on our modern/cultural thinking and does not biblically justify their tactics (although if broken down into specific individual tactics, some might not have been an issue).
2) To meet their idea of "successful" (as I've just surmised) the complete package of their tactics might have been more or less necessary. But since I disagree with their concept of "successful" (as I've interpreted it), I also don't agree that their means were necessary.
3) No, I don't think it was biblical. If it were possible to have one of the leadership (i.e., one of those that would have had the greatest knowledge and understanding of the tactics used) list out the various specific tactics - including the things not written down - and then give a biblical/theological explanation for each of them, I would be very interested in seeing such a list. But first of all, there would need to be corroboration that the list was relatively complete and accurate and not snow job. But since I think that these tactics are still in use in other "closed" countries (i.e., countries not open to Western missionaries), I highly doubt that you'll find anyone willing to do this, unless there was someone else out there (besides me) who was disgruntled about these things but had more insider access than I did.
So all that is to say that I had a very incorrect understanding of the "various expectations" of the mission before arriving in Vienna.
***
"In many cases, anticipatory socialization sharpens the positive features of the organization and dulls the negative features. For example, recruitment procedures seek to present the organization in its most favorable light. Consequently, the encounter period is likely to be an extremely trying period." (p. 84)
Hah! Missions give EVERYONE a glossed over view of their work!! Of course, the more deviance in the mission the more "glossing over" you'd expect. Most missions with any deviation, though, would be expected to having something like disagreements among workers or something scandalous about a particular missionary, or the like. But the glossing over that missions to Eastern Europe did involved intentionally hiding a major part of what they did!
Of course, in general terms I anticipated this, but the kind of discretion I imagined paled in comparison to the whole-scale spy-like institutionalized deception I encountered. You've heard of front companies? Here's something from the Sept. 17, 2008, Los Angeles Times:
The CIA set up a network of front companies in Europe and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 attacks as part of a constellation of "black stations" for a new generation of spies, according to current and former agency officials. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/17/nation/na-intel17)
That's about what it felt like.
***
I'm going to break off for now...
Ciao...
~ Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)