137. Socialization File, Pt. 20 (Dubin, pt. 17b)

I'm back again because I thought it unwise to let the ink dry on some of the ending comments in my last post, so the purpose of this post is to (hopefully) clarify things a bit.

This is the reference text (along with the elaborations that followed):

I said that to be successfully socialized into the organization, one probably had to be "caught up in the red scare mentality, being a rampant right-wing Moral Majority, card-carrying Republican (or the equivalent in whatever country the missionary comes from), and a sexist."

Using the categories used in my statement, I would say that first of all, that by then I had developed a fairly well developed opinion about the theory of Communism, and that was, in brief, that it didn't and couldn't work, primarily because it had an errant view of man. I mentioned earlier in my chronology about the economics comparison handout in my week-long mission's candidate course; even at that time I thought it out of place, and that would have been at least in part because it seemed irrelevant to mission work, and for our purposes, if there was anything better about the West compared to the USSR, it would have been freedom of religion. That's the kind of thing I'm referring to. I don't think the issue was my not understanding the issue and the implications of it; it's just that I didn't think that was cause for wholesale changing our approach to missions - which, I think is safe to say, included a sense of fear about it. Why else would they be willing to take such measures? II Timothy 1:7 comes to mind:

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (NKJV)

I have many faults, but this isn't very often one of them (unless we're talking about really big spiders in close proximity). As I continue with my life story (including after I leave Vienna), I think you'll eventually see what I mean.

As to being right-wing, etc., I wasn't very political and was actually somewhat naive / ignorant, especially regarding local and national politics which never particularly interested me until the 1990s, when I was living in Russia, when local events were interesting to me. Before that I was always, even from late elementary school, more interested in international news and issues. That being said, however, between 1982 and 1985, in the course of some education and also being influenced by the general climate of American Evangelical thinking of the time, there were some issues that are usually considered right-wing Republican, that I had grown to espouse. But I'd had a class in Bible school on modern Christian issues, and one of them handful of topics we covered was the Moral Majority; the professor thought it wasn't good for the Church (as in the church universal), and this topic, I think, had particular influence on me. So some of my beliefs might have been considered conservative, but I wasn't terribly politically oriented otherwise, and was leaning towards the belief that churches (and Christian organizations) should not be too involved in politics.

The sexist issue maybe isn't as central to socialization into the mission, but I think it was part of why I had a problem, in that I never before that saw myself as a "helper" of someone else but as being capable on my own to have a significant ministry. None of my East Europe ministry involvements before arriving in Vienna was structured in a gender-limiting hierarchy like that. But all of a sudden I was in a world where women pretty much existed to help men. Even the women's ministry, while led by women was about teaching women to have a ministry as a helpmate to their husbands (who were often pastors). I think that structural element contributed to my feeling stifled and unwilling to be content with limiting myself to how I perceived things were laid out for me, which was pretty well defined along gender lines.

So why do I say that these things might have been necessary to navigate the potentially treacherous socialization waters? Because if you were already emotionally committed to anti-Communism, pro-Westernism and a discriminatory gender social structure, it probably was just a small step to becoming emotionally committed to the mission's demands, and the mission might not even seem like such a total institution. Jerry Falwell and Dr. Dobson would probably have fit in very easily.

Also, I think getting emotionally riled up about something makes it easier to do things you might not be so prone to do if emotions weren't involved, and I wasn't terribly emotionally involved in the above political issues. It seems to me that in order to willingly participate in such personally invasive security measures one would need to see such measures as warranted, which I did not and do not to this day.

In any event, upon arrival in Vienna, apparently unknown to either myself or the mission, I did not have a mindset for being easily socialized into the Vienna mission. Taken by itself this is a significant enough barrier, let alone other possible contributing factors leading to how things turned out for me there.

I hope this makes it clearer what I'm trying to say here.

~Meg

136. Socialization File, Pt. 19 (Dubin, pt. 17)

I was thinking about going to church today but I woke up with this cold hanging on that I've been fighting the past few days with Robitussin and (at night) NyQuil. It's not a bad cold, but it's just contributing to the increased fatigue & decreased stamina that's been so slow in easing up from after the surgery. (The surgery-related fatigue was getting better until I was able to go without the neck brace.) I've taken to erring mostly on the conservative side, so I thought it best to stay home.

I don't suppose they'd ask me right away to speak (esp. about my life history), but I'm afraid it's going to be quite a while (!) before I'm done with this and want to go public with it. It's hard to find people I can talk with about it without some repercussion. And I'm really hoping that this blog doesn't get noticed till I'm much farther along; otherwise it will just be that much easier for people to come to early conclusions about interpretations, when there really could be something later on that should be taken into consideration.

***

This section is titled "Apprenticeship".

In the first paragraph van Maanen states that "transforming the new member to full status is delegated to selected experienced organizational members", but in the next paragraph says that "the delegation of responsibility is to only one member of the organization." (p. 105)

The one-to-one relationship is undoubtedly the usual understanding of apprenticeship, but since my situation may have been a many-to-one relationship, I'll discuss both of these.

I was (at least initially) supposed to be the secretary of the second in command of the mission, and if there was any one-to-one apprentice-like relationship it would have to be with the secretary of the director (my boss's boss). She was the example and the tutor for my specifically secretarial role and duties. But I think that other people also had lesser socialization-related tutor-like rolls to help integrate me into the organization in general. Although the group situations might have been more akin to role model situations.where apprenticeship would involves more direct and explicit guidance and instruction, whereas role model situations might involve more learning by example. Also, role model situations could be less intentional (although not necessarily) and more observational, whereas apprenticeship would be (generally) more intentional and involve more direct instruction and guidance. In this way, practically everyone and every encounter within the organization might fit one or the other of these (apprentice or role-model) learning types.

While I think that my relationship with the above-mentioned secretary was the most apprentice-like, and was probably intentionally set up to be so, it wasn't like I was consistently or predictably being tutored. Rather, this was carried out in an ad hoc way so that it distinguishing between role modeling and apprenticeship was often difficult to do. And it didn't help that sometimes others would provide apprentice-ship-like instruction or counsel.

This blurring of boundaries is, I think, descriptive of how the organization functioned in general and was part of it's character (or organizational culture, if you will). In a way, I think, this could be disarming and lead the newcomer into a more affective, experiential and relational interaction with the organization, which is to say, less relying on hard facts, sort of like what informal structure (or communication or power or...) is to formal structure (or communication or power or...).

Nevertheless, this secretary I've been talking about was in the position the most like mine and if anyone was to be seen as the expert assigned to guide me into successful functioning in my designated role within the organization.

***

"The one-to-one situation is likely to lead to an intense, value-oriented socialization effort, with the outcomes dependent upon the quality of the affective relationship which may (or may not) develop. In cases of high affect, the socialization process works well and the new member is likely to internalize fully the values of the particular role he is to play. However, when there are few affective bonds between the two individuals, the socialization process is likely to be incomplete and may lead to inefficacious results." (p. 105)

This texts makes me amend somewhat what I just said above. That is, that other secretary was especially who I was to emulate, but for affective guidance, my boss was the lead others (although others, including said secretary, might well have contributed). But affective development vis a vis my boss, involved affective attachment to him in particular. I think how such relationship generally developed in the Vienna mission varied according to the personalities of the boss & secretary and the boss's position. It seemed to me (granted, as one who never fully developed such a relationship), that necessitated a certain amount of blind trust in each other and understanding of what makes the other click, and meant being able to relate to each other in a proper but extra-task and -fact oriented way.

I'm not sure I'm describing this very well, but, personally, I felt like I was supposed to set aside (or get past?) rational/intellectual thinking to just relate to each other without these encumbrances hindering our relationship. I've discussed this process some in other posts, such as in dealing with cult issues.

The affective (emotional) relationship with my boss was particularly important in the meaning presented in this text, and had the potential of drastically affecting my success, one way or the other, with the organization, so the fact that this relationship was never fully developed pretty much tells you, in a nut shell, how things went for me with the mission.

It's not that I didn't like my boss, but, to be honest, he came across to me like a cute little boy. He was a bit shy and maybe had some self-confidence issues. He was very pleasant and easy going and quite easy to work with, but he did some things that put me off and set me on my guard. I felt like he maybe was either trying to test me to see if I could fall into a trap or maybe he was trying to get me to make a confession and open up and thus make myself vulnerable. This was relating on the emotional level, and the problem with that is that, as anyone knows who's been in a bad relationship, you can do a lot of stupid things and get yourself into quite a mess when you leave your brain at the door, so to speak. It's hard enough with the limited brain we're given to avoid problems. (I'm hoping using the "we" here isn't too presumptive of me; I hope I'm not the only one who can relate to this statement.)

A further issue was that while it was a personal relationship with him, and to a certain extent was just that, but it was also a relationship to the organization, and in that regard I half suspected that our supposed tête-à-têtes were discussed among the leadership vis a vis my progress and other related topics of concern to them. So if I opened myself up to him I might as well have brought the whole group in and opened myself up to them using it in how they dealt with me. So, although these one-on-one sessions seemed to be a matter of personal trust, it was really more than that, and, I think, a certain amount of trust in the organization. I couldn't have said this so succinctly then, but I think it's safe to say this was my gut feeling.

The problem was that there were a lot of confusing signals coming my way (from the mission, not from Austria, I might note) that I couldn't really let my guard down with anyone. Certainly not to the extent I felt like was required by my boss in those meetings. If they knew what I was thinking I probably would have had even more problems than I did. But now it's hard for me to convince some people that I had these thoughts and feelings because I didn't reveal them then... even to my parents, until way at the end when I was leaving.

***

"Clearly, in such socialization settings, there is no middle ground - either the new members fail or succeed. Consequently, apprenticeship must be viewed as an expensive mode of socialization for failures cannot easily be rescued. Training, because of its ease, efficiency and predictability, has tended to replace apprenticeship in the modern organization - except for those positions considered of high importance." (p. 105)

Pretty much every position in the Vienna mission was important in the sense that there was potential for risking the security of mission (and even the 15 member missions by extension), so there would have been potential reason to use apprenticeship for virtually everyone, but I'm not sure of the set up for socializing newcomers to other positions. My position was fairly important, not because of me so much, but because of my boss and the fact that by association I'd have access to a lot of information and contacts that could be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.

As to how expensive this training method is, I think the mission would have used the extensive process to get there (it took me a good 2 years) to avoid mistakes happening... like winding up with slippery, obdurate problems like me.

The comment about there being no middle-ground in apprenticeship situations fit the Vienna mission. I expect that everyone there (with the possible exception of people who came to help for only a short time - weeks or months) went through some type of all-or-nothing experience in their socialization. I definitely felt this while I was there, and noticed it pretty soon after arriving in Vienna, although my understanding of it grew over time.

***

"[D]uring a new member's early organizational experiences, he must be more concerned with satisfying the expectations of his sponsor than with satisfying the expectations of the organization (although the two sets of expectations may be closely related, if not the same)." (p. 105)

The problem with this, was that it never was completely clear what the organization wanted. That is, I wasn't completely sure what the demands were once you've past the total trust barrier (which was a 2-way trust between you and the organization, perhaps mediated by specific individuals).

I certainly tried to do a good job, be pleasant and take initiative, etc. I did all that, but I didn't pass that pesky affective (read: complete trust) part of the socialization. I didn't expect a lot from the mission, in fact, it might have bothered them that I didn't expect more, because that would have, undoubtedly facilitated my affective socialization. But since I didn't really need the organization that much, any more than anyone generally needs their employer, this was actually a problem in my case, which is in direct contradiction to this text.

It's possible even that their usual socialization process was built on the basis of newcomer's need of the organization for pretty much everything, which is, again, opposite of what Van Maanen suggests here.

***

"If the new member is perceived as doing well, the role of the sponsor in the process is likely to be minor. However, if the recruit is perceived as proceeding poorly, the sponsor's role is likely to become much more active." (p. 105)

If this text accurately describes the set up in Vienna, and I think that's a distinct possibility, then some people could have glided through the socialization process barely aware they had a mentor. I think this is quite possible, especially amongst the theologian set. To go through this process so easily, however, I think you'd have to have share some basic assumptions, such as being caught up in the red scare mentality, being a rampant right-wing Moral Majority, card-carrying Republican (or the equivalent in whatever country the missionary comes from), and a sexist. These, I know, are heavy labels to dish out, so I'll just discuss them briefly:

1. Red scare mentality. I've already discussed this. Believing that Communism is inherently, practically and theoretically not enough; you have to also get caught up in the emotional fervor about it (Communism)/them (Communists, Communist countries).

2. Rampant right-wing, etc. I've already discussed this too. This might, possibly, not be as crucial as #1 above, but it would help in seeing the West as being (at least part of) salvation for Communists/Communism. This Westernizes Christianity.

3. Sexist. You had to accept the limits placed on women's involvement and leadership in ministry, which also meant submitting to male leadership. In a "total institution" that's pretty constraining.

At any rate, I perhaps knew my mentor all to well and she didn't know me well enough. It should have been the other way around.

***

And thus ends our discussion on apprenticeship. Next up: Debasement Experiences.

135. Socialization File, Pt. 18 (Dubin, pt. 16)

When I left for Vienna, as you may (or may not) remember, I'd already seen things that bothered me at the mission I'd had sometimes part-time, sometimes short-term connection with. But I thought it was an isolated case. Then when I sent out that questionnaire to try to choose a mission and started getting responses back I was rather shocked at some of the responses, but I still thought that there was an option B out there somewhere, and I was pretty sure I'd found it. Later on I came to believe that pretty much all the missions to that part of the world were tainted with the same kind of thing, although some may have been worse than others (but I'm not sure about that). When I came to that conclusion about the mission field, I saw no other possibility but to go it alone. There may well have been other mom and pop missions out there not caught up in this stuff, but I don't know about that either; I'm just speculating.

***

The rest of the chapter is devoted to different methods of socialization and, according to the text, "[e]ach method of organizational socialization discussed below varies in the amount of effort required of a recruit." (p. 101).

***

The first method is training. I wouldn't say that the mission really had any formal training in place. So socialization was pretty informal and tailored to each newcomer specifically. Nevertheless, there are a few things that might be helpful in this section, if we apply them to socialization in general.

"Organizations that conduct training programs conceive of them as imparting skills, but analysis of any particular training program always shows it to be concerned with the communication of values, the development of an ambiance, the rejection of prior affiliations and the development of an appropriate self-image." (p. 102).

This is interesting, because the Vienna mission I think would do the same thing; that is, they would say that any socialization efforts were merely to help newcomers with concrete knowledge and skills, such as how to register your residence (which was required of all foreigners living in Austria) and the basics of the job to be done. I doubt highly that they were admit to intentional socialization of things like attitudes and the like. So we see here that this is the kind of thing found regularly in researching, at least of training programs.

***

"If a training program is to influence behavior, it must affect the participants' motivations, response capacities, self-images, and/or role prescriptions (Lawler, 1971a). Thus the training program may provide different influences for persons with different entering characteristics. For example, for those new members with sufficient motivation, the training program will largely consist of instrumental activities (i.e., the learning of role prescriptions and response capacities). For others, it may be a more expressive process designed to change the individual's motivation and self-image." (p. 102-103).

I can't remember any training of job skills per se. Maybe trip briefing would come about as close to that as it came, but that was particular to the trip being prepared for, and may not have exactly applied to other trips. Learning of job responsibilities was more informal in nature. But so were other aspects of socialization. It's very possible that some people came to the mission without needing much by way of "attitude" adjustment and normative learning, but there would always be some.

***

"The interpretations of others or evaluations of an individual's performance during the training phase may have lasting effects on the person's later career. Those recruits who are assessed as the 'right' type for the organization may be in the best position for later advancement. Those trainees who are perceived as having an 'attitude problem' may well have future difficulties with the organization. Hence, if a new member is unable to present a 'face' which conveys the message that he has no need of expressive socialization, he may find that his success or failure to learn the specific role of his work makes little difference to his organizational future. While it is clear that organizations vary regarding the expressive content of their training programs, all organizations at least require that the new member demonstrate the 'proper attitude' - which ranges from a simple criterion, such as 'being on time' to far more elaborate criteria, such as 'speaking the organizational line.' In general the longer the period of training, the more emphasis is placed upon development of the 'proper attitudes' in new members. " (p. 103).

On one hand the Vienna mission was among those organizations that require "more elaborate criteria", but the length of time in training is irrelevant in this case. At the end I received explicit confirmation that my attitude was an issue vis a vis the organization. It's not like I was disruptive, negative or complaining, nor that I didn't do my work well, but rather that I did everything I was supposed to do but hadn't really changed my thinking to fit their demands. This I can say with certainty.

***

That's all for training. The next method is education, according to this definition: "[I]t specifically refers to those learning experiences which occur outside the organization in which the individual will eventually participate." (p. 104)

There was no such outside training for the mission, although we were all supposed to be allowed some time to take German classes; but I don't think anyone ever did, although I asked about it. I ended out taking an evening German conversation class at a Volkshochschule, but that was on my time and with my dime. When I asked about this provision, I was responded to with something about how much work there was to do. But you'll see when I start my chronology up again that in my case that was a bunch of bunk because I didn't have hardly anything to do the first several months and what I was doing seemed pretty unnecessary and meaningless. I'll get more into that in the chronology.

***

The next two methods are more salient to my experience with the Vienna mission, but we'll get to them tomorrow.

Adieu,

~Meg

134. Socialization File, Pt. 17 (Dubin, pt. 15)

Chapter section IV. "Methods of Socialization"

"The manner in which a new member fits into the status order, the social networks and the activities of the work organization is crucial if the initiate is to acquire simultaneously the attitudes, behaviors and values appropriate for participation. Within certain broad limits (e.g., financial, legal, cultural, etc.), the organization has many options available regarding the choice of methods by which to 'break in' its members." (p. 101)

Here's another loaded paragraph. As far as my status order, social order and activities of the work at the Vienna mission, these were all centered around my title of secretary, which pretty much labeled me and put me in a box. They seemed pretty set, for the most part, on pegging me thus and setting limitations based, not just on the organization's work in general (which assumed certain basic limitations, in my opinion, irregardless of the position held), but on that label, on that (in my view) restrictive job description. They may have eventually seen that I had other skills, but I was still and always basically a secretary and my position within the organization was defined by that primary role/function.

If the mission truly wanted to assimilate me, I'm afraid I was a slippery one. I refused to accept their image of me, for starters. I felt that that image was very much a constraint, that I wasn't willing to limit myself to. That is I was willing to do the work and do it to the best of my ability, and I didn't have anything against hanging around other secretaries, but it felt overly constraining to me, and limiting myself in these ways was unacceptable to me. I didn't see a conflict between having outside activities, including some local ministry, and being a secretary, and I also didn't see that I needed to limit my relations to the organization. But this type of thinking and acting on these things made it more difficult for the mission to socialize me, I'm sure. And, as far as I could see, the main reason they had to put such high priority on socialization was because of the work being in "closed" countries. I thought I already understood the issues involved in work in "the East" (Eastern Europe) well enough, however and that there demands were excessive. I still think this way about them.

As to "certain broad limits", this statement opens a whole new can of worms. Just what were those limits and who set them? This is another million dollar question, and you win the prize if you can answer it more definitively that I can, and I can't answer this all that definitively. So mostly, I have a lot of questions in this regard, but I do have some issues about it that I can suggest might be pertinent considerations in the search for the answer.

First of all, let's start with the potential limits suggested in this text, which are: financial, legal and cultural limits. I'm not sure how important finances are in this situation, although if they had more money to work with I dread to think of what else they might have come up with. But I'm going to skip over this one; the mission wasn't strapped, but they generally had what they needed to function reasonably well and not much more than that.

I'm going to skip to potential cultural constraints and come back to legal later. Cultural constraints could be a bit complex considering the mix of potentially relevant cultures which include (but might not be limited to): U.S. (and some other Western - the various missionary homelands and sources of support) Evangelical cultures, Austrian culture, the cultures of the various East European countries we were working in, the organizational culture of each of the 15 missions comprising the work in Vienna, and the culture of nondenominational missions in general (again from countries represented by the various missionaries in the Vienna mission). If you ask me, that's a lot of cultures to consider and potentially constraining the mission as to how it might socialize missionaries.

Here's my take on it. The "back home" Evangelical cultures were pretty much dealt with by withholding information (ostensibly for the sake of security - to not compromise the ministry). If they did anything the might upset those sensibilities, however, they would somehow have to minimize the risk of such information getting to them and being credible to them. The geographic separation made this somewhat easier as did the stature and reputation of the leaders of the mission (which might help assuage any concerns that might otherwise slip out and cause concern).

The Austrian culture was kept at bay by having certain safeguards in place, such as a sort of informal buddy system, where most outside relations (i.e., missionaries with external Austrians) were shared with more than one missionary. This wasn't always the case, by any means, but it did seem that there often was this kind of protection in place. In any event, probably most relations with Austrians were known about by someone else in the mission just by every day conversations (e.g., in discussing the previous evening's activities: "I had my landlady and another neighbor over for dinner last night. Luckily my landlady is a veteranarian because this yellow jacket wouldn't leave the kitchen and she told me that it was a dangerous one that you could die from in just a few stings, so I was able to take necessary precautions to get it to leave." - This event really did happen to me.) Thus, if there were any concerns about relations with Austrians there generally would have been knowledge about it to deal with it as needed.

That being said, they did want to have good relations with their neighbors - whether neighbors of the office itself or neighbors of the missionaries. They didn't want to raise any alarms or stick out. One example is that the children of the missionaries had to be prepped as to how to talk about their parents and what they were doing there in Vienna. This, would be an example of socializing the children, but it's the kind of thing that everyone had to deal with. There were Austrians that knew more or less what the mission really was about, and a lot of these Austrians, as far as I knew, went to the Vienna International Chapel, as did my landlady (the veterinarian mentioned above). You maybe have heard about how Vienna was (at least in they heyday of of Communism to the east) a hotbed for spies? Well, the Vienna International Chapel was a hotbed of missionary, many of whom worked in the East. There, were of course other foreigners in that church, such as workers from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So the Austrian cultural constraint issue was dealt with mainly by keeping under the radar and being careful with external relations. As long as that was under control, the Austrian cultural norms weren't too much of an issue.

As to the East European cultures and the believers' subcultures in those countries, these were of primary importance, I believe, to the mission. However, broader culture and the believers' subcultures had 2 different impacts on the mission, regarding constraints. Regarding the broader culture, the mission mostly wanted to not be found out by them so they took all kinds of precautions in that way. As to the believers' culture within those countries (and these were the people the mission had relationships with on an ongoing basis), the mission had to not offend their sensibilities and understand their value system and norms to best be accepted by them and teach them. These two constraints had a huge impact on the content of the mission's socialization efforts, but not so much, I think, on the methods, which this text is specifically talking about. After all, the socialization took place in the West almost exclusively, so that by the time a missionary went "in-country" (in Eastern Europe) they were already pretty well socialized, at least enough for that particular assignment. There could be some mentoring, however, in the East, such as me traveling with a veteran women's instructor to Romania, and me following her lead), and those in the Communist countries might not necessarily known how missionaries were socialized, and they would have understood about the "need to know" approach to such things (compartmentalizing knowledge so only those who "need to know" know something), thus providing another layer of protection, allowing the mission more freedom in how it socialized its workers. That being said, though, there were ways that information, such as anything being unacceptably amiss, could spread among those circles, but since the Communist governments could also use (generally false or misinterpreted) gossip to break down trust amongst believers, such information might not have necessarily been believed, even if it were true.

Now to the culture of the 15 missions which comprised the group I was part of in Vienna. Among these 15 missions there was a fairly broad range in level of experience and expertise in working in Eastern Europe. There was also a fair amount of diversity in operational policies and practices for working in Communist countries. The theology was shared though and, while I understand there was occasionally some disagreement regarding issues in the textbooks we prepared, I wasn't aware of anything major going on in that area.

The cultures of the missions was crucial, perhaps even the most important part of this equation. Each of the different missions had their own ideas about how to maintain security and this was a ticklish subject. So the policies and practices (formal or otherwise) had to satisfy everyone. Maybe the mission erred on the side of being over vigilant, thus leading to what I experienced in Vienna. While I don't think it is the only consideration here, it is a major one. For example, the mission I'd worked with before was one of the initial 5 founding organizations and it was seen as very influential and the bearer of great knowledge and experience in working with Slavic peoples and in Communist countries, so other missions that might not otherwise have much (or any) work in these countries (but perhaps had a lot to offer by way of theological education, for example, and a special interest in this ministry type), might have deferred to those more established in the part of the world we were working in. In this way, a few of the 15 missions might have had an inordinate amount of influence in the tactics and safeguards used. It was these tactics and safeguards that formed a large part of the impetus for socialization into the mission. The mission I worked with before, as I've already said, took money from the CIA for it's radio work (my FOIA letter from the CIA convinces me by virtue of their refusal to answer directly my query about this.) If one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, then we're in for trouble already. That being said, however, even the missions that deferred to the more experienced ones in this geographical area would have had to agree to policies and practices used, and these things would be hard to hide from them because they would be sending their own missionaries to Vienna, and they'd have to go through the socialization process too. If they had any qualms about specific tactics (or assumptions that underlaid the tactics), they might have compromised in order to be part of the work.

These 15 missions also worked within the broader context of Evangelical missions in general (especially missions from countries represented by the missionaries that worked with us, such as Canada and the USA). For example, these missions bumped into other missions all the time, such as at missions conferences, and they also generally contributed to the same professional journals. But some of the 15 missions working with us also had work all over the world. One example of this is the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Association. In these cases, there would be, presumably, an even stronger association with missions in general (beyond Eastern Europe).

I think that two factors, especially, was in the favor of the missions working together in Vienna (regarding the leeway they might be given in their socialization efforts), and that was the broader societal anti-Communism bent and also the conservative politics of a lot of the Evengalical populace and institutions. Because of these factors, otherwise potentially controversial socialization measures would have been more acceptable because the evilness of the East European countries warranted it. So where there might (but not necessarily) have been more scrutiny of activities in other location, the political nature of the countries we worked on warranted secrecy and caution in the eyes of the broader Evangelical public (especially back home, where this would have been most important).

I hope I have shown in this rather lengthy discussion how social constraints on socialization tactics were minimal, and any secrecy deemed necessary by the organization was deemed acceptible, this granting a blank check in the socialization tactics department.

So now I'll deal with potential legal constraints, which I skipped over to deal with last. I'm not a lawyer and I'm really not all that astute when it comes to legal things, but my attitude over the years has come to be that, given an adequate (however that might be understood) cause for concern, in the under world, which we were more or less a part of, laws are not necessarily adequate constraints.

I need to proactively address potential protests to the assertion I just made that we were a part of the underworld. Come on, people, put your thinking hats on! A mission taking money from the CIA was a key member of our board, our H.R. dept. was comprised of two military reserve chaplains, and we were living this huge life of deception. How exactly we might have fit in the world, I can't say - I wasn't privy to that kind of information. But some (if there are any) of my readers will undoubtedly prefer to keep their naive head in the sand and call such claims as trash coming from a crack pot ("poisoning the well" - I'm a crackpot; "'generalization" - all Evangelical missions are good). I can't prove my assertion, but I urge you to not reject it out of hand; I do have some evidence that should at least make this assertion credible.

So, taking these issues under consideration, how shall I address the issue of legal constraints? To a certain extent there would have been some legal constraints, and if there was any disregard for laws at any point, I would think it would be in a particular ugly underside of the beast's belly, and possibly involve extra-organizational involvement. I don't think the mission would have done anything to openly break Western laws, although they certainly worked on the edges of legality in Eastern Europe. But I'm not aware of any situation where laws were of concern to the mission for their activities in Vienna and the West, meaning that I never was aware (as far as I can remember) that there was any concern of whether something they wanted to do was legal or not.

***

I can't believe I've taken about 3 hours to discuss only 1 paragraph. At this rate I'll never get anywhere. Nevertheless, this discussion could be helpful in unraveling my life with the mission and what was going on there.

I do have other things I have to do though, so I'm going to leave you now.

133. Socialization File, Pt. 16 (Dubin, pt. 14)

[4/7/2011 comments: I made significant changes to the following text, not in its substance, but because I didn't think I'd originally stated what I meant clearly enough.]

I hope it's obvious to anyone who might take the trouble to read these posts that I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. When I got into these scrapes, like the situation in Vienna, I didn't really know what I was getting into, despite my best preparations, but I never regretted not going along with what they seemed to want (although I wasn't always sure what they wanted, which, as we're seeing in this text, is not unusual in a socialization situation). Part of the thing was that it didn't feel like what they really wanted was a small conciliatory step; but something more, and that I didn't know where a small step would take me, nor whether I could ever get out of it, or how I would get out of it.

Not that the main issue was whether I knew how to get out of it without taking any conciliatory steps, but rather once you get sucked in to a certain type of logic you can no longer look at objectively from the outside, because you're in and it's become you, or part of you anyway. So even if you might know how to get out once you're in, you might not want out because your frame of reference had changed by virtue of becoming an insider and taking at least the initial step(s) towards accepting the mission's way of thinking.

In this way, then, it wasn't the knowing how to get out that was the main issue, but the value structure to decide whether to get out or not would change. So you could have an outsider's value structure without knowing how to get out, or you could have an insider's value structure and maybe know how to get out (although that wasn't a given either). In this way, if you didn't want to go in you couldn't know how to get out, or, if you went in you didn't want out.

It would have been nice, of course, if I could have stated my observations and thoughts in so many words like this when I was going through it, but I did often feel more or less like an outsider looking in to something that I couldn't agree with.

So I don't regret not succumbing to their way of thinking and doing things, but I do regret not knowing about it beforehand, as I could have tried something else to reach my ministry goals. But what that something else might have been I can't say. But parts of my experiences in Vienna have come back to bite me from time to time, mostly via family members.

***

This chapter section is titled "Continuance: Metamorphosis".

"Porter (1971) notes that during the encounter phase, the organization has three tactics available to induce new members to change. First, the organization may reinforce and confirm the new member's behavior by providing rewards. Additionally, the organization may punish the recruit by withholding rewards or providing various negative reinforcements. The punishment approach is designed to 'extinguish' certain characteristics which the organization deems inappropriate for the prescribed role the new member is expected to play. Finally, the organization may do nothing. This tactic literally ignores certain characteristics and behaviors of new member... According to Porter, success of any of these strategies depends upon the individual's motivation to belong and the extent to which the organization possesses the ability to administer the valued rewards or relevant punishments to the neophytes." (p. 99)

This text might be important in helping me understand various individual experiences I had with the organization in Vienna. If it's true that "punishments" are meant to "'extinguish' certain characteristics" for example, I could try to figure out what characteristic was being addressed. However, on the other hand, I wish it were that easy. For example, were negative experiences with the mission (and individuals in it) meant to socialize me? If not, maybe they were meant to get me out of there (i.e., because of conflict with my dad's work). Or maybe they were just meant to scare the sh*t out of me and convert to their ways out of sheer fear. The inquisition comes to mind right now; those poor Jews. Also, were others subject to the same treatment as me (in accordance with their compliance, position, etc.)? If not, why not? Or in what way was I treated differently if I was?

But getting back to this text (it's hard not to digress, sorry), I'm not 100% sure how applicable these three options are to my experience in Vienna. In the beginning I got tons and tons of positive feedback, I felt rather slathered in it. But within 5 months I got the shocker of my life - a "negative reinforcement" (if that's what it was) that I never expected.

I think there are a couple of things that should be addressed regarding the applicability of these three tactics to induce change in the new recruit. First of all, there is the aspect of how I was treated taken just by itself, namely positively, negatively or doing nothing. The other part of the equation is that this text talks about these things in relation to the goal of socializing the new recruit. The fact that I received each of these treatments (although I have to think about the "doing nothing" one a bit) seems pretty clear-cut in my mind; but whether the intention was to socialize me is not (and was not) so clear, and I'm not entirely convinced that that that was always the goal in how they treated me. The question then is, of course, why did they treat me in certain ways at certain points if not to socialize me?

***

"Kelman (1958) notes that there are three underlying processes which the individual engages in when he adopts new responses. Each of the three affect the continuance of the induced response by manipulating various aspects of the individual's expectations and self-conceptions. The individual may accept organizational demands because they enable him to gain specific rewards and avoid certain punishments. Kelman calls this process compliance. At another level, a person may accept influence because he desires to establish or maintain a satisfying, self-defining relationship with another person or group. This process is labelled [sic] identification. Finally, the individual may accept organizational influence because the content of the induced behavior - the ideas and actions of which the behavior is comprised - is intrinsically rewarding. This process is referred to as internalization." (p. 99)

Here's another good one. What type of compliance did the mission in Vienna want? Since they were concerned about attitude and the like it seems that it would have to be the last option: internalization. I'm having to think a bit about the "intrinsically rewarding" part of the option though. In the context of Vienna, this would probably be that the newcomer would accept the logic of their reasoning and way of doing things (especially if they 1) already had politicized ideas about the Commie pinkos and the virtuous West, and 2) they didn't know much about ministry to that part of the world and so were prone to accept the wisdom of those who knew more than themselves. Some biblical sermonizing might be sprinkled in there too, which in those circles, if done right, could be very persuasive in itself. In this way the newcomer would see that of course they had to take all these measures manage their lives around them. How else?

So where was I in all these response types? On the compliance level of response, I never was clear about possible rewards and different things were thrown out at me as possibilities throughout my time there and I never knew which (if any) were real, which (if any) were possible and which (if any) were snow jobs. And since I didn't view myself as a secretary, the position itself wasn't much of a lure.

I'm not a cultural relativist, as I think I've mentioned before, and I willingly (usually) take on elements of a culture that don't seem to raise any moral or ethical issues. But as soon as these types of issues become an issue in my response to a culture (whether Vienna, or living in Siberia amongst Russians) I respond (or I try to) in a way corresponding to how I see right and wrong (which hopefully coincides with biblical teaching). An example of what I mean is that, when living in Siberia I got to taking my shoes off when I entered a home/apartment, but I was able to get by without ever having to bribe anyone. Taking the shoes off is no big deal, but bribing is more troublesome. Continuing in this line of thinking and using it regarding my socialization to the mission in Vienna, I willingly took on aspects that I didn't have any qualms about, but others I didn't. As it turned out, I had more trouble in this regard with the mission than with the Austrian people and culture.

Coming back from that digression... compliance wasn't what the mission wanted, except perhaps as a first step along the way to full socialization. And I don't think my reasons, at least usually, for ever complying were particularly in response to any possible rewards or punishments. I mainly just did what I thought I should do, for the most part. Their treatment of me was often confusing, anyway. Maybe they were trying different rewards and punishments to see which would work for me - like in the literature I discussed earlier on recruiting spies: maybe they had to find my weak spot. I wasn't blatantly noncompliant, just not compliant, I guess, in the way they wanted, or to the degree they wanted.

The next type of response by the new recruit to socialization efforts of the organization is that of identification. I don't think I need to address this much, except to say that I didn't see myself as a secretary and didn't see the other secretaries as my reference group. So this was pretty much a no-go, although I did interact with the other secretaries and other people in the mission too. It's just that I'm not sure identification fits my Vienna experience.

Finally, finding the group's ways and norms intrinsically rewarding and internalizing them. I didn't get this far for sure. Intrinsically rewarding? That's about as far from the truth as you can get, which is exactly why I was experiencing such a horrible dilemma.

So I sort of complied, didn't identify with my peers really, and certainly didn't internalize their norms.

***

The next paragraph describes how this process can be developmental, that you move from one to the next until you reach internalization (I almost tongue-in-cheek said "nirvana"). The way this process is described is exactly what I was afraid of:

After fulfilling his new job well and developing relationships in the organization "the neophyte finds that simply the performance of these behaviors is rewarding and, furthermore, their performance is congruent with his evolving value system." (p. 99)

To me, this illustrates the classic slippery slope. Generally, this should be a fairly benign process, but what if you have concerns almost from the get-go about the organization and it's values and ways of doing things? I guess you can say in some ways I was like the dog with his hackles up just bracing for a fight, ready to ward off any surreptitious efforts to undermine my beliefs and value system. So much for socialization.

***

Now we move on to more details about how this process might work.

"Using Lewinian terminology, [Schein] suggests that an unfreezing process is required because some persons enter socialization settings at odds with the organizational expectations. Hence, the organization must prove to the individual that parts of his 'previous self' are no longer of value to him. The organization may accomplish this by deliberately or accidentally creating a series of 'upending' events which disconfirm some of the new member's assumptions about the situation. The intensity of these upending events very widely, yet they serve to motivate the new member to search for new responses based upon his new information." (p. 99-100)

This isn't the kind of thing they teach in Bible school about missions, at least not in my experience. But there may well have been some of this in Vienna. Certainly, as we'll see when I get back to the chronology, the first task they gave me is hard to understand apart from this kind of intentional breaking me in. Mostly I can't say exactly what about me they might have wanted to change except just that I needed to wholeheartedly accept their ways, or possibly accept their complete authority. If you accept someone's authority, then it's not necessarily the norms and values you're accepting, because those could change (presumably); instead it's the person's (or organization's) authority that you accept. Then, by accepting their authority, you would also, by association, accept the norms and values they thrust upon you. If you just accept the norms and values then you might have a problem if they change, so it seems to me that it would be more important to accept the new authority than it would be to accept the new norms and values in and of themselves.

***

"In general, the most serious 'upending' events evolve around the individual's failure to receive confirmation of self. This situation is likely to produce the most significant personal changes in a new member. Disconfirmation may however, only involve certain organizationally related expectations, producing only mild readjustments in the individual's cognitive structure. Regardless of level, the disconfirmation induces a sort of guilt anxiety or inadequacy feeling within the individual. Consequently, since this state is uncomfortable, he is motivated to seek what Schein (1968a) calls 'psychological safety' by rearranging his expectations or, at a more profound level, his self-image." (p. 100)

Now this is a 100-pound weight! Remember this when I get to my story again. Let's say a person joins a total institution that expects the results of socialization to be nothing less than internalization of norms and values (and complete acceptance of the authority of the organization), what do you think this will be like to the newcomer? Does this sound a little like what it's like to join a cult (which I discussed in earlier posts)? And WHAT IF the newcomer is in the throes of a major "disconfirmation" of self and takes the MMPI (Minnesota MultiPhasic Personality Inventory)? Do you think any of this organization-induced "sort of guilt anxiety or inadequacy" might be picked up by that instrument?

In Vienna, according to not just my personal experience, but also my observations of others, it was fairly common to go through something like this, and I've described that already in other posts, although this is another take on what might be happening.

***

Now we discuss attitudes, which I have. I have an attitude, that is; specifically, an attitude problem.

"Attitudes are viewed as predispositions to respond in a particular way to a specified class of objects... At a very general level, the theory postulates that attitudes are mediating states which exert a direct and dynamic influence on behavior. Attitudes are viewed as composed of cognitive, affective and conative states associated with knowing, feeling and acting, respectively. Attitudinal responses to influence may fall into one or all of these states. Attitude change is perceived as primarily a social influence process relying on communications... The cornerstone in the theory is that a person holding conflicting attitudes is in an uncomfortable mental state and is motivated to reduce the tension by altering his attitudes." (p. 100)

As I've said before, it's clear that attitude was very important in Vienna. According to this theory about attitudes (i.e., in this text), it seems to me that the mission could have surmised a newcomer's attitudes by his/her knowledge (verbally stated), feelings, or actions. Since the mission cared so much about attitudes it had to somehow determine that a person espoused the right attitude and, probably, as much as possible about the person's attitudes. So they would have to, it seems to me, listen to and watch the person to try to deduce it, and try to monitor the progress in developing the correct attitude(s), or not developing them, as the case may be.

I think that attitude could be a fairly slippery thing to understand, unless it's about something very obvious and clearcut. But if the goal is to develop a pretty all-inclusive attitude towards the mission and its ways, that might be a bit difficult. Then they'd have to separate out the proper attitudes and the errant ones and, supposedly, try to figure out what it would take to correct any errant attitudes and/or confirm the correct ones.

Can you see how such a process could feel invasive to a newcomer? Especially if virtually their whole life is at the service of the organization and they're away from familiar influences?

We already saw that the reference group they'd set up for me wasn't a very good hook to draw me in with. And, even though I was away from family and friends, I soon had visitors from the USA, and got involved in Austrian life rather quickly. So some of the usual hooks would have been pretty useless on me.

***

"Often of importance to the continuance phase of socialization are symbolic transitional events. These rites de passage may be formal or informal, but they demonstrate to the initiate that he has been granted full-fledged membership and aid in developing a new member's sense of belonging (Blau, 1955). Such transitions may involve the giving of title, extra rights, or the sharing of information which previously had been withheld. Thus, these events celebrated a sort of individual metamorphosis. They signify that the member now has the skills, knowledge, and motivation to occupy a particular role." (p. 101)

In my case, I got such dramatically divergent signals that it got so that none of them - positive or negative - really phased me. I can't say that this didn't affect me at all, because it did cause me a lot of trauma and confusion about what was really going on. But I tried to take the good and the bad both in stride and not get too caught up in it either way. That would have been emotional suicide, really, or maybe I'd completely have lost a sense of reality trying to figure it out. As it was it was plenty hard enough without letting it get to me too much.

Some things, if taken in isolation could have been thought of as rites of passage of a sort, but again, there were too many negative things going on to really see these as truly rites of passage, although they must have indicated a little trust in me by the organization or I wouldn't have been given such opportunities. But then why the negative things were going on, still has to be addressed. The events that could have been viewed as rites of passage if they had been congruent with other things going on include: having the opportunity to travel to Bratislava to teach English using the Bible; a women's teaching trip to Romania; participating in hosting the board meeting once when it was in Vienna. That's all I can think of right now.

***

That concludes this chapter section. Good night.

~ Meg

132. Socialization File, Pt. 15 (Dubin, pt. 13b)

I got to thinking last night after I wrote my last entry, that some of the things I've said might need more flushing out.

One thing is regarding the motivation for the apparent deviations from Scriptural honesty that the mission was permeated with. If they were very altruistic in their motivation, they might have taken on this behavior simply to avoid causing further suffering for the believers they worked with in religion-averse countries. If this is the case, is this motivation enough to legitimize their protective measures?

However, it is also possible that they weren't so completely altruistic, and also wanted to protect their own behind. Most people would probably say that this isn't as noble a reasoning as the above suggestion. And, as such, isn't quite as easily justified.

But another possibility is that they weren't just trying to protect themselves and the believers they worked with in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but also the assets of the ministry that "belonged to God" and that "others had entrusted them with". This might be seen to placate any protests of self-interest suggested in the second reasoning above.

We're not done yet, though: Is there any kind of reasoning, in God's eyes, that justifies deceit and other such tactics? Before I was talking about how you and I might see these types of reasonings, but now I'm bringing God into the picture, which seems like a reasonable thing to do since we're talking about Christian missions and not, say, the CIA or US military (I don't believe the USA is a Christian country or the second Israel; I don't believe that there is a Christian country or second Israel anywhere).

There's another issue that is sure to come up in these kinds of discussions, and that is What is the role of acting by faith? How can we live by faith but do so without 'testing God'? What does it mean to being 'responsible' stewards? I'm looking at these all together, as one basic issue of trusting God but at the same time doing our part.

It is my belief that if God gives us something to do (and it truly is His wish, His calling), then it is our part to obey. But He can't ask us to do something that otherwise involves sin, because sin is something that is contrary to God's will. Do you see what I mean? Sin and God's will are diametrically opposed.

So if God really and truly has called someone to do something, it is the person's responsibility, relying on God the whole time for everything, and leaving the results in His hands. There are many ways to mess up along the way, including not doing everything or doing more than He wants, doing it in a way that is otherwise sin, etc. The aspects of trying to obey God that actually entail acting in disobedience to Him are still sin, even if the intentions are good.

Another issue is that even if taking some precautions was within God's will (and not contrary to them), is it possible to take the wrong precautions or too many precautions? That is, if it was okay (per God, not people) to take certain precautions, would it still be wrong (or sin) to go way overboard and become obsessed with precautions so that the whole nature of the organization was changed in keeping with precaution measures? Wherein lies the truth, pray tell.

***

Without further ado...

Section title: "Individual Factors"

"After reviewing the literature concerning organizational withdrawal, Porter and Steers (1972) concluded that the available evidence indicates that those individuals who leave the organization manifest personality characteristics near the polar extreme of various continue (e.g., anxiety, aggressiveness, self-esteem, etc.). The implication for the socialization process is that new members clustering near the middle of the various personality dimensions will be more susceptible to the organizational socialization process in terms of the outcome, remaining with the organization." (p. 98)

Yikes! I suppose this is probably true for me, although I'd have to go back to those original research articles to see what the continua are to think about which might apply to myself. I suppose I don't lend myself to the golden median, however.

I did have to take at least one personality test before joining the mission, to help determine who I might work with best.

***

"Schein and Ott (1962) noted that the attitudes one holds about the legitimacy of the organization's attempt to influence certain behavior may determine the boundaries of the socialization outcomes. Their study, an attitude survey, revealed that the more job-related the area of influence, the more it was considered legitimate for the organization to attempt influence." (p. 98)

As we've discussed before, the Vienna mission was pretty much a total institution, probably more so than most other missions, so they undoubtedly recognized precious few boundaries in their attempt to socialize newcomers, although I think there was some variance in what exactly those boundaries were depending on the individual's position within the organization. The only people who had secretaries in the organization were leaders (although sometimes secretaries also served other members of the department), and leaders had access to the most information, secretaries could, by association, so the justifiable life spheres needing socialization be commensurate with that fact. Also, the secretary also shared a lot of the people contacts as her boss, including some relations that others might not be privy to, like board members and the like.

But since I'm a thinker and don't take well to others trying to dabble with my basic values and beliefs (especially not coercively), although I didn't know this about myself yet because this was the first time I'd ever experienced it - talk about a baptism by fire! - I thought that the mission way over-reached the acceptable socialization bounds. As far as I was concerned, if they had so much distrust of me they shouldn't have accepted me in the first place. I thought I'd already past that test, although I probably wouldn't have been so succinct about this at the time.

***

I can't believe how late it is and I have to run!

131. Socialization File, Pt. 14 (Dubin, pt. 13)

Here's another section that I hadn't marked up, but would like to comment on now:

"The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan leadership studies have demonstrated clearly the importance of the supervisor's behavior as affecting the satisfactory adjustment of the individual to organizational demands. ... have stressed supervision as a critical variable that influences all facets of organizational behavior. Essentially,... the consideration (i.e., friendliness, trust, respect, etc.) a supervisor shows for his new subordinates largely determines his ability to influence them." (p. 96)

I must say that my boss (whoever it was in any given position) did seem to be supportive and demonstrated consideration for me. However, if there was a change in the works, it generally came from the H.R. office (one of the two reserve chaplains), but not always. So my boss held out carrots, while H.R. doled out sticks, although this process would be as sugar-coated as possible. Presumably, having a dissatisfied worker could be dangerous for the mission on a variety of fronts, such as the ministry itself or p.r. back home.

[4/7/2011 comments: In looking at this again, I would say that my boss was friendly towards me (and others), but the amount of respect he showed me and trust he had towards me is pretty questionable. If he had respected me I don't think I would have been given the demeaning and often useless work I was given to do and if he had trusted me I would have felt more confident in approaching him with my concerns believing that they would be handled in a manner other than manipulatively.]

The thing for me, though, was that my work didn't seem very meaningful and my encounters with my boss, while pleasant, weren't generally very helpful (they often seemed more like counseling sessions or tete a tete getting to know one another encounters. I felt like there was something below the surface going on and was trying to figure it out while being pleasant and hardworking, which I don't think was what they were looking for. Not that they didn't want that from me, but there was something more.

***

"[T]he degree to which an individual is given a clear picture of his job duties prior to actually performing the task may often determine whether or not the individual will leave or stay with the organization." (p. 96)

In my case, it wasn't the job duties per se, I don't think, that was the main issue. I was told that I would be a secretary and that's indeed what I mainly did or some variation of that. But it was all the other stuff that I didn't know about them and, evidently, what they didn't know about me before I arrived there.

Like I said before all my prior experience before coming there didn't prepare me for what was going on in Vienna - how they operated. And I'm not sure what they thought of me, if they thought I really was just a secretary or what. But beyond that was what they wanted from me that wasn't in the job description, either before I came or while there. Some of these things were, it seemed, intentionally part of the informal structure that was more or less unwritten. I know that there are plenty of dysfunctional organizations in the world, but I don't think that was it either; it felt intentional as part of their protective efforts due to working in Eastern Europe.

Eventually you'll see that I don't respond well to people trying to manipulate me to change, and the Vienna experience was just the first of these situations of import in my life. Depending on who you are, who your affinities are with, and your value system will undoubtedly affect who you side with at various points in my story. I expect this and it won't surprise me. Just as my telling my story might say as much about me as it does about the people and group I discuss, your reaction might tell me as much about indirectly you as it does overtly about your words about me or my story.

***

Continuing on, van Maanen discusses how the nature of the work - the actual tasks - can also "aid or hinder the socialization process." Some jobs, however, are so mundane, like assembly line work, that the organization has to try to supplant this need by some other "organizational reward" (p. 96).

In the Vienna mission, as with probably most religious or nonprofit work, the broader work of the mission provided satisfaction, so that those even on the bottom rungs of the organizational hierarchy shared in the satisfaction of the overall effort. However, that being said, I was a poor fit for my position if they expected me to really consider the other secretaries as my reference group, which they clearly did, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I think I even ....

I just got interrupted by a lengthy phone call and then some other domestic chores, but I tried to jot a helpful reminder note to help me pick up where I left off here. Now we'll find out if that tactic worked... and I was almost done with this post too... oh, well... Here goes.

... I think I even began to be dissatisfied with the work itself. Probably the tactics was the main issue of my concern. But later on I began to see that a lot of Western missions, American especially (and the Vienna mission was mostly made up of Americans), as not just bringing the gospel and Bible teaching, but our culture as well. It's probably impossible to avoid some of that, but this wasn't even a concern, I don't think, for the Vienna mission... nor for a lot of other American church planting efforts I witnessed later when I lived in Siberia.

There are going to be all kinds of reactions to what I just said, so I should probably elaborate a little more. Some people, I know, consider evangelism a form of cultural imperialism, but in my opinion, any cultural impact should be from the gospel and I don't think that America (my native culture, or more specifically middle class white, Protestant America) is necessarily Christian or biblical, but neither is any other earthly culture, at least not as long as (and here comes some theology) Satan is in control of this world (cp. I John 5:18).

Rather, my citizenship is in heaven (this trumps my American citizenship by far... I know, I'm not very patriotic), and if I'm going to be a missionary that would make me an ambassador for Christ (although Christians really all have this calling, whether a formal missionary or not), and not for the USA. And while I'm on this subject, that means the USA (e.g., military chaplains) should not be involved in Christian ministries either.

But now I've gone far afield from this text, so I'll just leave by saying, I eventually became not only dissatisfied with my various jobs, but also disillusioned about the work of the mission as a whole. But I was really crushed because I'd done so much to get that far and my desire for ministry never flagged, eventually I had to come to the realization that what was happening in Vienna was systemic in many ways, systemic to missions to that part of the world, or systemic to American Evangelicalism (and some other countries too). The "systemic" part of that statement, however, took a long time for me to fully accept. I lost a lot of my faith, not only in the Vienna mission, but also in the Church, Evangelical Christianity as in institution, while working in Vienna.

So for me, this statement about becoming dissatisfied with an organization because of the work itself really opens a can of worms for me that goes far beyond the context van Maanen was discussing.

***

With that, I'll say good night...

~ Meg