1

PatrickGilger,SJSocofDis/Organization

Prof.Wagner-Pacifici|FinalPaper

GapsinFormalOrganizations:LocatingSitesofCultureProduction

Organizationscanbethoughtinmanyways.Attentioncanbepaidtoorganizations

ashierarchical,stable,bureaucraticsystemsofpowerthathaveevolvedin

conjunctionwithmodernmodesofgovernment(Weber1978).Organizationscanbe

analyzedintheircollaborativerelationstooneanotherinanetwork,showinghow

informationflowswithinan“intricatelatticeworkofcollaborativeventures”(Powell

1990:301).Questionsofmanagement,laborcostsandmotivationcanbeputto

organizations.Organizationalecology,howenvironmentsshapeorganizational

formsmakingtheminternallyandprocedurallyisomorphictooneanother,canbe

broughttothefore(DiMaggioandPowell1983).Thelistcouldcontinue.

Thisdiversitycanperhapsbeexplainedbynoting,withNeilFligstein,that

the“explosionofempiricalresearch”aboutorganizationsisbecausethe“various

theoriesarefocusedondifferentempiricalobjects”(2001:33).Thatis,organizations

arenotonlystudiedusingvarioustheoriesbutthesetheoriesaretrainedonawide

varietyofobjects.Sometimestheobjectofstudyistheorganizationallifecycle,at

otherstimestheorganizationalenvironment;sometimesitislegitimationandthe

shapingofpowerthatisconsidered,atstillotherstheobjectsofstudyareagents.

Giventhisenormousrangeofdiversityanarrowingofthefieldofstudyis

demandedattheoutsetofthispresentessay.

2

Oneofthegatheringconcernsamongstthisdiversityoforganizationaltheory

is“howtheinternalorganizationalstructureworkstomotivateparticipantsand

produceoutcomesconsistentwiththegoalsofthosewhocontroltheorganization”

(Fligstein2001:4).Thepresentessaytakeastheobjectofstudyasingle,internal,

formalorganizationalsystem,onethatcoordinatesgroupbehavioracrosstimeand

spaceinordertoproduce“sacred”outcomes:thepracticesthatmakeupthemass

withintheRomanCatholicChurch.Itisthisritualpractice,readasaformal

organizationalsystemconstructedovercenturiestocontrolpatternsofbehavior

andproducesacredoutcomes(c.f.,Wuthnow1994)thatwillserveastheobjectof

empiricalresearch.

Still,ourattentioninthisessaywillnotbeonthehistoricalstructuringofthis

formalorganizationalsystem,orevenontheagentswhocomposeit.Norwillthis

essayfocusonotherwaysthatthesociologyofreligionandorganizationshave

intersected,includingthestudiesof“disruptivereligion”donebyChristianSmith

andhiscollaboratorswhichfocusedonhowreligiousorganizationsoftenfunction

asmidwivesforsocialmovementsbecausetheyprovideorganizationalresources,

includingtrainedleaders,financialresources,andstructuredpathsof

communication,forsocialmovements(c.f.,1996:13-17).

Instead,thisessaywillattendtothetextsthatprovidetheformal

organizationalstructureofthemassintheRomanCatholicChurch.More

particularly,itwillattendtothegapsthattheriteofthemassasaformal,enacted

organizationalsystemcontains–or,rather,failstocontain.Thesegapswillbe

3

exposedthroughaclosereadingoftwodocuments:“TheOrderofMass”(OM)and

the“GeneralInstructionontheRomanMissal”(GIRM).Whilethesedocumentsare

describedbelow,itisrelevanttonoteherethatisthestructurethemassasfoundin

itsorganizingtextsthatwillserveasthecentralobjectofanalysis.Theonlytime

thiswillshiftiswhenlivedvariationsfromthetextareintroducedforcomparison;

tolocateplaceswheregapsemergeinthetransitionfromtextualtolived

organizationofthemass.

Afewwordsdescribingthedocumentswillbehelpful.Thefirst,theOMisa

“liturgicalscript,adescriptionoftheactionofacelebration”ofpublicworshipinthe

RomanCatholicChurch(PierceandRomano2009:7).Thatis,itisawrittentextthat

orders,byspecifyingboththewordstobespokenandactionstobetakenby

multipleparties,theenactmentofthemass.Itisremarkableinitsdetail,

prescribing,forexample,theplacementofthepriest’shandsduringaparticular

prayer,thebodyposturetobeadoptedbythecongregationatparticularmoments;

eventhevolumeatwhichcertainphrasesaretobespoken.Thiscontroliswidely

notedinthecommunityofliturgicalscholars,especiallyasitcontrastswithpast

versionsofthisdocument.KevinSeasoltz,forexample,notesthatsincethesecond

VaticanCouncil1thecentralgovernanceoftheChurch“hassoughttomaintainstrict

controloftheliturgy,includingtheliturgicalbooksthemselvesandtheir

translations.Muchofthatcontrol,”henotes,“iscertainlyrestrictive”(Seasoltz

2009:544).1Takingplacefrom1962-65inVaticanCity,Italy,theCouncilconsistedinagatheringofover2,000Bishopsfromallovertheworldinanumberofseparatemeetings.Itspurredanenormousnumberofchangesinpractice,andcorrespondinglyoftheology,oftheRomanCatholicChurch.

4

TheGIRM,printedattheoutsetofallneweditionsofTheRomanMissal,the

singletextinwhichbothofthesedocumentsarecontained,isevenmorelengthy

anddetailed.Itisthedocumentgovernsthroughspecificationhowthewordsand

actionsscriptedintheOMaretobeinterpreted.Arrangedinnine,exhaustively

footnoted,chapters,itdescribesitselfasaimingtooffer“generallinesforasuitable

orderingofthecelebrationoftheEucharistandtoexplaintherules”forsuch

celebrations(GIRM2009:25).Itspecifieshoweachpartofthescriptistobe

interpreted,understoodandperformedfromthemeaningofmomentsofsilence

downtothecolorofclothingtobeworn.TheGIRMiswellunderstoodasthetext

governs,thatcontrolsbyfilling,thegapsintheOM.

Thesetwodocuments,althoughrecentlypublished,areacontemporary

iterationofacenturies-longefforttostructuretheritual,communal,moraland

intellectuallifeofpersonsandcommunities.Assuch,Ipropose,theymakean

excellenttestcasefortheinvestigationofgapsinorganizingstructures.Muchcanbe

learnedaboutthenatureoforganizingstructuresthemselvesbylookingatplaces

wheretheefforttocontrolactionis,intentionallyorunintentionally,absentfrom

suchalong-standingstructure.Further,moreprecisequestionswillbeabletobe

posedaboutgaps,andaboutwhatkindsofendsareaccomplishableatthesitesof

formalityorinformalitywithinaparticularsystem.So,Iwillhereexaminewhere

theregulatingpowerofthetextsdescribedaboveismissing,avoided,orrejected,in

ordertoinvestigatewhathappensinthosegaps.Thisessayasks:wherearegaps

foundinoneofthelongest-standingformalorganizationalsystemsinhuman

5

history?Whatdothesegapsrevealaboutwhatformalandinformalsystemsinhibit

andmakepossible?

ThesequestionswillbeaddressedbyatextualanalysisoftheOMandthe

GIRMandbythecomparisonofthesecontrollingtextswiththeirenactment.Inthe

processIargue,first,thatatypologyofgapscanbedrawnfromthisclosereading.

Second,notingagainhowanaimoforganizationaltheoryisunderstandingthe

productionofoutcomesconsistentwithanorganization’slargergoals,Iarguethat

muchofwhattheorganizationalstructureofthemassaimsatproducingisactually

producednotintheformalorganizationalstructure,butinitsgaps.Afewwords,

thenaboutbothformalorganizationsystemsandhowgapsaretheorizedwithin

themarenecessarybeforeturningtosuchanalysis.

TheorizingFormalOrganizationsandGapsinFormalStructures

AccordingtoMeyerandRowan,formalorganizationsare“systemsofcoordinated

andcontrolledactivitiesthatarisewhenworkisembeddedincomplexnetworksof

technicalrelationsandboundary-spanningexchanges”(1977:340).Itisslightly

ironic,however,thatthisdefinitionisgivenattheoutsetofanarticlethatshows

howasplitarisesbetweentheinstitutionalizedmythsbywhichanorganization

legitimizesitself,andthepracticaloutcomesitseekstoachieve.Attentiontosucha

split–thatis,tohowformalorganizationsfailtocontrolactioneffectively–isquite

typicalnotonlyofMeyerandRowanbutoftheliteratureasawhole.Oneofthe

worksthatconsidersformalityinitsfunctionalratherthanpathologicalvariations,

however,isArthurStinchcombe’sWhenFormalityWorks.Anexaminationofhis

6

efforttotakeformalorganizationsseriouslyintheirfunctionalitywillputusina

betterpositiontodiscussgapsthemselves.

Stinchcombeargues,contraWeber’ssharpdivisionofformalandinformal

organizations,thatformalitiesareabstractionsthat“preservewhatisessentialin

thesubstance;”theyare“abstractionsthatgovern”(2001:3,43).Further,

StinchcombeisadamantthatthefundamentalmistakeWeber(andthroughWeber

mostofsociologyoforganizations)madewasinconsideringformalorganizationsas

staticandsynchronic.Incontrast,Stinchcombeinsiststhatformalorganizational

systemsoughttobeunderstoodasprocesses.“Unlessformalityisseenasactive,”he

contends,“onecannotunderstandhowitcangraspachangingreality”(2001:3).

Thatis,hereadsformalityasformalization.

Notingthisdiachronic,process-ualemphasisinStinchcombe’sworkprovides

anopportunitytodescribeanimportantaspectcommontomanysociological

definitionsoforganizations,includingStinchcombe’sdefinitionofformalitiesas

“abstractionsthatgovern.”Thatis,formalorganizationsareoftendefinedusing

bothaverb–i.e.,“abstraction”or“process”–andanoun–i.e.,“govern.”2

Stinchcombe’smodel,then,mightbeunderstoodastryingtobalanceamobilesetof

actions–theprocessofabstracting–withthestabilizationprovidedby“various

currentrestingplaces,”bygovernanceinwhichthestructuringprocessesare

trusted(2001:4).

2AdaptedfromWagner-Pacificlectureof9.15.15

7

IwillbeconsideringtheRomanMissal,then,asanabstractionthatgoverns.

However,takingitasatextmeansthatitwillbeexaminedfirstasanoun,i.e.,inits

stabilizing,governingcapacity,ratherthanasaverb.Iwillfirstexamineitforgaps

initsabstractstructure.But,becauseitisanorganizingstructurethatcallsfor

enactmentitmustalsobeexaminedinitsverb-al,activesenseaswell.This

establishedIturntoafinalpreliminary,theoreticalgrounding:theconsiderationof

howgapsinorganizationalstructureshavebeentheorized,especiallyinthe

movementfromtexttoaction.

Asnoted,organizationalgapsarenormallyreadasmomentsofpathology

withinaformality,assitesofdisorganizationwithinanorganizingstructure.Charles

Perrow,however,viewssuchgapsdifferently.InhisNormalAccidents,Perrow

introducestwotheoreticalframesforunderstandinghowaccidentshappenwithin

complexorganizationalstructures:complexityandcoupling.Hisanalysisshowsthat

accidents,whileunpredictableatthemicro-level,becomeinevitableatthemacro-

level.Thosewhoviewgapsaspathologiesmightbewell-prepared,then,for

interpretingaccidentsasabnormaleventsthatdisruptaformalsystem.Itwould

followfromthisthataccidentsarepathologicalgapsthatoughttobefilled,first,by

distancingoperatorsfromthesystem,and,second,byincreasingtheprecisionofthe

complexsystems.Perrow,however,wouldnotagree.

Instead,hearguesthatthemoretightlycoupledandcomplexasystemisthe

moredestructiveagivenfailureislikelytobe.Throughacarefulanalysisofa

numberofdifferentsystems(includingpowerplants,spacelaunches,dams,etc.)

8

Perrowarguesthatthistendencytodouble-downontightnessandcomplexity

ironicallyonlymakescatastrophesmorelikely.Andthisbecause,whenanincident

occurs,operatorinterventiontopreventanaccidentmusthappenmorequickly

withinamorecomplexsystem.Perrow’scounter-proposal,whileperhapssounding

initiallystrange,flowssmoothlyfromsuchananalysis.Hearguesthatthemost

sensiblepolicyforreducingaccidentsisto(1)avoidcreatingsuchsystems,and(2)

toloosenratherthantightencoupling,tosimplifyratherthancomplexifysystems.

Thatis,forthepurposesofourargument,Perrowshowsthatcomplex

organizationalstructuresoughtbothtowidenthegapsthatalreadyexistintheir

formallogics,andtocreatenewones.Andallthisinthenameofgivingoperators

boththetimeandthecapacitytointerveneandpreventdisaster.

AnanalogouspointismadebyKarlWeickinhis1987article“Organizational

CultureasaSourceofHighReliability.”ThereWeickarguesthat,inhigh-risk

systemsthatcannotusetrial-and-errorasalearningmechanismandwhich

prioritizereliabilityoverefficiency,there“shouldbefeweraccidentswhenthereisa

bettermatchbetweensystemcomplexityandhumancomplexity”(1987:112).The

pathsuchsystemstaketoaccomplishthisfitnormallyinvolvesaskingindividualsto

comportthemselvestotechnologicalchanges,but,henotes,weoughttoreversethis

order.Weickarguesforthisreversalbynotingthatitishumanaction,ratherthana

formalsystem,thatpreservesstabilityintheseinstances(c.f.,Weick1987:122).

Reliabilityisthenconceivednotastheresultofformalizedsystems,butasaprocess

thatrequires“dynamicinputs”tocreate“stableoutcomes”(Weick1987:118).That

is,reliabilityinthekindofsystemsWeickisexaminingisaresultofhumanagency.

9

“Oncesituationsaremadereliable,”heconcludes,“theywillunraveliftheyareleft

unattended.…Samenessisafunctionofchange”(1987:119).

ForthepurposesofthisessaytwopointsmustbemadeaboutWeick’swork.

First,thedifferenceinsystemicfocusbetweenhiscontextandtheformal

organizationofthemassmustbenoted.Themassisnotahigh-riskeventwherein

trial-and-errorisdisallowed–indeed,theriteitselfhasdevelopedthroughtrialand

errorovermanyyears.3Althoughitmightsaidthatthismakesthereapplicationof

thistheoryproblematic,Iarguethatbothsystemsoughttobereadasanalogousin

thattheyareconcernedwithreliabilityoverefficiency.Thatis,whiletrial-and-error

ispossibleintherite,theconcernoftheriteisforreliabilityandreproducibility

overtimeandinamultiplicityofculturalspaces.Second,ItakefromWeick’swork

onreliabilityhisinsistence4thatformalsystemsthatstriveforreliabilitymustbe

constructedsothattheypreserveinformalspaces,i.e.,spacesofinnovation,

imagination,storytelling;trust.Preliminarily,Inotethatattendingtogapsinthe

formalorganizationofthemasswillleaveuscloseWeick’sconclusionabout

reliabilitysystems,thatthey“handicapthemselveswhentheybecomepreoccupied

withtraditionalrationalityandfailtorecognizethepowerofnarrativerationality”

(1987:125).

3C.f.,KeithPeckler’sEthosoftheRomanRiteforagooddiscussionofsuchtrialanderrorchanges.AlsoSeasoltz’s“TheGeniusoftheRomanRite”wherehewrites:“theRomanRitehascertainlyevolvedoverthecenturies…”(2009:541).4“Insistence”becauseWeickmakesvariationsofthispointconsistently.Forexample,inhis1993articleonsense-makingintheMann-GulchdisasterWeickarguesthatthatfirefightersoughttobetrainedtobebricoleurs,operatorswhocan“remaincreativeunderpressure…pullorderoutof[chaoticsituations,and]formmaterialsorinsightsintonovelcombinations”(1993:639-40).

10

WiththeaboveanalysesofPerrowandWeickIhaveattemptedtoshow

someofthewaysthatorganizationaltheoryhasconceptualizedgapsinformal

systems.Thetheoreticalframeworkforouranalysiswillbecompletedbyattending

toonlyonefurthersuchmanneroftheorizinggaps:thatofthebreakagethatoccurs

betweendocumentandaction.Thisisespeciallyrelevantforthepresentanalysis

becauseofhowitattendstogapsbyshiftingfocusbetweentextandenactment.

Thinkingtheparticulargapbetweendocumentsandactionisnotan

innovationintheliterature.ItwasWeberwhofirstthematizedtherelevanceof“the

files”forthebureaucraticactionofmanagement(1978:197).And,asnotedabove,

MeyerandRowan’sinsightaboutthesplitbetweenformal,written,practicesand

themyth-likerulesthat“defineneworganizingsituations,redefineexistingones,

andspecifythemeansforcopingrationallywitheach”canbereadasagapbetween

textandactions(1977:344).Similarly,inhisstudyoffactoriesKevinHughesmade

thepointthat“usuallythereisaninformallyagreeduponsetoftoleranceswhich

areslightlylooserthanthoseinthebook”(1951:320).Still,itisuponthe

contemporaryworkdonebyNahokoKameoandJackWhalenintheirarticle

“OrganizingDocuments:StandardForms,PersonProductionandOrganizational

Action”thatIwillcentrallydraw.

IntheirstudyKameoandWhalenusethewritten,incidentrecordformsof

calls-for-helpmadetopoliceandfirecommunicationscenterstoinvestigatehow

documentscontributetoformalizationwithinorganizations.Theyarguethatthese

documentsfunctionassystemsthatproducepersons;that“organizingdocuments

11

alsofunctionasatechnologyofreification”(KameoandWhalen2015:226).Itisin

theirtheorizingofdocumentsthemselves,however,thattheymaketwogermane

points.

First,theynotethatitisthroughdocumentsthatsocialreproductionismade

possibleinmodernsociety.Itisdocumentsthatmake“coordinationandcontrol

possiblebyprovidingtheprototypesofacceptableandexpectedactionsinthe

organizationalsetting”(KameoandWhalen2015:207).CitingGiddens,theyargue

thatthisiswhydocumentshavebeendecisivelyimportantfor“theextensionof

socialsystemsinspaceandtime”(GiddensinKameoandWhalen2015:208).

Second,andmostimportantly,theynotethatdocumentsarenotthemselves

determinativeofaction.Althoughtheyare“createdbytheorganizationinquestion,

theymustbe‘takenup’byorganizationalmembers”(KameoandWhalen

2015:211).Givenourattentionongapsinorganizationalstructures,thisisrelevant

becauseitestablishesclearlythegapbetweentextandaction.

Summarizingthetheorizingdoneabove,threeinsightshavebeenestablished

thatwillberelevantfortheanalysisofriteofthemass.First,citingStinchcombe,

formalorganizationsweredescribedinboththeirverb-al,process-ualaspectsand

intheirnoun-like,stabilizingaspects.Thatis,Ihavepresentedformalorganizations

asdynamic,stabilizingentities.Second,Idrewattentiontosomeofthewaysgapsin

organizationalstructureshavebeentheorized.Perrow’sworkwasusedtoshow

thatgapshavebeentheorizednotonlyaspathologicalbreakagestobeclosedup

withdeeperformalstructuring,butaspotentiallynecessaryandvaluableadditions

12

toformalsystems.TheanalysisofWeick’sworkdeepenedthisinsight,showinghow

thepreservationofinformalspaceswithinformalsystems,spacesofimagination,

storytellingandtrust,canbeanaidtosystemicreliability.Third,IusedKameoand

Whalen’sstudyofincidentrecordformstodrawattentiontothespecificgapthat

liesinallexchangesbetweentextandaction.Thereitwasanironicdualitywithin

documents–theirabilitytocoordinateactionthroughtimeandspace,andthattheir

procedurestheyestablishstillmustbetakenupbyorganizationalactors–thatwas

presented.Thesethreetheoreticalframeswillserveasguides,orientinglenses,in

theexaminationoftheriteofthemass.Itistothatprocesswenowturn.

TheMassanditsGaps

Thisanalysisoftheriteofthemassusesanalogousapplicationofthetheoretical

framesdelineatedabove5toidentifythreetypicalplaceswhere,withinthe

documentsthatstructurethemassandtheenactmentofthesedocuments,gaps

emergeintheformalorganizationoftheliturgy.Whilethisisarooted,textual

analysis,thegapsdescribedarebestunderstoodasidealtypesthatemergeinthe

efforttostructuretheritualbehaviorofgroupsthroughtimeandspacenotasa

gapsthatmustbepresentineveryiterationoftheevent.Threesuchidealtypesare

identified:plannedgaps,unplannedgaps,andbreakages.Itistothefirstthatwe

nowturn.

5Re:analogoustheorizingseeDianeVaughan’sessay“TheorizingDisaster.”ThereVaughandescribesanalogicaltheorizingas“amethodthatcomparessimilareventsoractivitiesacrossdifferentsocialsettings”(2004:315).

13

Plannedgapsarethosethatareintentionallyinsertedintothemanaging

documents.Iclassifythemas“planned”becausetheformalorganizationis“aware”

ofthesegaps.Sometimesplannedgapscanfunctionascontrollingmechanismsthat

allowactorstochoosefromamongavarietyofprescribedoptionsoralternate

framework.Othertimesplannedgapsaremomentswhentheformalorganization

admitsitsinabilitytocontroltheenactmentandadaptionofthestructure,andso

attemptstolimittherangeofadaptationsthatcanbemadebysettingendsand

namingparticularpartieswhowillcontroltheadaptations.

Perhapstheprimaryexampleofthistypeofgapcomesinnotingthe

enormousrangeofoptionsthattheactorswhocoordinatetheriteofthemasshave

withinthesingleorganizingstructureoftheOM.6Thatis,withintherigid

frameworkofaritethatalwaysconsistsinthesamefourmovements–an

“introductoryrite”,a“liturgyoftheword”,a“liturgyoftheEucharist”,anda

“concludingrite”–thereareanenormousrangeofoptionsfromwhichactorscan

select.Thecentralmomentoftherite,theprayingbythepriestofaparticularsetof

prayersduringtheliturgyoftheEucharist,canserveasexampleinthatthereareat

leasteightdifferentvariationstothissetofprayers.Eachvariationisitselfaformal

organizationthatcontrolsspeechandaction,butwhichscriptisselectedisvariable

andleftuptoactorsontheground.Thatis,theEucharisticprayermaybereadas

plannedgapintheformalstructureoftheliturgy.

6Thisgroupofcoordinatorsincludes:priests,deacons,liturgicalministers,musicians,etc.

14

TurningtotheGIRM,theverytitleofchapter9,“AdaptationsWithinthe

CompetenceofBishopsandBishops’Conferences”,providesastrongexampleofa

plannedgap.Further,theopeningdescriptionofthischaptercontainsanexcellent

descriptionofit:“inorderthatsuchacelebrationmaycorrespondallthemorefully

tothenormsandthespiritoftheSacredLiturgy,certainfurtheradaptationsareset

outinthisinstruction”(GIRM2011:84).Herewecanseethatitisforthepurposeof

controlthatcontrolofparticularactionsisreleased.

WithinthesamechapteralistofpossibleplacesintheOMwhereadaptations

areacceptableisgiven(seefig.1).

Figure1(GIRM2011:84)

HereweseethetextoftheGIRM,itselfastructurethatorganizestheOM,

delineatingalistofacceptablegaps.Twothingsoughttobenotedaboutthistypeof

gap.First,itmaybereadasquitesimilartowhatStinchcombeterms“informally

embeddedformality”(2001:6).ForStinchcombe,thisisatypeofinformalitythat

15

insertsagapintoaformalsystem.Asinanappealsprocessorablueprintthat

referencesotherexperts,thesegapwillbemanagedbyanotherformalitythatlies

outsideofthefirst.Here,weseetheGIRMcreatinggapsbydeposingtheauthorityof

adaptationtothe“ConferencesofBishops.”Atthesametimethetextattemptsto

limittherangeofthegapbylistinganddelimitingwhereadaptationscanbemade

andthroughextensivecitationoftheseplaces.Second,thestyleandprecisionofthis

typeofgapisnotable.Itischaracterizedbywordslike“permissible”and

“accorded.”Withsuchdictionalchoicesitisasif,attheverymomentwhenaction

slips–evenvoluntarily–outofthecontrolofthetext,thatcontrolisgrabbedat

again.

Nevertheless,thisgapistypifiedbyitsbeingplannedandintentionally

placed.Theseareplannedsiteswheretherigidstructureoftheformalorganization

ismademalleablebyinsertingoptions.TurningtoStinchcombe’smodelofformality

asprocesscanhelptheorizetheaimofsuchgaps.Inhisfifthchapterhechallenges

thetraditionthatformalityimpliesrigiditybyturninghisattentiontoadescription

ofliquidityinfinancialmarkets.Thegoalofhislengthydiscussion,whichIwillnot

summarizehere,isthatformalorganizationscan“createtherightkindofrigidities

[suchthat]theorganizationasawholeisrenderedflexible”(2001:14).Similaraims

canbereadintheformalorganizationofthemass–thecontrolsacrossspaceand

timethatisexertedarerelinquishedatparticularpointssothatthestructurecan

remainbothuniformacrossspaceandtimeandapplicablewithinparticular

culturesatparticulartimes.

16

WemightreturntoPerrow’sconceptofloosecouplingtounderstand

plannedgapsaswell.“Loosecoupling,”Perrowconcludes,“allowscertainpartsof

thesystemtoexpressthemselvesaccordingtotheirownlogicsorinterests.Tight

couplingrestrictsthis”(1999:92).Thisisexactlywhatweseewithregardto

plannedgapsinboththeOMandtheGIRMaswell.Whiletherearetimeswhen,

becauseofthedeclineincontrol,thisflexibilitycanbereadasanxiety-causing,a

plenitudeofplannedgapscanbefoundintheformalorganizationoftheliturgy.

Indeed,asthe“anxious”languageshows,thedocumentiswellawareboththatthey

existandthattheyliebeyonditsformalcontrol.Theflexibilityandchoicefoundin

theseplannedgaps,then,arepreciselythesiteswhereinparticulariterationsofthe

massareallowedto“expressthemselvesaccordingtotheirownlogics”withinthe

scriptedformalstructureoftheGIRMandOM.

Unplannedgaps,ontheotherhand,aregapsofwhichthemanaging

documentshowsnoawareness.Whetherthisisanactuallacunaintheawarenessof

thedraftersoranintentionalignoringoftheissueishereleftundecided.Whatis

determinativeforthistypeofgapisthatthedocumentdoesnotmakeaneffortto

controlcontentormodeofactionatthesesites.Assuch,itisonlypossibletomake

thesegapsrevealthemselvesbyturningtoamethodofcomparison–especially

betweencomparisonoftextofthemasswithitsenactmentinparticular

circumstances.Twoexamplesofthistypeofgaparenotable.

Thefirstofthistypeliesclosetoaplannedgap.Ittakesplaceinatransitional

momentoftheriteofthemass,intheshiftbetweentheliturgyoftheWordandthe

17

liturgyoftheEucharist.Whattakesplaceatthispointisthe“UniversalPrayers”

whichareatimewhenindividualswithinthegroupareinvitedtovocalizetheirown

prayersandasktheassemblytojointhemintheirprayer.TheOMdescribesthis

momentwithastrikinglackofdetail:“ThenfollowstheUniversalPrayer,thatis,the

PrayeroftheFaithfulorBiddingPrayers”(2011:11).TheGIRM,however,ismuch

moreexplicitaboutregulatingtheaction,describingthepurposeoftheseprayers,

whooughttopraythem,andthattheyoughttobe“regulated,”“introduced,”and

“concluded”bythepriest(2011:34).Giventhatsuchsystematizationispresent,it

mightbedifficulttoseehowanunplannedgapispresenthere.Itcanbeseeninthis

comparison:ineveryotherinstancewithintheriteofthemasswhenthepriest

prayshiswordsareprescribed,fullyscripted.Forexample,everywordofeachof

theEucharisticprayeroptionsnotedaboveiswritten,theonlythingleftisforthem

toberead.Thatthisgapisunplannedcanbeseenonlybycomparison,bynoting

thatitisonlyinthismomentthatwordsofprayerremainunregulated.TheGIRM

sayingonlythatthepriest“concludes…withanoration”(2011:34).Itistheone

momentintheformalstructureofthemasswherethewordsofthepriestare

uncontrolled.7

Asecondexampleofanunplannedgapleans,ontheotherhand,toward

breakage.Thesegapsareunplannedwithregardtospace,andespeciallytotime.

The“RiteofPeace”isthetypicalexampleofthisgap.Theritetakesplaceinthe

7Otherthanthehomily,thereflectiononlifeinthelightofthescriptures,whichisstrictlyaplannedgap.Asnoted,thedifferencebetweenthesetwoisintheformofspeechandisseenclearlyinthefactthatthehomilyisnotaprayer.Itisindeedthecasethateveryotherinstanceofprayerinthemassisscripted-prayer.

18

middleoftheEucharisticPrayer,immediatelyafterthe“OurFather”hasbeen

prayed.TheOMspecifiesthatthepriesttothensaythewords:“Letusoffereach

otherthesignofpeace.”Ittheninstructs:“Andallofferoneanotherasign,in

keepingwithlocalcustoms,thatexpressespeace,communion,andcharity”

(2011:39).TheGIRM,asusual,furtherspecifiesthisbehavior:“asfortheactualsign

ofpeacetobegiven,themanneristobeestablishedbytheconferencesofbishops

inaccordancewiththecultureandcustomsofthepeoples.However,itis

appropriatethateachperson,inasobermanner,offerthesignofpeaceonlyto

thosewhoarenearest”(2011:37).Inmanyrespectsitmightseemthatthisoughtbe

categorizedasaplannedgap,whereanactionunregulatedbythetextisdelegated,

again,tothebishops.However,Iwouldpointoutthat,whencomparedwithhow

thismomentisenacted,thisgapcanrightlybeconsideredunplanned.Andthis

becauseittakesnoaccountof,indeeddoesnotevenmention,time.

Theunplanned-nessoftimeisrelevantinthatinmanyenactmentsofthe

signofpeacethesignitselftakestheshapeofalengthyembrace,afullconversation

aboutillrelativesorjobstatus.Thatis,itisanencounterextendedovertime.Within

theUnitedStatesthisisobservedmostoftenintheAfrican-AmericanorHispanic

communitieswherethesignofpeaceoftenneedstobecutoffbycertain

coordinatorsoftheaction(e.g.,themusiciansbybeginningorendingasong,bythe

ushersandserversmovingpeoplebacktotheirplaces,orbythepriestsimply

beginningthenextpartoftheritualaction).Althoughthistypeofgapisunplanned

withregardtotime,Inotethatthesamemomentsofenactingalsoleantoward

beingcalledbreakage-gapswithregardtospace.Thiscanbeseenbecauseofhow,

19

asthisactionbecomesextendedovertimeitalsoisspreadoutthroughspacein

violationoftheadmonitionto“offerthesignofpeaceonlytothosewhoarenearest”

(ibid).

Aswetransitiontothefinalidealtypeitoughttobenotedthatbothofthese

examplesseemtoberesistbeingcategorizedasunplanned.Or,phrasedotherwise,

theybothseemasiftheycouldatleastpartiallybecategorizedaseitherplanned

gapsorbreakages.AlthoughIthinktheyarebetterlocatedwithinthecategoryof

unplannedgaps,thisleakageoutofthecategoryinwhichIhaveplacedthemmaybe

duetotwofactorsparticulartothecaseweareconsidering.First,thatthisformof

actionhasbeenintheprocessofformalizationfornotdozensbuthundredsofyears.

Thatis,ithashadmoretimethanperhapsanyotheractiveformalorganizational

systemtobecometotal.Second,thedocumentsthemselveshavebeenrecently

revised,meaningthattheprocessofformalizationisongoinginthemandthatthey

havethereforebeenabletotakeaccountof,toformalize,actionsthatmayhave

previouslybeenunplanned.Regardlessofthecausewhatcanbeseeninboth

instancesisthatthesegapsareplaceswhereinnovative,imaginative,informal,

wheresomething“genuinelyinter-personal”eitherininnovativespeechoraction,

occurs(Weber1946:52).

OurfinaltypeofgapIhavetermedbreakages.Thesearegapsinthe

managingstructurethatarecreatedbyactorsineitherintentionalorunintentional

effortstoresistitscontrol.Thecommonrootofthistypeisthat,withintheformal

structureofthemass,actorshaverejectedaparticularpointofcontrolandcreated

20

agapwherethedocumentdoesnotadmitofone.Seeminglyinnumerableexamples

ofbreakagescanbegiven.

Thisisbecausebreakagescanbeseenatanypointwhereaformally

organizedgestureorwordisomittedorchanged.Thismighttakeplace,for

example,wheneverthegenderedlanguagewithwhichtheOMhasbeentranslatedis

madegenderneutral.Or,similarly,whenthethirdperson“he”thatnormallyisused

torefertoGodischangedintothesecondperson“you.”Theseexamplesofbreakage

seemtobemotivatedbyinclusion.

Responsivitytoparticularculturesmayalsobeamotivationforthecreation

ofbreakages.Thisisthecase,forexample,withincertainAfricanAmerican

communitieswheretheorganistcontinuestoplaysoftlybeneaththescripted

prayersofferedbythepriest.Thishappensquiteoftendespitetheinstructionsof

theGIRM,whichreads:“whilethepriestispronouncingthem,thereshouldbeno

otherprayersorsinging,andtheorganorothermusicalinstrumentsshouldbe

silent”(2011:27).

Thecaseofanon-ordainedpersonpreachingduringthemassmayberead

similarly.WhiletheOMemphasizesregularityofpreachingoverwhopreaches(“the

Homily…istobepreachedbyapriestordeacononallSundays”[2011:9]),theGIRM

isexplicitinnotingthatthehomilymaybeentrustedtoanotherpriestoradeacon

“butnevertoalayperson”(2011:34).Nevertheless,laypreachingcertainlydoes

occur.Sometimesthiswillhappenatanothermomentduringthemass(after

communion,forexample),butatothertimesitsimplyoccursinviolationofthe

21

prescribedrules.Thistypeofbreakageintheformalorganizationofthemassmay

bereadastheactivecreationofagapintheorganizationalstructuresothatitcan

befilledeitherwithcontentwhichis,orbyactorswhoare,normallyexcluded.

Butdespitethekindsofmotivationsforthecreationofbreakage-gapsnoted

above,breakagescanalsobecreatedpreciselyatpointsthathadbeeninclusivewith

themotivationofremovingthem.Thiscanhappenwhenthepriesttakestohimself

actions,suchastheofferingoftheUniversalPrayers,formallysetasideforothers.In

bothinstances,though,whathastakenplaceisthattheformalstructurehasbeen

broken,anewgapcreated,sothatanotherideologycanfillit.Thatis,inboth

instancesthepresenceofabreakagerevealsaconflictbetweentheendsbeing

legitimatedbytheformalorganizingstructureandtheendsthatanagentoragents

arepursuingwithinthestructure.Agents,then,refusingtoaccedetothecontrolling

structureandconsideringthegapsprovidedforthembythestructureitself

insufficient,simplygoaboutcreatingtheirown.

ThistypeofgapmaybeconceptualizedbyturningtoMerton’sanalysisofthe

socio-culturalsourcesofdeviantbehaviorinhis“SocialStructureandAnomie.”

ThereMertonproposesfivepossible“modesofadjustment”individualscantake

towardthelarger,culture-bearing,grouporsociety:conformity,innovation,

ritualism,retreatism,andrebellion.Mertonlocatesactorswithinthesecategories

baseduponacceptanceorrejectionofthegoalssetupbythelargegroupandthe

22

institutionalizedmeansactorshaveforattainingsuchgoals.8Intheanalysisofthe

organizingstructureofthemasswemight,then,placeunderthecategoryof

“conformity”actorswhoacceptthegoalsofthetextandfeelthatthesegoalsare

accomplishablethroughtheplannedgapsandtheenactmentofthescript.To

understandbreakages,however,wemustturntoMerton’scategoryof“innovation.”

Aninnovativebreakagemightbeunderstood,then,asthecreationofagapthat

conformstothegoalsoftheritebutnotwiththemeansusedtoaccomplishthem.

Theexampleofalteringgenderedlanguagemightfithere.

Finally,thisturntoMertonallowsustoreadbreakagesas“calledforth”by

theformalorganizationitself(1938:679).Thiscallingforthofbreakageshappens,

forMerton,whentheendsagivensystemestablishesandtheinstitutionalized

meansanactorhasforattainingthemareincoherent,when“theculturaldemands

madeonpersonsinthissituationareincompatible”(ibid).Hencebreakage-gapsare

a“conventionallyproscribedbut…effectivemeans”forthatcreateaspacewhere

thisconflictbetweenendsandmeanscanbereconciled(Merton1938:678).

Breakagesare,then,signsofthelackofintegrationbetweenmeansandendsfeltby

certainactorswithintheorganizationalsystem.Furtheranalysiswould,then,have

thetaskofexaminingenactedversionoftheritepayingparticularattentiontothose

textuallocationsandritualactionswherebreakagesoccurandthenanalyzingactors

reasonsforsuchbreakagestoconfirmthehypothesisproposedhereviaMerton:

thatthesebreakagesarisepreciselyatpointswherethelackofintegrationis

8Itoughttobenotedthat,forMerton,“thesecategoriesrefertoroleadjustmentsinspecificsituations,notpersonalitiesintoto”(1938:676).

23

repeatedlyfelt.Butsuchaproposalhasalreadymovedusbeyondthescopeofthe

presentanalysis.

Conclusion

Thisessayhasproposedatypologyofgapsinformalorganizationalstructures

throughanexaminationofthedocumentsthatstructurewhatis,perhaps,theoldest

continuingformofpatternedgroupbehavior.Ithasarguedthat,whileplannedgaps

areplaceswhereanorganizationalstructurehasbeenintentionallyloosenedsoas

toallowforadaptationoftheformtoparticularplacesandtimes,unplannedgaps

andbreakagesarerupturesintheseamlessgarmentofthosetexts.Through

particularrecoursetoStinchcombe,PerrowandWeick,thisessayhasshownthat

theserupturesinthetextcanbereadnotaspathologicalbutnecessaryfortheform

to“createtherightkindofrigidities[whileallowing]theorganizationasawholeis

renderedflexible”(Stinchcombe2001:14).

Atthesametime,otherthanabriefventureintotheconjunctionofmeans

andendsinthebreakagesinitiatedbyagents,whathappensinthegapsidentified

hasremainedunexamined.Thisisbecauseoftheparticularfitbetweenmethodand

databywhichtheessayhasfunctioned.Thatis,bytakingasitsempiricalobject

textsandtheirenactment,thisessayhasonlybeenabletodelineategapsassites

withintheorganizationalstructurewherefurtherresearchmayprovefruitful.

Relevantresearchaimswouldincludeinvestigationofwhathappensinthese

organizationalgaps.Ifattentionremainedonthefunctionofreligiousorganizations’

productionofthesacred(c.f.Wuthnow1994),ethnographicandinterviewmethods

24

wouldbecomeincreasinglyeffectiveforunderstandinghowactorsunderstandwhat

happenswithinplannedandunplannedgaps.

Further,comparisonbetweenthekindsofculturalproductiontakingplacein

eachtypeofgapwouldbeproductive.Questionsmightinclude:howandwhyis

eachtypeofgapbeingcreated?Oncecreated,withwhatkindsofactionarethese

gapsbeingfilled?Giventhatformalorganizationsareunderstoodasrevisable,as

formalizations,howisthegoverningstructurebeingrevisedsoastoremoveoradd

newgapstothestructure?Howdoeseachagent’ssocialimaginaryinduce

acceptanceorrejectionoftheformalorganizationanditsplannedgaps?Although

theseandmanyotherquestionsremain,whatthisessayhascontributedistoclarify

wherefurtherresearchmightproductivelytakeplace.

25

References

DiMaggio,PaulJ.andWalterW.Powell.1983.“TheIronCageRevisited:InstitutionalIsomorphismandCollectiveRationalityinOrganizationalFields”inAmericanSociologicalReview48(2).

Fligstein,Neil.2001.“TheoreticalDebatesandtheScopeofOrganizationalTheory”inHandbookofSociologyCraigCalhoun,ChrisRojek,andBryanTurnereds.SagePress.Electronicversionlastaccessedon12/12/15at:http://sociology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/faculty/fligstein/inter.handbook.paper.pdf

“GeneralInstructionoftheRomanMissal”inTheRomanMissal,2011.TranslatedbyTheInternationalCommissiononEnglishintheLiturgy.3rdtypicaled.WashingtonD.C.:UnitedStatesCatholicConferenceofBishops.Electronicversionlastaccessedon12/10/15at:www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/08/26/12-32-45_0.pdf

Hughes,Kevin.1951.“MistakesatWork”inCanadianJournalofEconomicsandPoliticalScience37:320-327.

Kameo,NahokoandJackWhalen.2015.“OrganizingDocuments:StandardForms,PersonProductionandOrganizationalAction”inQualitativeSociology38:205-229.

Merton,RobertK.1938.“SocialStructureandAnomie”inAmericanSociologicalReview3(5):672-682.

Meyer,JohnW.andBrianRowan.1977.“InstitutionalizedOrganizations:FormalStructureasMythandCeremony”inAmericanJournalofSociology,83(2).

“TheOrderofMass”inTheRomanMissal,2011.TranslatedbyTheInternationalCommissiononEnglishintheLiturgy.3rdtypicaled.WashingtonD.C.:UnitedStatesCatholicConferenceofBishops.Electronicversionlastaccessedon12/12/15at:www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Order-of-Mass.pdf

Pecklers,KeithF.2009.TheEthosoftheRomanRite:OntheReceptionandImplementationoftheNewMissal.Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress.

Perrow,Charles.1999.NormalAccidents:LivingwithHighRiskTechnologies.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Pierce,JoanneM.andJohnF.Romano2011.“TheOrdoMissaeoftheRomanRite:HistoricalBackground”inACommentaryontheOrderofMassofTheRomanMissal,editedbyEdwardFoley.Collegeville:LiturgicalPress.

Seasoltz,R.Kevin.2009.“TheGeniusoftheRomanRite:OntheReceptionandImplementationoftheNewMissal”inWorship83(6):541-49.

Smith,Christian.1996.DisruptiveReligion:TheForceofFaithinSocialMovementActivism.NewYork:Routledge.

26

Stinchcombe,Arthur.2001.WhenFormalityWorks:AuthorityandAbstractioninLawandOrganizations.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Vaughan,Diane.2004.“Theorizingdisaster:Analogy,historicalethnography,andtheChallengeraccident”inEthnography5(3):315–347.

Wagner-Pacifici,Robin.1994.DiscourseandDestruction:TheCityofPhiladelphiaversusMOVE.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Weber,Max.1978.EconomyandSociety:AnOutlineofInterpretiveSociology.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Weber,Max.1946.FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology.EditedbyH.H.GerthandC.WrightMills.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.

Weick,KarlE.1987.“OrganizationalCultureasaSourceofHighReliability”inCaliforniaManagementReview39(2).

–––––.1993.“TheCollapseofSensemakinginOrganizations:TheMannGulchDisaster”inAdministrativeScienceQuarterly38.

Wuthnow,Robert.1994.ProducingtheSacred:AnEssayonPublicReligion.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.