Thursday, January 16, 2020

Four Military-Civilian Gaps


Academics, policymakers, and the general public tend to agree that a "military-civilian divide" exists, but it's not always clear what these groups mean by the term.  It's a bit like Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's famous 1964 remark that although he could not precisely define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." As Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, Associate Professor at the Institute for Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defense College, and his colleagues wrote in a 2012 article published in the journal Armed Forces and Society:

"Among those scholars who argue that a divide does in fact separate civilian society from the military, almost everyone believes it is important...Despite the prevalence of claims about serious implications of the gap...scholars have failed to clarify how to best conceptualize it and they sometimes reference quite distinct phenomenon when they discuss the military-civilian gap" (p. 670).

Professor Rahbek-Clemmensen and his colleagues propose that four types of military-civilian gaps may exist - in terms of culture, demographics, policy preferences, and institutional relations.  Their framework is useful for thinking about issues I'll be writing about in this blog.

The first gap, cultural, refers to "whether the attitudes and values of civilian and military populations differ" (p. 671).  As my colleagues Professors Leanne Knobloch (University of Illinois) and Erin Wehrman (Missouri State University) explain in a chapter on military culture and family relationships, the military stresses values such as discipline, unity, and self-sacrifice whereas U.S. civilian culture tends to prioritize independence, individual achievement, and self-gain.  Due to these cultural differences, military veterans may hold negative attitudes about civilians and feel like outsiders as they transition back to civilian life.  For example, some student veterans in an interview study were critical of their civilian peers, seeing them as immature, undisciplined, and focused on having a good time rather than a larger purpose in life.  Although these perceptions are understandable, they can lead student veterans to feel isolated on campus.  Over time, veterans may fare better by adopting what acculturation scholars call "integration" (recognizing positive elements as well as drawbacks in both military and civilian culture) as opposed to "separation" (rejecting civilian culture in lieu of military culture).  Separation may make it difficult for veterans to accomplish tasks such as building and maintaining friendships with civilian neighbors and coworkers or feeling like they fit into the larger society that are important for transitioning to civilian life.

The second gap, demographic, refers to "whether or not the military represents the U.S. population in its partisanship and demographic makeup" (p. 672).  A recent New York Times article offered important insights about this demographic gap. The article shows how the advent of the All-Volunteer force plus closure of military bases in the northeastern and western U.S. has led to a situation where the majority of Army recruits now come from particular counties in the south as well as counties surrounding military installations across the country. Not only do Army recruits tend to come from families where others (often parents) have served, but they grow up where other adults in their social networks (e.g., teachers, neighbors, coaches) often have served as well.  This creates a very different social environment than for youth who grow up where few adults in their network are veterans, with implications for thinking about the military as a career.  These demographic trends also mean that the military does not always represent the larger U.S. population in terms of political views. A Pew Center research report released last year shows that nearly six in 10 veterans (59%) identify with or lean towards the Republican Party, as compared to only 44% of the general U.S. public.  Still, strong partisan divides exist among veterans just as they do in the U.S. public.  Veterans who identify with or lean Republican, for example, have much more positive views about President Trump's leadership of the military as compared to their Democratic veteran counterparts. Aside from geography and partisanship, demographic gaps also exist in terms of race/ethnicity.  According the the U.S. Department of Defense's 2018 demographics profile, African Americans are over-represented among the enlisted ranks -- but underrepresented among the officer corps -- relative to their percentage of the overall U.S. population.

The third gap, policy preferences, refers to "whether a policy preference gap separates military and civilian elites who may agree or disagree about a range of public policy issues" (p. 673).  Professor Rahbek-Clemmensen and his colleagues review evidence that civilian leaders with prior military experience hold policy views closer to military leaders than their civilian counterparts who have not served in the military.  According to the authors, military leaders tend to believe that U.S. military forces should be deployed only for practical reasons clearly tied to our national interests and that when deployed, overwhelming force should be brought to bear.  Civilian leaders are more likely to favor limited engagements grounded in moral or ethical motives (e.g., peacekeeping or humanitarian missions).

The fourth and final gap, institutional relations, refers to "whether the relationship between military and civilian institutions such as the media, the courts, and the education system can be characterized in terms of harmony or conflict" (p. 673). For example, when universities like my own establish an Office of Veteran Success with the mission of providing "a seamless transition for our nation's veterans from military life, through campus life an into a meaningful career," then military and educational institutions are well aligned. When urban high school districts restrict access to military recruiters out of concern (expressed by Patricia Heideman of the Los Angels United school district), that they "are targeting our black and brown students and students of poverty," then greater institutional tension exists. Purdue University's Military Family Research Institute (MFRI) does important work bridging institutional gaps; for example, in conjunction with the Center for Deployment Psychology, Indiana National Guard, and Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, MFRI has developed "Star Behavioral Health Providers," a program that trains civilian health providers to work competently with military veterans and families.  The program has now trained thousands of civilian behavioral health specialists in at least 17 states.

As an interpersonal and family communication scholar, I am primarily interested in cultural and demographic gaps, including how language use can make these gaps more or less salient during conversations between military-connected individuals and civilian family members, friends, and coworkers (see my last post).  Focusing only on the first two gaps, however, may inadvertently downplay issues of power and politics, such as the role that the American Psychological Association has played in questioning the evidence on which the Trump administration has barred transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. Thus, at times I will be writing about all 4 types of military-civilian gaps in future posts.

1 comment:

  1. Really enjoyed reading this. It is helping me to develop insight on the divide that exists.
    LW

    ReplyDelete