My colleagues and I heard similar comments when we recently interviewed 78 female US military veterans who had screened positive for PTSD about who they did and didn't talk with about their mental health issues. When asked how she described her mental health symptoms to her family, one of our veteran participants stated: "My family has no clue, no idea about what it's like to be in the military. I can't talk to them" (p. 5). Yet some veterans did experience circumstances where they could talk with others who had not served. One participant said that she could talk with her civilian husband because he worked as a firefighter: "He does [get it] a little bit because, you know, he's on the fire department and he's seen, like, stuff on the fire side similar to stuff I've seen" (p. 5). A second explained why she found it helpful to talk with her sister: "She's not a veteran...but she's super compassionate."
So what distinguishes conversations in which veterans feel like civilians at least partially understand their experiences from conversations in which veterans feel misunderstood? Certain forms of language can quickly signal that civilians do not "get it" and magnify military-civilian divides. One example are inappropriate questions such as "have you killed anybody?" Veterans and military spouses both report being offended by this question. A student veteran in DiRamio and colleagues (2008) interview study explained: "They always end up asking me if I killed somebody over there...That's a question I don't like people asking me" (p. 88). Similarly, a military spouse in my colleague, Dr. Kelly Rossetto's, 2015 interview study said "If somebody comes up and they like want to talk about it, that's fine, but...for God's sake don't ask if he's killed somebody" (p. 303). Asking such a personal question marks the civilian as "outgroup" in the sense that any military-connected individual would know this is a sensitive subject that the veteran may not want to talk about.
Second, comments based on stereotypes are not well received by military veterans. As noted in my previous blog, media commonly frame military veterans in terms of being "heroes" but also "victims" who all suffer from PTSD. Hence, many veterans are sensitive to comments implying that all military veterans are "broken" or likely to go "postal."
Third, inaccurate comparisons - even if well intentioned - can highlight divides. Another military spouse in Dr. Rossetto's study described the following example: "[civilian friends] are like, 'Well, yeah, [my husband] went on a three day business trip the other week and I missed him so much!' I just want to punch you in the face...come on! Three days? Seven months!" (p. 299). Such inaccurate comparisons are an example of what communication accommodation theory might describe as over-accommodation - attempts by civilian friends to relate that "miss the mark" and end up inadvertently communicating the friend's lack of understanding.
So how can civilians talk with veterans about their military experiences in ways that help bridge rather than magnify military-civilian divides? Dr. Robert Dingman, Director of the Military and Veterans Psychology Concentration at William James College, suggests the following questions as places to start in a Psychology Today blog:
- What inspired you to serve in the military?
- How did others respond to your decision to serve?
- What branch did you serve in, and what was your military occupation?
- I'd love to hear a story about the people you served with.
- What was a typical day like during your deployment?
- How has your military training been useful to you at home?
I bet most people in a profession/association feel more comfortable discussing their professional experience with other peers rather than with outgroup people. Accountants enjoy talking accounting with other Accountants etc. However, I am sure veterans, due to the nature of their duties, have more of an emotional bond with other veterans creating more of a tribal system, then say Accountants with other Accountants. On the other hand, I would bet Law Enforcement workers and Firefighters are very similar to veterans. I would think your techniques described above not only work with civilians talking with veterans but with anybody talking with somebody in another profession/association other than their own. So thanks for the tips.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tom - you make some good points - you're right that many of these points apply to many potential ingroup/outgroup divides (not just military/civilian) and there some professions that are similar to the military in certain respects (e.g., centrality of teamwork, danger of service). And language can make a lot of divides (e.g., religious or political divides in families) more or less salient. So some of this does apply broadly. Military-civilian divides also aren't new (think about veterans coming home from Vietnam) - in some respects, the public has more positive perceptions of post-9/11 veterans - but also much less understanding (as a norm) of what it's like to serve in the military than in the past (due to fewer people having immediate family connections to the military).
DeleteVery insightful blog post, Steve. I was reminded of a time a family member once asked my then 3- and 5-year-old children if they knew their daddy taught people to kill (at the time he taught ROTC at UC Davis). I was horrified when I heard about it from my child, and had to spend time trying to mitigate the situation. Though it wasn't the last time I experienced such language from people who were either insensitive or just inappropriate, I also believe most of the time insensitivity can be addressed in a way that educates, as you do here. Thank you again!
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this example Linda. As you said, words do matter. Sometimes people mean well but miss the mark; in other cases, one wonders what they hope to accomplish.
ReplyDelete