Creating resilience during tough times: What can we learn from military and civilian families?

                                                              Image by Wokandapix from Pixabay

As I mentioned in my last post, I am working with Purdue University's College of Health and Human Resources on an initiative called "Families Tackling Tough Times Together."  Grounded in Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience, the initiative is creating a series of weekly activities and information - with each week focused on one specific aspect of Walsh's model.

As part of the initiative, I am interviewing both military and civilian families about how they have gotten through a difficult life event in the past, and what they learned that might be useful for all of us as we cope with today's uncertainties and challenges during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Military families face unique challenges, but both military and civilian families have lessons to share about how to adapt and create a new normal during difficult times.

In my first interview in the series, I talk with Richard and Shaneika Williams. Richard has served 12 years in the U.S. Army, Shaneika works in the mental health field, and they are parenting three children. They describe a situation where Richard was assigned a new role in the military - working as a military recruiter.  With this new assignment, the family had to move and both parents were working long hours while commuting long distances to work. They then talk about how they got through the situation by maintaining a positive outlook while also taking turns supporting each other.  Maintaining a positive outlook does not mean ignoring or sugar coating difficult circumstances. Rather, it means acknowledging difficulties while trying to remain hopeful and see the positive; it can also involve working together to try and reduce stressors as is possible over time. The couple does a great job of sharing how they did this - I'm sharing a clip from my interview with them as it has real relevance for what many of us are facing today.

Families Tackling Tough Times Together Initiative

We are all - military and civilians alike - facing uncertainties and challenges in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.  In response, some of my former colleagues in Purdue University's College of Health and Human Services are launching a new initiative - creating a variety of online resources to help build family resilience in the coming months.  As they describe it:

"Families Tackling Tough Times Together is a new Facebook group and community of support helping families to strengthen their resilience while they cope with a multitude of challenges brought forth by the COVID-19 pandemic. Every week, new materials and activities that focus on a specific aspect of resilience will be released. Families with children, youth, young adults and elders will find materials tailored for them.  All are welcome; we especially welcome military families. This program is led by Purdue University’s College of Health and Human Sciences with contributions from partners at Purdue and across the country."

The program is based on Dr. Froma Walsh's model of family resilience.  Rather than viewing resilience as an individual trait or characteristic (e.g., hardiness, grit) that some people have and others don't, Walsh argues that resilience is relational - i.e., it is built as family members support each other and reach out to others for resources.  Resilience is a process that unfolds when families encounter major disruptions (e.g., families exposed to the traumas of war, living in communities with factory closings and major layoffs, coping with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina).  Family members naturally are distressed by such events but resilient families manage to draw/build on their strengths (maybe strengths they didn't know they had until that point), rally, reach out to others for help, and adapt their lives over time.  Walsh's views are similar to those of a number of communication scholars, such as Tamara Afifi and Patrice Buzzanell, who also have conceptualized resilience in terms of how people think, talk, and relate to each other over time.

One of the first things posted on the program's Facebook page is an interview that Professor Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Director of Purdue's Military Family Research Institute, did with Dr. Walsh.  During the 15 minute interview, they talk about what led Dr. Walsh to create her model, her own views on what does (and doesn't) count as resilience, and how her views run contrary to some cultural beliefs in the U.S. (which tend to glorify  the "rugged individual" who struggles alone).  Walsh describes ways in which families can create resilience in three areas (roughly, their beliefs/values, their roles/structure, and their ways of communicating).  She also argues that some families - those who have had to face uncertainties and challenges together in their past - maybe be better prepared than others to cope and adapt together during today's COVID-19 pandemic - but that all families have strengths that they can pull and build on during tough times.

As part of the initiative, I'll be interviewing family members - both from military and civilian families - about their family's strengths and how their family has gotten through a particularly tough time together.  Military families are interesting in this regard as they often have learned to live together: (a) in an environment where big changes (e.g., deployment, change of duty station) happen suddenly and affect the entire family, (b) elements of the future are unpredictable, (c) loved ones carry out essential roles that may put them in danger, and (d) members are physically separated for extended periods of time.  Military families may have lessons to teach all of us about how our families can enact resilience during today's events.  I'll post some short clips from those interviews over time.

A female veteran reflects on her service in Afghanistan

Last week, National Public News reporter Noel King interviewed Afghanistan Army veteran Kristen Rouse about her views on the proposed peace deal between the U.S. and Taliban as well as on military service more broadly.  Kristen Rouse is President and Founder of the NYC Veterans Alliance.  She served 25 years in the Army, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard, and deployed to Afghanistan three times (2006, 2010, and 2012).  You can listen to the full six-minute interview here.

Three things struck me as important while listening to the interview.  First, Rouse voices feelings shared by many military and veteran families - that the burden of service during the post-9/11 conflicts has fallen on a small number of families, and that the U.S public has been largely unaware of these conflicts (see my earlier post on fewer and fewer Americans having immediate family connections to the military).  When asked about her thoughts about the U.S. military still being involved in Afghanistan after 19 years, Rouse replies:

"To be involved in a bloody conflict for 19 years is - it should stun us. We should be shocked daily and aware daily that Americans are going halfway across the planet and risking their lives...I mean there's troops who have been lost in combat within the past year who have had 10 deployments. We're asking the same troops, the same families, over and over and over again, and for that to barely reach political consciousness, daily media consciousness, it's still stunning to me."

Second, Rouse talks about intersections of gender and culture when describing relationships she formed with the Afghans with whom she worked. Rouse perceived that the Afghans were more willing to talk about their families with her than they were with most male U.S. service members, and she learned about why they were fighting from listening to stories about their families.

Third, Rouse hesitates momentarily when asked if she felt like the 31 months she spent in Afghanistan had served a purpose, and then replies "part of the story I've told myself, that I have conversations...with other veterans...is that, you know, I believe that all good faith efforts in the world amount to something." She goes on to say that she grieves for the colleagues she lost by telling their stories.  All of us want to believe that the things we do in life make a difference, and research has shown that (controlling for many other factors) post 9/11 veterans who have a strong sense of purpose in their lives are less likely to report considering suicide.  This helps explain why it is so important to create spaces in which the public can listen nonjudgmentally as veterans tell the stories.

I encourage you to listen to the interview and would love to hear your thoughts.

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.

How language can magnify (or help bridge) military-civilian divides

Veterans often feel most comfortable discussing their military experience with other veterans rather than civilians.  As ingroup members, veterans understand the language, customs, rules, and values associated with military culture.  Veterans often perceive that civilians, as outgroup members, do not understand what it means to serve or be deployed to a war zone.  A student veteran in Rumann and Hamrick's (2010) interview study put it this way: "The civilians have their drinking stories, and 'This chick I met last night' stories, and the veteran's got the 'No shit, there I was' stories. It's kind of like we're a different breed of person after we get back" (p. 446).  A second student veteran went on to explain "The biggest thing was probably the fact that people didn't understand what we've been through, and didn't understand how to approach us...It takes work on both sides to get everything figured out" (p. 446).

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?

These questions have several things in common - they move beyond cliches such as "thank you for your service" and attempt to communicate a genuine interest in the veteran's military service and a willingness to learn more.  They begin with relatively "safe" topics and let the veteran decide how much they want to share about their experiences.  They communicate a desire to understand without implying that civilians can ever totally understand.  In this sense, they represent part of the work civilians can do to "help both sides to get everything figured out."

Hero, victim, and charity case: How the news media frame U.S. military veterans on Twitter

In the initial post for this blog, I highlighted how Americans - especially younger Americans - are less likely to have immediate family connections to the military than in past generations.  One consequence is that many Americans get most of their information about the military from media as opposed through conversations with those who have served.  Thus, it becomes important to understand how media represent the experiences of military veterans.

A recent study,  led by Dr. Scott Parrott, Associate Professor of Journalism and Creative Media at the University of Alabama, explored this issue in depth.  News organizations increasingly use Twitter to broadcast their stories to audiences, and hence Dr. Parrott and his colleagues analyzed tweets from 50 regional news organizations that used the term "veteran" or "veterans" over a 10 year period.  Specifically, the authors analyzed tweets from the largest regional newspapers in each of the 50 states.  In my home state of Florida, for example, the authors analyzed tweets from the Tampa Bay Times, which has the largest media market in the state.  In cases where the largest paper served a national rather than a regional audience, the second largest news organization was selected (e.g., for the state of New York, the authors analyzed tweets by the New York Post rather than New York Times).  From 2008 to 2017, the authors identified 8,417 tweets about veterans by these 50 news organizations; hence, they randomly identified a subset of 20% of those tweets (n = 1,460) to analyze in terms of how military veterans were framed.

Media framing theory argues that news organizations help shape the public's perceptions of social issues by highlighting certain elements of a story while downplaying other elements.  Just as placing a picture into different frames may draw attention to different elements of a painting, framing a news story in different ways can draw attention to different elements of an issue.  In a classic 1993 article, Professor Robert Entman of George Washington University described framing as a process in which communicators "select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such as way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation" (p. 52).  By consistently highlighting certain aspects of the veteran experience, news organizations inadvertently may create and/or reinforce stereotypes about military veterans.

To identify frames, Dr. Parrott and colleagues coded for the presence or absence of about a dozen different topics or themes that they anticipated (based on prior research) might be discussed in each of the 1,460 tweets.  After this, the authors analyzed which themes tended to occur together in the same tweets.  In this way, they were able to identify 3 main frames present in their sample of regional news organization's tweets about military veterans.

First, the charity/assistance frame represented stories in which veterans received free goods or services from businesses or non-profit organizations.  Common themes in the first frame included charity, content that would elicit feelings of happiness, and discussions of physical health.  Example tweets that illustrate this first frame include "Wounded at war, Army veteran gets new home" (Arkansas Democratic-Gazette) and "7-Eleven offering veterans a fee-free franchise" (Times Dispatch, Richmond, Virginia).  About 35% of the news tweets fell into this first frame.

Second, the hero frame included stories about acts of courage and heroism by veterans.  Common themes in this second frame included reference to honor, content that would elicit pride, and specific mentions of WWII veterans.  Examples illustrating this second frame include "Dallas photo exhibit focuses on bravery, sacrifice of WWII veterans in senior living center" (Dallas Morning News) and "We offer our greatest gratitude to our veterans and those who are active in the U.S. military" (Burlington Free Press).  About 35% of tweets feel into this second frame.

Third, the victim frame was composed of stories about hardships faced by veterans.  Common themes in this third frame included veterans being wronged, veterans struggling with mental health issues, politics, the post-9/11 conflicts, and content that would elicit sadness.  Examples of this third frame include "News at noon: Report shows VA staff left veterans' body in shower nine hours" (Tampa Bay Times) and "Suicides of young veterans top those of active duty troops" (Detroit Free Press).  About 30% of stories fell into this third frame.

One concerning aspect of these findings is how they highlight only certain aspects of the veteran experience.  Some veterans (at some points in time) do need assistance; some have performed incredible acts of courage that merit recognition, and some struggle to reintegrate to civilian life after returning from combat and/or separating from the military.  But the danger comes when repeated frames lead readers to move from inferring "some veterans" to "most" or "all veterans."    

Consider the victim frame. As noted in a previous blog, the best evidence to date suggests that about a quarter (23%) of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan struggle with post-traumatic stress symptoms.  After being encouraged by family and military peers, many of these veterans seek professional help and go on to live productive lives.  What's left unsaid in this statistic, however is that most veterans (77%) transition back to civilian life remarkably smoothly.   If the public believes that most military veterans suffer from PTSD, then it's easier to understand why employers might be cautious about hiring veterans or younger Americans might be reluctant to consider serving.

A second concerning aspect of these findings is what frames are missing from news tweets about military veterans.  Military veterans bring a range of experiences and skills into the civilian world - whether they are searching for employment, continuing their education, or volunteering for non-profit organizations in their community.  So where is the veterans as valuable resources frame?

Given that more of the public rely on media as their primary source of information about the military, what are ways of moving forward?  The point of this blog isn't to blame the media.  As Dr. Parrott notes, reporters at regional news organizations often are tasked with writing more than one story per day; hence it is understandable that they may write routine stories at particular times (e.g., around Memorial Day and Veterans Day) rather than digging deeper to write about broader aspects of the veteran experience.  One option is for academics and activists to collaborate with news organizations to improve coverage of veterans issues.  The Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas offers a model for how this might work.  Equally important, we need to create more opportunities for civilians and military-connected individuals to have productive conversations about a range of issues (e.g., the benefits and challenges of military service, the role of the military in our larger society), including on our college campuses.  Regardless of your opinion about the military as an institution, surely we all have something to learn from more opportunities for dialogue.

 

Growing military-civilian divide: Fewer Americans have immediate family connections to the U.S. military

The news often features stories about a growing U.S. military-civilian divide.  For example, the U.S. Department of Defense published a story earlier this year arguing that a widening military-civilian gap was endangering the country's ability to recruit and sustain the all-volunteer force. In that story, Anthony M. Kurta, acting undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said that the growing divide "is characterized by misperceptions, a lack of knowledge and an inability to identify with those who serve."  As an example, Mr. Kurta (who retired from the Navy in 2013 as a Rear Admiral after 32 years on active duty) cited DOD survey data showing that a majority of youth believe that those who serve and then separate from the military inevitably will have psychological or emotional issues.  Although some veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do struggle with issues such as post-traumatic stress symptoms (a 2015 review of 33 studies estimated the prevalence rate at 23% of veterans), the fact is that most post-9/11 veterans have displayed remarkable resilience as they have transitioned to civilian life.  Mr. Kurta goes on to argue that "While the American public has faith in the efficacy of our military, they feel little to no personal connection with it."

There are a number of factors contributing to this sense of a growing military-civilian divide, one of which is that the active duty military today is much smaller than during past conflicts.  A 2018 report by the Rand Corporation estimated that 2.77 million U.S. service members had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan since the post-9/11 conflicts began.  That's actually less than 1% of the total U.S. population.  In contrast, nearly 10% of Americans served during World War II.  Because a smaller percentage of families have borne the brunt of service during the post-9/11 conflicts relative to previous conflicts, Americans are less likely to have immediate family connections to the military.

The best data on this issue come from a nationally representative survey of over two-thousand Americans conducted in 2011 by the Pew Research Center.  Among other things, the survey asked participants whether they had an immediate family member who had served in the U.S. military - where "immediate family members" were defined as parents, spouses, children, and/or siblings.  The survey found a large inter-generational gap on this measure.  For example, 77% of adults 50 year or older said they had an immediate family connection, whereas only 33% of adults 18-29 years of age had such a connection.  Younger Americans, in particular, tend to lack immediate family connections, which (among other things) means that they learn most of what they know about the military from media rather than from talking with those who have served.

In a recent post, Lt. Commander Arlo Abrahamson, a career Navy public affairs officer, spelled out the basic premise on which I hope to build in this blog:  "The military doesn’t have a visibility problem, it has a conversational disconnect with civilians."  We see military veterans being honored regularly during sporting events and community parades.  Yet Americans, especially younger Americans, lack the immediate family connections that typically existed for prior generations - which limits opportunities for more meaningful conversations between military and civilian communities.  Stereotypes abound on all sides.  As a communication scholar, I see opportunities to talk about how the work my colleagues are doing might help inform ideas for improving the quality of conversations between military-connected individuals and civilians. 

In my own case, I am a military parent - my son, Brendan, served 14 years in the Army and Army Reserves and deployed twice to Iraq.  Three of my uncles also served during the Korean War, my father was drafted shortly after that conflict ended, and both my father-in-law and brother-in-law served in the Navy.  Despite these family connections, I am an "outsider" in that I have never served in the military myself.  I am also a communication professor interested in the potential of dialogue to bridge divides.  In upcoming posts, I plan to explore issues that have created a growing sense of military-civilian divides as well as ways of promoting more productive conversations between military and civilian communities.  If you're interested in these issues, I hope that you'll read and comment on my periodic posts and share them with others.