Examining United States Military Culture from a Civilian Perspective
Greg G Jacobs
Albizu University

This paper is put forth as a cursory examination of the culture of the United States Military from the perspective of an individual intending to work as a therapist or mental health counselor with current or former members of the military and their families. Although it is very important to think of every individual as unique unto themselves, there are shared customs, traditions, traits, beliefs, needs, and, challenges, common to members of the military culture. It is believed that in exploring these common items one can be of greater assistance in our supporting role to military members, families and ultimately the military’s mission. This author hopes to cover several topics that relate directly to the culture of the U.S. Military and therapists intending to work with this population. These topics include emotions, themes of isolation and alienation, the stigma associated with getting help, multiculturalism and how it relates to these individuals, honor, demographics of the new all-volunteer service, reasons people join the military, authoritarian families, parental absences, allegiance to the military mission, military hierarchal structure, and the defining features of the Fortress (secrecy, stoicism, and denial).
Concepts of Military Culture “The whole culture of the military is that you don’t talk about feelings or emotions” (Marshal, 2006, p. 32). There is prevalent stigma within the culture of the military that people who attend therapy or counseling are weak, and do not have the right stuff to deal with the demands and/or stress of life in the military (Pryce, Ogilvy-Lee, & Pryce, 2000). The stigma operates in lock-step with the understanding, that those who receive mental health services will most likely garner adverse effects to their careers. This is a very real concern considering there is no confidentiality when working with individuals in the military, all their health records can be accessed by commanding officers or others in the upward chain of command. Whether these fears are valid often-times depends on different factors, such as the value a higher-up places on mental health services, the traditions of that particular branch of the military and the service member’s particular branch. There are many reasons that these stigmas exist, most of which are beyond the scope of this paper. It is important to acknowledge that they are real, well founded, and address them in treatment. It can be helpful for therapists to acknowledge that seeking treatment is not a sign of weakness, but shows both strength and a belief in the value of family (Kennedy, 2004). Currently the practice of embedding mental health professionals into units, is increasing, during deployment in combat zones, providing an individual with the opportunity to meet regularly with a mental health professional, and help to lower the stigma of seeking therapy (Hall, 2008). As Alaimo (2006) writes in the article for the Arizona Daily Star, “Getting soldiers to seek help can be tricky in a macho environment where troops tend to fear negative career impact if they’re seen as weak or unable to cope” (p. B1). Service members at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona report that the Army has “done a lot to overcome the stigma. Soldiers are starting to figure out that it’s smart to get help… The smart people do something about it. They don’t want to be one of the statistics” (Alaimo, 2006, p. B2). A civilian counselor working primarily with low-ranking enlisted service persons outlines not having observing a fear of being seen as weak or incompetent by his clients for perusing therapy. He relates his belief that this fear may be more salient for officers or enlisted career service members. A different civilian mental health counselor working with military members comments that many, often officers, pay for sessions in cash so that there is no record the sessions. Sessions often-times center on relational problems, anxiety and fears linked to the possibility of a divorce as well separation issues and not around topics related to the individuals military careers (Hall, 2008). The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health reports in its hearing on April 2007 that it is a good idea to resolve relationship issues prior to sending troops to combat, because often it is unsolved problems at home that create concerns in deployment. The military usually is and supportive of persons requesting mental health support services, ultimately it is the responsibility of the person to request or seek the support needed. Some will, but other individuals isolate themselves, which creates more problems for them over time (Hall, 2008). The National Military Family Association (NMFA) reports, “Some service members and families feel the stigma against seeking mental health care and choose to ‘ride out’ the rough spots on their own” (2006, p. 10). This NMFA document also mentions that the increased stress associated with multiple deployments is causing more military families to request mental health support services. Soldiers make the common suggestion to the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health (2007) that if troops were required to undergo mental health evaluations, similar to required physical examinations, the stigma of getting help might be reduced or disappear. In the role of therapists, counselors, or other mental health support practitioners we must “first become aware of our own boundaries, biases, and perhaps prejudices regarding the clientele we serve and then also discover the unique issues, concerns, and strengths that the military families bring with them to our counseling offices” (Hall, 2009, p. 16). The field of mental health has found that, “All experiences originate from a particular cultural context; the counselor must be attentive to this context and the role that cultural identity plays in a client’s life” (Dass-Brailsford, 2007, p. 78). Keeping this axiom in mind, regardless of what ethnic, religious, military or other diverse population one finds oneself working with, the three known areas of multicultural competency should be well heeded. First, become aware of one’s own biases, behavior, preconceived notions, values, and personal limitations: Second, seek to comprehend the worldview of our culturally different clients withholding any negative judgment. Third, actively develop and practice relevant, appropriate, and sensitive interventions when working with culturally diverse clients (Engels, 2004; Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). At this time the author would like to posit some questions regarding multicultural competency, especially pertinent to civilians working with members of military culture of the United States. 1.) What political views does one hold that influences his or her beliefs about the military? Are we neutral when working with service-members (Hall, 2008)? 2.) Are we exerting compassion for others whose worldview might different from our own (Hall, 2008)? 3.) Are we well versed in the ideas of honor, the military “mission”, or sacrificing oneself for others (Hall, 2008)? As therapists and counselors in the human services role for the military, learning to respect the idea of honor and using the idea of military honor is a way to generalize honoring ones family. Women and children (Hall, 2008) are important beginning points to start exploring the often-times different world view of service members. Respect is another fundamental principle of the military that ties in directly, not just respecting rank but an appreciation and “honor for those who have done more, seen more, experienced more, and learned more” (Hall, 2008, p. 33). The idea of death before dishonor brings out the importance placed on conducting oneself in an honorable way within the military culture. “The concept of honor is so ingrained that officers have no need to enforce it, because the service members themselves enforce it” (Hall, 2008, p.61). A more powerful concept for us to understand and heed is that “the military family does not come to the clinic to learn how to become a civilian family, but rather it needs help to live inside the military system” (Keith & Whitaker, 1984, p. 150). From here, the author will present additional concepts for civilian therapists and counselors planning on working with military families from practitioners experienced in working with military service members and their families. Regarding civilians, there is usually a strong us versus them mentality among service members, especially those above the third or fourth pay grades. Considering this, it becomes very important to convey an unbiased attitude in therapy. Another idea to remember is that military culture promotes a self-sufficient ethos, at its core. Most military personnel want to be viewed as capable of making it on their own. It becomes important for us to highlight, and reinforce, that the act of seeking help for mental health issues is one of courage. Congruent to this idea it is important to illustrate that their input is trusted and valuable to the therapeutic process, rather than coming off as having all the answers. Similarly to most therapeutic situations, there usually is much more to the story than the client is willing to reveal in the beginning. Keeping all these elements in mind it becomes clear that civilian therapist and counselor may be challenged to balance the military person’s perceptions with their own worldview, influenced by different experiences, and backgrounds (Hall, 2008). In striving towards multi-cultural competency, therapists and counselors seek to understand the worldview of the populations they work with (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992), this means one must obtain the necessary knowledge to become competent working with military families. This includes understanding the acronyms, common beliefs, impact of frequent moves, grade and rank system, and the difficulties imposed by long absences of one parent (and in some cases both parents). It may be important to sometimes acknowledge our ignorance and ask for help in understanding these issues from the family or service member(s, Hall, 2008). Effective clinicians should be aware of material is not presented, and be cognizant of the restrictive nature of the military, including its regulations, rules, boundaries, and that some individual in the military have a love-hate relationship with it. Some service members may feel trapped, for example, those who come from multigenerational military families. Just the benign act of asking about such feelings could be considered out of bounds during the beginning phases of therapy (Hall, 2008). Williams (2005) outlines the following considerations: they often times do not have the luxury of being able to wait for weeks for an appointment, high stress and short time-frames make up the fabric of their daily existence. During information gathering one should use the language of the military, for example; unit, chain of command, deployment, pay grade, rotation possibility, and home of record. Due to the possibility of deployment one should be sure to record all contact information, including cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses during the first session. Marshall (2006) elucidates many helpful precepts for civilians working with military families in the therapeutic setting. Some military families seeking help, may not have the ability to pay in full. A sliding fee scale or volunteering time each week may be a way to give back or pay it forward. He advises of the importance of being open to learning from military clients and treating the entire family and considering group work. Some of the goals of first sessions should be displaying the attitude that they are in a safe place to work on their problems and that they are not alone, also allowing them the required time and space needed to open-up and explore feelings, and last leave political opinions at the door. Pryce et al. (2000) details the following paramount recommendations for civilian therapists and counselors. Strive to understand the hierarchy of the military. For example, how rank reflects education, level of responsibility, resources, and income. Respect for military confidentiality and the fact that some issues such as sexual orientation will remain confidential. Normal separations due to duty requirements may impact the conflict and development of issues within the family. Most service people’s families are limited in the amount of self-determination they can exhibit, or exercise. Most military family’s destinies are linked to forces outside or beyond their control.
All Volunteer Service When considering the culture of the military interesting demographics do come to light. In large part, the military is (comparatively) better educated than the general population. With 96% having a high school diploma, compared to 84% of Americans. The military is mostly made up of middle class persons with fewer recruits coming from a low socioeconomic (SES) background. One counterintuitive fact is that a large percentage of service members come from rural areas as opposed to urban ones. Military persons are also likely to be following the example of a close relative who was also in the service, and are likely to have grown up in a hierarchical religion, raised by a single parent, with about half reporting growing up in the Old South. The military is a place where increasing numbers of people of both genders and all colors are rising through the ranks, to positions of leadership, beyond the rates in the civilian world (Hall, 2008). Following the end of the draft in 1970’s the US military has become an all-volunteer service. Resulting in a different face of our armed services, now there are more women, dual career military couples, married service members, more members with children, and more military wives employed outside the home. Members often join up while they are single, but get married and have children sooner than civilians, who often pursue education and employment before starting a family (Hall, 2008). “These families are at the bottom of the pay scale, and they are typically inexperienced in dealing with the stresses of marriage, parenthood, and military life” (Martin & McClure, 2000, p. 7). Martin and McClure (2000) describe the changes in the military accompanied by the shift to an all-volunteer force. Now there is an increased focus in operations around the globe, including frequent and long-term deployments to the remote corners of the world, accompanied by a new level of rapid deployment from home and its emphasis on readiness.
Reasons for Joining It is important to understand why and how people join the military. Most are young people viewing the benefits and income as good reasons to join up. Considering the income, housing, and, healthcare, service members usually do much better than the 18 and 20 year old civilian. For some it is a good opportunity after high-school, including those who come from places with few economic opportunities (Hall, 2008). When one considers signing bonuses, skills training, and money for college education, serving in the military is an even more attractive option over lower paying jobs in the private sector (Lott, 2012). “It is often seen as a transition for young people who will use the military as a place of service, as well as a time to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives” (Hall, 2008, p. 37). The military life provides a helpful structure for many young people who may seem lost as teenagers. After enlisting, they discover the adoption of the warrior mentality is a persona that works for them. This is very true for those who are not college material, and for those who seem to require an external force to maintain employment. This personality adoption frequently leads to military members who are not what would be considered free thinkers, typically functioning better within the military’s structure having clearly marked boundaries. In military service one often does not need to make many decisions (Hall, 2008). There are several young people who join-up as an escape from the worlds they grew up in. Instead of dealing with the problems that childhood violence, drugs, gangs, and or abandonment may cause, these people bring the problems with them into the military. Recruiters often point to joining the military as a solution to many personal problems like the end of a romance, getting away from nagging parents, and unemployment. You then have impulsive young people in a situation better suited to those equipped with patients and a very compliant nature. Working with service people one should be willing to explore their reasons for joining. This processes may lead to earlier unresolved issues coming to light. This is important when working with military families, as their reasons for joining will surely factor into other decisions impacting their family life cycle, for example members considering leaving or staying in the service (Hall, 2008).
The Fortress Wertsch (1991) describes military culture as the Fortress. The first point drawn into our awareness is the paradox of service members that are entrusted to defend America’s democratic values and freedoms, while they are not living in a democracy themselves. Military families are often structured like a small army, the father outranks the mother because he has a close relationship to the base commander (Keith & Whitaker, 1984). Wertsch (1991) relates that many military members often thrive in their authoritarian work environment, without promoting an authoritarian home life. Some do have authoritarian family structures that share common characteristics. For instance, parents who will not tolerate questions or disagreements. Other common characteristics include the frequent invasion of privacy, children not being allowed to engage in activities which might be seen as individualistic, and the expected use of terms such as yes ma’am and no sir from children and spouses alike (Wertsch, 1991). Authoritarian families can function well, more-so while the children are still young, but later when the children enter adolescences, rebellion against the authoritarian parents, having been exposed to the different parenting styles of their peer’s families, becomes a common theme. Several of the military dependent people who have greater problems during adolescence come from the more tyrannical, or sometimes even abusive, authoritarian households. A better description of the military culture, not as closed, but rather one that is heavily focus inward, including structure, hierarchy and an ever present sense that someone else is calling all the shots. Children raised in this culture may begin to blame the military for their problems (Hall, 2008). Families will always come second to the military parent’s career (Keith & Whitaker, 1984). Isolation and alienation from the civilian community, as well as extended family, is an always present characteristic in military culture, due to the military’s extreme mobility. An us versus them attitude is ingrained, that the civilian people are very different, or even incomprehensible. Unfortunately service members and their families are often viewed as transients, not worthy of trust, by their nearby civilian communities (Werstch, 1991). Inside the fortress there are two quite separate subcultures, the officer (higher) and enlisted ranks (lower). These subcultures separate themselves completely from each other: the separation even extends to their spouses and children. In the middle of this are the noncommissioned officers, enlisted members who have worked up through the ranks. They noncommissioned officers tend to socialize with the ranks of the enlisted. This comes from the need of the military to maintain it’s rigid, yet effective, hierarchical system, based heavily on subordination and dominance (Wertsch, 1991). The military culture is also one that contains a large of parental absence. This absence can be disheartening to children as their military parent(s) is/are often missing from special events in their lives (e.g. proms, graduations, sporting events, or school drama productions).Families report periods of adjustment that take place when the service member leaves the home and following their return. Oftentimes the family may form a unit that excludes the service member, in adaption to their absence. Still others may choose to don an air of (pretend) happiness, knowing soon the warrior parent will or may be deployed. Returning military parents often expect a major adjustment from their family when they are at home. These adjustments may be deeply resented by children and spouses, and then begin look forward to the next deployment, and express relief once the military parent has left. Some students become nervous and anxious when expecting the return of their military parent, even more so than prior to the parent’s deployment. Their family has already adjusted to the absence, now their family structure must change again. Sometimes a student may become angry and/or resentful at the change in family structure (Hall, 2008). Military personnel have a strong commitment to the military, as well as commitment to one’s unit, its members and the mission. This can be seen as a commitment to the mission of making the world a better place. Service members frequently believe the only persons they can trust are their unit or team members, making a primary family of the service member’s unit. When this unit-family is seen as taking precedence over the family at home, conflict can erupt out of this dynamic (Hall, 2008). Wertsch (1991) reports the all-powerful presence of the Military Mission, a large force outside the family, as being the biggest determining factor within it, a sense of duty that goes with them everywhere, one that without it their lives would have no real meaning whatsoever. This returns to the primary fact that the armed service cannot carry out its entrusted mission without commitment and dedication to honor and sacrifice (Hall, 2008). In outlining the culture of the military with the term the Fortress, Werstch (1991), enumerates three primary defining features, stoicism, secrecy, and denial. Secrecy can be seen as keeping family matters within the family. In other words, the job of the family to make sure that their behaviors do place get the service member in hot water, or participate in activities that reflect poorly on the service member(s). Secrecy also encompasses the large stigma against getting therapy or seeking help with problems. In the military information is usually provided only on a need to know basis. This dynamic often extends to ones family relations. Service members are told not to speak to their spouses about the horrors of warfare. Conversely spouses are often advised to limit how much information they share. Leading to the common reprieve is that a distracted soldier is a dead soldier (Werstch, 1991). Stoicism is a mask frequently worn by military members and their families. One should be cognizant of the fact that emotional behavior is not only frowned upon, but usually it is punished, this can lead to problems within the family. Opposite this dynamic on finds that stuffing it down or stoic behavior is usually rewarded. A boy learn that this is what being a man is all about. It now becomes clearer that unshared and unexpressed emotions will contribute to feelings of isolation and alienation (Werstch, 1991). Denial holds the important role of being functional for the service member and his or her family. Being in life and death situations with a possible outcome being disaster, warriors use denial to be able to engage their mission and do their duty. Families and spouses also need denial to help suppress their feelings of vulnerability. This allows them to carry out their roles at home. The accepted norms of therapy and counseling situations encourage expressing feelings, honesty, and openness, ideas that directly challenge the inherent denial found within the Fortress (Werstch, 1991). The author hopes that the above ideas and concepts will help serve as a jumping-off platform for the civilian therapist or counselor wishing to help service members and their families. Outlined above there are many unique challenges and paradoxes facing the courageous people entrusted with protecting our freedom and American ideals. It is believed that through helping them one is in some way helping the military carry out its mission.
References
Alaimo, C.A. (2006, April 16). Reports of abuse rise at fort. Arizona Daily Star, pp. B1-B2.
Dass-Brailsford, P. (2007). A practical approach to trauma: Empowering interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health. (2007, April 16). Proceedings of the Task Force on Mental Health Care. Falls Church, VA: Defense Health Board. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.ha.osd.mil/DHB/mhtf/meetings/mhtf-transcripts-070416.pdf
Engels, D.W. (2004). The professional counselor: Portfolio, competencies, performance guidelines, and assessment. (3rd ed.) Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Hall, L. (2008). Counseling military families: What mental health professionals need to know. New York, NY: Routledge.
Keith, D.V., & Whitaker, C.A. (1984). C’est la Guerre: Military families and family therapy. In F.W. Kaslow & R.I. Ridenour (Eds.), The military family: Dynamics and treatment (pp. 147-166.) New York, NY: Guilford.
Kennedy, A. (2004). Emotional cycle of deployment: Information for civilian counselors about the military family. Counseling Today, 47(1), 1, 12-45.
Lott, B. (2012). The social psychology of class and classism. American Psychologist, 67(8), 650-658. DOI: 10.1037/a0029369
Marshal, J. (2006). Counseling on the front line: Providing a safe refuge for military personnel to discuss emotional wounds. Counseling Today, 48(8), 1, 32-33.
Martin, J.A., & McClure, P. (2000). Today’s active duty military family: The evolving challenges of military family life. In J.A. Martin, L.N. Rosen, & L.R. Sparacino (Eds.), The military family; A practice guide for human service providers (pp. 3-24). Westport, CT: Praeger.
National Military Family Association. (2006, December 20). Statement before the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health. Arlington, VA. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://www.nmfa.org/site/docserver/NMFA_DoD_Mental_health_task_force_12-20-06.pdf?docID=7701
Pryce, J.G., Ogilvy-Lee, D., & Pryce, D.H. (2000). The “citizen- soldier” and reserve component families. In J.A. Martin, L.N. Rosen, & L.R. Sparacino (Eds.), The military family: A practice guide for human service providers (pp.25-42). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sue, D.W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis R.J. (1992, March-April). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477-486.
Werstch, M. E. (1991). Military brats: Legacies of childhood inside the fortress. St. Louis, MO: Brightwell.
Williams, D.L. (2005). Interviewing and counseling military service and family members in law cases. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.divorcenet.com/divorcenet_2/states/texas/interviewing_and_counseling_military_service_and_family_members_in_divorce