Military personnel and veterans identify strongly with their military identity. In this piece I want to pay attention to identity in general and the importance of military identity in particular. I will then explain how, in my opinion, veterans’ work within Defense can connect with the military identity and what implications this has for the identity of veterans’ work itself. “I used to be a soldier and a good one at that. As an instructor, I was known for being tough. I wanted to train good soldiers, guys you can rely on in the deployment area. And now? I am no one anymore, it has all been taken from me.”
Wmr1. H. Prince
Guardsman Hidde Prins was deployed to Kosovo with a German unit and was seriously traumatized during this deployment. In the years after his deployment, things go downhill for him. His wife leaves him with their son and he is forced to return to live with his parents. He sleeps poorly and is very aggressive. He is declared unfit for duty, and then completely unfit for work. He is still treated weekly for his experiences in Kosovo. He doesn’t go anywhere else anymore. In the living room there are numerous framed photos of him as a soldier. When Hidde corresponds with Defense, he still signs his rank. His rank was what gave him an identifiable place within the organization. By pointing this out to the reader, he claims his place within the organization. His rank gives him identity.
In my conversations with soldiers and veterans, I notice that they strongly identify with the fact that they are, or have been, military. The results of my research confirm this . I wonder whether this strong identification with the military identity could be a starting point for my work with them. In this piece I want to pay attention to identity in general and the importance of military identity in particular. I will then explain how, in my opinion, veterans’ work can connect with military identity and what implications this has for the identity of veterans’ work itself.
What are we talking about?
The word identity is derived from the Latin identitas, which in turn is derived from the word idem: the same. According to the dictionary, identity means unity of being, perfect agreement or identity of person. (Dale, 2005) Personal identity is about the coherence in the experiences and actions of the person. For example, you recognize someone on the street, experience an emotion for that person and act accordingly. This connection is initially experienced by ourselves, giving identity a personal character (Mul, 2000). This means that identity is primarily formed by ourselves. As a person you choose the elements to form that identity. This may mean that the person chooses different elements at different times, in order to form the identity that is most helpful at that moment. An identity is then not a fixed given, but a kind of avatar with which the person shows himself as he wants to be seen.
An identity always develops within a social context and in interaction with others. The story is an important medium here. By telling stories to ourselves and to others, we identify with the story and construct identity. Our identity is therefore not yet known to us prior to the story. (Ricoeur, 1994) It is therefore not a fixed fact, but an ever-changing manifestation of the self. You could say that someone derives identity from his environment in order to relate to that environment. In his book The Assault, Harry Mulisch uses a broken stone as a symbol for an identity document. A person can prove his correct identity by fitting one half brick into the other. (Mulisch, 1982) This makes identity part of the whole.
This immediately shows why having an identity is so important. Without identity we would be completely absorbed in the whole, but with our identity we can take our place in the whole . An identity can be built from an infinite number of possibilities. People will always choose those elements that help them best in the given situation. To illustrate: a person has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to his military past. In addition, he already had another disorder in his personality structure before he became a soldier. Is this person a veteran or a psychiatric patient? A psychiatric patient has a low status in our society. There are many prejudices and assumptions about psychiatric patients. The veteran has a higher status. There is a lot of political attention for the phenomenon of deployment-related complaints and a veteran can fall back on special care through the National Care System for Veterans. The person will probably identify with what gives him the most money, status or care and present himself as a veteran.
The military identity
Military identity therefore means as much as deriving identity from being a soldier. There are a number of special aspects of being a soldier. Firstly, the Netherlands is not a country that likes to identify with military action (Klinkert, 2008). We prefer to see ourselves as pacifist and neutral. Yet it is a profession that does not leave people untouched. There are proponents and strong opponents who can passionately debate the usefulness and necessity of Defense. It is a topic of discussion at parties and regularly appears in the media. When you say you are a soldier, people will remember that. It appeals to the imagination. In addition, there is great mutual cohesion within Defense. People wear the same uniform, apply the same norms and values and adhere to tradition. A lot of attention is paid to group formation and bonding with the unit you work for. A clear structure is provided. It is clear what is expected of you. Moreover, soldiers have experience that few others have. They experience the war that others only see on the news. They have a share in this. Sometimes as a victim, sometimes as an aggressor. Acting as an aggressor may be justified from a military point of view, while in the Netherlands this may be seen as unethical. An example of this is killing an opponent during a gunfight. A correct action from a military point of view. In other respects this remains the killing of a fellow human being and is therefore not permissible. This sometimes makes soldiers feel judged when they return to the Netherlands. The quote below shows this.
Sgt. Colijn worked as a group commander in Uruzgan and had regular fire contact with the enemy with his group. After returning to the Netherlands, his wife contacted the Defense Department’s veterans work. They used to have a relationship where they discussed everything with each other, but now she felt that he was keeping things from her. He did not want to talk to her about his experiences in Uruzgan. When he went for a drink with colleagues after work, they often got involved in fights. She no longer recognized her husband and was worried. Speaking to the veteran worker, Sgt. Colijn:
“I was in TICs in Afghanistan, where we had to do everything we could. That feeling when you win a gunfight like that is indescribable. It’s like playing a computer game at the highest level and still winning. I’ve killed people and I don’t feel bad about it. I can never tell that at home. How can my wife still love me knowing that?”
The group feeling we experienced there, that camaraderie, we all want that back. And the only thing that resembles it is if we all help when one of us gets into a fight in the pub.”
Sgt Colijn
These soldiers exhibit behavior that was helpful in the context of the deployment, but is considered inappropriate in the Dutch context. This makes them feel that friends and family in the Netherlands cannot understand them.
Finally, it can be said that the uniform not only strengthens cohesion with colleagues, but also visualizes the separation from ordinary citizens. For an outsider, soldiers are difficult to distinguish from each other, but they are clearly recognizable as soldiers. Military identity is visually superior to personal identity because of the uniform.
In the foregoing we have seen that people more or less choose aspects of identity that suit them best at that moment. In addition, we have seen what makes military identity so special. We can now imagine what happens when people do not choose to let go of their military identity, but are forced to do so. Due to circumstances, or even worse: due to the organization. For example, when a soldier suffers from psychological or physical limitations due to his deployment experience, he can sometimes no longer function as a soldier. For the soldier, this means that he has to say goodbye to the organization. There are many rules and protocols to ensure that this process runs as smoothly and fairly as possible, but these ignore the emotional aspect of this process. It is also saying goodbye to a part of your identity that you would most like to keep. In response, some people may cling strongly to this. Their lives continue to develop, but the bond with the military continues to play an important role. There seems to be a halt in grieving. These people are likely to use reunion facilities, drop-in centers, veterans days and commemorations more often to revive the feelings of yesteryear.
The link with veterans’ work
Within Defense, veterans’ work is handled by the Corporate Social Work Services Center (DC BMW). Here, social workers work per defense unit, where they provide assistance to individual clients as well as services for commanders. The latter mainly means thinking along with the commander about the deployability of his people. Here, temporary employment-related problems are often noticed and addressed first. In addition to regular corporate social work, four people have been released to specifically deal with temporary employment-related issues. When people are no longer employable due to temporary employment-related problems, or when the problem is otherwise complex, people are referred to one of these four specialized company social workers: veteran workers. They also respond to requests for help from people who have left the service and who appear to be affected by a deployment at a later stage. Defense also finances De Basis, a civilian organization that provides assistance to veterans. The reason for this split is the veteran’s politically determined freedom of choice. This person may indicate whether he wants a military or civilian counselor. The following quote makes it clear what the considerations may be:
Cpl. The King was sent to Srebrenica in 1995 and was instrumental in the fall of the enclave. He was a scout at an observation post during the fall and was at the front when the Serbian army led by General Mladic invaded. Corporal de Koning is a man of few words, a trait that never stood in his way during his military career. He has now been diagnosed with chronic PTSD and when he wants to talk about his experiences, he gets stuck. He therefore expressly requested a military aid worker with deployment experience. This makes it easier for him to talk, because he feels that he has to explain less about the circumstances.
“I’m sorry, I don’t want to offend anyone, but I can’t talk to a citizen. I can’t even talk to a soldier who has never been deployed. They can never understand me, let alone help me.”
Cpl. De Koning
The above description of the veterans’ work shows that its position within DC BMW makes it part of the Defense Institute. It is therefore, just like regular corporate social work, an institutionalized form of social work. The current idea is that the social cannot be institutionalized. A client’s recovery would not lie within an institution, but in his or her own environment (Ewijk, 2010). This may be applicable if there is an institute that aims to treat the problem. However, this line of thought does not hold up if the client feels more connected to the institute than to his own environment. Or more specifically: when the experiences within the institute underlie the client’s problems and the client cannot reconcile these experiences with his own environment. The quotes from Sgt Colijn and Kpl de Koning make this clear. The cause lies in the degree of identification with the institution: the extent to which the client derives identity from the institution. When the degree of identification is high, an institutionalized form of social work seems justified. They can make a connection with the client that goes beyond the disorder. They are people with the same background as the client, with a shared identity.
The importance of focusing on identity is confirmed by Bateson and Dilts. Bateson determined that there are a number of neurological levels at which people function. He assumes that people show behavior that fits the environment in which they find themselves. He divides personality into six levels: environment (the lowest level), behavior, skills and qualities, values and beliefs, identity and finally meaning (the highest level). He discovered that a change at a higher level has a direct effect on the levels below. The levels below then change accordingly. According to him, problems usually occur at a different level than they are introduced: the solution is usually at a higher level. Each level has an increasingly greater influence than the level below it (Bateson, 2000). Social workers generally focus primarily on the bottom three levels. Choosing identity as an approach creates a greater span of control. If a change in the veteran’s identity can be achieved, this will immediately lead to changes in the levels below: environment, behavior, skills and qualities, values and beliefs.
What does this mean for the identity of veterans’ work?
As mentioned, veteran work consists of a military and a civilian part. This will concern the military part, which is embedded in the corporate social work of Defense. It thus derives its identity from this branch of Social Work. The profession of Social Work is the basis for the performance of the position of corporate social worker. This is important because veterans’ work identifies itself with the profession of Social Work and the associated norms and values as laid down in the professional code. Corporate social work is seen as a specialized form of social work. The specialization lies in the fact that the social worker not only focuses on the person seeking help and his personal environment, but also on the company as a concrete environmental field within which the problems arise. In addition, the social worker has to deal with the interests of the company, which translate into rights and obligations for the employee. The trade-off between these dual interests is specific to corporate social work (Geertsema, 2004).
This immediately indicates a major difference with veteran work. They pay special attention to people who can no longer be deployed due to psychological or physical complaints as a result of a deployment. These clients will therefore have to say goodbye to functioning within the organization. In doing so, they relinquish the rights and obligations that working within the organization entails. The organization has laid down rules and protocols to what the employee is entitled to in such a case. There are additional material facilities, reintegration processes and responsible organizations that monitor compliance with these. Non-material assistance can also be arranged via a central telephone number. On paper, the departing colleague is well taken care of. What is completely ignored is the emotional component of this. The fact that the person is now placed outside the organization not voluntarily, but due to circumstances affected by the organization. Veterans often experience their injuries, psychological or physical, as making a sacrifice. A feeling of abandonment and loss of identity is evident. The veteran worker can play an important role here. The veteran worker focuses on the shared identity and from there takes a position next to the client. He or she guides the client emotionally during the process of saying goodbye towards a new position in society. Emphasis must be placed on the transition of identity. The identity derived from being a soldier is given a less prominent role and the space is taken up by an identity that fits the new position. This can mean the formation of a new part of identity, but also a renewed focus on an existing part of identity. If someone can no longer be a soldier, he can still be a father, or a Christian, or a technician. In this context we speak of intersectionality (Janneke van Mens-Verhulst, 2009). Van Mens-Verhulst discusses this theme mainly as a threat to clients, a risk of falling through the cracks and therefore a point of attention for Social Workers. In this context I see it more as an opportunity. A crossroads between different identities, with options. And the role of the veteran worker as a guide in making these choices. A constructivist approach is therefore chosen. Social constructivism assumes that social phenomena are a construction of a certain group of people. This means that the phenomenon can change when the people who construct it change. And that is what the veteran worker focuses on: reconstructing identity. It can help the veteran say goodbye emotionally by accepting that his identity is in flux. In addition to saying goodbye, this also means a range of new opportunities.
This position of veterans’ work requires a view that focuses more on outside the context of the organization than on the organization itself. This means that complete identification with corporate social work does not last. Advising the organization on matters relating to veterans remains an option, but the focus is broader. Occasionally the veteran worker takes on the position of general social worker, sometimes even as a social psychiatric counselor. The focus is always on the client’s business-related trauma. This requires specific knowledge and experience building. The position can therefore be compared to the position of Social Worker within the American army. This is not referred to as Occupational Social Work, but as Military Social Work (Daley, 2003). The name Military Social Work covers it all and is in line with international standards. The organization’s offering of Military Social Work meets the emotional needs of many veterans and gives the organization a human face.
Conclusion
In this piece I have explained how identity is shaped by the person himself, in interaction with his environment. In this way the person can relate to that environment. I have shown why the military identity is special and what sets it apart. I then described how this military identity can be a starting point for Military Social Work and thus shapes the identity of Military Social Work itself.
The distinction from regular corporate social work is the start of the identity formation of veterans’ work within Defense. By connecting with the client’s military identity as a point, it also distinguishes itself from civilian social workers who specifically deal with veterans. According to Payne, the identity of Social Work develops in interaction with other professions (Payne, 2006). This piece shows that it also mainly develops in interaction with your own colleagues. It identifies itself more with the target group than with the professional group. This is a conscious choice, but also a point of attention. There is a risk that the Military Social Worker will identify with the military identity. This could lead to conflicts of interest. An example of this is the strong condemnation of drug use within Defense. Every soldier has a duty to report when he or she becomes aware of drug use by a colleague. This also applies to the Military Social Worker. This would mean that the Military Social Worker would have to report it to a commander when a client talks about drug use. This is contrary to the Social Work professional code. In addition, elements of the military identity can also have a negative effect on client contact. If the client feels intimidated by, for example, a difference in rank, this can have a negative impact on the care provided. The strength of Military Social Work therefore lies in its shared identity, but this also contains a pitfall.
In these cases, the Military Social Worker must be able to deal flexibly with military identity. We have seen that the ability to look outside the walls of Defense is so important for Military Social Work. When the norms and values of being a soldier conflict with the norms and values of Social Work, the Military Social Worker will therefore always have to rely on the professional code of the Social Work profession.