|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 82
Stress R educiLon ; 5
Major causes of stress are the harsh physical circumstances of warfare
that affect tissue needs, such as conditions of deprivation (food, sleep, or
oxygen), extreme stimulation (temperature and noise), disease-engendering
conditions, ant trauma-intucing wounds. But it is the threatening
psychological ambiance of combat that is so pervasive. Every soldier must
cope with the fear of teeth. Fear has been fount to be greatest before going
into action ant to be reported by 7 of 10 men (Dollars ~ Horton, 1944;
Stouffer, Lumstaine, Lumsdaine, Williams, Smith, Janis, Star, & Cottrell,
1949). In the Vietnam War, the clandestine nature of the fighting exacerbated
the psychological strain, as American troops developed "a sense of
helplessness at not being able to confront the enemy in set piece battles.
The spectra of being shot at and having friends killed ant maimed by virtually
unseen forces generated considerable rage which came to be displaced on anyone
or anything available" (DeFazio, 1978, p. 30). The psychological ambiance of
combat associated with the Vietnam War hat a particularly negative effect on
veterans, who in large numbers manifested "delayed stress responses" (Horowitz
& Solomon, 197S).
MILITARY SOCIALIZATION AND THE ETHOS OF TRAINING
Despite variations across branches of the armed services, military
recruit training has a relatively homogeneous process. Basic training is a
period of rapid resocialization ant enculturation, occurring under conditions
of relative isolation ant confinement (Novaco et al., 1983). Ranging from
seven to eleven weeks across service branches, young men are expected to
develop new behavior confined to a narrow range of acceptability as shapes by
heavy doses of reward ant punishment. In a certain sense, boot camp can be
thought to habituate recruits to the unpredictable stresses likely to be
encountered in combat. According to Gabriel (1986), Soviet military training
OCR for page 83
S=e" Reduction
explicitly attempts to achieve the approximation. Whatever the nation state,
the goals of basic training are discipline, motivation, physical conditioning,
and weapon skills. The latter two are more readily achieved than the former.
Conditions of war are unpleasant and preparing soldiers for war
inevitably involves a degree of nastiness. In the United States, we so
fortunately lack the totalitarian ideologies (whether it be Soviet or Khomeni-
guided Shiite fundamentalism) and are also fortunate to live in a land
relatively insulated from attack. Therefore, the idea of boot camp as an
analog to combat strikes discordant notes. It is often difficult for social
scientists having little military exposure
anything other than negative and dehumanizing.
that the sole purpose of training is to break
to view recruit training as
At first glance, it may appear
the person psychologically, to
render them helpless in the face of the system's desires, and to instill a
reflexive conformity to the warrior ethic. At times, harsh criticism has come
from combat veterans (e.g., Eisenhart, 1975) and others experienced in the
military (Dyer, 1985).
Various authors taking an adversarial stance have discussed recruit
training in ways that dwell on themes of the warrior ethic and masculinity.
For example, Arkin and Dobrofsky (1978) look at military socialization as a
manufacturing of the "traditional masculine blueprint" that aims to reinforce
fundamental archetypes about male sex roles. Their article, published in a
highly visible academic publication, selectively focuses on unflattering
elements of basic training constructed from limited behavior samples and
overplays sexuality (phallic) themes. Very similar points had been made by
Eisenhart (1975), a Marine
Little Girl" portrayal
conflictual. He contrasts
Corps Vietnam veteran, in his you Can't Hack It,
of basic training as brutal and emotionally
the intensely instilled masculinity of boot camp
OCR for page 84
S=e" Reduction 18
with the war conditions that denied its expression. Vietnam combat was often
passive, had no honorable encounters, and had no wartier grandeur. While he
recounts some of his own basic training experiences, which were graphically
harsh, he provides no evidence of the generalizability of these experiences.
The portrayal of basic training as a dehumanizing, social control process
aimed at shaping the warrior ethic and punctuated by themes of male sexuality,
is taken a step further by Dyer (1985). He sees basic training as nearly
homogeneous across nations and as being a process that gets young men to
believe that they like combat. Dyer's analysis, although cynical and
occasionally slanted, is nonetheless insightful about the instilling of
motivation and primary group loyalty.
"The DIs 'stress' the recruits, feed them their daily ration of
synthetic triumphs over apparent obstacles, and bear in mind all the
time that the goal is to instill the foundations for the
instinctive, selfless reactions and the fierce group loyalty that is
what recruits will need if they ever see combat. They are arch-
manipulators, fully conscious of it, and utterly unashamed. These
kids have signed up as Marines, and they could well see combat; this
is the way they have to think if they want to live." (p. 115).
Dyer writes with a flair and, despite the cynical edge throughout, there is a
probing quality to his presentation. He does, however, give a distorted view
of drill instructor competence, getting too locked into his portrait of them
as harsh manipulators grinding out masculine warrior themes.
Marine Corps commanders at the battalion, regimental, depot, or
Headquarters level do not endorse the archetypal "DI" personification, nor do
the NCO supervisors of drill instructors, nor is such an image cast in Drill
Instructor School. In extensive research that I have conducted with Irwin
OCR for page 85
Stress Reduction '9
Sarason, we have consistently found organizational policy to be at variance
with the image of a drill instructor as a harsh, punitive, individual without
empathy for recruits. The Drill Instructor Schools at San Diego and Parris
Island emphasize positive leadership approaches and the concept of being firm
but fair. Moreover, our evaluation data in drill instructor performance show
that the angry, impatient, highly activated drill instructor performs poorly
and receives low ratings from NCO and officer supervisors.
A sanguine view of military socialization can also be fount in the
longitudinal research of Elder (1986). Tracking a cohort of Berkeley men born
in 1928-1929 who entered military service in the 1940s and 1950s. Elder found
that military service was a constructive turning point in the lives of most
men. Particularly for the disadvantaged person with perceived self-
inadequacy, the service brought opportunity and new directions. Those who
entered the service young, despite a background that favored low achievement
and disorganization in marriage and family,instead were found to have the
highest levels of family stability and have dramatic gains in health and
competence. Elde.r's extensive findings that veterans of World War II and
Korea had more stable marriages than did non-veterans certainly is at odds
with the characterization of military socialization as a dehumanizing,
manipulative, and coercive process that breeds maladjustment.
Boot camp necessarily involves a transition from civilian to military
culture.
"The process is fundamentally one of acculturation in
which the recruit is subjected to a forced change of
reference groups, and the skills he learns are
basically those necessary for survival and successful
adaptation under these circumstances" (Bourne, 1967,
p. 187~.
OCR for page 86
Stress Reduction 20
"Training is seen as the intentional disruption of
civilian patterns of adjustment, replacement of
individual gratifications with group goals,
inculcation of unquestioning acceptance of authority
and development of conformity to official attitudes
and conduct" (Yarmolinsky, 1975, p. 158~.
These authors, along with Arkin and Dobrofsky (1978) and Dyer (1980),
represent basic training as a conversion process that promotes socialization
to military norms. Stress has an integral function in this process, but the
exposure to this environmental context results in the acquisition of stress
coping skills. As one develops commensurate resources for coping,
environmental demands that once functioned as stressors can then be appraised
as "challenges" that can be handled effectively.
In the face of "humanist" criticisms about the nature of basic training,
researchers and other social scholars must bear in mind that military
institutions indeed have intrinsic defense functions and that training
involves preparation for combat with the objective being the destruction of
the enemy. Military organizations must therefore utilize methods and
techniques of training which provide a realistic test of stress tolerance.
"It is more prudent and ultimately more humane, to provide this screening and
learning under conditions in which the probability of death due to error is
very low than it would be to send ill-prepared troops into combat. This
assumption underlies both the process and content of training ant is one often
overlooked in discussion of the efficacy of methods used by the military"
(Novaco, et al., 1983, p. 392).
DETERMINANTS AND MEDIATORS OF STRESS IN MILITARY SETTINGS
Those who function in military settings are at high risk for exposure to
involved in
stressors . Military obj ectives and the nature of the tasks
Representative terms from entire chapter:
drill instructor
