I'm a veteran--technically--although the only foreign country I've been to (so far) is one corner of Canada I flew over en route to Alaska. This predated the current unpleasantness (to re-appropriate a Robert De Niro line) and means my current involvement with the military is by proxy (a friend or two) or indirectly (my ex-wife is married to a soldier).
But, what is this doing in a science-oriented blog?
First, there is a somewhat common attitude from anthropologists I've taken courses from towards anyone associated with the military akin to the way most people treat someone with autism spectrum disorders. They acknowledge their existence, but treat them as a person, but tend to assume their judgment is inexorably impaired.
For some, this is entirely understandable. Their experiences with the military on a personal level are often derived from interactions with the military in the context of student protests during the Vietnam War. Add to it potential interactions later in regions of the world where the only other Americans with institutional support is the military, and I can see where you can get such an attitude quickly.
As a student, I've avoided much of this issue by not talking about my history and the military or by reserving it for later interactions where it gives me useful examples on concepts like acculturation and social norms. In many ways, it's a "stay in the closet" sort of idea.
Second, being a soldier as a young adult--even in peacetime--has given me a second set of insights beyond the academic. The one common thread to all military training is a rapid, intensive acculturation. For many people--especially academics--this process is one they look at in confusion and disdain because it attacks their very conception of identity. In many ways, the acculturation is explicitly that--a challenge to the soldier's preconceived identity--and who comes out the other end is often someone different than who entered. It is also done quickly, radically, and at such a pace you are left being able to rationally compare yourself before and after even as you change on the emotional level.
This actually helps one to understand cultural differences from a personal perspective because military personnel have two distinct cultures with two completely different sets of norms and values they have experience moving between, for some on a regular basis and in such a concise manner in order to allow comparison.
Third, my military history gave me some interesting skills, not the least of which is the ability to respectfully challenge authority figures. On a personal level, I was better at soldiering (living the life, getting the mission accomplished) than I was at being a soldier. I spent 7 years challenging authority when I felt I needed to and learning how to work in a new cultural system to my own advantage.
One major lesson was--for every rule--there is often either an exception or a way to change the rule as long as you can grasp the reason behind the rule and apply the reason to the appropriate node in the network. Admittedly, part of the insight came from what I did in the Army (weather observer and later medical specialist) as well as who I worked for (primarily warrant officers or commissioned ex-warrant officers).
Fourth, I acquired a skill set that may be of practical use. Simply, I can perform detailed personal interviews and histories in an informative manner. I can operate most of your basic camping and survival gear. I can also sleep outside in the dirt without complaining (too loudly) and while remaining focused on whatever the task at hand is--say, observing people or animals--in lieu of focusing on how "scary" it is at night without a roof over your head.
Fifth, I share a training mindset with other veterans that simply says: With some training and a little practice, I can learn to do almost any task. The expectation--for most soldiers and military personnel--is their job description changes often and learning new tasks or new ways to accomplish the same tasks is a de riguer part of the job throughout the lifespan of the job.
Working in the blue-collar world after the "green-collar" world of the military, it was a shock to find people reluctant to continue to train in their own jobs, let alone training for advancement. I think that shock is one of the reasons I'm interested in science and academia--the acceptance and expectance of continued learning through the career.
Finally, I--like many veterans--have a more of a mental flexibility than most "monocultural" people I've met. When it comes to social tasks, we maintain the ability to apply whichever set of norms (identity-driven "civilian", mission/cooperation-driven "military") is appropriate. This allows us to work with people and in situations where others would have a "culture" or identity-threat to resolve. In physical tasks, most veterans are more aware of their physical limitations over a long term than many others (barring athletes). The combination is one reason most veterans have the ability to focus on and accomplish tasks other feel uncomfortable with.
To summarize, I think many people spend too much effort equating military personnel with "gun-carriers" and not recognizing the rest of the skillset required for going somewhere outside your social network, joining a new one, learning how to learn, and being able to rejoin your original network. In many ways, the fields I'm interested in, especially anthropology, has some of the same characteristics.
No comments:
Post a Comment