A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective on the Divide within the Veteran Self

An Overview of the Premises of Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism developed in the early 20th century through contributions from several pioneers and thinkers in various disciplines in sociology, social psychology, and psychology. Thus, symbolic interactionism is not to be viewed as a uniform consensus theory; rather it embraces several theoretical approaches to the self and society from varying time periods. Three primary names are featured in this article: Mead (1934), James (1890), and Cooley (1902, 1909). Some of these thinkers, such as James, also shift quite freely between different scientific disciplines, such as sociology, social psychology, psychology, and psychology of religion.

The social psychologists Trost and Levin (2009) presented five general assumptions In symbolic interactionism in order to understand the self as a social evolutionary entity tailored to relationships, interactions, and symbolic processes. Trost and Levin base their assumptions on several earlier thinkers such as Blumer (1969), Cooley (1902, 1909), James (1890), and Mead (1934) to name a few, and state, among other things, that:

• The definition of the situation, (i.e., the perception, a defining interpretation of the situation), determines one’s behavior.

• Interaction is social.

• Interaction occurs through symbols and a symbol becomes a symbol first when it has meaning to more than one individual.

• People are active actors involved in processes with those around them.

• The individual is in the present.

These five basic assumptions in symbolic interactionism are important, above all for understanding the construction and function of the part of the self called the Me. Both James (1890) and Mead (1934) describe the self as consisting of two parts: the I and the Me.

The Me is the part of the self that is created in a social context over time. It is the part that helps the self to define the situation based on the symbols (e.g. cultural, culture-specific, and linguistic symbols) that make up the Me and interact socially through symbolic consensus. At the same time, there is another part, the I, which is an active actor in the present. Both parts are needed to understand the self. This is a conceptualization of the self particularly useful in understanding the difference, or contrast, between civilian and military Me’s because civilian and military Me’s are constituted by different social contexts that interact through symbols only relevant and significant within each social context.

The division of the self Into an I and a Me means that the self embraces two theoretical parts that have different functions. The I is a spontaneous, active entity in the self that is constantly moving in the present through the context consisting of the Me’s that belong to both the I and the self. Thus, the I is the active actor in the present (James, 1890). The Me, on the other hand, consists of the social roles or cultural characters that society creates based on what is called the generalized other (Mead, 1934). Society’s values, beliefs, and practices take place in an individual’s self, more specifically in the Me, as the generalized other. This could be understood as meaning that society is not outside the self, but is a society in mind. This process occurs in part through adopting others’ roles or characters, in Mead’s words role-taking or taking the attitude of the other.

Role-taking can include significant others (e.g., Dad, Mom) and more general and abstract generalized roles in society (e.g. man, woman, student, citizen). In this process, an individual can imagine what others think and feel and how they define the situation. Role-taking means putting yourself in the position or situation of another person or other people; you identify with that role. This relates well to Cooley’s (1909) concept sympathetic introspection, which today can be translated as empathy, through which an individual can imagine themselves in the situation of another. By doing so, individuals can also see other people’s perception and assessment of us, which affects the self in various ways. A person can look at themselves by looking at others and seeing their perception of him or her, as in a mirror (Cooley, 1902). This is called the looking-glass self. For Cooley (1902), this process contains three components: (a) my perception of how I appear to others; (b) my perception of the other person’s assessment of me; (c) a self-image, positive or negative, that grows out of these perceptions.

The social selves that are carved out in these processes—role-taking, sympathetic introspection, looking-glass self—are thus filled with societal norms and values i.e., the generalized other. In turn, the generalized other constitutes the Me (Mead, 1934; James, 1890). The Me comprises the stable parts of the self that are employed in daily life, as man, woman, father, mother, husband, wife, employee, club member, and so on. Thus an I negotiates with many Me’s because an individual is a part of many societal and relational groupings and contexts (James, 1890). At the same time, new Me’s are created throughout our lives, from childhood and the teen years through adulthood and old age. And yet viewed across a whole lifetime, Me’s are tenacious, slow-moving characters in the self.

Me’s also exert social control over the I, which must adapt to the Me. The social control occurs because the Me is an extension of society in the self, while at the same time, the I is the active, creative, spontaneous part of the self that reacts to the Me (Mead, 1934). There is a dialectic between the I and the Me, where the Me inhibits the I and the I influences the Me to change and grow. Through the generalized other, organized society creates the context of the self—the part of the self that consists of different Me’s, which an individual must interact with. Social contexts containing values, beliefs, practices, and relationships constructs and constitutes a Me that the I must relate to.

The Military Me

Military contexts (such as an army regiment, flotilla, or naval base) is clearly separated from civilian society, and civilians may only enter military areas with permission, as employees or guests bearing visitor badges. The military lifeworld also has clear physical boundaries with fences, barbed wire, and guards. This demonstrates a clear intention and a distinct need to establish a division between the civilian and military communities, for a number of reasons, such as confidentiality, secrecy, security, weapons storage, practical operations involving blasting and shooting safety in connection with training activities, educational needs and so on (Hall, 2012a, 2012b). It may be suggested that the symbolic interaction in the military community is defined by traditionally masculine tropes of stoicism and primacy of work (Wertsch, 1991). In this “present” the symbolic consensus among military personnel and the construction of a military Me develops—a Me that over time becomes an expert at defining situations through a military lens and then selecting suitable military behavior. Moreover, this dramaturgical scenery of an outer room (i.e., civilian society) and an inner room (i.e., military society) physically separated from each other by fences, secrecy, and confidentiality creates a military Me with psychic borders and boundaries in the self and between others and the self (Goffman, 1959).

The dramaturgical scenery is cultivated and upheld by each person that is part of the interaction working to ensure that all parties have the same definition of the situation, meaning that all understand what is meant to happen in that situation, what to expect from the others involved, and thus how they themselves should behave. This dramaturgical approach highlights interpersonal symbolic interaction and how individuals perform in order to project a desirable image.

In a military context, personnel are trained with all the resources available to them to ensure that officers/soldiers/sailors/airmen can complete their combat tasks under the most difficult, trying situations. The entire military system is designed to internalize military values, beliefs, and practices in the self (Thornborrow & Brown, 2009); that is internalizing military generalized others. Building blocks consisting of norms, knowledge, and skills are systematically placed one by one to gradually build up robust military Me’s that will be able to complete their combat tasks under exceptional circumstances. One premise for completing one’s combat tasks can be the necessity to kill hostile people using various kinds of combat techniques and weapon systems. This means that a military context has different cultural and legal conditions, where the civilian taboo on killing other people is removed from the equation, even if there are rules of engagement and other regulations that govern armed conflicts (Goldstein, 2001; French, 2005; Kümmel, 2011; Strachan, 2006; Verrips, 2006; Wilson, 2008). Thus, the military culture contrasts sharply with civilian cultures in the West, allowing us to talk about different types of generalized others in the self—military and civilian.

In general, military culture is hierarchically organized and collectivist (Huntington, 1957; Wertsch, 1991). In military organizations and operations, there is little or no room for individual choice because these cultural traits would make it very difficult to instill the level of discipline, efficiency, and self-sacrifice that is necessary to carry out combat tasks and fight a war. A self subordinated to the mission and the collective implies a contrast to the individualized Western societal culture where there tends to be a societal focus on individual freedom, choice, and self-realization. There are different degrees of tension and dissonance of breaking down the individualized self in exchange for a team-self. However, there is reward in this as well since the communal life and camaraderie are often perceived as unique and difficult to experience outside of the military community (Grimell, 2022a, 2022b).

Standardized equipment, routines, accommodations, and the removal of personal, civilian identity markers during military service become parts of a de-individualization process, which is designed to reorganize and tone down the needs and expressions of the individual (civilian Me’s) and to adapt him or her to military ideals, collective requirements, and context-specific behaviors that will be required to carry out military tasks (Hall, 2012a, 2012b; Brotz & Wilson, 1946).

Basic training as well as the specialized military training, signal various phases in the development of military Me’s. These training phases often focus intensely on physical and mental performance, long marches, medic skills and duties, combat training with live ammunition, and demanding group exercises in the field that put a spotlight on camaraderie, loyalty, and discipline (Verrips, 2006). Open or closed military ceremonies and rituals become defining conclusions to key transformation phases of military Me’s. In military culture the ritual drama and ritual activities create a highly developed functional knowledge that is passed along to others in the unit. Stories, myths of brothers in arms, and slogans also play an important role that enhances the transition from civilian individuality to a coordinated, close-knit military unit. The military symbols are therefore unique, and the interaction between service members and veterans is built on a symbolic consensus. The entire military apparatus, phases, rituals, insignia, ranks, language, terminology, and so on have a deep symbolic logic to those who understand it (Grimell, 2018a, 2022a; Zurcher, 1985). For civilians who do not share this knowledge, these symbols have no logic or meaning. Thus military symbols are meaningful and significant to service members and veterans. But for the sake of clarity, it should be said that one can be very knowledgeable about military context and logics without being a service member or veteran (e.g., spouses, government officials, military historians, veteran care workers).

One of the most important building blocks in developing a military identity is the relational dimension, which makes military interaction highly social. The social element of a military context is crucial to the development of a military Me. During the intense compulsory military service or basic training, the soldiers begin bonding: emotionally, behaviorally, and cognitively. This process occurs inside of the military regiment, with no formal involvement of civilian agencies (in a Swedish context). Deep bonds and relationships can develop between military personnel through their continued training exercises and specialist service (Woodward, 2008; Woodward & Jenkings, 2011; Sion & Ben-Ari, 2009). A loyalty and bond can arise that are rarely found outside the military culture. In this process, individual group members will develop a powerful capacity to adapt and suppress individual needs in favor of collective needs and what is best for the collective. Group members learn to trust one another so they can literally place their lives in the hands of their battle buddies (French, 2005; Goldstein, 2001). When specialized groups are created after basic training, or service members are deployed in combat zones for long periods of time, perhaps even in battle, the relational bond grows even stronger. Some researchers have interpreted and described this as the group and the battle buddies, and perhaps even the wider military organization, becoming sacred and worth dying for (Grimell, 2018a; Lunde, 2009). “Till death do us part” becomes more than just words and ceremony in a military context, because in the military environment you may literally be called on to live up to this promise (Grimell, 2022c). It is not unusual for the military relationships, the camaraderie, and the service to become very important and deeply meaningful. Potentially one of the strongest symbolic and emotional bonds occurs between military battle buddies (Franks, 2004; French, 2005; Grimell, 2022a). The gravitation of the military Me towards the military may amplify marital problems, divorce, and breakups are common phenomena among service members and veterans in both the Swedish and the international context (Grimell, 2022a; Moore, 2012; Segal, 1986).

Different Variants of a Military Me

Despite an intense military socialization and learning process and the internalization of the military generalized other, it is important to emphasize that the individual is not a passive recipient of a military culture, uncritically and thoughtlessly absorbing the institutional message (Grimell, 2018b). In parallel with the military life, there are completely different civilian environments and civilian Me’s outside the person’s military service that have shaped and continue to shape the self: families, friends, sports clubs, schools, and universities. These Me’s can in many ways slow down and exert social control on the I, creating complexity in the self, as the context of the self consists of both civilian and military Me’s wanting to exert social control.

There are also different types of military cultures. Parts of the content of army, navy, and air force units may differ, but the general cultural contours are similar. In addition, there are cultural variations within any given unit, because different units can develop culture-specific values, beliefs, and practices. Military cultures can also change and differ in different phases of a military career (from compulsory service/basic training, to specialty training, international deployment, officer training, and so on).

Different societal contexts also have various historical experiences, which impact the construction and understanding of a military Me in various ways. For instance, Sweden was never involved in World War II and needed to fight to preserve its independence. Finland, however, is a nearby Nordic example of how the historical experience of being able to defend themselves can result in a positive attitude towards the military and a broader societal symbolic understanding. Finland had to fight hard for its freedom during World War II when the Soviet Union attacked. As a result, there is a completely different tradition and respect for the military in Finland in comparison to Sweden. As one example, nearly the entire male population does compulsory military service in Finland (Grimell, 2022a). Another comparison could be the nation of Israel, which, despite its short existence as a nation, has been at war and exists in a sort of permanent state of mobilization to manage attacks and threats. This is combined with the fact that the majority of the population, male and female, do compulsory military service and take part in defending the country. In a context like this, military knowledge is high and there is a symbolic consensus with the general population (Daphna-Tekoah et al., 2021). The generalized other, from an Israeli societal perspective, may be described as supporting norms emanating from an imperative to fight for survival in the present. In this way, the civilian-military contours coincide; the military and civilian lifeworlds are largely integrated. This creates unique conditions for symbolic consensus between the military and the civilian. This kind of social context is very rare in the world.

Beyond this description of the military context that shapes military Me’s, there are destructive phenomena that can arise in the wake of military culture, conflict-zone deployments, and the creation of Me’s. Apart from the most obvious consequences, such as destruction and killing other people—which is a cultural expectation in the military perspective and perhaps even a respected act—military culture includes three problematic by-products to varying degrees in a military Me. The first two are related to the social construction of a military Me that does not necessarily create maximum operational conditions for either all service members nor the military organization. The last is linked to the growing symbolic gap between veterans and society.

1. Military organizations are dominated by men, which can mean that women run the risk of being questioned or othered by male personnel, who—implicitly or expressly, consciously or unconsciously—are reproducing a cultural content based on male superiority (Agostino, 1998; Alvesson & Billing, 1997; Goldstein, 2001; Sion & Ben-Ari, 2009). Female service members (and male as well) can be subjected to many kinds of assaults in a military context: sexual advances, rape, ostracism, bullying (Burkhart & Hogan, 2015; Estrada & Berggren, 2009). They may also have difficulty being recognized for their expertise and capacity by their male colleagues, simply because they are women (Badaró, 2015). At the same time, there is research that shows how women have successfully been organized in military units in various wars and been both efficient and capable in battle (Goldstein, 2001).

2. The expected sexual orientation among men serving together in close and intimate quarters in a military context is heterosexuality, which means that homosexuality can be viewed as a threat to a masculine military Me (Kaplan, 2005; Sion & Ben-Ari, 2009). Homosexuality can also be a threat to close physical and emotional relationships with other men in a military context (Grimell, 2018a). Unwritten rules of homosociality may allow hugs and physical support among battle buddies, but it is not necessarily welcome to stretch such implicit rules.

3. The long intervention in Afghanistan spotlighted the existence of a warrior culture among the Nordic armed forces such as Norway (Edström et al., 2009) and Sweden (Grimell, 2022a), among others. A warrior culture is a radicalization of the military culture, taking military ideals to extremes. A warrior culture can embrace, but is not limited to, the glorification of combat and killing, the radical dehumanization of the enemy during a mission, and an emphasis on masculinity and strength while attaching shame and guilt to weakness, psychiatric and/or psychological problems.

Even if a warrior culture does not arise during an international deployment, military cultures and military Me’s are in many ways intensified in connection with that deployment. This is due not least to the fact that military personnel are away from home for a long time in a conflict zone with significant risks to life and health. In such a vulnerable environment, the military community and military Me’s blossom under very special circumstances, while other civilian Me’s during this period become secondary, more abstract, or at least not active and accessible to the same degree as back home in everyday civilian life. The service members may see the international deployment as deeply meaningful and important, with a purpose that is greater than the individual. At the same time, the deployment may involve the continuous threat of mines, rocket or artillery fire, and/or snipers or enemy fire. Military personnel can be involved in actual combat, or make decisions and carry out acts that impact a third party—civilians (Zimbardo, 2008). Military personnel can also witness brutality towards humans and animals, extreme crimes against humanity, and severe breaches of human rights. All this combined illustrates a complex environment that seethes with both strong, character-building experiences and destructive, soul-destroying ones in a military Me (Grimell, 2022a, 2018c). This complex international situation contrasts sharply in every way with the everyday civilian reality that military personnel and their military Me’s come home to after completing their tour of duty (Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2020).

Changing Social Context and Reactivating Existing Civilian Me’s

Returning home from deployment abroad to everyday civilian life means that service members (both active-duty, part-time, and contract employees) need to shift gears from a radicalized military Me to military Me’s adapted to a socially interactive life in peacetime society. In other words, a veteran needs to be able to shed the parts of a military Me they needed in a real-time situation where their lives depended on vigilance, a strong self-preservation instinct, and weapons, in favor of a mindset that is equipped to navigate a peacetime society and perhaps also a traditional military training context (Shay, 2002, 2003). In addition—which is easier said than done—the returning veteran needs to reconnect with their loved ones after an extended period abroad. They need to reactivate and start living their civilian Me’s full-time in an everyday civilian social context, which might involve a partner, children, family, friends, hobbies, work, or unemployment (Atuel & Castro, 2019; Beder, 2012; Burkhart & Hogan, 2015; Fossey et al., 2019; Jolly, 1996; Lifton, 1992; Moore, 2012).

While all available resources and an entire military system were in place when robust military Me’s were built up, generally the opposite is true on homecoming. It is not uncommon for veterans to find themselves completely alone in their efforts to understand themselves and deconstruct or reconstruct their radicalized military Me’s, and reorganize elements in the self so the I and various Me’s can better integrate and interact with civilian family and friends in the peacetime society (Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2022a, 2022b; Rumann & Hamrick, 2010). This asymmetric resource situation can be said to apply to most armed forces, but the armed forces, communities, and other societal and non-governmental players may have achieved different levels of success in developing effective supporting systems in the transition from international deployment to everyday life at home, which indirectly consists of reorganizing the self (e.g., gaining support to re-enter the workforce, information, preparatory programs, transitional programs). However, the principal reasoning can be boiled down to the fact that all resources in the military system support the building of robust military Me’s, while the same amount of resources have not been invested in the return to a civilian life and the reverse process: taking a step back and reorganizing the self by deconstructing and smoothing out the military Me’s influence on the self while giving civilian Me’s equally powerful support as was provided in building up a military Me (Grimell, 2022a).

In general this is a difficult, sensitive process, because the transitional process involves the veteran leaving a strong collective and an important community to take part in an individualized civilian social culture with Me’s that are defined by a generalized other that emphasizes other values than the military (Atuel & Castro, 2019; Brunger et al., 2013). Instead of standing together with others, veterans are alone and have to manage their life situations and contrasting Me’s to some degree on their own. This change from a military communal life to an individualistic one can make veterans feel alienated from a civilian societal life (Grimell, 2018a). A significant amount of research indicates that the change of context, from deployment to rotation home, is an adjustment process that can take some time. Weibull (2012) describes this as Post-Deployment Disorientation, or PDD—a phase that falls into the gap between homecoming and readjustment. Veterans can feel abandoned and alone as they try to navigate through life through the lens of a military Me (Grimell, 2020, 2022a, 2022b).

In this sense it is not as easy to (re)define the situation through a (re)activated civilian Me in civilian social interaction, with the civilian Me taking the lead in the present and determining the individual’s behavior (i.e., perception and the defining interpretation of the situation). Even if a person is engaged in social interaction in the civilian present, a military Me is a tenacious character that exerts social control on the I and is loath to relinquish its grip. This is completely logical from a military perspective, because the military Me has kept the person alive through many, perhaps extremely trying months, by acting correctly according to tactical and combat-related rules, so it has had a strong grip on military skills and abilities and a military definition of the situation (Grimell, 2022a). This was a matter of life and death, not only for the self, but also for the individual’s comrades, group, and unit.

How long it takes to readjust and redefine the situation through one or more (re)activated civilian Me’s in social interaction is difficult to pinpoint (Grimell, 2018a, 2018b, 2022b). It is a subjective process that varies from person to person and depends on the strength of the civilian Me’s and their relational web and symbolic universe (Grimell, 2022a; Higate, 2008). The conditions of the return home also differ depending on the form of employment the service members have. Those who are active-duty continue working in a military context, and thus have a natural connection to a military work situation. But those who are only employed for the course of their deployment leave the military environment on returning home. For them coming home also means transitioning from a military to a wholly civilian life, which can escalate the need for and challenge of reorganizing in the self, because these veterans are abruptly losing a strong community, which creates social vulnerability. They are also equipped with a robust military Me that may not want to back down regarding the definition of the situation in the present. A radicalized military Me probably no longer functions very well in a civilian social context. Without robust support processes that can help these veterans and their loved ones to better understand the process in the self, the challenges will only grow (MacLeish, 2013).

The Lack of Symbolic Consensus—A Key Aspect in the Divide Within the Self

The military symbols are shared by service members and veterans and are therefore both meaningful and significant to this group in society. Military symbols are understood here as military experiences emanating from a military culture—values, beliefs, practices, language—that have been internalized in a military Me. Both service members and veterans can see themselves reflected in others, through the military looking-glass self, and what they see is both the military generalized other and the more unique characteristics of their military Me. When a veteran sees themselves through another veteran’s eyes, it is often, but not always, in the light of great humility, care, respect, loyalty, and deep understanding of military experiences, knowledge, and skills (Grimell, 2018a, 2018b, 2020, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). Through the military looking-glass self, the veteran feels valued, both as a service member and as a human being. When a veteran looks at themself through other veterans, they are met with a military generalized other, from which the military Me was born and in which the military Me has its symbolic home. A veteran may feel let down by the system or cheated by the military organization, or they may have lost their physical and/or mental health in the wake of their service—but a military Me will most likely have a symbolic and relational home among battle buddies and in a military or veteran community (Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2020, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c).

However, in social interaction outside the military context—civilian society—many veterans will find it difficult to be fully understood because there is no symbolic consensus between veterans and civilians. When veterans in research literature state that civilians cannot understand them, that they feel outside of society, isolated, lonely, or even alienated from civilian society (Bragin, 2010; Lifton, 1992; Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2020, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c), this can be understood from a symbolic interactionist perspective as meaning that military symbols do not have symbolic value to civilians and broader society. These symbols do not exist there; they only exist in those who are bearers of a military generalized other and a military Me.

When a veteran sees themselves through the eyes of a civilian, they see incomprehension and ignorance based on the absence of symbolic consensus. This means that the civilian soon loses interest in listening (Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2022a). But this situation may also be amplified by the veteran thinking that they aren’t making headway due to the symbolic gap. Cooley’s (1902) three steps in the process of discovering the looking-glass self can create a theoretical understanding of the experiences and feelings veterans can express in their encounter with civilian society. First, one imagines how one look as a veteran to a civilian who has no military symbolic knowledge, which in turn is based on one’s perception of the civilian’s assessment of one as a veteran. At best, this imagining results in an unclear self-image; at worst it results in a negative self-image, which develops out of perceptions created in the lack of symbolic consensus.

This is a theoretical explanation as to why many veterans may prefer to avoid saying that they are veterans in civilian contexts, or that they carefully choose the occasion when they reveal that background. Often, civilians will ask them, “Have you ever killed anyone?” A question that few if any fellow veterans would ever ask (Grimell, 2018a, 2022a). This question illustrates civilian society’s generalized other and lack of symbolic consensus. At the same time, such a question demonstrates a type of supposition—prejudices and/or aversions to war or military operations, both historical and ongoing, that will imbue the looking-glass self with a negative or stereotyped military self-image. Perceptions and self-structuring are temporally situated (Rumann & Hamrick, 2010).

This discussion on generalized others from civilian and military social contexts leads us to a further discussion of Western societal culture and how a society is charged in various ways with notions about the military (Bélanger & Moore, 2013; Kümmel, 2011; Phillips et al., 2020). The overall societal context, the experience of war/conflicts, and the moral aspects of right and wrong that are associated with such situations are of course meaningful in this type of reasoning about the looking-glass self. For example, in a country like Sweden, which has not had war in its territory in over 200 years, and where the armed forces are quite small, there is little symbolic consensus with civilians (Grimell, 2018a, 2020, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). With the war in Ukraine, the public’s views of the armed forces have changed, but this does not change the lack of symbolic consensus. The general theoretical idea here is that there tends to be a lack of symbolic consensus between the military and civilian lifeworlds in a Western context, although there are exceptions such a Finland and Israel, which suggest a potentially stronger symbolic consensus between civilian and military societies. This lack of symbolic consensus is related to how postmodern Western societies have demilitarized since the Cold War (Moskos et al., 2000), while the military has tended to develop a clearer expeditionary nature (Fürst & Kümmel, 2011), waging war outside of its own country in various places around the world (such as the war on terrorism). Thus, everyday life in civilian society has been able to continue uninterrupted, isolated from the brutal realities of war (Agrell, 2013). The absence of symbolic consensus has been enhanced by the unwillingness of the armed forces to really describe what is going on and be transparent in their operations in other countries. This is a natural part of the military cause—not wanting to communicate about their combat equipment, battle techniques, and strategies because the enemy could take advantage of this information. In addition, war is a brutal, violent activity in which both combatants and civilians are killed, and the military leadership and politicians want to avoid talking about that in the media to avoid heavy criticism. It is easier and less costly in terms of the media to provide the narrowest, most positive image as possible (military competence, clinical interventions, surgical precision, etc.) and keep the war far removed from public opinion at home (Agrell, 2013). All of these aspects have only widened the symbolic gap between the civilian and military lifeworlds.

Inner Conflicts in the Self

Me’s that are developed in different societal cultures and that contain different generalized others can be fertile soil for inner conflicts between Me’s in the self and outer conflicts with the social context. The gap between generalized others is not easy to bridge through inner conversation or dialogue between Me’s. Veterans are not unique in this sense. Early feminist symbolic interactionists criticized Mead’s (1934) simplistic view of society, with the result that Mead did not discuss conflicts in the individual. Ferguson (1980) and Holmberg (1993) are feminist critics, who stated that Mead did not consider that there are conflicting norms and values in society that are internalized in an individual’s Me’s through the generalized other. Mead’s society appears homogeneous, which leads to the generalized other seeming to consist of a homogeneous set of norms and rules. This has led to a portrayal of human interaction as if it was always about joint action between equals, which neglects or ignores power aspects between humans in interaction. In contrast to Mead, feminist critics of symbolic interactionism have claimed that society, and therefore the generalized other, is contradictory and far from unproblematic from a feminist perspective. When women internalize the generalized other, they are also internalizing a patriarchal pattern of action towards and perceptions of women. Holmberg said they adopt the ruler’s perspective on themselves.

Feminist criticism is extremely relevant for understanding complexity and contradictory components in the selves of service members and veterans. This group, too, internalizes a generalized other that has an ambivalent attitude towards the military arts; for example, that it is wrong or problematic to kill other people, that it is scary and foreign to engage in combat and shoot combatants to death. In civilian society it is culturally taboo to kill others; in a military community, this is precisely what you train for every day, from enlistment, basic training, and specialist training to missions. When veterans internalize the generalized other in civilian society, they are also internalizing a negative civilian perception about killing, veterans, and war. Certainly, every independent country needs military defenses, but this does not prevent people from viewing military activity as contradictory and only partially embraced by society as a whole (Agrell, 2013; Phillips et al., 2020; Woodward, 2008). Such a generalized other is significantly amplified by the lack of symbolic consensus between civilians and service members/veterans, which means that there is a permanent divide between the civilian and military Me’s in the self. This also means that the conversation between civilians and veterans is negatively impacted by the symbolic gap, in both directions (Grimell, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; Woodward, 2008). The difference is that civilians in a civilian society do not have to struggle with internal conflicts in connection with a military Me; civilians are “at home” with the generalized other. They make up the majority in society, while service members/veterans remain a clear minority, with the exception of nations like Israel, where the situation is different (Daphna-Tekoah et al., 2021).

Women veterans represent an even smaller group within the military group. A feminist approach to inner conflicts and symbolic interactionism highlights the need to particularly illuminate the dual burdens of female service members and veterans. They have a dual complexity to deal with in one way or another (Burkhart & Hogan, 2015). When they leave civilian life for military service, there may be norms and values in the generalized other that can create friction or even questioning of their choice of a military career. In addition, within the male-dominated military context they are forced to interact with a masculine generalized other. Female service members will always be the “other” in a male-dominated world. Military culture is a homosocial culture (Kaplan, 2005), which results in a homosocial looking-glass self process. When women see themselves through the eyes of male service members, they also see the other, which leads to their self-perception being colored by the experience. This creates a military Me in female service members that also includes a type of inner conflicts and questioning that male service members never have to experience (Agostino, 1998; Badaró, 2015). In the transition from a military to a civilian life, women veterans may have to deal with inner conflicts due to the civilian and military generalized others related to this choice of profession. Such transitional conflicts may arise in various ways not necessarily directly visible to the eye, for instance, in the classroom setting (Pellegrino & Hoggan, 2015) or in rural areas (Szelwach et al., 2011). Szelwach et al. (2011) have suggested that women veterans seeking employment in rural areas often face several challenges such as geographical barriers, limited employment opportunities, and a lack of childcare resources within their respective communities.

Concluding Remarks

Discussions of the self are always theoretical even if narrative identities and the cultural environments (i.e., values, meanings, and practices) for identity creation can be determined empirically. This suggests that the self is not directly observable while it is possible to make certain statements about the self with the support of the observable. But to make such statements, theory is needed. A theoretical perspective, i.e., symbolic interactionism, becomes the lens through which we can view phenomena and experiences, and we see different things depending on the theory. Symbolic interactionism works as a useful magnifying glass as regards the divide between Me’s that can arise in the self of veterans, and provides a theoretical idea of the implications this may have. This is because the generalized other, the societal norms that people are infused with and which are internalized in Me’s, can illustrate a gap in the symbolic consensus between a civilian and a military Me.

This article leaves out clinical challenges such as PTSD, because the aim was to spotlight the relationship between society and the self at a more comprehensive level. It also leaves out somewhat overlapping concepts such as moral injury (Litz et al., 2009) and spiritual injury (Berg, 2011), which do not have clinical status, but refer to existential suffering (e.g., questions about life, purpose, and direction) and moral pain (e.g., a violation of the inner moral compass, creating guilt, regret, and anxiety). These are clinical and semi-clinical phenomena that can complicate and exacerbate the divide within the veteran self. For a full account of the integration of society, self, PTSD, moral injury, spiritual injury, and identity see the recent book The Invisible Wounded Warriors in a Nation at Peace (Grimell, 2022a).

The analytical terms from James (1890), Mead (1934), and Cooley (1902, 1909) were used and described in this article in a way that hints at a sort of permanent gap, with certain specific exceptions, that is difficult to bridge. With this in mind, much of the approach to the construction of a military Me is quite similar to the military sociologist Huntington’s (1957) description of the military and civilian worlds as clearly distinct from each other (although Huntington did not use these analytical terms). But there is also, in some societal contexts, a greater dynamic and integration between the military and civilian lifeworlds in the light of historical and ongoing experiences. For veterans in these countries, there will still be a certain cultural gap between military and civilian Me’s, even if the gap is significantly less than in Huntington’s societal description.

The relationship between veterans and their friends and family can often be characterized by a silence, or absence of openness, due to the lack of a symbolic consensus. It is not uncommon that veterans do not tell their loved ones about their military life, missions, and experiences, preferring to share these with their battle buddies (Beder, 2012; Grimell, 2018a; Moore, 2012; Wertsch, 1991). One common reason for this can be described with the saying “friends and family will not understand anyway,” which is the same theme in the relationship with civilians in general (Grimell, 2020, 2022a). In their personal lives, the conditions for symbolic consensus in other shared domains can improve, if the veteran can negotiate beyond the corners of the military context together with other civilian Me’s such as father, mother, partner, parent, etc. The dialogical capacity of the self in everyday life dynamics together with partner, family, and others should not be underestimated and can activate other lenses, new perspectives and approaches to others and life (Grimell, 2017a, 2017b, 2018b, 2020). However, this does not reduce the divide within the veteran self, and in addition there may be great expectations in an intimate family relationship that the veteran will be fully present and involved in their shared life (Beder, 2012; Moore, 2012; Fossey et al., 2019). This is particularly true if the veteran has been away for a long time. This is yet another thing that can create tensions, because it is not easy to leave one’s partner and family without creating an increasingly difficult social spiral. One of several possible paths forward in such a situation is to seek support and advice from a family therapist and gain the tools needed to manage a military Me in relation to other Me’s. However, it is important in such a process that the therapist has military competence and cultural symbolic understanding (Atuel & Castro, 2018).

The relationship between a community in the broad sense and the self cannot be emphasized enough, because the generalized other infuses the Me with norms and rules that affect the looking-glass self process (Cooley 1902, 1909). An individual’s self-image is shaped and nurtured by how they perceive themselves through others’ eyes. Even if a society with a low degree of militarization can never understand veterans on a symbolic level—meaning they can never achieve symbolic consensus—society must strive to embrace and integrate veterans who have served their country, perhaps protected the country. There is an interwoven political and moral imperative in this. What is important here is not that society be militarized to create symbolic consensus with the military lifeworld; perhaps it is even desirable for a gap to exist, a strong counterpoint to the military. What may be the most important aspect to soften the divide in the self that veterans can experience in the transition to a civilian life is to feel that their service is honestly and genuinely valued by society. This is particularly true of military operations that are questioned by public opinion and perhaps viewed as morally bankrupt, because it is easier to project political and moral indignation on service members and veterans than on the abstract political elite (Grimell, 2022a). This projection is an expression of the generalized other and can be part of the civilian looking-glass self when it encounters veterans. A constructive way to reduce the feeling of loneliness, isolation, and alienation from a civilian society—the divide within the veteran self—is to manifest a strong appreciation of veterans in various compelling ways. This can include tangible financial compensation and incentives in civilian life, lifelong qualified support from the healthcare system, ritual proclamations and ceremonial observances, and symbolic aspects that are only granted to those who have served the country and have clear social value. At the same time, it is important to understand that all veterans do not desire either attention or societal rituals, but want to fly off the radar and get started with their civilian lives.

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, it is particularly urgent for the civilian and military societies to address and create concrete strategies for managing the dual burden that female service members bear: both the challenges of a civilian generalized other when entering the military lifeworld, and the homosocial military generalized other that questions women’s place in a military context. Women veterans must deal with all this before, during, and after their military service (Burkhart & Hogan, 2015). Research about this topic is scant in a Swedish military context and the need for the Swedish Armed Forces to launch empirical qualitative research to find out more is urgent in order to design long term strategies for the current and next generation of women veterans.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.