Panel discussion summary, Southern States Communication Association Conference, St. Petersburg, Florida April, 2023,

Lauren Mackenzie, Marine Corps University,
Barton Buechner, Adler University,
John Parrish-Sprowl, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis,
Susan Lillian Steen, United States Air Force-Air University,
with contributions by Kelly Tenzek, University at Buffalo, SUNY.

Introduction

This summary is based on a panel discussion at the 93^rd annual Southern States Communication Association conference in St. Petersburg, Florida in April, 2023, with the theme of “Communicating our Future.” The presentation included multiple perspectives of the ways that military students and veterans communicate through and about various forms of transition, and ways that this awareness might be applied to foster desirable qualities of resilience. Three scenarios were covered in this conversation: (1) adaptation of student veterans from military life to the college classroom, (2) development of cultural competency and empathy skills in military training and education, and, (3) analysis of discussions related to final (end of life) conversations by military personnel.

The panel served as an extension of a running conversation among colleagues representing diverse backgrounds and academic settings who share a common interest in the well-being of military members and veterans, and a curiosity about the implications that their stories may have for all of us. The contributing authors each represent different fields and disciplines (health communication, military psychology, and leadership development) but have a common nexus in the social constructionist view of communication. From this perspective, communication is viewed as a point of leverage for understanding and increasing resilience at the level of social systems. The authors also have come to see communication as embodied, or bio-active, in the sense that it has a tangible impact on the somatic lived experience of reality, in the form of emotions and physical states of health. Embodied aspects of communication are further considered as enabling factors for making more effective and constructive communicative relationships among individuals with differing social interests. Some of the common threads explored in this discussion included the significance of qualities such as empathy, resilience, and whole health integration (holism) in a systemic view of the emergence of social reality through processes of communication.

Lastly, the panel discussion focused on episodes of transition as particularly significant to an understanding of qualities of communicative resilience. Such episodes include the readjustment of veterans following separation from military service and dealing with the loss of colleagues or loved ones. These are episodes of liminality during which an individual may be operating in unfamiliar contexts or dealing with unexpected turns of events. Understanding the process of navigating these episodes is of interest for the purpose of developing and expanding capacity to act into communicative situations in such a way as to create better social realities.

Theoretical framing

The exploration presented here is intentionally cross-disciplinary, and includes concepts from sociology, psychology, history, geopolitics, phenomenology, systems thinking, somatics/physiology, and quantum (complexity) science. The view of communication as a constitutive force is expressed in several bodies of theory, including “Communication Complex” (CC) (Parrish-Sprowl, 2014) and the Coordinated Management of Meaning, or CMM (Pearce & Cronen, (1980). This social constructionist paradigm is not limited to the communication field, and is in further alignment with the view that individual mental health and well-being is rooted in communication and relationship (Ruesch & Bateson, 1951). While this is not the currently dominant view in the mental health field, there are several areas in which it is established.

Social psychology
Adlerian psychology is one example of a departure from the medical model of mental health in that it considers “social feeling” as the nexus of mental health and well-being (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956). Adlerian-based therapies focus on helping persons to “act into” healthier patterns of interaction, and overcome feelings of inferiority that may be caused by perceptions, or may be related to imbalances in power relationships in social settings (Buechner, 2020).

Complexity theory
Complexity theory draws on quantum physics as a way of making sense of the way that seeming independent objects are interwoven in patterns that may be affected by seeming unrelated objects, in non-linear ways (Rovelli, 2021). This view privileges the importance of the interactions between things (more so than the properties of the things themselves), as a “web of relations that weaves reality” (Rovelli, 2021, p. 89.) Quantum complexity is also helpful in understanding the myriad interactions between humans and various factors in their environment and social worlds, and how they might be better aligned to create conditions for physical and mental health (Parrish-Sprowl, Parrish -prowl & Alajouni, 2020).

Resilience

In our discussion, resilience is considered as something more than an individual’s ability to “bounce back” from adversity. Instead, it is seen as a systemic capacity to respond to the unexpected in a creative or constructive way (Buzzanell, 2010).  The communication theory of resilience is privileged in this discussion, which includes several interconnected processes.  These are (1) the capacity to craft normalcy; (2) the ability to foreground productive action while backgrounding negative feelings; (3) affirming identity anchors; (4) making use of networks of communication, and (5) engaging alternative logics (Buzanell, 2018, p.100). Steen (2023) has also more recently shown the importance of a communication perspective in understanding resilience.

Empathy
Empathy is generally regarded as a positive quality associated with being fully human, in which we are able to make relational and emotional connections with others, and by extension, other aspects of the world we live in (Stein, 1989). Strategic empathy has also been considered as a necessity for military leaders, in the sense of the ability to understand motivations and cognition and anticipate potential actions of both friends and adversaries (McMaster, 2020, Abbe, 2023). Empathy of this sort evokes three skill sets: systems thinking, cross-cultural competence, and emotional intelligence (Abbe, 2023, p. 28). Apart from the useful characteristics of empathy in and of itself, the cultivation of empathy intersects with other qualities that have been identified with enhanced communication and social engagement.

Moral Injury
If we view the way humans interact in social systems in terms of following rules, living up to values, and enacting identities, we can imagine the consequences when one or more of these forces breaks down. Moral Injury has been defined as the result of experiencing events that challenge closely-held beliefs and meaning, often in high-stakes situations, and may include failures to live up to perceived responsibilities and identities, or betrayals by trusted others (Shay, 2014). Apart from the conventional view of psychological trauma as a form of pathology, the construct of moral injury offers an alternative conceptual framework for understanding the impact of disruption and disorientation during periods of transition which–in the case of military veterans–may actually be more prevalent than combat trauma (Mobbs & Bonanno, 2018). A better understanding of moral injury, as experienced by veterans, may offer valuable insights for making constructive changes to how we talk about these transitions, and for expanding space for dialogue between and among military veterans and civil society.

Untold stories

Following over two decades of war experienced by those who served in the United States military, there is a growing concern about the “untold stories” of military members and veterans, and the loss to society from not being able to assimilate the stories of their experience (Buechner, 2020). Returning military veterans sometimes have difficulty telling stories related to their service in a coherent or purposeful way. This can be due to various limits to communication capacity, including cultural and contextual factors, lack of the vocabulary or grammar of expression for some phenomena, fear of shocking an audience with graphic details that may obscure the underlying meaning of the story, or a sense of futility, that others who have not “been there” cannot understand. This difficulty is compounded by the presence in many of these stories of deeply troubling ethical conflicts, or moral injuries, that have both personal and society-level implications. As a result, potential avenues for the society-level understanding or witnessing of these moral injuries experienced by warriors is perceived as lacking, or absent.

Failure to hear, and assimilate, such stories has particular consequences for a democracy, in which the power of government is intended to reside in the people.

Barriers to hearing these stories are many. Preoccupation with other concerns, political divisiveness, conflicting ideologies, and media distortion may all contribute to failure to exercise the moral responsibility that comes with citizenship, to the effect that otherwise well-intended citizens are effectively shielded from knowledge of the impact of these stories on other human beings and societies in distant lands. The collective impact of this growing communication divide between those who have served and those who have not can, if not addressed intentionally and proactively, lead to an insidious form of tyranny, in this case the tyranny of a democracy that may appear to have lost its moral compass, and its sense of empathy for humanity writ large.

Connecting resilience and difficult dialogue at End of Life

Understanding the ways in which service members reflect on their experiences with death and dying has received relatively little scholarly attention. In order to inform our knowledge of a particularly challenging set of conversations – those that occur at end of life (EOL) – the authors conducted exploratory, semi-structured interviews with military students at Marine Corps University in 2022 and interpreted their responses through the lens of Buzzanell’s (2010) communication theory of resilience (CTR). Participants’ use of discursive tensions was explored to understand the potential connection between resilience and difficult dialogue about death. Attention was focused on two particular CTR responses:

Tensions revealed through the interpretation of the interview data include:

The culture of the Marine Corps is rooted strongly in stoicism and collective solidarity, as are to various extents, all military service cultures. The capacity for managing tensions (between individual and collective dimensions of emotions and actions) can also be manifested in constructive dialogue at end of life. Buzzanell’s communication theory of resilience, which was based in part on study of military families, points out that such communication processes are often tensional, as opposed to exclusively beneficial. This in turn underscores the reality faced by many military members, veterans and families; that living with tensions and contradictions is by no means easy.  Further study of these complexities will entail stepping outside of our familiar frames of reference and institutional biases (including conventional notions of mental health and communication) to gain a more nuanced understanding of the factors leading to a coherent experience around transitions.

Veterans in the classroom

Although a large percentage of contemporary military veterans have used higher education as a part of their transition to civilian life, this has largely been an unplanned and highly individualized process. In many cases, veterans in higher education settings do not wish to be identified as such, and faculty may not be aware of their students’ military background.  However, when the veterans’ identity, experience and stories have surfaced in classroom conversations, it has often enriched the learning experience for all involved, as well as being cathartic in many cases for the veterans.

There are also some health, including mental health, implications for inviting a classroom setting in which student veterans can bring their whole selves, and tell their stories. One of the notable barriers to this is the way that trauma is regarded as having behavioral impacts (with associated symptoms), which may need to be “accommodated” or “managed.” This is at least partly because the most commonly-held understanding of mental impact on veterans is expressed in terms of trauma, particularly posttraumatic stress (PTS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Learning accommodations for stress-related disabilities are generally functional in nature, meaning that a veteran may have difficulties related to discomfort in being in large group settings, could have some cognitive impairment, or might be “triggered” by environmental factors such as sudden noise.  A more subtle problem may be experienced by veterans who are troubled by a moral injury, or unresolved feeling of guilt or shame connected to an event that challenges identity and beliefs.  Moral injuries can be either associated with a sense of betrayal of values by others, or feelings of guilt for one’s own perceived shortcomings, whether through action or inaction. Unexplored, these can be impediments to growth and learning, but the examination and unpacking of these experiences can be salutary.  Guilt, on one hand, can be a powerful motivation to learning and change, whereas shame can be debilitating and self-defeating. By inviting the veteran to tell their stories in an accepting and safe environment, there is an expanded opportunity for learning and healing, both individually and collectively.

Discussion

In this overview of our conference panel discussion, we have sought to synthesize various approaches to the study of resilience. We have painted a broad picture of some ways that a deeper examination and understanding of the experiences of veterans from a communication perspective can be valuable in the cultivation of systemic resilience through communication. As scholars of communication, we also share the belief that much more can be learned from closer examination of veterans’ stories of service, homecoming, and the struggle to “fit in” with unfamiliar social and cultural contexts while coming to grips with unresolved questions and untold stories from challenging episodes of experience. Implications of the factors and dynamics of communicative resilience as defined here may extend to a better understanding of whole-person health in community settings; improving the effectiveness of inclusion and social justice efforts in organizations, and reducing the stigma associated with seeking help for mental stress during times of difficult transitions. We invite further participation in this exploration by those who may have a similar interest.

NOTE: Those interested in this phenomenon may also wish to take a look at the film trailer that describes some authentic stories of veterans in transition, and the barriers (as well as opportunities) they have encountered. See the accompanying story “What Now”—a film project in the making, for additional details.

References

Abbe, A. (2023). Understanding the adversary: Strategic empathy and perspective taking in national security. Parameters, 53(2) 19-38. US Army War College Press. Carlisle, PA.

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. Basic Books, Inc.

Buechner, B. (2020). Untold stories of moral injury: What we are learning—and not learning—from military veterans in transition. Frontiers in Communication, Vol.5.

Buzzanell, P. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60, 1-14.

Generous, M. & Keeley, M. (2020). Exploring the connection between end-of-life relational communication and personal growth after the death of a loved one. Omega Journal of Death and Dying, 84(3), 1-19.

Gordon, S. Early, S. & Craven, J. (2022) Our veterans: Winners, losers, friends and enemies on the new terrain of veterans’ affairs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hamner, K., Buechner, B. and Gill, C. (2021) .Research on the well-being of service members, veterans, dependents, and survivors by service members, veterans, dependents, and survivors. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship: Special Edition, 13 (4). https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol13/iss4/

Junger, S. (2016). Tribe: On homecoming and belonging.  New York: Twelve.

Keeley, M. & Generous, M. (2015). The challenges of final conversations: Dialectical tensions during end-of-life family communication. Southern Communication Journal, 80(5), 377-387.

Kent, S. & Buechner, B. (2019) .Beyond transition: Personal and social transformation through co-iknquiry among military-connected students. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, (Special Edition).

Mattis, J. & West, B. (2019). Call sign chaos: Learning to lead. NY: Random House.

McMaster, H. R. (2020) .Battlegrounds: The fight to defend the free world. New York: Harper Collins.

Mobbs, M. & Bonanno, G. (2018). Beyond war and PTSD: The crucial role of transition stress in the lives of military veterans. Clinical Psychology Review, 59, 137–144.

Parrish-Sprowl, J., Parrish-Sprowl, S. & Alajlouni (2020). Innovations in addressing mental health needs in humanitarian settings: A complexity informed action research case study. Frontiers in Communication 5, 1–15.

Parrish-Sprowl, J. (2014).  Making change that matters: A story of social transformation and CMM. In S. Littlejohn & S. McNamee (Eds.) The Coordinated Management of Meaning:  A festschrift in honor of W. Barnett Pearce. (p. 291-312). New Jersey: Farleigh Dickenson University Press.

Pearce, W.B. & Cronen, V. (1980) Communication, action and meaning: The creation of social realities. New York, Praeger Publishers.

Pearce, W. B., & Littlejohn, S. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide (1st ed.). Sage Publications.

Rovelli, C. (2020) Helgoland: Making sense of the quantum revolution. London, Penguin Random House.

Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication, the social matrix of psychiatry. W. W. Norton & Company.

Shay, J. (2014). Moral injury. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 31(2), 182-191.

Steen, S. (2023). A communication perspective on resilience, CREST Security Review.  8 March, 2023. https://crestresearch.ac.uk/comment/a-communication-perspective-on-resilience

Steen, S., & Buechner, B. (2021). Transcending tribalism; Re-imagining community through cosmopolitan engagement with military members and veterans. In Penman, R. (Ed.) A cosmopolitan sensibility: Compelling stories from a communication perspective. (pp. 178-201). Oracle, AZ: CMM Institute Press.

Stein, Edith. (1989). On the problem of empathy. Washington, DC: ICS Publications.

Whitt, J. and Steen, S. (2021). Talking and listening to build a stronger military:  Cosmopolitan communication as an essential skill of military leader development. The Journal of Character and Leadership Development, Winter 2021.

</div>