This article explores the tension between military objectives and the “democracy value” cherished by Western civilian societies, using the situations of injured military members and the living conditions of civilian spouses; in particular, the responses of the Canadian Forces to members' posttraumatic stress disorder, and to spouses who are victims of domestic violence. The authors show how these responses currently privilege military objectives over the democracy value to an extent that is incompatible with the human rights of civilians or military members. They conclude by discussing how military leadership training could be modified to produce an altered balance between the two value systems.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society annual conference, Toronto, October 2004. We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Karen Davis, Tom Hoppe, Major Mariane LeBeau, and Harold Leduc, and the helpful comments on an earlier draft provided by Jean Louis Deveau, Franklin Pinch, Walter Schenkel, Patricia Shields, and two anonymous reviewers.
2.
Canadian DefenceAcademy/Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, Duty With Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 2003).
3.
Department of Justice Canada , Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C, 1985 ( Ottawa: Department of Justice , 2000).
4.
For the purpose of this article, “spouse” refers to the civilian spouse of a CF member. Since approximately 87.6 percent of regular CF members are men, the majority of civilian spouses of CF members are female. Source: Canadian Defence Information.htm, 2005. Except where otherwise indicated, “spouse” in this article is assumed to be a heterosexual female civilian.
5.
But see Federal Court of Canada, Dianne Roy et al. vs. The Queen, re the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Judgment (Justice W. P. McKeown), Ottawa, March 1, 2002.
6.
Andre Marin , Special Report to the Minister of National Defence on the Systemic Treatment of CF Members with PTSD ( Ottawa: National Defence and Canadian Forces , 2001); Andre Marin , Follow-up Report: Review of DND/CF Actions on Operational Stress Injuries ( Ottawa: National Defence and Canadian Forces , 2002); Andre Marin , Report to the Minister of National Defence—Off the Rails: Crazy Train Float Mocks Operational Stress Injury Sufferers ( Ottawa: National Defence and Canadian Forces , 2003).
7.
Deborah Harrison et al., Report on the Canadian Forces' Response to Woman Abuse in Military Families (Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, University of New Brunswick , and the RESOLVE [Research and Education for Solutions to Violence Everywhere] Centre, University of Manitoba , 2000); Deborah Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty: Violence Against Women in Canadian Military Communities ( Toronto: James Lorimer , 2002); Deborah Harrison , “ The Canadian Forces' Response to Woman Abuse in Military Families ,” in Understanding Abuse: Partnering for Change , ed. Mary Lou Stirling et al. ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press , 2004), 155-94 ; Deborah Harrison , “ The Role of Military Culture in Military Organizations' Response to Woman Abuse in Military Families ,” The Sociological Review54, 3 ( 2006): 546-74 .
8.
Veterans Affairs Canada—Canadian Forces Advisory Council, Honouring Canada's Commitment : “Opportunity with Security” for Canadian Forces Veterans and Their Families in the 21st Century ( Ottawa: Veterans Affairs Canada , 2004), 5.
9.
This interview was carried out by the authors for their co-authored book, No Life Like It: Military Wives in Canada ( Toronto: James Lorimer , 1994).
10.
J.W. Stow , A Study of the Treatment of Members Released on Medical Grounds ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 1997).
11.
Cited in Veterans Affairs Canada—Canadian Forces Advisory Council, Honouring Canada's Commitment, 18. See R.G. MacLellan , Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review: A Final Report ( Ottawa : Department of National Defence , 1997).
Maj. Stephane Grenier , Maj. S., OISS Project: Operational Stress Injuries in the Canadian Forces ( Presentation to Armed Forces Council, Ottawa , October 23, 2001).
15.
Marin , Special Report, 7-27.
16.
Ibid, 56, 60, 82.
17.
Ibid, 66.
18.
Ibid, 57.
19.
Ibid, 79. Chronic illnesses and injuries are often also tolerated poorly, even when they are physically visible. This suggests that the most significant consideration in hypermasculine subcultures may be being perceived as “weak” or “damaged.” See MacLellan , Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review.
20.
Marin , Special Report, 79, 81, 33.
21.
Ibid, 29.
22.
Ibid, 83-4.
23.
Ibid, 64.
24.
Andrew Solomon , The Noonday Demon: AnAtlas of Depression ( New York: Scribner , 2001), 335, 406.
25.
Marin , Special Report, 147.
26.
Ibid, 188.
27.
André Marin , Follow-up Report.
28.
From an interview conducted by members of our research team in 1998. See footnote 45.
29.
For example, Harrison and Laliberté, No Life Like It.
30.
Ibid , chap. 5. See also Department of National Defence Canada , Military Spousal Employment and Loss of Income ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence Directorate of Social and Economic Analysis , 1995); J.B. Schwartz et al., “ The Impact of Military Life on Spouse Labor Force Outcomes ,” Armed Forces & Society17 (1991): 385-407 .
31.
See Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 28-41.
32.
Harrison and Laliberté , No Life Like It, 54-69, 124-33, 138-48, 166-80. Spouses of CF navy members are less geographically mobile than most spouses of army and air element members. However, since their partners typically spend six months of every year at sea, navy spouses shoulder a heavier domestic burden, and are usually prevented from taking advantage of the economic opportunities that normally accompany being permitted to remain in the same place.
33.
Norah Keating et al., “The Differential Impact of Veterans Affairs Canada Policies on the Economic Well-being of Informal Caregivers ” ( Edmonton: University of Alberta , 2001).
34.
An economically dependent Canadian civilian woman (or CF spouse living off base) who was separating would be unlikely to encounter this situation because, as long as her partner had signed or co-signed a civilian lease or mortgage agreement, he would be obligated to make the payments whether the couple was separated or together.
35.
Harrison and Laliberté , No Life Like It, 220-7.
36.
Along with other members of the Canadian Forces Advisory Council of Veterans Affairs Canada, we conducted roundtables and focus groups with CF members and spouses at 18 CF bases during 2002. This information was obtained during these sessions.
37.
Marin , Special Report, 34, 173.
38.
See Z. Solomon , “ The Effect of Combat-related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder on the Family ,” Psychiatry51 (1988): 323-29 ; B.K. Jordan et al., “ Problems in Families of Male Vietnam Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology60, 6 (1992): 916-26 ; C. Gimbel and A. Booth , “ Why Does Military Combat Adversely Affect Marital Relations? ” Journal of Marriage and the Family56, 3 (1994): 691-703 ; C.A. Byrne and D.S. Riggs , “ The Cycle of Trauma: Relationship Aggression in Male Vietnam Veterans With Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ,” Violence and Victims11, 3 ( 1996): 213-25 ; D.S. Riggs et al., “ The Quality of the Intimate Relationships of Male Vietnam Veterans: Problems Associated With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ,” Journal of Traumatic Stress11, 1 (1998): 87-101 ; James E. McCarroll et al., “ Deployment and the Probability of Spousal Aggression by U.S. Army Soldiers ,” Military Medicine165 (2000): 41-44 .
39.
See footnote 36. Additionally, the number of women abused by their male military partners, who contacted the U.S. Miles Foundation between August 2002 and February 2004, was double the number who had contacted them during 18-month periods prior to 9/11. The Miles Foundation, located in Newtown, Connecticut, is an independently funded advocacy organization for victims of violence in U.S. military communities. The 2002-04 number of women callers was 1,973, as compared with 1,000 during recent previous 18-month periods. Source: Miles Foundation Executive Director's statement to the press conference inaugurating Amnesty International U.S.A.'s two-year campaign to eradicate military violence against women, National Press Club, Washington DC, March 5, 2004.
40.
T.S. Biank , “ Series of Slayings Shakes Military Community ,” Fayetteville Online, July 26, 2002, www.fayettevillenc.com/obj_stories/2002/jul/n26death.shtml .
41.
See Lewis A. Coser , Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment ( New York: Free Press , 1974); Mady Wechsler Segal , “ The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions ,” Armed Forces & Society13, 1 (1986): 9-38 .
42.
Civilian spouses, too, are regarded as means to military ends. See, for example, R. Szoc , Family Factors Critical to Retention ( San Diego: Naval Personnel Research and Development Center , 1982); Dennis K. Orthner et al., “ Family Contributions to Work Commitment ,” Journal of Marriage and the Family48 (August, 1986): 573-81 ; Joe Pitman et al., “ Predictors of Spousal Support for the Work Commitments of Husbands ,” Journal of Marriage and the Family50 (May, 1988): 335-48 ; G.L. Bowen , “ Satisfaction With Family Life in the Military ,” Armed Forces & Society15, 4 (1989): 571-92 ; D. Westhuis et al., “ Does Ethnicity Affect the Coping of Military Spouses? ” Armed Forces & Society32, 4 (2006): 584-603 .
43.
See W.A. Griffin and A.R. Morgan , “ Conflict in Maritally Distressed Military Couples ,” American Journal of Family Therapy16, 11 ( 1988), 14-22 ; C. Cronin , “ Adolescent Reports of Parental Spousal Violence in Military and Civilian Families ,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence10, 1 (1995): 117-22 ; R.E. Heyman and P. Neidig , “ A Comparison of Spousal Aggression Prevalence in U.S. Army and Civilian Representive Samples ,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology67, 2 (1999): 239-42 .
44.
See Amnesty International , Broken Bodies, Shattered Minds: Torture and Ill-Treatment of Women. AI Index: ACT 40/001/2001 ( London: Amnesty International Publications , 2001); Freedom From Terror, Safety From Harm. AI Index: ACT 77/002/2001 ( London: Amnesty International Publications , 2001); and It's in Our Hands: Stop Violence Against Women ( New York: Amnesty International Publications , 2004); also Harrison [with 7 collaborators], chap. 7.
45.
Between 1996 and 1999, a 20-person team of academics, civilian community practitioners, and military members conducted 126 lengthy semi-structured interviews in three phases.
46.
Phase One, carried out in CF communities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba (respectively land, sea, and air), consisted of 64 interviews with English- and French-speaking partners and former partners of regular CF members who were survivors of partner abuse. These interviews focused on the survivors' coping strategies, their attempts to find help within the military and civilian communities, the results of these attempts, and the ensuing consequences.
47.
Phase Two, carried out in the same locations, consisted of 52 interviews with regional civilian and CF service providers (e.g., social work officers, chaplains, and military police) and CF supervisory personnel. Each Phase Two interview focused on the participant's job description; military practices that affected what happened to partner abuse survivors; the participant's perspectives on the problems identified during the interviews with survivors; and, for civilian service providers, the situations that, in their view, were unique to their military community clients.
48.
Phase Three, consisting of ten interviews with National Defence Headquarters program administrators and generals in Ottawa, focused on job descriptions; military policies that were relevant to partner abuse; and responses to the problems that had been identified during the first two phases.
49.
During early 2000, four voluntary focus groups were organized in New Brunswick and Manitoba to enable survivors and CF service providers to provide feedback on the team's tentative recommendations. We publicized the study to potential Phase One participants via the media, and information sheets distributed by community practitioners, some of whom were team members. Each potential Phase One participant contacted the team via a 24-hour dedicated phone line and answering machine. Since information sheets and media interviews indicated that our subject matter was “violence in military families,” men were not discouraged from volunteering to participate. Four men—three partner abuse perpetrators and one survivor (who was a senior officer)—contacted us and were interviewed. Since our methodology was (loosely speaking) institutional ethnography, we began by gathering and reflecting on the experiences of abused CF spouses and then, from the vantagepoint of their perspectives and interests, questioned our Phase Two and Three participants. Interviews with the latter participants served to elaborate on the survivors' testimonies and to provide insights into the military social relations that appeared to have shaped their experiences. In narrative (but not necessarily analytical) terms, the interviews with civilian service providers and military supervisors usually corroborated what the survivors had told us. Team members were Beverley Bailey, Marlene Bertrand, Elizabeth Blaney, Chantal Bourassa, Jerry Deveau, Penny Ericson, Gaila Friars, Kelly Gorkoff, Joan Hanley, Deborah Harrison, Ann Koller, Sharon Kuropatwa, Michelle LaFrance, Lucie Laliberté, Francine Langlais, Eric Linden, Henry Matheson, Mary Jean Merry, Kathy Phillips, Jurden Rice, Beatriz Sainz, and Jane Ursel. We were funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Status of Women Canada, and received full co-operation from the Department of National Defence (DND). On receipt of our Report on May 8, 2000, DND tasked its Quality of Life Office to draft a response to each of its 51 recommendations. See Department of National Defence Canada , Family Violence Action Plan ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 2003) or http://www.forces.ca/hr/qol/pdf/FVAP_e.pdf . Our Report can be found at http://www.unbf.ca/arts/CFVR/publications-research-team.php. For information on institutional ethnography methodology, see Marie Campbell and Fran Gregor , Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography ( Aurora: Garamond Press , 2002); Marjorie DeVault and Liza McCoy , “Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations,” in Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, ed. J. Gubrium et al. ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 2002); Dorothy E. Smith , Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People ( Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press , 2005).
50.
Department of National Defence Canada , Canadian Forces General Message 55/00: Family Violence in the Canadian Forces ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 2000).
51.
Department of National Defence Canada , Canadian Forces Defence Administrative Order and Directive: Family Violence ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 2003).
52.
Ibid., 83, 79-86. Also D.H. Marshall and M.D. McShane , “ First to Fight: Domestic Violence and the Subculture of the Marine Corps,” in Battle Cries on the Home Front: Violence in the Military Family , ed. P. J. and J. D. Mercier ( Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas , 2000), 15-29.
53.
See, e.g., Peter Jaffe et al., “ The Impact of Police Charges in Incidents of Wife Abuse ,” Journal of Family Violence1 (1986): 37-49 ; Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General [British Columbia], Violence Against Women in Relationships Policy (2000), www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/vawc/policy.htm .
54.
See, e.g., R. E. and R.P. Dobash , Women, Violence, and Social Change ( London: Routledge , 1992 ); G. Golden et al., “ When 50-50 isn't Fair: The Case Against Couple Counselling in Domestic Abuse ,” Social Work39, 6 ( 1994): 636-8 ; Donald Dutton , The Batterer: A Psychological Profile ( New York: Basic Books , 1995).
55.
Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 82.
56.
Ibid, 108.
57.
Ibid, 51-2, 64-6.
58.
Often referred to as hegemonic masculinity. For definitions of hegemonic masculinity, and discussions of its applicability to military settings, see R.W. Connell , Gender and Power ( Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press , 1987); J.W. Messerschmidt , Masculinities and Crime: Crime and Reconceptualization of Theory ( Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield , 1993 ); D.H.J. Morgan , “ Theater of War: Combat, the Military, and Masculinities ,” in Theorizing Masculinities , ed. H. Brod and M. Kaufman ( London: Sage , 1994), 165-82 ; F. Barrett , “ The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the U.S. Navy ,” Gender, Work and Organization3, 3 (1996): 129-42 ; M.D. Schwartz and Walter S. DeKeseredy , Sexual Assault on the College Campus: The Role of Male Peer Support ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage , 1997); Leora N. Rosen et al., “ Cohesion and the Culture of Hypermasculinity in U.S. Army Units ,” Armed Forces & Society29, 3 (2003): 325-51 .
59.
See, for example, Sandra Whitworth , Men, Militarism and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis ( Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner , 2004). Also Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty , 66-71.
60.
Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 68-9.
61.
Whereas CF members were deployed on 25 peacekeeping missions between 1948 and 1989, they were deployed on 65 missions between 1989 and 2001 alone. Source: Department of National Defence Canada , Building on a Stronger Foundation: Annual Report of the Chief of the Defence Staff 1999-2000 ( Ottawa: Department of National Defence , 2000).
62.
Officer who is responsible for discipline, and reports directly to the Commanding Officer.
63.
Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 91-2.
64.
The most senior member of the CF's military police branch.
65.
Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 69.
66.
Ibid, 87.
67.
Ibid, 73-4.
68.
Ibid, 73.
69.
See LCol. Dave Grossman , On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society ( Boston: Little, Brown , 1995), 149-50 ; Madeline Morris , “ By Force of Arms: Rape, War, and Military Culture ,” Duke Law Journal45 (1996): 651-781 ; E. Kier , “ Discrimination and Military Cohesion: An Organizational Perspective ,” in Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture , ed. M.F. Katzenstein and J. Reppy ( Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield , 1999), 25-52 .
70.
See Morgan , “ Theater of War”; alsoDonnaWinslow , “Misplaced Loyalties: The Role of Military Culture in the Breakdown of Discipline in Peace Operations,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology35, 3 (1998): 345-67 .
71.
See Clifton D. Bryant , Khaki-Collar Crime: Deviant Behavior in the Military Context ( New York: Free Press , 1979).
72.
See Harrison and Laliberté , No Life Like It, 196.
73.
Harrison [with 7 collaborators], The First Casualty, 91.
74.
Ibid, 101.
75.
Ibid, 102.
76.
Ibid, 87.
77.
Ibid, 110-13.
78.
For North American research on the (low) percentages of woman abuse incidents that result in calls to police, calls to police that result in charges, and charges that proceed to prosecution, see Holly Johnson , Dangerous Domains: Violence Against Women in Canada ( Toronto: Nelson , 1996); G.S. Rigakos , “ The Politics of Protection: Battered Women, Protection Orders, and Police Subculture ,” in Unsettling Truths: Battered Women, Policy, Politics, and Contemporary Research in Canada , ed. K. Bonnycastle ( Vancouver: Vancouver Collective Press , 1998), 82-92 ; Kelly Hannah-Moffatt , “ To Charge or Not to Charge: Frontline Officers' Perceptions of Mandatory Charge Policies ,” in Wife Assault and the Canadian Criminal Justice System , ed. M. Valverde, L. MacLeod, and K. Johnson ( Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto , 1995), 35-46 ; A.P. Worden , “ The Changing Boundaries of the Criminal Justice System: Redefining the Problem and the Response in Domestic Violence ,” Criminal Justice 2000 ( Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice , 2000), 215-66 , www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/criminal_justice2000/vol2_2000.html; Jane Ursel , “` His Sentence is My Freedom': Processing Domestic Violence Cases in the Winnipeg Family Violence Court ,” in Reclaiming Self: Issues and Resources for Women Abused by Intimate Partners , ed. L. Tutty et al. ( Halifax: Fernwood Publishing , 2002), 43-63 ; R.C. Davis , B.E. Smith , and L.B. Nickles , “ The Deterrent Effect of Prosecuting Domestic Violence Misdemeanors ,” Crime and Delinquency44, 3 (1998): 434-42 .
79.
Marin , Special Report, 108-9.
80.
Ibid, 89.
81.
Ibid, 117-19.
82.
Ibid, 98-9.
83.
Marin, Follow-up Report, 18. However, as this article was going to press, we learned from the manager of the CF's Occupational Stress Injury Social Support Program that, since 2004, new CF recruits have received four hours of video and power point training about PTSD. A trial module on PTSD was included in the Lieutenant-Colonel leadership course at Canadian Forces College in September 2006; a module is also planned for the Master Corporal leadership course in April 2007. Hopefully, the impact of these initiatives on CF organizational culture can be assessed during the next few years.
84.
Harrison et al., Report on the Canadian Forces' Response to Woman Abuse, 51.
85.
Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research, University of New Brunswick, “A Proposal for Woman Abuse Training for Canadian Military and Law Enforcement Managers.” Submitted to the Community Safety and Partnerships branch of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, October, 2004.
86.
Stow, A Study of the Treatment of Members Released on Medical Grounds and MacLellan, Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review.
