Exploring military social work from a social justice perspective

The challenge of integrating military content into social work education

According to IFSW (2012), our profession is often positioned ‘in the middle of conflicting interests’ (para. 3). Social workers are frequently required to function in systems where social work principles may be challenged. However, calls to enhance military content in social work education present a unique task given the discipline’s traditional emphasis on social justice and political action (Olson, 2014). This article proposes that integrating issues of social justice into military content in social work education can help us address the paradox of social work within military systems.

Political action toward the goal of social justice often challenges traditional sources of power such as military systems, by calling attention to the systemic origins of social problems and their wide-ranging consequences. The author will explore the responsibility of social work educators to address the consequences of war, both to the individual service member and to the society, as well as the relationship between macro-systemic forces and armed conflict. Finally, the article will explore the possibility of an expanded version of military social work content that includes international perspectives on the causes of war and the social worker’s role in ameliorating these causes.

The intent of the article is not to discount the significant contributions social work has made to service men and women, but to facilitate continuing dialogue concerning how to integrate military content into social work curriculum in a way that is consistent with the values and tradition of the discipline.

Exploring discrepancies between social work values and military culture

The European Union Military Committee identified an important part of its counter-terrorism strategy as addressing human rights violations that foster radicalization and terrorist recruitment (European Communities, 2008). The critical relationship between social justice and peace has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated. For example, the return to war in South Sudan in 2013 after years of self-rule was precipitated by government instability and corruption that directed oil resources from local communities, leaving many without basic necessities, education, and medical care. The resulting conflict between government and opposition forces has resulted in the displacement of over 1 million people and a pervasive violence against civilians that the United Nations has designated as crimes against humanity (Center for American Progress, 2015; United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), 2014). Undoubtedly, the necessity of maintaining social justice and ensuring ‘economic well-being, and essential social services’ is critical to preserving peace (Boyce and Forman, 2010).

From its origins, social work has traditionally advocated for peace based on the tenet that ‘peace and justice are interlinked’ (IFSW, 2002: para. 6). This perspective is exemplified in the standards of the IFSW, which refer to international declarations on human rights and the principles of social justice as being particularly relevant to social work practice. IFSW standards emphasize non-violence and combating oppression through ‘Anti-Colonialist’ practice (Agius, 2010: 41). Additionally, the standards stipulate that social work education should enhance students’ awareness of discrepancies between social work values and the values of systems or theories contradictory to the profession. IFSW maintains that human rights are ‘embedded at the heart of the social work profession’ (Agius, 2010: 4) and has appealed to social workers to uphold these principles in the systems in which they work. However, exceptionally powerful systems present distinct challenges when these principles are not necessarily compatible.

The person-in-environment perspective provides a framework for helping students understand the impact of environmental systems on the people within these systems. The ‘immersion into [the] unique culture’ of the military can create a sense of dual-loyalty between professional ethics and military commands (Daley, 2013: 51). This dilemma has been noted among various helping professionals within military systems, including nurses (Kelely, 2010), psychologists, psychiatrists (Johnson et al., 2010), and social workers. For example, Simmons and Rycraft (2010) noted the difficulty for military social workers in the conflict between the values of self-determination and autonomy, with military norms that prioritize unit cohesion and the military mission over the individual. These authors point out that while ethical codes provide a critical foundation for military and social work systems, both have significant differences in this regard. Consequently, military social workers may feel a sense of having to choose between the mission and their client.

Within the discipline of psychology, it has been argued that military psychologists who participate in the interrogation of enemy combatants violate ethical standards to ‘do no harm’ (Costanzo et al., 2007). Olson and Soldz (2007) warned that the potential for abuse warrants that psychologists refrain from any involvement in military interrogations. Indeed, an independent report to the American Psychological Association (APA) revealed that collusion between the APA, the US Department of Defense (2010), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped to foster military psychologists’ collaboration in methods such as ‘water-boarding’ during interrogations (Hoffman et al., 2015).

In contrast to the interrogation debate within psychology, military social workers have obviously not been charged with torture or promulgating war. However, professional social work regrettably has its own history of alliance with regimes and social programs that have violated standards of human rights and social justice (Ioakimidis, 2015). It is erroneous to suggest that social workers are less susceptible to co-optation than the physicians, lawyers, and educators that history has revealed actively participated in fascist regimes and Nazi atrocities (Fogu, 2003; Haque et al., 2012; Steinweis and Rachlin, 2013). Undoubtedly, the possibility of ethical compromise and co-optation warrants greater scrutiny at a time when the profession is being increasingly called upon to serve military systems.

In Selznick’s (1949) seminal work, co-optation is conceptualized as a political process in which powerful systems control opponents and maintain hegemony by offering some degree of inclusion and influence to sources of opposition. Maintaining autonomy and avoiding co-optation when interacting with or within powerful systems presents a significant challenge. Nevertheless, Smith Steagan (2008) argued that social justice advocates must engage with dominant systems to achieve change, but differentiated between productive and counterproductive participation. Productive participation is fostered when participants are fully aware of how these systems exert power and control, an awareness defined as ‘advanced consciousness’. The ability to engage with powerful systems while preserving one’s own independence and identity is identified as a critical step in preventing co-optation (Smith Steagan, 2008).

The following sections will address how educators can integrate social justice perspectives into military content. Curriculum that elucidates the actual consequences of war and the connection between micro and macro forces of peace and social justice can help foster the advanced consciousness that mitigates the potential for co-optation.

Examining the consequences of war

Bragin (2010) has noted a detachment between the combat soldier and civilian society, reflecting society’s ‘disavowal’ of the realities of war. Normative responses to extreme violence are defined as pathologies such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and the veteran is perceived to be an ‘alien other’ allowing us to deny our complicity in war (p. 318). It has been argued that unrestricted media accounts of war can undermine public support. As a result, there has been a trend toward limiting access to information on armed conflicts worldwide; thus, the realities of war are increasingly restricted from the general public (Bratic, 2008). Moreover, the current portrayals of high-tech weaponry may create a general impression that war can be swift and its aftereffects easily remedied (Van Der Linden, 2009). However, research on the effects of combat, particularly on vulnerable populations, refutes this perception (Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (VA/DoD), 2010; Watkins et al., 2011). Consequently, social work professionals and educators are called upon to provide an honest depiction of conflict, not only toward the goal of promoting peace but also to provide accurate information to students and the general public.

Global conflicts have resulted in the loss of millions of lives, with 2 million lives lost in the ethnic war in Sudan between 1984 and 2004 and 3,800,000 deaths resulting from the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1996 and 2005. Lower death rates reported in the conflicts of Rwanda and the Colonial War of East Timor-Indonesia still represent significant losses in the total population, over 16 and 29.6 percent, respectively (Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), 2015). Among soldiers, combat-related disorders include traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress, depression, substance abuse, and suicide (Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 2010). Disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, and TBIs are associated with interpersonal deficits and present increased risks of domestic violence (Eibner, 2008). Additionally, children of PTSD sufferers are reported to experience higher rates of academic and psychiatric problems, indicating cross-generational effects (Karney et al., 2008).

PTSD has been identified as ‘the most salient disorder associated with veterans’ (Coll et al., 2011: 488). Research on alcohol addiction suggests a link between increased alcohol use following a trauma (Volpicelli et al., 1999) and a significant relationship between PTSD and violent behavior even when factors of substance use and antisocial personality were controlled (Collins and Bailey, 1990). Post-combat PTSD has been found to be correlated with increased risk-taking behaviors that pose a potential threat to ‘public health and safety’ (p. 1), reflecting the broad implications of warfare for not only service personnel and their families but also society as a whole (Kelley et al., 2011). Unfortunately, clinical interventions for combat-related disorders have yet to be conclusively supported due to issues of internal validity and treatment fidelity that make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding treatment efficacy (Watkins et al., 2011). Moreover, the emphasis on individual interventions may reduce multidimensional, contextual issues to a narrow, psychological perspective that hinders students’ appreciation of the influence of macro-systemic issues and the social environment (Herz and Johansson, 2011).

Relationship between macro and micro issues in military content

The consequences suggest that military social workers will struggle with the same micro/macro divide that has historically challenged the profession. The perception of macro and micro work as ‘bifurcated’ entities may deter social workers from addressing social justice issues in clinical practice (Vodde and Gallant, 2002: 439). While environmental factors may be acknowledged, the dominant conceptualization of problem issues continues to accentuate individual pathology. As a result, within the context of clinical practice, macro-systemic influences may be subverted or neglected entirely. Nevertheless, Netting (2005) advised that all social work ultimately entails macro practice because the person-in-environment perspective requires that ‘the larger environment must be considered in every practice decision-making process’ (p. 51). This contextual focus crosses global boundaries, embodied in international codes of social work ethics (Agius, 2010; National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2008). Social work standards and the social justice mission of social work in all countries demand that equal emphasis is given to macro and micro factors. Indeed, many of the challenges experienced by service men and women reflect this reciprocal relationship, demonstrating the connection between ‘the personal and political’ (Agius, 2010: 41). Highlighting this connection within the context of military social work curriculum is a critical responsibility.

Resolving inequity requires us to examine how dominant social systems help maintain inequality (World Health Organization, 2008). Critics of the armed forces have alleged that governments around the world typically target society’s most vulnerable groups for military recruitment (Harvey, 2002; Rutgers School of Law, 2008; United Nations Children’s Fund, 2011). The United Nations Children’s Fund (2003) estimated that as many as 300,000 children are fighting in armed conflicts worldwide. While some children are forced into service, others may voluntarily enlist to escape the effects of poverty and social disorganization. In Britain, the minimum age of enlistment is 16 years old, and military service may be presented as a path toward upward mobility for underprivileged youth (Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2011). However, child welfare advocates have charged that the terms of service for enlistees under the age of 18 years are more demanding and that minors are at greater risk of self-harm. In addition, the loss of educational opportunities as a result of leaving school limits chances for economic mobility (Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers). Other research has found that economically disadvantaged youth are more likely to be contacted by military recruiters and less likely to be fully informed of the potential disadvantages of enlistment (Monforti and McGlynn, 2010). This is all the more troubling in view of research suggesting that lower socioeconomic status, lack of education, and minority group status are risk factors of post-combat stress reactions (VA/DoD, 2010). Clearly, the reciprocal interaction between macro and micro factors among service personnel, military culture, and larger social environment is demonstrated in the experience of service members around the world, regardless of national boundaries or cultural context.

Role and function of social work across cultures

The international context in which military social work often occurs provides a forum for educators to highlight the issue of transnationalism and the opportunities for social workers to be a part of the ‘growing interconnectedness’ of people and cultures (Wilson, 2012: 16). Calling on the profession to take on a greater role in addressing global issues, Jim Ife (2007) of the Center for Human Rights Education warned that if social work remains isolated from critical international concerns, the profession risks becoming irrelevant. International issues would seem to be particularly relevant to military social work curriculum. However, defining ‘international social work’ has proven elusive (Midgely, 2001). The practice of clinical social work can vary according to the social environment in which it is carried out. For example, Lee (2005) noted that ‘basic psychological processes’ (p. 4) are experienced and manifested within a cultural context. Depressed mood might be conveyed in one culture through verbal expressions of sadness and hopelessness, while somatic complaints may be its primary expression in another. Moreover, attempting to intervene according to Western definitions of disorder may be ineffective in non-Western cultures. Honwana (1999) described successful social reintegration of child soldiers through cultural rituals in Angola and Mozambique. In contrast to Western intervention models, these rituals include family and community members, placing emphasis on the critical role of the group in social reintegration.

The roles and functions of the professional social worker reflect distinct differences across cultures, as a consequence of differing social customs and values (Lorenz, 1994). Thus, the Scandinavian Model of social welfare that provides a guaranteed standard of living stands in sharp contrast to Britain’s ‘Residual Model’, in which the welfare system provides only a ‘minimum standard’ (p. 10) to those deemed to be in need (Meeuwissee, 2009). Likewise, Daley (2006) found limited uniformity among the various tasks and foci of military social workers across cultures.

Daley (2006) posited that efforts toward international collaboration between military social workers are hindered by the differing tasks and purpose of the profession within each culture. However, scholars have questioned attempts to develop a universal definition of social work, noting that the role and function of the profession have varied over its history depending on the social and political environment in which it is situated (Gray, 2005; Tsang and Yan, 2001). Attempts to identify a universal social work identity are hindered by not only the varying functions of the discipline across cultures but also the history of Western imperialism that engenders justifiable skepticism to Western models of intervention (Gray, 2005). Gray and Fook (2004) addressed the risk of professional and cultural imperialism in defining a universal identity for social work. Given the ‘context-bound nature’ (p. 232) of the profession, a postmodern paradigm may provide the most applicable model for transnational social work practice (Gray, 2005). This model values multiple ways of knowing while privileging local standards and helping traditions.

Some have charged that the dominant paradigm of social work practice continues to retain the Eurocentric values and perspectives of its origins (Lee, 2005), despite being only one among many cultural helping methods (Honwana, 1999). While this perspective is inevitably passed on to students via the education process, educators can present alternatives to the dominant paradigm. For example, scholars across disciplines have documented the movement among developing cultures to create their own models of social science. Indigenization refers to the rejection of First World social science paradigms in favor of developing Third World paradigms that are consistent with their own culture, history, and practices (Gareau, 1986). First World models and practices are conceptualized as remnants of Western colonialization, rather than universal truths that can be applied across cultural contexts. Within social work, Gray (2005) conceptualizes indigenization as ‘the extent to which social work practice fits local contexts’ (p. 231).

Diverse cultural traditions and philosophies regarding welfare significantly influence the function of the profession, as well as the definition of the term ‘Social Worker’ (Meeuwissee, 2009). This disparity is also seen in the role of military social workers in military systems worldwide. The social work presence in the US military system has continued to increase since the Second World War, with master’s level social workers providing clinical intervention to enhance the psychosocial functioning of service personnel and ensure combat readiness (Daley, 2003). The social work literature on working with military systems in the United States often emphasizes the need for social workers to understand and respect military culture and adhere to the standards of the system (Coll et al., 2011). In contrast, military social workers in South Africa and Finland provide clinical intervention as well and also engage with the military command to advocate on behalf of the rights of service personnel and influence the military system to be more responsive to the needs of soldiers and their families (Daley, 2003). Conversely, military social work is non-existent in China, which ranks second only to the United States in terms of military spending (Perlo-Freeman et al., 2013). Educators highlighting this variation can help students recognize the culture-bound context of social work and the importance of attending to cultural factors in their own practice.

Despite the variance in social work across cultures, the profession’s overarching goal to advance social justice transcends international borders. IFSW (Agius, 2010) standards stipulate that the core identity of social work is that of social justice advocate, linking larger systems of oppression to individual and group challenges. Open analysis of the ‘historical, political, and cultural’ forces that often underlie conflict, poverty, and oppression (Ife, 2007: para. 7) provides the systemic perspective that defines the social work discipline. This standpoint pushes us to acknowledge the associations between war and poverty, minority oppression, and social injustice (European Union Commission on Conflict Prevention, 2001). While recognizing that all social work is bound to a cultural context, the discipline is unified across cultures in its fundamental belief and advocacy on behalf of human rights and social justice (Gray and Fook, 2004). The perspective provides a framework for transnational social work practice, as opposed to a universal identity.

Integrating international perspectives into military social work education

As noted, military social work is often carried out within the context of international environments and diverse cultures. Service members may encounter diverse populations, in which the history of Western imperialism can affect attempts at alliance. Nevertheless, social workers trained to recognize the importance of cultural competence and indigenization can assist military personnel in developing the skills to facilitate cross-cultural collaboration. Conversely, international perspectives can challenge Western theoretical assumptions and present opportunities for professional growth. For instance, successful community reintegration for the returning veteran cannot focus solely on the individual without attending to the social environment. International customs provide examples, such as rituals for social reintegration and opportunities for collective engagement that have been found to be more effective than a simplistic focus on symptom reduction (Wheeler and Bragin, 2007).

Perhaps military social work is a logical choice for enhancing international content in social work curriculum. Classic social work theory provides a systemic viewpoint that allows for a holistic understanding of global concerns (Ife, 2007). This systemic understanding can be facilitated through the integration of international resources that demonstrate how factors of oppression and injustice are intrinsically associated with armed conflict (UNMISS, 2014; Wam and Sardesai, 2005). Within the context of military social work content, international perspectives on the causes and consequences of war can provide students with a deeper comprehension of conflict that transcends nationalist ideologies and simplistic explanations.

Nonetheless, it seems likely that social workers will also need to bring specific expertise and technical skills in order to fully participate in international discourse. For example, graduates of International Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) programs around the world are increasingly in demand (Carstarphen et al., 2010). Carstarphen et al. noted that the majority of IPCS graduates are employed in ‘humanitarian’ occupations that could conceivably be carried out by social workers. Reviews of IPCS curriculum content reflect overlap with social work curriculum, including content on the effects of economic inequality, social class, and gender (Smith, 2007). However, emphasis is also placed on skills that may be lacking in social work education, such as conflict resolution, mediation, and program evaluation (Carstarphen et al., 2010). The combination of these skills, with an understanding of global perspectives and concerns, may provide greater utility to the role of social workers in international contexts. Just as many disciplines must find ways to remain viable in an increasingly transnational world, social work in the 21st century is faced with the challenge of balancing its contextual focus with the growing need for cross-cultural collaboration.

Conclusion

This article suggests the possibility of an expanded version of military social work curriculum that addresses the multiple social and historical factors of conflict and integrates the discipline’s traditional emphasis on social justice. Integrating topics that include international interests and viewpoints affords a broader perspective that not only benefits social workers in the area of military service but also enables them to be part of the conversation on critical global concerns.

In the same way that social workers serving the homeless ultimately seek to eliminate homelessness, it is also possible for social work as a profession to seek answers to address global conflict while working with military systems (Furman, personal communication, 6 February, 2014). The European Union Commission on Conflict Prevention (2001) has noted that the primary factors associated with armed conflict include poverty, minority oppression, and social injustice, issues that are intrinsically and historically related to the mission of the social work profession. It is time to consider a new version of military social work education that broadens the scope of practice beyond micro concerns to integrate global perspectives and issues of social justice that underlie the causes of armed conflict.