Abstract
This study focuses on soldiers returning from peacekeeping missions and the challenges they experience adapting to the home environment in the postdeployment phase. The article focuses on South African peacekeepers returning from missions in Darfur/Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burundi. Interviews with 50 South African peacekeepers on the challenges they face in terms of their homecoming, family reintegration, and military support were conducted. Overall, the study found that both external military factors such as deployment length and nature of mission, and internal factors specific to the soldier affected reintegration. We highlight three major findings of our study: Firstly, our analysis show that peacekeepers across gender, rank, and race identify the absence from their children as a major challenge. Secondly, while relational turbulence characterized by ambivalence and concerns about infidelity was prevalent among all, there was a clear difference in the answers between the male and female peacekeepers. Thirdly, a large majority voiced the need for more support from the military institution for their families, before, during, and after deployment.
Homecoming is an important event filled with expectations for a deployed soldier. It is the time when the soldiers reconnect with loved ones and hope to recover their positions among family and friends. Yet, for many soldiers returning from peacekeeping missions, homecoming is far more difficult than imagined and for some, it is closer to a new front rather than to a safe haven (Basham, 2008). Why does this period turn into an anticlimax for so many returning from deployment? What changes in family relations affect this reintegration and how could the soldiers and their families be better prepared for these challenges? This topic has been subject to considerable debate in recent years given the extensive deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers are often exposed to situations of extreme human suffering and abuse even when they are not part of actual combat missions. Inevitably, the peacekeeper returns home a changed person, which affects the reintegration to the family (Basham, 2008; Knoblock & Theiss, 2012).
Studies show that virtually all soldiers report some degree of relational turbulence that affects their ability to adapt in the postdeployment reintegration phase (Bolton, Litz, Gleen, Orisillo, & Roemer, 2002; Kaplow, Layne, Saltzman, Cozza, & Pynoos, 2013, p. 323; Knobloch, Mchninch, Abendschein, Ebata, & McGlaughlin, 2016; Knoblock & Theiss, 2010; Moelker & van der Kloet, 2003; S. A. Riggs & Riggs, 2011). While there is a considerable amount of research on the effects of military deployment on family relations and the difficulties soldiers face upon homecoming (Adler, Huffman, Bliese, & Castro, 2005; Danish & Antonides, 2013; Vitzthum, Mache, Joachim, Quarcoo, & Groneberg, 2009), most of the research has focused on Western soldiers returning from peacekeeping missions. Comparatively, little research has been done on those returning from missions in Africa, even from major troop contributing countries like South Africa. Since 2001, South Africa has been involved in 14 peacekeeping missions with around 3,000 soldiers deployed at any one time (Heinecken & Ferreira, 2012). The most recent deployments have been to the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Congo and the Force Intervention Brigade, and to Darfur/Sudan, to protect civilians, referred to as the world’s worst humanitarian crises (Sikainga, 2009). Both of these missions are dangerous and hostile, and soldiers are often caught up in skirmishes, attacked, or ambushed (DefenceWeb, 2016a, 2016b). Yet how these deployments affect soldiers and their reintegration back into the home unit and family has received scant attention. The few studies that exist focus mainly on military family resilience, family support, and relational stability (Kgosana, 2010; Ntshota, 2002; Pitse, 2009, Van Breda, 1999, 2001), but beyond this, it remains a relatively unexplored subject. This exploratory study aims to fill this void by focusing on South African peacekeepers’ experiences of homecoming and family reintegration drawing on 50 interviews with South African peacekeepers.
We draw on the relational turbulence model (see Knobloch, Knobloch-Fedders, Yorganson, Ebata, & McGlaughlin, 2017; Knobloch & Theiss, 2010, 2012, 2014) and analytical concepts such as “relational uncertainty” and “relational ambivalence” (Drummet, Coleman, & Cable, 2003), as well as “interference of partners” or boundary renegotiation (Knobloch et al., 2016, p. 743) to analyze and frame our findings. We also look at external and internal factors that affect reintegration. External factors are understood as specific to the nature of the mission as well as demographic and socioeconomic influences that affect reintegration (Bowling & Sherman, 2008; Drummet et al., 2003; Faber, Willerton, Clymer, MacDermid, & Weiss, 2008; Hollingsworth, Dolbin-MacNab, & Marek, 2016; Palmer, 2008; van Breda, 1999), while internal factors are those specific to the soldier, such as difficulties to unwind, de-stress, feelings of exclusion, and relational turbulence and parenting problems (Knobloch & Theiss, 2010, 2012, 2014; Sayers, Farrow, Ross, & Oslin, 2009, p. 167).
We begin this article by situating the debate within the broader analytical literature on the challenges of postdeployment reintegration. Hereafter, we analyze our interview findings against the analytical concepts, dividing them into three main topics which emerged from the data before presenting the key conclusions and areas for further research.
Challenges During Postdeployment Reintegration
Numerous studies focus on the postdeployment phase and the reintegration of soldiers upon homecoming (Bolton et al., 2002; Kaplow et al., 2013, p. 323; Knobloch & Theiss, 2010). Few postulate a specific theory that captures the entire spectrum of challenges soldiers face, as there are many factors that influence reintegration. These relate to family structure, rank, age, and gender differences; the actual nature and length of the mission; and support available to soldiers and their families (Bowling & Sherman, 2008; Danish & Antonides, 2012; Drummet et al., 2003; Faber et al., 2008; Palmer, 2008; van Breda, 1999). Others relate to personal and relational issues that influence family relations.
Essentially, these influences can be divided into two categories: those linked to “external” factors such as military rank, financial situation, length of deployment, and the nature of the missions, and “internal” factors linked to the individual soldier such as family relations and mental state. These categories overlap and influence each other. In an effort to structure the section, the external factors are discussed first, as these influence the internal factors associated with reintegration.
External Context: Military and Societal Influences
Different conceptual models attempt to map the external variables that affect postdeployment reintegration (Hollingsworth et al., 2016). As mentioned above, these factors relate to the nature of the mission and demographic influences that affect military reintegration (Monson, Taft, & Friedman, 2009). Earlier research has shown that extensive institutional support facilitates the ability to renegotiate relationships with partners and children, establish new roles and routines, and stabilize relationships (Honing, 1994; Van Breda, 2001).
Institutional support
Soldiers returning from peacekeeping operations often display symptoms of PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which can lead to tense and aggressive behavior (Litz, Orsillo, Friedman, Ehlich, & Bartes, 1997; Vitzthum et al., 2009). This can have a substantial impact on family reintegration, functioning, and well-being (Basham, 2008; Doyle & Peterson, 2005; Sayers et al., 2009, p. 163) and inhibit the maintenance and development of emotional connections with the family (Faber et al., 2008, p. 22). While soldiers receive preparation on how to deal with mission-related stress and the challenges of postdeployment reintegration, such support does not always extend to military families. Studies show that social support to the military family (Dhole & Peterson, 2005), both informal support from families and friends and formal support from the military unit are essential in assisting reintegration back into the home unit (Booth, Segal, & Bell, 2007, p. 10).
When military families live off-base, they can become disconnected from larger military support networks that could promote better family functioning (Weiss & Boss, 2006). Where military families are not integrated into the military, they have less understanding of military culture, the nature of the mission, and the difficulties soldiers face during deployment. Reintegration may also be influenced by the perception of the mission, especially when the soldier is deployed in a publicly controversial mission (Krastof, Armour, Anderson, & Bertelsen, 2014). Such cases affect not only integration back into the family but also into the community.
Socioeconomic factors
Other external influences relate to socioeconomic factors. The military rank of a soldier is a proxy for socioeconomic status. Research shows that lower ranking soldiers receive less pay and experience greater personal stress due to financial pressures (Hollingsworth et al., 2016, p. 604). Finances are often a point of contention when soldiers return home, especially where this relates to issues of family debt or where the money earn during deployment has been squandered by a spouse (Faber et al., 2008, p. 227). Gender relations in broader society also affects family relations, and in particular boundary renegotiation after homecoming as we will below.
Internal Factors: Family Relations
The external factors have a direct influence on family relations and functioning in the postdeployment reintegration phase. These factors relate to the psychological factors that affect relationships and reorganization of household tasks which often provoke tensions. A useful lens through which to understand these tensions is the relationship turbulence model.
Relationship turbulence model
The relationship turbulence model relates to three core assumptions—first relational uncertainty defined as “the degree of confidence that individuals have in their perceptions of involvement in a relationship and includes questions about self, the partner and the relationship itself” (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012, p. 426). Second is relational ambivalence characterized by conflicting emotions in reconnecting physically and emotionally with partners, difficulties communicating, intimacy, and coping with everyday life (Drummet et al., 2003; B. Riggs, 1990; Rindfuss & Stephen, 1990). The third is relational interference where spouses are unwilling to hand over tasks (Knobloch, & Solomon, 2004; Pitse, 2009, p. 38), where there is conflict over newly established routines, or where spouses resent having to return to their subservient roles (Faber et al., 2008, p. 222; Pitse, 2009, p. 38)
Children and homecoming challenges
Within families, one of the key issues that cause relational stress relates to children’s behavior and discipline (Knobloch et al., 2016; Palmer, 2008, p. 221). The relationship turbulence model has not been used to understand relations with children, although Knobloch, Knobloch-Fedders, Yorganson, Ebata, and McGlaughlin (2017) claim that they undergo similar tensions as observed in adult relationships. A more useful lens to understand uncertainty, instability, and unpredictability among children is attachment theory and how this differs from parent to age groups (Stepka & Callahan, 2016). Depending on their age, children may express emotions of anxiety and anger (Palmer, 2008, p. 211; S. A. Riggs & Riggs, 2011). For example, lukewarm receptions and crying are typical in younger children, while preschoolers are more inclined to being clingy, display avoidance, or attention seeking behavior. Junior school children may display greater anxiety over changing family roles, while high schoolers can be more resentful, defiant, and exhibit different forms of behavioral problems (Amen, Merves, Jellen, & Lee, 1988, p. 443; Sayers et al., 2009, p. 109; van Breda, 2001, p. 250). Where the returning service member becomes impatient, overreacts to minor issues, snaps at the children unnecessarily, and suddenly expects children to follow their orders, this is often a major source of tension (Jordan, 2011, pp. 265–256).
Method
The site of the research was a South African Army Infantry Battalion located near Cape Town, which has deployed soldiers on various peacekeeping missions. Most of these soldiers had deployed to Burundi in the past, and more recently to the DRC and Darfur/Sudan. The South African National Defence Forces (SANDF) granted permission to conduct the study and the Officer Commanding of the Infantry Battalion outlined the nature and purpose of the study before the research commenced. A senior officer (major) assisted with the logistical arrangements and coordination. Prior to the commencement of the study, the purpose of the study was explained and that participation was voluntary and anonymity and confidentiality guaranteed.
A list of participants were compiled of those willing to participate in the study based on requirements that the sample was representative in terms of race, gender, rank, and age. Thus, a purposive probability sampling method ensured that the participants were reflective of the overall profile of the Battalion. Of the 50 participants interviewed, 68% were men and 32% women (which was higher than the actual percentage of 15% women in the Battalion). In terms of race, 33 participants were Black, 14 colored (brown), and 3 White, which was representative of the racial profile of the unit. Upon agreement to partake in the study, participants signed an informed consent form and received a copy of the consent page with the researchers’ contact details, in case they required, or wanted to add more information after the interviews.
A qualitative inductive approach was adopted for this research as the aim was to establish how the soldiers who had served on peacekeeping missions experienced their homecoming, reintegration into the family, and preparation for the postdeployment period. This approach allowed participants to narrate their own experiences and was considered the most suitable to discover and make sense of the challenges that the postdeployment phase posed (Bryman, 2008; Corbin & Straus, 2008). To achieve this, the study used broad questions rather than a structured interview questionnaire or guide. This helped to facilitate open conversation with the research participants, where prompts were used to encourage more detailed description when issues were raised.
Two methods of data collection were used: individual in-depth interviews and focus groups. 1 Eighteen individual in-depth interviews with senior personnel who served in command, logistical, and support functions on peacekeeping operations were conducted. They were asked to comment on the experiences of homecoming, family reintegration, and how military personnel could be better prepared for postdeployment reintegration. Similar questions were used during the focus groups interviews. 2
Both the individual interviews and focus groups were recorded and notes were taken during the interviews. After transcribing the data, the various themes and categories that emerged from the data were analyzed and grouped in accordance with the broader literature on postdeployment reintegration. 3 Codes were created for certain responses which served as a guide according to which information was classified (Table 1).
Responses According to Themes and Categories.
There are several limitations to this study, given its exploratory nature. Firstly, no interviews were conducted with military spouses or partners. This means that the views exposed here are not confirmed or contradicted by the other party in the relationships. Secondly, as the study is based on interviews made at one specific point in time, we are unable to observe temporal changes. Despite these limitations, the findings provide a sense of some of the major challenges facing peacekeepers in the postdeployment reintegration period.
Postdeployment Reintegration Challenges in the SANDF
This section focuses on the experiences of South African Infantry soldiers who served on peacekeeping operations in the DRC, Darfur/Sudan, and Burundi. The analysis is divided into three sections corresponding to the three themes brought up most frequently among the interviewees: absence from the children, relational turbulence, and institutional family support, yet within these sections, other issues are also brought up, including military-related stress and reflections regarding financial aspects.
Absence From the Children
Of all the conversations with soldiers, the relationships with their children were a central concern. Many expressed guilt, anger, resentment, and sorrow for having missed out on important events in their children’s lives. Concerns revolved around issues of relational uncertainty as children felt detached from their fathers or mothers (Appelwhite & Mays, 1996). This depended on the age and understanding of why their father or mother deployed (Trautmann, Alhusen, Gross, & Faan, 2015). Soldiers reported that younger children often cried or did not recognize them, with the older children being clingier and more fearful that they may leave again. A female rifleman explains: Your kids tend to forget you. If you leave your baby that is 12 months, when you come back from deployment, your child does not even recognize you and the baby doesn’t want to come to you. You have to mend the relationship. He was hiding from me. So, this was very sad, it was like I was a stranger. And when I was on the bus I thought that the first thing I am going to do is go to my son, kiss and hug him, but then he is the one running away. My child was a bit neglected when I was deployed because she was in a relative’s care. They don’t look after them the way that you will do it. I cannot leave my daughters for so long time, here is a high rate of rape and family comes first. The daddies cannot look after the kids, they are busy with other things…. I can’t trust a 26-year-old dad, they will go out clubbing and not look after the kids. What happens if you leave them alone with the kids?
Male participants did not express worries related to the care of the children but appeared more concerned about how their absence affected household discipline. Many of the male soldiers stated how children “behaved differently” and did not want to listen to their dad, only to the mom. Or that the discipline of the children had disappeared because they were no longer sticking to the rules that were in place before deployment. A corporal stated that: The most difficult thing is the handling of the children. The women handle things more softly. When the gate must be closed at eight, this must also be done in my absence. There must be a commitment to the rules.
Relational Turbulence
In the initial honeymoon phase, soldiers adopted various approaches to facilitate reintegration. Many took their families on holidays, to restaurants, or bought them gifts. Despite this, most said that there was a period of awkwardness in addition to the excitement of homecoming. Others again said that it was like they had to “start afresh,” explaining that they felt like strangers in their own homes and had to caution their reactions. A corporal explains: It is as if you don’t fit in, you have to do a mind switch, just stay quiet for the first 2 weeks to see how the rules have changed; otherwise, I may handle things incorrectly. I may be too aggressive, so I keep quiet and then just ask why it is now like this, or that. When you come back, they want to do things with you and they have been waiting for you, looking forward to your return, so it is unfair on them that now you want to be alone. They don’t understand it because they are not among a lot of people all day long and can’t appreciate that one just wants to be alone or have one’s space. I just could not handle all the noise and I even wanted to give my son a hiding, but I knew this would be the wrong thing to do, so I just went to my room and cried.
Relational Uncertainty and Infidelity
Many of the soldiers stated that the biggest contributor to relational uncertainty was infidelity. The female soldiers spoke about how male soldiers regularly had extramarital affairs. A female staff sergeant soldier was of the opinion that men deploy to get away from their wives in order to have sexual relations in the mission area, despite this being prohibited according to United Nation and SANDF policy. She stated: Some people deploy because they want to get away from the spouse because if you see the way that they behave when they are deployed you are wondering what marriage means to them. I have seen how men sleep around during deployment. They don’t want to use malaria tablets because they can’t perform sexually. At the age of 25, that is the time when you have a boyfriend and then you go out for 6 months and when you come back you have problems. You come back fixing, fixing and trying to patch up relationships. The biggest problem is the money, especially when they [the wives] have spent the money and you can’t see what they bought. This makes one angry. I hear this a lot.
A few participants brought up the positive aspect of the financial influx and spoke of how the money earned on deployment gave them a start in life, enabled them to put down a deposit on a house, and provided them with the means to help their immediate and extended families.
Relational Interference and Boundary Renegotiation
In South Africa, especially among the Afrikaans and Black African communities which make up the majority of the SANDF (and this study), there is a conservative belief that men are the head of the household and that women should submit to their authority and be good wives and mothers (van Breda, 2010, p. 66). For the male soldiers, in particular, the need to take “command” of the household after homecoming surfaced strongly, as reflected in the comment made by a colonel: The thing that I don’t like is that when I come back, and my wife is still holding on to power after I am back. Then I have to sit her down and tell her: “sweetie, remember I am back now. I don’t want you to talk last, I must be the last one talking here, not you.” And then she says, but we have been doing this like that, and then I have to tell her: “but I am back now”. She was used to giving orders and directing programs and nobody opposing her. I had to take the time to let her understand I am back. For me, it [homecoming] is easy, but for my wife…she is used to the freedom and must now fall back into being regulated.
Institutional Family Support
All the soldiers’ spoke highly of the resilience training that the military provided which prepared them for homecoming. A team of military chaplains, psychologists, and social workers brief soldiers on postdeployment stress, what to expect in terms of the reactions of their children, financial management, relationship matters, and adaption strategies. In this regard, soldiers spoke about feelings of hypervigilance and how they had to watch themselves in order not to react aggressively. Some reported that it took them up to 3 months to adapt back to the home environment because they were still so full of tension and stress and unable to sleep properly. This can affect family reintegration, functioning, and well-being, especially where the families do not have an understanding of this (Basham, 2008; Sayers et al., 2009, p. 163).
There appeared to be a built-up frustration among participants that the family had little understanding of how the soldiers were feeling, and what they were going through. Virtually, all soldiers stated that while they were prepared for homecoming, their families were not. A corporal expressed it as follows: I think that social workers should be going to our houses and integrate with our children when we are gone. We need professionals, we need counselling. We just need someone who can tell them what is happening when for example our mission is extended, and we cannot reach them to explain it, or when our phones don’t work.
Most soldiers felt that the military needs to work harder to keep the families informed and to provide some sort of social support network. Often, the only news the families receive about the deployment is what they hear in the media, which can be problematic as one soldier explained: What can help us more when we are deployed, is to know that our country supports us, and that our family supports us. If you look at what happened in the Central African Republic (CAR), those guys they needed the support from us, but if you listen to the talk of the politicians, it was not necessary to speak like that. They said: why are they deployed there? Why did they deploy them to that country? Families are listening to them on the radio, and this affects them negatively.
Length of deployment
Another external factor that affected reintegration was the length of deployment and concerns that this was going to be extended from 6 to 12 months. Even when there was regular communication back home, extended periods away from home was the main reason for relationship breakdown, especially among the younger soldiers who reported having to constantly fix and patch up relationships. A female sergeant major explained: I think you get used to it, it happened a few times [broken relationship], and…there is basically nothing you can do about it. You just have to accept it and move on. Most of my male friends came back to the same thing, marriages on the rock, divorce. I think [deployment] was one of the main reasons for the divorce, those long stretches away. One time we left for 8 months and came back for 3 weeks and left again for 7 months.
Conclusion
In this article, the postdeployment reintegration challenges experienced by South African peacekeepers were analyzed in relation to the existing literature on soldiers’ homecoming. Whereas the findings confirmed the overall tendencies found in previous research, such as relational turbulence, difficulties to unwind, and the need for institutional support, they also provided important insights into context-specific challenges. Specifically, in South Africa, the pressure on soldiers to support extended families financially due to high unemployment rates, the racially divided nature of communities and strong gender roles in a patriarchal society were linked to financial stressors, lack of military community support, relational turbulence, and parenting.
This was particularly visible in how male and female peacekeepers experienced the absence from their children, where the women expressed concerns over the well-being of their children related to the need for finding a reliable caretaker. This is consistent with earlier research by Van Breda (2001, p. 251) who found that deployed mothers expressed more concern about the care of the children and experienced more stress about the welfare of the children during deployment than men. Men appeared to be more worried about the lack of discipline in their absence, reflecting the general, conservative view of men as the head of the households in South Africa. These findings are indicative of the fact that women bear a disproportionately greater responsibility for childcare compared to men. The Human Sciences Research Council estimates that 60% of South African children have an absent father and 40% of mothers are single parents (Fourie, 2018).
Inflexible gender roles were also visible in aspects of relational turbulence, where many male peacekeepers expressed strong feelings related to the issue of boundary renegotiation and the female partners’ new roles in the male’s absence. The increased autonomy of women placed strain on relations where women did not readily fall back into their subservient roles. While both male and female soldiers voiced concern over infidelity, this was more of an implicit issue for the male participants, whereas the female soldiers both discussed male soldiers’ infidelity during deployment and their (male) partners’ potential infidelity at home. This reflects both the patriarchal culture in the South African society as a whole, but also the double standards related to male soldiers in SANDF, where women are supposed to remain faithful while men may have multiple sexual partners (Mankayi, 2008, p. 632).
Finally, the interview findings confirm the important role that institutional support plays in the form of counseling before and after deployment in facing homecoming challenges. Research shows that only 10% of those returning from peacekeeping missions typically seek treatment for PTSD after their tour of duty (Mitchell, 2009, p. 11). Yet, very few soldiers spoke openly of PTSD, although this was evident in their discourse. Where soldiers themselves are unwilling or unable to recognize symptoms of PTSD, this can have long-term consequences for the soldier and the family (Danish & Antonides, 2013). Indeed, all the participants expressed the need for better support to their families before, during, and after deployment. In this regard, Rosen, Westhuis, and Teitelbaum (1993) highlight the importance of a comprehensive support system that includes military families to facilitate adjustment and emotional well-being upon reintegration.
A better public understanding of the aim of the missions was seen as important to facilitate reintegration in both community and the family. Preparing the families for homecoming through counseling and providing information on conditions of the deployment were understood as something the military should invest in to alleviate some of the stress of homecoming. The lack of support and the sacrifices they had to make left many feeling that the military was a greedy institution (Segal, 1986) that demanded a lot of them, but then left them with broken relationships. Added to this, the South African soldiers did not feel that politicians or society afford them this recognition. Where this is lacking, it invariably influences the morale, loyalty, and willingness of soldiers to redeploy.
This is an exploratory study and despite these important findings, there are a number of issues that require further research. As indicated, few spoke directly of PTSD, although mission-related stress symptoms were brought up repeatedly. The lack of reference to PTSD may be due to the stigma associated with reporting it but also because it is more typically associated with combat-related stress and thus not linked to peace operations in general. Yet, as noted in the introduction, several of today’s peace operations are closer to combat missions than to traditional peacekeeping missions, making the distinction between the lived experiences from different missions more difficult to assess.
Another topic that requires further research is the issue of HIV/AIDS. While other studies confirm that this is a major cause of divorce in postdeployment period for South African soldiers (Mabuzu, 2010, p. 31; Ntshota, 2002, p. 54; Pitse, 2009, p. 37), this topic never surfaced in conversations. The high-risk behavior of soldiers with regard to sexual relations during deployment has raised concerns about soldiers contracting the virus while on deployment (DefenceWeb, 2018; Department of Defence, 2016, p. 143; Helfrich, 2014; Winsor, 2015), adding an additional stressor to fears of infidelity. Related to this, the effect of infidelity, family care, and the specific reintegration challenges facing women in particular warrants more research. As more women deploy on peacekeeping operations, the gendered effects that the deployments have on them, their children and their families, are needed to adapt and make institutional support relevant.
Footnotes
Authors Notes'
Nina Wilén is also an Honorary Research Fellow at Stellenbosch University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: South Africa National Research Foundation.
