Transatlantic Perspectives on the Present and Future of Moral Injury – Durham University
Representing the Military Afterlives Team I recently presented at a Conference in Durham which explored Moral Injury in military veterans and the wider population. The conference was attended by clinicians, theologians and academics who are trying to understand what moral injury is and how it is experienced; understandings vary but include ideas of the ‘betrayal of what’s right’ and ‘transgressions of deeply held moral beliefs and expectations’. These ‘betrayals’ could be a product of witnessing or being involved in an act which would be unthinkable outside warfare, of experiencing human behaviour at its worst. Of breaking one’s own moral code or being on the receiving end of an institutional break in trust on which military life is so dependent. What became clear from the conference was that there was no all-encompassing definition of what moral injury is or of how veterans respond to such injurious events. Just as importantly there was a reluctance in the room to lay claim to this knowledge or to prioritise one type of injury over another.
The conference addressed key questions about the relationship between military service, Just War Theory and moral injury by drawing on experiences of serving military personnel such as modern-day drone pilots to veterans, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan and everything in between. For the Military Afterlives team moral injury was not one of the themes that initially emerged from our research but on reflection we could see something in our data that appeared to fit with the concept. On re-analysing our interviews, we thought we could see examples of moral injury having a social impact on veteran’s transition. We could see what became very obvious examples along with echoes and shadows in our participants attitudes and thoughts towards the military, towards the government and even to society itself. Sometimes this related to a burning anger or disappointment felt towards aspects of service life or treatment received as they left. At other times signs were opaque, perhaps suggestive of participants having successfully renegotiated and continuing to negotiate morally injurious experiences. Through our research we felt that exploring how some veterans were able to negotiate moral challenges successfully could help other veterans who struggled to accept or move through alternative or broken moralities.
The Military Afterlives research suggests that some military veterans continue to imbue military values while others find it difficult to accept the contradictions between their own moral values and those espoused but not always felt to be followed by the military. This was nearly always overlaid by challenges experienced in adjusting to perceived or experienced civilian realities. Some of our participant’s were able to use the contradictions and/or sameness they experienced to justify and support their post-military choices often with points
of disjuncture acting as useful aids of negotiation. Others appeared less able to make sense finding themselves at sea in civilian life, awash and unsettled. It is these different responses which we feel potentially offer insight into how some veterans experience moral injury more acutely than others. We hope to publish a paper on this topic but in the meantime if you want to know more please check out the International Centre for Moral Injury – Durham University.
@ic_moralinjury
#moralinjury
References: Shay (2014), Litz et al (2009).