This article was downloaded by: [King's College London]
On: 05 November 2014, At: 01:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The RUSI Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rusi20
Service Life and Beyond – Institution or Culture?
Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett & Neil Greenberg
Published online: 04 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett & Neil Greenberg (2014) Service Life and Beyond – Institution or
Culture?, The RUSI Journal, 159:5, 60-68, DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2014.969946
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2014.969946
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
THE RUSI JOURNAL
SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND –
INSTITUTION OR CULTURE?
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
BEVERLY P BERGMAN, HOWARD J BURDETT AND NEIL GREENBERG
In the UK, armed services personnel are perceived to become institutionalised
during service, with negative connotations, especially in the process of transition to
veteran status. Beverly P Bergman, Howard J Burdett and Neil Greenberg argue that
institutionalisation is an inappropriate model, and that becoming a member of the armed
forces is better represented by a model of culture shock, with reverse culture shock being
experienced upon leaving. The adoption of this model would be useful both in preparing
UK service personnel for civilian life and in supporting them after transition, and may help
to predict vulnerability.
A
round 22,000 people leave the UK
regular armed forces annually.1
The majority cope well with
the change,2 but a substantial minority
experience difficulty in transitioning from
military to civilian life;3 these individuals
are at increased risk of developing
mental-health problems. Predicting those
who are at risk of a difficult transition
would help with the provision of targeted
support.
The problems that may result from
reintegration into civilian life following
military service have been recognised
since at least the eighteenth century
and continue to give rise to concern.4 A
difficult transition is not specific to those
who have experienced combat, and
indeed may disproportionately affect
those who have seen the shortest service.
Both the British and US armed forces
have put in place initiatives which aim to
assist the new veteran to reintegrate, and
the commissioning by the UK government
in September 2012 of the Veterans’
Transition Review demonstrated a strong
commitment to address this issue.5 In the
UK, an employment support programme
is provided to those who have completed
four or more years of service, whilst those
who have completed six or more years, or
are medically discharged, are entitled to
a full ‘resettlement’ programme aimed at
retraining for, and gaining, employment
in the civilian sector. Those who leave
before completing the minimum term
of engagement are known as Early
Service Leavers and have been shown
to be at increased risk of mental health
problems.6 More than two-thirds of Early
Service Leavers have not completed initial
training. Early leavers are not currently
eligible for resettlement programmes,
but are only entitled to a minimum of
a verbal briefing and a resettlement
interview with signposting to civilian
employment support.7 Concern that
they may be disadvantaged has led
to the piloting of the Future Horizons
project which, like the full resettlement
package, is labour-market oriented.8 In
a welcome development, however, the
recently published independent Veterans’
Transition Review has recommended
that the full resettlement package be
made available to all service leavers
who have completed initial training,
with responsibility for those who do not
complete initial training to be handed to
the Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP).9
Whilst the possible adverse effects
of transition to civilian life – including loss
of status, financial difficulties and family
readjustment – are now recognised,
an understanding of the psychosocial
© RUSI JOURNAL OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014 VOL. 159 NO. 5 pp. 60–68
mechanisms underpinning the process
of transition has proved elusive.10 Some
authors consider the effects of combat,
and in particular the recognition and
management of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD), to be especially relevant
to the process of transition.11 However,
in reality the issues involved in transition
are more complex, and many veterans
who have never experienced combat
have nonetheless faced difficulties when
moving back into a civilian environment.12
A study published in 2003 of transitioned
UK veterans who had served during the
1990–91 Gulf War and in Bosnia from
1992 to 1997, and had been identified
as being ‘at risk’ due to unemployment
or symptoms of poor mental health,
identified the lack of advice on social
aspects of resettlement to be the main
source of dissatisfaction with the existing
resettlement process.13
A comprehensive understanding
of the issues involved in transition is
essential to the provision of appropriate
support to personnel leaving the armed
forces; an inappropriate model will
marginalise those whose needs are not
recognised and hinder the identification
and adoption of optimum management
strategies. The aim of this article is
to examine a widely used model of
transition, that of ‘institutionalisation’
DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2014.969946
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
Many veterans of the armed forces – and particularly Early Service Leavers – exhibit symptoms of reverse culture shock. Image courtesy Crown Copyright/
Sean Clee.
as a result of military service, and to
propose the wider adoption of an
alternative, less stigmatising model – that
of reverse culture shock.
Institutionalisation
The perception that soldiers become
‘institutionalised’ during service as
a result of living and working within
a protected environment – in which
their basic needs in terms of food,
accommodation, clothing, welfare and
administrative support are provided –
has gained currency among the UK armed
forces and public. There is a widespread
belief that this ‘institutionalisation’
hinders their reintegration into the
civilian world as veterans. In a study of
over 9,000 serving personnel and 508
employers conducted in late 2011 and
early 2012, 25 per cent of the serving
personnel considered that civilian
employers would perceive them as
institutionalised, and 10 per cent of
the employers surveyed felt that the
phrase ‘aggressive, institutionalised or
likely to have problems’ best described
those leaving the armed forces after
several years’ service. Of the 4 per cent
of employers who said that they would
view an application from someone
who had spent time in the armed
forces less favourably, over half gave
institutionalisation or lack of adaptability
as the reason.14
However, the origins of the concept
of ‘institutionalisation’ suggest that it is
not a good model for either the social
or societal effects of military service.15
The term arose in the 1950s, when the
British psychiatrist Denis Martin noted
its use in clinical records compiled by
nursing staff in long-stay, in-patient
psychiatric facilities.16 It was originally
used to describe a patient who had
ceased to rebel against incarceration
in a mental hospital and had passively
accepted his lot, although the scope of
the word has obviously broadened in
recent years. Academic references to
‘institutionalisation’ of military personnel
or veterans are rare and are largely
restricted to a discussion of the impact of
service on those already disadvantaged
by institutionalisation or those who are
serving under an authoritarian political
regime.17 In one of the few studies which
have examined the societal concept of
‘institutionalisation’ in veterans, Dr Hugh
Milroy, a former RAF wing commander
and now CEO of British charity Veterans
Aid, studied forty homeless veterans for
his 2001 PhD thesis at the University of
East Anglia and concluded that military
service did not preclude normal societal
functioning.18 A 2009 study by the
University of Leicester Centre for Labour
Market Studies noted that ‘Notions
of problematic institutionalisation for
those who serve in the armed forces
seem more likely in those who serve in
the military for short periods’.19 This was
supported by a study of transition and
resettlement of 5,000 UK service leavers
by the National Audit Office, published
in 2007, which also found that younger,
junior service leavers reported the most
difficult transitions. Civilian social life
and family relationships were perceived
as the most difficult issues.20 The same
conclusion was reached in Lord Ashcroft’s
2014 Veterans’ Transition Review.21 These
consistent observations expose a critical
flaw in the use of the terminology;
theoretically, institutionalisation should
worsen, not ameliorate, with longer
exposure to the institutionalising
environment.22
Culture Shock
The US armed forces recognise culture
shock as a factor in transition,23 but the
concept is still a novel one to their UK
61
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND
counterparts. This article proposes a
model of culture shock on becoming a
member of the armed forces, followed
by reverse culture shock on returning
to civilian life, and postulates that this
presents a better fit than the model of
institutionalisation.
Geert Hofstede defined culture
as ‘the collective mental programming
which separates members of one group
from the other’.24 The concept of culture
shock, which has been defined as ‘a state
of distress or disorientation brought about
by sudden immersion in or subjection to
an unfamiliar culture’,25 was described
by anthropologist Kalervo Oberg in 1960
in the context of overseas travellers.26
Although later studies focused on groups
such as international students, overseas
aid workers, missionaries, and diplomats
and their families, they provide a model
for other situations. The concept has
been extended to encompass any lifechange which involves adjustment
to an unfamiliar culture including job
change and new relationships, although
the term ‘transition shock’ has been
used recently to describe this wider
interpretation.27
Psychologist
Paul
Pedersen described how psychological
discomfort arises from the need to
fit into an unfamiliar social situation
where prior learned responses no longer
apply; anxiety results from not knowing
what to do in a new culture. Reactions
may range from mild discomfort to
profound disorientation. Culture shock,
mostly, represents a normal state of
adjustment; it is not pathological, and is
probably universally experienced. Indeed,
it has been described as happening ‘inside
each individual who encounters unfamiliar
and unexpected circumstances’.28 It is
a learning and developmental process
which may take place simultaneously at
different levels if the new environment is
complex. The process is not smooth, but
is characterised by a series of crises, each
one of which generates a new learning
experience. Responses may be emotional,
psychological, behavioural, cognitive or
physiological – the latter commonly in
response to exposure to changed levels of
physical activity, climate or health threats,
or to extreme stress.
The armed forces have a distinct
culture, founded on tradition, that is
© RUSI JOURNAL OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014
clearly different from that of civilian
society.29 Wearing uniform, saluting,
military discipline, military ranks, strictly
hierarchical management structures, use
of acronyms and technical terminology,
learning to use a weapon and a
communal lifestyle are all alien to new
soldiers, even to those recruits who
come from military families. The armed
forces’ culture – encompassing courage,
determination, loyalty, integrity and
commitment to duty – is embodied in
British defence doctrine and the singleservice principles derived from it,30 and
the acceptance of those cultural values
is central to the transition from civilian
to military life. For many recruits, the
timing of entry to the armed forces
also coincides with the culture changes
inherent in emerging from adolescence
into early adulthood.31
Pedersen described five stages
of
culture
shock:
honeymoon;
disintegration; reintegration; autonomy;
and interdependence,32 based on the
five-stage model described by Peter Adler
in 1975.33 A number of other models
exist but all have broad similarities.34
This article presents Pedersen’s stages
from both the original viewpoint and an
interpreted military perspective.
Stage One: Honeymoon
The first phase of adjustment to a
new culture is of one of anticipation,
excitement and enthusiasm. The new
culture may represent the realisation
of a long sought-after ambition – a
short-term objective might be to go
on an exotic holiday, or a longer-term
one might be joining the armed forces;
both may be associated with idealised
imagery. Adler described the excitement
and euphoria of new experience, with
an emphasis on similarities rather than
differences. Differences are perceptually
deselected since the individual has few
psychological mechanisms for dealing
with radically new stimuli.35 Although
this phase is relatively brief, for the
short-term traveller it may be the only
experience they have of culture shock
as their journey comes to an end and
there is a return to the familiar home
environment. For the new military recruit,
who may have enjoyed the challenge of
initial military selection, the realities of
military life are about to begin with the
commencement of recruit training.
Stage Two: Disintegration
Adler described the second stage of
adjustment as representing the frank
realisation of the differences between the
new culture and the familiar.36 Individuals
may feel disorientated or overwhelmed
as they realise that they are dislocated
from their ‘comfort zone’. There may be
a sense of loss of status, especially in
those who were well adjusted to their
former environment or who formerly
enjoyed high social or occupational
status and who have moved into an
entirely different role.37 The long-stay
traveller begins to see the realities of
poor hygiene, corruption or crime, which
are part of their new environment; they
must learn to co-exist with this (adapted
from Lesser and Peter38). The military
equivalent of this stage is the realisation
by the recruit that they are being
stretched both physically and mentally.
However motivated and well-prepared
they are, military training is challenging
and unfamiliar. In the communal
environment of the training unit, there is
no hiding place. The recruit is the ‘naive
newcomer’;39 one member of a squad,
who is no longer the school prefect or
the gang leader. Every failure to conform
to the expected standard is noticed and
corrected, or even punished.40 For the
well-motivated, these episodes may
be viewed pragmatically as learning
experiences but for the less-motivated,
there may be bewilderment, alienation,
withdrawal and feelings of depression.41
The reality of training may differ markedly
from the recruit’s expectations.42 A sense
of having made a mistake in choosing
military service is common.43
Stage Three: Reintegration
In the third stage, the individual begins to
adjust to his or her new cultural setting,
although Adler took a more negative view
than Pedersen and described a high level
of anger and resentment against the new
culture during this phase.44 Nonetheless,
new skills and coping strategies have
been learned and the environment
begins to feel less alien.45 Friendships and
group cohesion have been established,
and threats have been identified together
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG
with strategies for managing them. In the
expatriate model, the traveller begins to
fit into life in the new country; in military
terms, this stage corresponds to the
recruit beginning to ‘feel like a soldier’,
whilst at the same time the sense of
‘self’ is beginning to be subordinate to
the demands of the new culture. The
values and standards which form the
core of British defence doctrine,46 have
been taught and form the basis of the
psychological contract that binds the
newcomer to the organisation he or
she has joined.47 Some authors have
described this process as indoctrination;48
however, the word has derogatory
connotations as discussed in general
terms by Richard Gatchel, who preferred
the term ‘enculturation’.49 Personality
changes also begin to emerge during this
period.50 The changes that have taken
place may be highlighted to the recruit
during the first weekend’s leave with
civilian friends (normally several weeks
after the commencement of recruit
training), when short hair, neat clothes,
and the knowledge that drunkenness
and recreational drug use are proscribed
emphasise the differences and may
create barriers to former lifestyles.
Stage Four: Autonomy
Pedersen’s fourth stage represents one
of balanced adjustment. Whilst the
first three stages are relevant to recruit
training and the early years of service,
the fourth and fifth stages of the model
are applicable only to the longer-serving
individual.
There is a clear sense of ‘self’ in
harmony with the new culture when,
for example, the long-term traveller
feels at home in their adopted country
of residence. Psychologist Teresa
LaFromboise and her colleagues
described a behavioural model of
cultural competence encompassing a
strong personal identity, knowledge of
the beliefs and values of the culture,
sensitivity to the affective processes
of the culture, communication in
the language of the cultural group,
negotiating the institutional structures
of the group, behaving in a way which is
sanctioned by the group and maintaining
active social relations with the group.51
This is an apt model for the successful,
well-adapted, long-serving member
of the armed forces, and the military
equivalent is establishment in a full
military career, when the military way
of life has become what the individual
‘is’, not what he ‘does’. At this stage
though, the career soldier may begin to
feel frustration with the civilian world,
which may be perceived to be inept and
disorganised in contrast with the highly
regulated military environment.52
Stage Five: Reciprocal
Interdependence
The final phase represents mature
biculturalism, also known as the
alternation model, whereby an individual
is able to know and understand two
different cultures, and is able to switch
between them without compromising
their cultural identity. Such individuals
are better able to withstand the stresses
associated with culture change.53 In the
expatriate model, the long-stay sojourner
will be equally at ease in his or her
adopted country or back home in the
parent country. In the military model, the
soldier is able to move seamlessly and
bidirectionally between the civilian world
and the military. This level of cultural
adjustment may be difficult to achieve in
a military context, and perhaps it is only
seen in senior serving personnel who
have had the opportunity to live out in
the civilian world, whose job has involved
civilian contact (for example, in an
educational setting through undertaking
higher education) or who have strong
civilian contacts through membership of
societies or religious groups external to
the military.
Re-entry or Reverse Culture
Shock
Exposure to, and adjustment to, a new
culture can have profound implications
for the way in which an individual
interacts when they eventually return
to the parent culture, especially for a
unidirectional move such as leaving the
armed forces. In a study focused on
students and business travellers, Nan
Sussman highlighted the unexpectedness
of re-entry problems, as few people
would anticipate any difficulties on
return to an environment with which
they expect to be familiar, but after
a prolonged period of absence and
adjustment to a new culture, both
the individual’s frame of reference and
the environment he or she left have
changed.
There is also a mismatch between
how the returnee and those left behind
perceive each other.54 In a 2004 study,
Bethany Mooradian interpreted the
unexpected nature of reverse culture
shock as an example of expectation
violation theory.55 In another example,
Professor Mitchell Hammer and his
colleagues examined risk factors for
re-entry difficulties in international
managers and their families and found
that only expectation of re-entry
satisfaction or difficulty was relevant;
neither age, prior experience of the
second culture, length of stay nor
degree of social interaction with the
second culture was a predictor of
re-entry difficulty.56 In a military setting,
sociologists Robert Faulkner and Douglas
McGaw conducted a study on Vietnam
veterans in the 1970s, describing
inadequate preparation for homecoming
from Vietnam and leaving the military.
They noted the contrast between
the ‘rites of passage into service’
and ‘programming for socialization
at home’57 – findings which mirrored
those of Professor of Military Sociology
Christopher Dandeker and his colleagues,
whose 2003 study identified the lack of
preparation of UK veterans for the social
aspects of transition.58
Although formally recognised
only in the latter half of the twentieth
century,59 the phenomenon now termed
‘re-entry shock’ or ‘reverse culture
shock’ has long been acknowledged,
particularly in connection with transition
to veteran status. Many men from less
privileged backgrounds who served
as officers during the First World War
experienced difficulty in reintegrating
into civilian society at the end of the
conflict, a phenomenon which was
to become known as the ‘ex-officer
problem’.60 Writing towards the end of
the Second World War, the philosopher
and sociologist Alfred Schuetz attempted
to analyse the issues associated with
homecoming and noted that during the
period of service, both the soldier and his
‘home’ will have changed irreversibly. Any
63
SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
aspiration to revert to the status quo ante
is doomed to fail.61 This commonly felt
sense of discomfort and disorientation
on returning to what should be a familiar
environment was perhaps most aptly
described in literary form by Thomas
Wolfe, who highlighted this duality of
change in his novel You Can’t Go Home
Again when he wrote ‘You can’t go back
home to your family, back home to your
childhood’.62 And, in the eighth century
BC, Homer wrote:
in the land of his fathers. Not that he
knew his whereabouts. Partly he had
been absent for so long ... He rose to
his feet and stood staring at what was
his own land, then sighed ... ‘Alas, and
now where on earth am I? Shall I be
spurned and savaged by the people of
this place, or find them pious, hospitable
creatures?’
Although in 1981 psychologist
Nancy Adler noted a lack of literature on
reverse culture shock,63 just five years
later Sussman reported an increasing
body of research.64 In a wide-ranging
review of the theoretical literature,
published in 2000, psychologist Kevin
Gaw noted that no returnee is exempt
from reverse culture shock and observed
that reported symptoms included anxiety,
depression, interpersonal difficulties,
anger, hostility and helplessness.65
There is wide variation in the level
to which individuals experience such
problems. Furthermore, the impact of
reverse culture shock is not limited to
the returnee; the family and friends
to whom they return may also need
to adjust to a changed individual. It is,
however, reassuring that contemporary
research has shown that the majority
of service personnel do not experience
any lasting psychological difficulties
on returning home,66 consistent with a
study of international students in the US
which found that few experienced severe
problems on returning home.67
The US armed forces recognise the
concept of reverse culture shock, where
programmes are in place in order to
explicitly manage these issues in relation
to those who are returning home after
combat,68 or transitioning after injury.69
Reverse culture shock in peacekeeping
© RUSI JOURNAL OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014
soldiers transitioning to civilian life is also
explicitly managed in the Canadian armed
forces, for example.70 Based on Canadian
military guidance, Jennifer Anderson
defined reverse culture shock as:71
a term that is typically used to
describe the unanticipated adjustment
difficulties that many military people
experience when returning to civilian
life. People attempting to move beyond
their military experiences can find
themselves feeling disorientated and
confused, neglected or frustrated, often
unemployed, or under employed and
generally struggling in their careers as
well as personal relationships.
Adler found that skills acquired as
a result of the new cultural experience
could paradoxically hinder readjustment
by creating a ‘xenophobic’ barrier with
colleagues in the home setting which
may have particular relevance for
deployed reserve personnel returning
to their former employment with new
or enhanced skill sets.72 Furthermore,
the strong social resilience collectively
developed by military personnel as they
progress through training and service
together is no longer available for
support as the individual readjusts to life
outside the military,73 leaving him or her
to rely on personal resilience, which is
likely to be lowest in those who are most
vulnerable.74
It has been suggested that reverse
culture shock follows a staged process,
similar to that seen in culture shock.
John Hogan proposed a four-stage
model of re-entry comprising: naiveté
or denial; disillusionment or negativism;
perspective; and commitment or
reorganisation. In this process, the
expectation that re-entry will be easy
(naiveté) gives way to a realisation that
return is more problematic than was
expected (disillusionment). A sense of
perspective returns as the individual
begins to make sense of his or her
situation, before settling down, in the
fourth stage, to more realistic goals and
expectations. However, an unsuccessful
transition may progress to alienation
and rejection.75 Parallels in successful
and unsuccessful military transition can
be drawn readily.
Culture Shock and Transition
The process of cultural adaptation has
been mapped to a U-shaped curve
encompassing a lowering of mood
during the honeymoon and disintegration
phases, followed by improvement of
mood during the reintegration phase
and, ultimately, a return to equilibrium
as the stage of autonomy is reached.
The U-shaped curve model – attributed
to Lysgaard but modified by Michael
Zapf76 – reflects the initial reduction in
wellbeing followed by recovery.77 Ruth
Jolly identified a similar arc when she
interviewed more than sixty transitioning
individuals of all ranks and services in
the mid-1990s. She described a threestage process of change, comprising
acknowledgement of the need for and
desirability of change, disengagement
from the previous lifestyle, and finally
resocialisation.78
An unsuccessful
transition may
progress to alienation
and rejection
However, John Gullahorn and Joanne
Gullahorn proposed that the shape of
the curve is better described as a letter
W or a double-U, in order to encompass
the total experience of adjusting to a
different cultural environment and then,
eventually, returning to the parent culture.
Their research was based on studies of US
academic staff and students in receipt of
grants to work and study overseas, which
found that the process of re-acculturation
on return to the US was problematic, but
only minimally so for senior academic staff
(professors and lecturers). Their research
suggested that the prior social experience
of these more senior returnees enabled
them to make the transition back to their
familiar environments relatively easily.
However, students were much more
likely to feel ‘lost’ on returning to the
US, and the authors found that this was
particularly likely amongst those who, on
initial relocation, felt that they ‘had not yet
“found themselves” in their own culture’.
They had enthusiastically embraced the
culture and stability offered by the new
environment and felt its loss keenly on
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG
return to what should have been their
‘home’ environment.79
Kate Berardo, meanwhile, rejected
both the U and the W models, arguing
that although they were widely used in
training for readjustment, the supporting
evidence base was insufficient; that the
limitations of the model were often
overlooked; and that it had become
distorted from the original concept
over time. She proposed an alternative
model on which to base training and
preparation, comprising a continuum of
‘what’, ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what now’.80
Nonetheless, the W model remains
widely used, and may have utility
in mapping and understanding the
process of entering the armed forces on
recruitment and ultimately returning to
civilian life on transition to veteran status.
Recruit training and the early months
spent as a trained soldier encompass the
stages of culture shock as the individual
adapts to military service, eventually
reaching ‘a steady state’ at Stage 3
(reintegration) for a private soldier
or junior non-commissioned officer
(NCO), or equivalent; lesser peaks and
troughs of culture shock will follow with
deployments, periods of adventurous
training and other challenges. Many will
leave and return to civilian life at this
stage, having completed their period of
engagement, entering the reverse culture
shock pattern of readaptation to civilian
life; those who stay on will generally
reach a higher rank (senior NCO, warrant
officer or commissioned officer) and
progress to the more mature cultural
adaption of Stage 4 (autonomy) or even
Stage 5 (reciprocal interdependence).
The more mature the level of adaptation,
the easier the process of readjustment
is likely to be, especially if Stage 5 is
achieved.
Indeed, research has shown that the
Early Service Leaver – the individual who
leaves before completing basic training
or before completion of the minimum
engagement (which varies from three
to four-and-a-half years, depending
on the branch of the armed forces and
the designated period of service) – is
especially at risk of developing mentalhealth problems. Those in this category
are likely to leave prematurely because
they are unable to adjust to the demands
of military training, because they have
failed to achieve the required standard,
because they have developed health
problems (including those of mental
health) that are incompatible with
continued service, or because they have
been discharged for disciplinary reasons.81
They will be unlikely to look back positively
on their short military career; by contrast,
satisfaction with the previous military
career was a key factor in successful
transition identified by Jolly.82
The Early Service
Leaver is especially
at risk of developing
mental-health
problems
Furthermore, if mapped to a culture
shock model, these veterans’ discharge
comes before they have completed the
process of cultural adjustment; they are
still in the negative phase of the first
U-shaped curve on entry to service, and
will not yet have returned to the baseline
of a sense of normality. Thus they will
commence the re-entry phase back to the
civilian world, and the right-hand loop of
the W, at a disadvantage. Already culturally
disorientated from commencing the
process of becoming a soldier, they now
have to face returning to a civilian world
which already regards them as ‘different’.
Self perceptions and the way in which they
are received by family and their former
peers are also likely to be influenced by
their failure. If young and inexperienced
on enlistment, or from a disadvantaged
background, they may equate to Gullahorn
and Gullahorn’s students who ‘had not yet
“found themselves” in their own culture’,
and they are likely to find the process
of returning to civilian life especially
challenging. It may be postulated that
they will experience a deeper trough on
re-entry as a consequence of entering this
phase at a low ebb, without having first
returned to stability. Anne Braidwood’s
2009 study of Early Service Leavers
confirms that this group is particularly
vulnerable,83 as recognised by the Ministry
of Defence,84 whilst at the other end of
the spectrum, McDermott’s 2009 study
of NCOs and warrant officers who had
completed twenty-two years of service
found that most did well on returning to
their home environments.85
It is reassuring to note that the
recently published Transition Mapping
Study identifies cultural differences
between the services and the civilian
world as an important factor in the
transition process, although the
perpetuation of stereotypical examples
early in the report (‘In terms of effective
transition, one of the biggest differences
is that the Armed Forces have drinking
cultures and increasingly the world of
civilian work does not’) detracts from the
more fundamental cultural differences
of team bonding, discipline and military
ethos, correctly identified in later chapters
of the report, which distinguish between
the service member and the civilian.86
The adoption of a
culture-shock model
would facilitate better
understanding
The adoption of a cultureshock model would facilitate better
understanding
of
the
important
psychological processes associated with
becoming a member of the armed forces
– and likewise, reverse culture shock
provides a more appropriate model for
understanding the transition to veteran
status. Unlike institutionalisation, cultural
adaptation improves with increasing
length of exposure. By contrast, reverse
culture shock is most likely to impact
adversely on recruits who are younger
and less experienced, which is consistent
with the effect observed in Early Service
Leavers who are known to have suffered
considerable childhood adversity.92 An
understanding of this mechanism will aid
the development of appropriate strategies
to assist leavers to cope with transition
and further reduce the numbers who
experience adverse outcomes, and may
help in predicting vulnerability. 
Beverly Bergman is a doctoral
researcher at the Institute of Health and
Wellbeing, University of Glasgow. A
65
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND
consultant public health physician, she is
a retired Army Colonel and former
professor of preventative medicine at
the Army Health Unit, Camberley. Her
PhD study is on the long-term health of
Scottish military veterans.
Ministry of Defence. His PhD thesis
explored the epidemiology of veterans’
transition and the resettlement process,
and he currently works on the mental
wellbeing of military personnel and their
families.
Howard Burdett is a post-doctoral
researcher based at the King’s Centre for
Military Health Research, King’s College
London. He has previously worked at the
Surgeon General’s Department of the
Neil Greenberg is an academic
psychiatrist and Professor of Defence
Mental Health, based at King’s College
London, and is a consultant occupational
and forensic psychiatrist. He served in
the British armed forces for more than
twenty-three years, earning the coveted
Royal Marines’ Green Beret, and has
deployed, as a psychiatrist and
researcher, to a number of hostile
environments including Afghanistan and
Iraq. He has been the Secretary of the
European Society for Traumatic Stress
Studies and is the President-Elect of the
UK Psychological Trauma Society and
the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lead
for Military and Veterans Health.
Notes
1 D
efence Statistics (Tri Service), Ministry
of Defence, ‘UK Armed Forces Quarterly
Personnel Report’, 1 October 2013.
2 A
my C Iversen and Neil Greenberg,
‘Mental Health of Regular and Reserve
Military Veterans’, Advances in
Psychiatric Treatment (Vol. 15, No. 2,
March 2009), pp. 100–06.
3 T he terms ‘military’, ‘soldier’ and the
male or female pronoun are used
generically to refer to members of all
three services and to both genders,
except where otherwise dictated by the
context. See Amy Iversen et al., ‘What
Happens to British Veterans When They
Leave the Armed Forces?’, European
Journal of Public Health (Vol. 15, No. 2,
April 2005), pp. 175–84.
Leavers: Guidance Notes for
Resettlement Staff’, JSP 575, No. 4,
March 2010; Joshua E J Buckman et
al., ‘Early Service Leavers: A Study of
the Factors Associated with Premature
Separation from the UK Armed Forces
and the Mental Health of Those that
Leave Early’, European Journal of Public
Health (Vol. 23, No. 3, 2013), pp. 410–15.
7 M
inistry of Defence, ‘Early Service
Leavers’.
8 F or further information, see COBSEO, ‘A
Brighter Future for Early Service Leavers’,
21 February 2012, <http://www.cobseo.
org.uk/news/a-brighter-future-for-earlyservice-leavers/>, accessed 18 September 2014.
4 F or example, in William Wordsworth’s
poem ‘The Discharged Soldier’, written
in 1798 and widely believed to describe
a soldier returning from war service in
the West Indies in 1796. See Jonathan
F Borus, ‘The Reentry Transition of the
Vietnam Veteran’, Armed Forces and
Society (Vol. 2, No. 1, Fall 1975), pp. 97–
114; Forces in Mind Trust, ‘The Transition
Mapping Study: Understanding the
Transition Process for Service Personnel
Returning to Civilian Life’, August 2013,
<http://www.fim-trust.org/images/
PDFs/20130810-TMS%20Report.pdf>,
accessed 16 September 2014.
9 L ord Ashcroft, ‘Veterans’ Transition
Review’.
5 L ord Ashcroft, ‘Veterans’ Transition
Review’, February 2014, <http://www.
veteranstransition.co.uk/vtrreport.pdf>,
accessed 16 September 2014.
12 Buckman et al., ‘Early Service Leavers’.
6 Ministry of Defence, ‘Early Service
© RUSI JOURNAL OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014
10 D
avid I Walker, ‘Anticipating Army Exit:
Identity Constructions of Final Year
UK Career Soldiers’, Armed Forces and
Society (Vol. 39, No. 2, April 2013), pp. 284–304.
11 C
hristina L Lafferty et al. ‘“Did You
Shoot Anyone?” A Practitioner’s Guide
to Combat Veteran Workplace and
Classroom Reintegration’, SAM Advanced
Management Journal (Autumn 2008),
pp. 4–18.
13 C
hristopher Dandeker et al., ‘Improving
the Delivery of Cross Departmental
Support and Services for Veterans: A
Joint Report of the Department of War
Studies and the Institute of Psychiatry,
King’s College London’, July 2003.
14 A
shcroft, The Armed Forces and Society:
The Military in Britain – Through the
Eyes of Service Personnel, Employers
and the Public, May 2012, <http://
lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/05/THE-ARMED-FORCESSOCIETY.pdf>, accessed 17 September
2014.
15 In this article, the term ‘social’ is used
to refer to individual interactions and
‘societal’ is used to refer to the way in
which wider society perceives the armed
forces and its members (and vice versa).
16 M
iriam McNown Johnson and Rita
Rhodes, ‘Institutionalization: A Theory
of Human Behavior and the Social
Environment’, Advances in Social Work (Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007), pp. 219–36.
17 N
oah Riseman, ‘The Stolen Veteran:
Institutionalisation, Military Service,
and the Stolen Generations’,
Aboriginal History (Vol. 35, 2011);
Felipe Agüero, ‘Legacies of Transitions:
Institutionalization, the Military, and
Democracy in South America’, Mershon
International Studies Review (Vol. 42, No. 2, November 1998), pp. 383–404.
18 W
illiam Hugh Milroy, Pathways to
the Street for Ex-Service Personnel:
An Examination of Various Routes to
Homelessness for Ex-Service Personnel
(Norwich: University of East Anglia, 2001).
19 J im McDermott, ‘Struggling on Civvy
Street?’, Defence Management Journal (No. 44, 2009), pp. 168–69.
BERGMAN, BURDETT AND GREENBERG
20 N
ational Audit Office, Leaving the
Services, HC 618 (London: The Stationery
Office, July 2007).
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
21 L ord Ashcroft, ‘Veterans’ Transition
Review’.
22 D
enis Martin’s discussion of
institutionalisation in The Lancet, under
the heading ‘In the Mental Hospital’,
describes how patients ‘settle down’ into
the hospital routine, gradually becoming
co-operative and submissive as they
become ‘well institutionalised’. It is easy
to appreciate how this theoretical model
came to be applied to the new soldier,
learning to accept military discipline
and authority. See Denis V Martin,
‘Institutionalisation’, The Lancet (1955), pp. 1188–90.
23 E lizabeth Culhane, Patrice Reid, Loring
J Crepeau and Daniel McDonald,
‘The Critical Role of Cross-Cultural
Competence in the Military’, IndustrialOrganizational Psychologist (Vol. 50, No. 1, 2012), pp. 30–37.
24 G
eert Hofstede, Allemaal
andersdenkenden: Omgaan met
cultuurverschillen (Paris: Les Éditions
d’Organisation, 1994), cited in Riseman,
‘The Stolen Veteran’; Bernadet van den
Pol, ‘The Connection between Culture
and Climate Change’, <http://www.
culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/
cs-bernadet-van-den-pol.pdf>, accessed
17 September 2014. As defined in
the Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed.,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
25 A
s defined in the Oxford English
Dictionary, 3rd ed.
26 K
alervo Oberg, ‘Cultural Shock:
Adjustment to New Cultural
Environments’, Practical Anthropology
(Vol. 7, 1960), pp. 177–82.
27 J udy E Boychuk Duchscher, ‘Transition
Shock: The Initial Stage of Role
Adaptation for Newly Graduated
Registered Nurses’, Journal of Advanced
Nursing (Vol. 65, No. 5, May 2009), pp. 1103–13.
28 P
aul Pedersen, The Five Stages of Culture
Shock: Critical Incidents around the
World (Westport, CT: Geenwood Press,
1995).
29 Williamson Murray, ‘Does Military
Culture Matter?’, Orbis (Vol. 43, No. 1,
1999), pp. 27–42.
30 M
inistry of Defence, ‘British Defence
Doctrine’, Joint Doctrine Publication
0-01, 4th ed., November 2011; Ministry
of Defence, ‘Values and Standards of the
British Army’, January 2008.
31 D
ennis P Hogan and Nan Marie Astone,
‘The Transition to Adulthood’, Annual
Review of Sociology (Vol. 12, August
1986), pp. 109–30.
32 P
edersen, The Five Stages of Culture
Shock.
33 P
eter S Adler, ‘The Transitional
Experience: An Alternative View of
Culture Shock’, Journal of Humanistic
Psychology (Vol. 15, No. 4, 1975), pp. 13–23.
34 M
ark Heyward, ‘From International
to Intercultural: Redefining the
International School for a Globalized
World’, Journal of Research in
International Education (Vol. 1, No. 1,
September 2002), pp. 9–32.
35 Adler, ‘The Transitional Experience’.
36 Ibid.
37 H
ogan and Astone, ‘The Transition to
Adulthood.’
38 Simon O Lesser and Hollis W Peter,
‘Training Foreign Nationals in the United
States’, in Rensis Likert and Samuel P
Hayes, Jr (eds), Some Applications of
Behavioral Research (Paris: UNESCO,
1957), p. 160, as quoted in Pedersen,
The Five Stages of Culture Shock.
39 H
elena D Thomas and Neil Anderson,
‘Changes in Newcomers’ Psychological
Contracts during Organizational
Socialization: A Study of Recruits
Entering the British Army’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 19, No. S1,
1998), pp. 745–67.
40 W
illiam Arkin and Lynne R Dobrofsky,
‘Military Socialization and Masculinity’,
Journal of Social Issues (Vol. 34, No. 1,
1978), pp. 151–68.
41 Adler, ‘The Transitional Experience’.
42 W
illiam H Mobley et al., ‘Pre-Recruit
Training Values, Expectations, and
Intentions of Marine Corps Recruits’,
University of South Carolina, Center for
Business Studies, 1977. Report prepared
under the US Navy All Volunteer Force
Manpower R&D Program of The Office
of Naval Research under Contract NOOO
14-76-C-0 93 8.
43 A
Flach et al., ‘Fight or Flight? The
Drop-Out Phenomenon During Initial
Military Training: Homesickness’,
paper presented at the 42nd Annual
Conference of the International
Military Testing Association, Edinburgh,
November 2000.
44 S ee respectively Adler, ‘The Transitional
Experience’ and Pedersen, The Five
Stages of Culture Shock.
45 A
ugust B Hollingshead, ‘Adjustment
to Military Life’, American Journal of
Sociology (Vol. 51, No. 5, 1946), pp. 439–47.
46 M
inistry of Defence, ‘British Defence
Doctrine’.
47 T homas and Anderson, ‘Changes in
Newcomers’ Psychological Contracts
during Organizational Socialization’.
48 A
rkin and Dobrofsky, ‘Military
Socialization and Masculinity’.
49 R
ichard H Gatchel, ‘The Evolution of the
Concept’, in I A Snook (ed.), Concepts
of Indoctrination (Abingdon: Routledge,
2011).
50 J oshua J Jackson et al., ‘Military Training
and Personality Trait Development: Does
the Military Make the Man, or Does the
Man Make the Military?’, Psychological
Science (Vol. 23, No. 3, 2012), pp. 270–77.
51 T eresa LaFromboise et al., ‘Psychological
Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and
Theory’, Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 114,
No. 3, 1993), pp. 395–412.
52 D
andeker et al., ‘Improving the Delivery
of Cross Departmental Support and
Services for Veterans’.
53 L aFromboise et al., ‘Psychological Impact
of Biculturalism’.
54 N
an M Sussman, ‘Re-Entry Research and
Training: Methods and Implications’,
International Journal of Intercultural
67
SERVICE LIFE AND BEYOND
Relations (Vol. 10, No. 2, 1986), pp. 235–54.
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 01:54 05 November 2014
55 B
ethany L Mooradian, ‘Going Home
When Home Does Not Feel Like Home:
Reentry, Expectancy Violation Theory,
Self-Construal, and Psychological
and Social Support’, Intercultural
Communication Studies (Vol. 13, 2004),
pp. 37–50.
56 M
itchell R Hammer, William Hart and
Randall Rogan, ‘Can You Go Home
Again? An Analysis of the Repatriation
of Corporate Managers and Spouses’,
Management International Review (Vol.
38, No. 1, 1998), pp. 67–86.
57 R
obert R Faulkner and Douglas B McGaw,
‘Uneasy Homecoming Stages in the
Reentry Transition of Vietnam Veterans’,
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
(Vol. 6, No. 3, 1977), pp. 303–28.
58 D
andeker et al., ‘Improving the Delivery
of Cross Departmental Support and
Services for Veterans’.
59 S ussman, ‘Re-Entry Research and
Training’.
60 M
artin Petter, ‘Temporary Gentlemen in
the Aftermath of the Great War: Rank,
Status and the Ex-Officer Problem’,
Historical Journal (Vol. 37, No. 1, 2004),
pp. 127–52.
61 A
lfred Schuetz, ‘The Homecomer’,
American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 50,
No. 5, 1945), pp. 369–76.
62 T homas Wolfe, You Can’t Go Home Again
(New York, NY: Sun Dial Press, 1942), p. 741.
63 N
ancy J Adler, ‘Re-Entry: Managing
Cross-Cultural Transitions’, Group and
Organization Management (Vol. 6, No. 3,
1981), pp. 341–56.
64 S ussman, ‘Re-Entry Research and
Training’.
65 K
F Gaw, ‘Reverse Culture Shock in
Students Returning From Overseas’,
International Journal of Intercultural
Relations (Vol. 24, No. 1, 2000), pp. 83–104.
66 N
icola T Fear et al., ‘What Are the
Consequences of Deployment to Iraq
© RUSI JOURNAL OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2014
and Afghanistan on the Mental Health of
the UK Armed Forces? A Cohort Study’,
The Lancet (Vol. 375, No. 9728, 2010),
pp. 1783–97.
67 S arah Brabant, Eddie C Palmer and
Robert Gramling, ‘Returning Home:
An Empirical Investigation of CrossCultural Reentry’, International Journal
of Intercultural Relations (Vol. 14, No. 4,
1990), pp. 387–404.
68 M
ichael E Doyle and Kris A Peterson,
‘Re-entry and Reintegration: Returning
Home after Combat’, Psychiatric
Quarterly (Vol. 76, No. 4, 2005), pp. 361–70.
69 J ennifer Anderson and Christen Mason,
‘Reverse Culture Shock: Military
Transitions for Returning Soldiers With
Traumatic Brain Injury’, Journal of Head
Trauma Rehabilitation (Vol. 23, No. 5,
2008), p. 350.
70 M
arvin J Westwood, Timothy G Black
and Holly B McLean, ‘A Re-Entry Program
for Peacekeeping Soldiers: Promoting
Personal and Career Transition’,
Canadian Journal of Counselling (Vol. 36,
No. 3, 2002), pp. 221–32.
71 J ennifer Anderson and Christen
Mason, ‘Reverse Culture Shock’, 2009,
Slide 3, <http://www.slideshare.net/
denveroptions/reverse-culture-shockoperation-tbi-freedom>, accessed 18 September 2014.
72 S ee Adler, ‘Re-Entry’. There is anecdotal
evidence that the enhanced skill sets
with which reservists return to the
workplace following deployment have,
in some cases, hindered reintegration
by creating resentment among former
colleagues, especially when the skills
and experience acquired have led to
accelerated promotion (David McArthur,
personal communication, cited with
permission).
73 J ohn T Cacioppo, Harry T Reis and Alex
J Zautra, ‘Social Resilience: The Value of
Social Fitness with an Application to the
Military’, American Psychologist (Vol. 66,
No. 1, 2011), pp. 43–51.
74 K
athleen Tusaie and Janyce Dyer,
‘Resilience: A Historical Review of the
Construct’, Holistic Nursing Practice (Vol. 18, No. 1, 2004), pp. 3–10.
75 J ohn T Hogan, ‘Culture-Shock and
Reverse-Culture Shock: Implications
for Juniors Abroad and Seniors at
Home’, paper presented at the Annual
Convention of the American College
Personnel Association, Houston,
Texas, 13–16 March 1983), quoted in
Yumi Miyamoto and Natalie Kuhlman,
‘Ameliorating Culture Shock in
Japanese Expatriate Children in the US’,
International Journal of Intercultural
Relations (Vol. 25, No. 1, 2001), pp. 21–40.
76 S ee respectively Sverre Lysgaard,
‘Adjustment in a Foreign Society:
Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting
the United States’, International Social
Sciences Bulletin (Vol. 7, No. 1, 1955), pp. 45–51 and Michael Kim Zapf,
‘Remote Practice and Culture Shock:
Social Workers Moving to Isolated
Northern Regions’, Social Work (Vol. 38,
No. 6, 1993), pp. 694–704.
77 L Stewart and P A Leggat, ‘Culture Shock
and Travelers’, Journal of Travel Medicine
(Vol. 5, No. 2, 1998), pp. 84–88.
78 R
uth Jolly, Changing Step – From Military
to Civilian Life: People in Transition, 1st
ed. (London: Brassey’s, 1996).
79 J ohn T Gullahorn and Jeanne E
Gullahorn, ‘An Extension of the U-Curve
Hypothesis’, Journal of Social Issues (Vol. 19, No. 3, 1963), pp. 33–47.
80 K
ate Berardo, ‘The U-Curve of
Adjustment: A Study in the Evolution and
Evaluation of a 50 Year Old Model’, MA
thesis, 2006.
81 Buckman et al., ‘Early Service Leavers’.
82 Jolly, Changing Step.
83 A
nne Braidwood and C Williams, ‘Pilot
Mentoring Scheme for Early Service
Leavers: Report of the Supervisory
Group’, 2009.
84 M
inistry of Defence, ‘Early Service
Leavers’.
85 McDermott, ‘Struggling on Civvy Street?’.
86 F orces in Mind Trust, ‘The Transition
Mapping Study’.
92 Buckman et al., ‘Early Service Leavers’.