After more than 14 years of sustained war, the Veterans and families of the United States military have experienced significant psychological and relational strains, often severe in nature. More than 6,800 service members have been killed, and 52,000 more have been injured. 40% of returning Veterans report psychological symptoms meriting clinical evaluation, and suicide is at historically high levels. Nearly three-fourths of military families report experiencing significant stressors such as marital problems or unemployment. These stressors appear to be more common among members of the National Guard, who serve in war and return to civilian communities where they often face isolation and a lost sense of purpose. Research into malleable protective factors for these Veterans and families is critical. The present studies sought to illuminate both the nature and potential protective value of a specific meta-psychological construct that influences the course and outcomes of soldiers’ and spouses’ struggles: the ability to make meaning of deployments and the hardships that result. Making meaning – or creating coherency and sense out of complex life events – is a well-established protective factor for a wide variety of outcomes. The absence of meaning, by contrast, is a significant risk factor for negative outcomes including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Very little is known, however, about these processes in Veterans, military families, or in the broader context of combat deployments. The present studies relied on longitudinal interviews of Army National Guard Veterans and families over a two year period in order to yield greater understanding of how processes related to meaning making help or hinder these at-risk families. Through semi-structured interviews and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, I examined their experiences in great depth. The findings are revealing. In Study 1, I report on interviews with individual Veterans. Most soldiers returning seemed to experience a type of persistent existential vacuum or emptiness after the unparalleled intensity of war. Some found solace in other, often new sources of meaning, particularly families, careers, and their religious faith. Those who did not often struggled with substance abuse, relational problems, and even suicidal ideation. In study 2, I examined the experiences of the Veterans’ partners. Partners also revealed bifurcated experiences. Those who possessed or created strong sources of meaning tended to cope more effectively; such sources included faith in God, supporting the service member, holding families together, and discovering new strengths. Couples who shared strong sources of meaning tended to report positive outcomes driven in part by honest, open communication styles, and a shared sense of direction for the future. Couples with widely divergent sources of meaning struggled more, as they often seemed to be growing in different directions. Stress in many forms exacerbated such differences. Many partners reported struggling greatly as they witnessed their Veteran cope with a sense of meaningless and lack of identity after war. Recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and clinicians are included.
Read
