讨厌的战争和需要帮助的退伍军人?认知多语症如何解释美国伊拉克和阿富汗退伍军人作为受害者和英雄的概念。

IF 2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Frontiers in Sociology Pub Date : 2024-08-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2024.1442649
Rita Helena Phillips
{"title":"讨厌的战争和需要帮助的退伍军人?认知多语症如何解释美国伊拉克和阿富汗退伍军人作为受害者和英雄的概念。","authors":"Rita Helena Phillips","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2024.1442649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Representative opinion polls indicate that members of the U.S. public may hold dichotomous perceptions of their veterans. While the majority of the U.S. public appreciates and honors their veterans, they are also considered to suffer from war-induced trauma and physical disabilities. Victimizing attitudes toward the veteran population may result in stigmatization and a more difficult transition into civilian society. This may be particularly problematic for U.S. veterans who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as this younger veteran population needs to reintegrate not only into civilian society but also into civilian workplace settings. The present study aims to uncover and unravel underlying rationalities that justify heroizing and victimizing sentiments in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In order to delve beyond socially desirable reporting and cultural norms, in-depth semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals (20 non-veterans and 9 veterans) were conducted. Three themes were identified by thematic analysis: Theme 1 \"Individual Understandings of the Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan\" represents an underlying framework that tainted perceptions of Theme 2 \"Conceptualizations of war, deployment, and violence\" and Theme 3 \"Evaluations of the veteran's personality.\" If the deployments were considered justified, then veterans were heroized, characterized with supreme altruistic traits when compared with civilians. Negative effects on health that were arbitrarily related to deployment experience were classified as short-lived. If the deployments were scrutinized, then veterans were considered as naïve victims of a deceitful government, suffering from long-term health problems. Importantly, as discussions surrounding the legitimacy of the deployments were context-dependent, the participants were able to hold perceptions of veterans as victims and as heroes side by side. In conclusion, the heroization and victimization of veterans may be the result of considering different viewpoints, elucidating diversity and access to equivocal information in an increasingly complex social world. Although the present findings may require further validation, they suggest that changing negative, stereotyping perceptions of veterans may require a coherent rationale for deployments and uniform mission objectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nasty wars and needy veterans? How cognitive polyphasia may explain conceptualizations of the U.S. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as victims and heroes.\",\"authors\":\"Rita Helena Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsoc.2024.1442649\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Representative opinion polls indicate that members of the U.S. public may hold dichotomous perceptions of their veterans. While the majority of the U.S. public appreciates and honors their veterans, they are also considered to suffer from war-induced trauma and physical disabilities. Victimizing attitudes toward the veteran population may result in stigmatization and a more difficult transition into civilian society. This may be particularly problematic for U.S. veterans who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as this younger veteran population needs to reintegrate not only into civilian society but also into civilian workplace settings. The present study aims to uncover and unravel underlying rationalities that justify heroizing and victimizing sentiments in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In order to delve beyond socially desirable reporting and cultural norms, in-depth semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals (20 non-veterans and 9 veterans) were conducted. Three themes were identified by thematic analysis: Theme 1 \\\"Individual Understandings of the Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan\\\" represents an underlying framework that tainted perceptions of Theme 2 \\\"Conceptualizations of war, deployment, and violence\\\" and Theme 3 \\\"Evaluations of the veteran's personality.\\\" If the deployments were considered justified, then veterans were heroized, characterized with supreme altruistic traits when compared with civilians. Negative effects on health that were arbitrarily related to deployment experience were classified as short-lived. If the deployments were scrutinized, then veterans were considered as naïve victims of a deceitful government, suffering from long-term health problems. Importantly, as discussions surrounding the legitimacy of the deployments were context-dependent, the participants were able to hold perceptions of veterans as victims and as heroes side by side. In conclusion, the heroization and victimization of veterans may be the result of considering different viewpoints, elucidating diversity and access to equivocal information in an increasingly complex social world. Although the present findings may require further validation, they suggest that changing negative, stereotyping perceptions of veterans may require a coherent rationale for deployments and uniform mission objectives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358115/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1442649\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1442649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有代表性的民意调查显示,美国公众对退伍军人的看法可能是两极分化的。虽然大多数美国公众对退伍军人表示赞赏和敬意,但他们也被认为遭受了战争造成的创伤和身体残疾。对退伍军人的受害态度可能会导致他们被污名化,更难过渡到平民社会。对于曾被派往伊拉克和阿富汗的美国退伍军人来说,这可能尤其成问题,因为这些年轻的退伍军人不仅需要重新融入平民社会,还需要重新进入平民工作场所。本研究旨在发现和揭示伊拉克和阿富汗退伍军人英雄化和受害者化情绪的内在合理性。为了超越社会期望的报道和文化规范,本研究对 29 人(20 名非退伍军人和 9 名退伍军人)进行了深入的半结构式访谈。通过主题分析确定了三个主题:主题 1 "个人对伊拉克和阿富汗部署的理解 "代表了一个基本框架,它影响了主题 2 "对战争、部署和暴力的理解 "和主题 3 "对退伍军人个性的评价"。如果部署被认为是合理的,那么退伍军人就被英雄化了,与平民相比,他们具有至高无上的利他主义特质。与部署经历任意相关的对健康的负面影响被归类为短暂的。如果部署受到审查,那么退伍军人就会被视为欺骗政府的天真受害者,长期遭受健康问题的困扰。重要的是,由于围绕部署合法性的讨论取决于具体情况,参与者能够将退伍军人视为受害者和英雄。总之,退伍军人的英雄化和受害者化可能是在日益复杂的社会世界中考虑不同观点、阐明多样性和获取模棱两可的信息的结果。尽管目前的研究结果可能还需要进一步验证,但这些结果表明,要改变对退伍军人的负面、刻板印象,可能需要有连贯的部署理由和统一的任务目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nasty wars and needy veterans? How cognitive polyphasia may explain conceptualizations of the U.S. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as victims and heroes.

Representative opinion polls indicate that members of the U.S. public may hold dichotomous perceptions of their veterans. While the majority of the U.S. public appreciates and honors their veterans, they are also considered to suffer from war-induced trauma and physical disabilities. Victimizing attitudes toward the veteran population may result in stigmatization and a more difficult transition into civilian society. This may be particularly problematic for U.S. veterans who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as this younger veteran population needs to reintegrate not only into civilian society but also into civilian workplace settings. The present study aims to uncover and unravel underlying rationalities that justify heroizing and victimizing sentiments in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In order to delve beyond socially desirable reporting and cultural norms, in-depth semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals (20 non-veterans and 9 veterans) were conducted. Three themes were identified by thematic analysis: Theme 1 "Individual Understandings of the Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan" represents an underlying framework that tainted perceptions of Theme 2 "Conceptualizations of war, deployment, and violence" and Theme 3 "Evaluations of the veteran's personality." If the deployments were considered justified, then veterans were heroized, characterized with supreme altruistic traits when compared with civilians. Negative effects on health that were arbitrarily related to deployment experience were classified as short-lived. If the deployments were scrutinized, then veterans were considered as naïve victims of a deceitful government, suffering from long-term health problems. Importantly, as discussions surrounding the legitimacy of the deployments were context-dependent, the participants were able to hold perceptions of veterans as victims and as heroes side by side. In conclusion, the heroization and victimization of veterans may be the result of considering different viewpoints, elucidating diversity and access to equivocal information in an increasingly complex social world. Although the present findings may require further validation, they suggest that changing negative, stereotyping perceptions of veterans may require a coherent rationale for deployments and uniform mission objectives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信