Welcome to part III of this three-part series wherein we will consider the practical application of looking at such topics as moral dumbfounding and moral modules. We’ll also look at how these practical applications potentially affect philanthropy.
One of the biggest focus areas now for philanthropy centers on returning vets, veterans returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last night on the news, an army general stationed here in New Mexico told a reporter that approximately 25% of returning vets will have PTSD or post traumatic stress disorder. This general also correctly mentioned that symptoms may not show up for several years. Back during the 2010 Annual Conference of the Council on Foundations in Denver, I heard the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen talk about the issue of returning vets. Admiral Mullen simply told philanthropists that the need to help returning vets will be more than the military could handle, and that philanthropy will have to step in to help. Well, there was a bit of a backlash from vet groups following Admiral Mullen’s talk. These vet groups argued in essence, “The militray sent us, the military should take care of us.” Sure, these vet groups expressed concern that by bringing philanthropy into the picture, they would miss out on benefits promised to them by the military. But beyond this, I think there are moral module implications. Lets face it, the military draws energy from the moral modules of Authority/subversion, Liberty/oppression, and Sanctity/degradation. These are the moral modules that many vets feel most comfortable with. By suggesting that philanthropy step up and provide care, Admiral Mullen unintentionally said something akin to, “We wish for returning vets to find care in environments that may feel very foreign to them from a moral module standpoint.” As Admiral Mullen told us quite frankly, military personnel are trained to not access the Care/harm moral module. It is naive to expect that people can simply shift moral modules especially if through training or early attachment experience (or both) they are distancing themselves from the Care/harm moral module. As John Bowlby pointed out in his work, once an Inner Working (Mental) Model is set up, it is very hard to change or shift. Regardless of how they came to use the moral modules they do in the military, that process should be respected if not at least considered. So, philanthropists may think they are offering help by operating out of the Care/harm moral module when in fact it may be the very same moral module that could do harm. In the same way you cannot simply tell people to accept love and care if they operate out of a distanced form of attachment, you cannot tell returning vets to give up their attachment to certain moral modules in favor of the Care/harm moral module. Let me offer up another example here.
Just last week I received a letter from the New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board. The letter talked about a new statewide project: New Mexico Returning Veterans Counselors and Therapists Project (NMRVC&TP). The goal of the project is to locate and sign up counselors and therapists who are willing to provide “free—‘pro bono’—counseling and therapy services to a minimum of one service veteran or their family, in every county in New Mexico, in 2013” (quoting from the letter). The sign up form simply asks for contact information and for a license number that is in good standing. That’s it. Provide this information and a counselor or therapist will be placed on a listing of providers for the NMRVC&TP Project. Personally, I find this to be somewhat amazing. The form does not ask whether a counselor or therapist has received the proper training (and has the proper access to supervision) that would make them qualified to work with veterans possibly suffering from PTSD. At the very least, I would expect that such a project would have a 40 hour training program designed to familiarize counselors or therapists with the area of working with trauma. And not only trauma mind you, but vets with trauma. The recent blog post entitled Army Sees Highest Suicide Rate in July, quotes General Lloyd J. Austin III, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, when he states: “Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the army. And it’s an enemy that’s killing not just Soldiers, but tens of thousands of Americans every year.” Suicide … PTSD … these are tough issues for therapists and counselors, issues that require specialized training and supervision. Let me give you another example that points toward the need for specialized training.
Recently I went to a workshop for philanthropists (hosted by the Conference of Southwest Foundations) on returning vets put on by military personnel. One story really caught my attention. According to these workshop presenters, local police authorities are pulling over vets who have returned to their home towns for the offense of driving down the middle of the road. This behavior seems bizarre to local officials. But the military told us that behaviors such as these helped keep vets alive in military theaters. Why? The middle of the road is the safest place to be given that improvised explosive devices (IED) are often placed at a road’s edge. Civilian counselors and therapists are not provided with this type of important information. Plus, the NMRVC&TP Project does not ask about attitudes toward such things as military identity, narratives, and moral modules. As we will see below, military identity, narratives, and moral modules may play a large role in any therapeutic process.
So, how do you get past the quandary of counselors and therapists trained to typically use the Care/harm moral module in their work when in fact it may be the very moral module that could do harm? The answer is easy to state but very hard to implement: You provide care that honors moral modules. Here’s a quick example.
Back in 2006, I had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Abraham Sagi-Schwartz give a presentation entitled “Holocaust Child Survivors and their Offspring: Vulnerability and Resilience.” Dr. Sagi-Schwartz was testing the theory that trauma is passed along from generation to generation through attachment functioning (one of the tenets of Bowlby’s theory). Surprisingly, Dr. Sagi-Schwartz did not find this to be the case with three generations of Holocaust survivor mothers. Here are the factors that Dr. Sagi-Schwartz found that attenuated the transgenerational transmission of trauma:
- social support
- genetic factors (e.g., children of Holocaust survivors may have inherited genes that protect against trauma reactions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD)
- secure emotional infrastructure prior to the Holocaust
- trauma was perceived to be “external” (e.g., not inflicted on the children by parents or other trusted attachment figures, but, in fact, by anonymous and destructive social forces)
- a sense of strong collective national identity that resulted from being in Israel, a feeling of being in a place that is free of anti-Semitism
- search for meaning was encouraged (i.e., the work of Viktor Frankl would be an example)
- ability to form bonds with fellow survivors and construct a collective story or narrative
- access to public Holocaust memorials
- continued strong bond with deceased parents, parents perceived to provide continuing spiritual support
I could be way off base but it seems to me that the more group-orineted moral modules like Sanctity/degradation and Loyalty/betrayal were employed here to bring about a therapeutic effect. Unfortunately, many forms of traditional therapy are not set up to trigger these moral modules. Therapy does not typically engage in the construction of collective stories or narratives. Therapy typically does not involve building memorials. Therapy typically does not engage in creating a shared identity, like being a part of a military family. Therapy, however, could be used to help with such things as social support and a search for meaning.
So, all this to say that with respect to returning vets, therapy or care or help may need to take on nontraditional forms, such as what is known as advocacy counseling. Returning vets may need the type of advocacy counseling that Dr. Sagi-Schwartz’s research points to—forming a strong sense of nationalism (Loyalty/betrayal), forming bonds with fellow warriors (Sanctity/degradation), and constructing a collective story or narrative (Authority/subversion). So, I applaud the military their efforts to enlist the help of philanthropy, counselors, and therapists with respect to returning vets, however that call may also involve these groups moving to and embracing moral modules that they may not be comfortable with. As an observation, where are the Iraq or Afghanistan War Memorials? Where are the parades? How are the collective stories being created? Maybe that’s where philanthropists should put some effort. Just an idea. Talking about the end of WWII in her book Stiffed—The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi paints the following picture: “Across the country, joyous citizens welcomed returning troops with impromptu parades, spontaneous street dancing, and christenings of shredded-phone book confetti, champagne, and water.” Maybe this is the type of “therapy” our returning troops need.
In closing, again, my concern centers on the possibility that if we ask returning vets to move away from the moral modules they have become accustomed to by moving toward and accepting the Care/harm moral module, we may ultimately (unintentionally) trigger moral and even attachment dumbfounding. For her book Stiffed, Faludi interviewed men laid off from McDonnell Douglas (the aerospace concern) during the early 1990s. During these interviews many of the men would “freely admit the irrationality of their words” (quoting Faludi) as they flailed around “throwing out reason after reason” (quoting Pinker from part II) why they should be laid off—downsizing, cost-cutting, streamlining, etc. When the rational explanations for the layoffs were exhausted, the core, body-based moral module reasons remained. These men felt betrayed and they were simply dumbfounded. As Faludi puts it, “[This] anger must flow somewhere….” My sense is that therapists and counselors will have to receive some training that will allow them to recognize moral (and even attachment) dumbfounding, and to properly direct the inevitable anger. I could be wrong but simply suggesting that a returning vet embrace the Care/harm moral module may not be enough and could possibly cause harm. If Bowlby were here he’d tell us that we need to help returning vets with the grief that inevitably flows from loss, even if that loss is associated with losing the safety and security of a dearly held moral module. As an example, notice how depressed people get when their candidate loses a presidential race, a phenomenon half of us we will soon encounter. As Bowlbian attachment theory tells us, loss of a dearly held cultural cognitive model or map (and I would include moral modules here) is a profound loss that takes months if not years to process.
