Why are there "Military Psychologists?"
A personal perspective on the danger of having psychologists in the military chain of command.
After writing my last blog, about Catholic University teaming up with military psychologists, I found out that the existence of “military psychologists” was a surprise to many people. It should be. The role of psychologist and the role of active duty member of the US military are incompatible, even though psychology organizations choose to ignore this. The values, aims, expectations and demands of the two roles present so-called “dual loyalty” tensions that are very likely to lead to the chain of command demand for obedience winning out over personal responsibility to fulfill professional ethical obligations. Indeed, it already has, in the glaring, horrifying recent history of psychologists’ involvement in torture.
Most important of all, there is nothing ethical that a "military psychologist” does that cannot be done by a psychologist who is outside the chain of command—that is, by a civilian psychologist.
I have been told multiple times that active duty military would not accept a civilian therapist. Really? And does that mean that hairdressers have to be treated by hairdresser-psychologists, and dentists can only be treated by dental psychologists?
Having psychologists in the chain of command is terribly problematic. A recent peer-reviewed journal article, written by military and military-friendly scholars is relevant here.
…the pursuit of the military/intelligence mission necessitates subordination of the scientific process. The epistemic conflict is intractable because research scientists engaged for military/intelligence operations are themselves the commanders’ tools of investigation or manipulation, not the commanders’ partners…1
This discouraging quote makes the problem of chain of command as plain as can be: the psychological researchers are “tools” of the commanders, not partners to the commanders. In that case, how can they possibly be expected to adhere to ethics, in the event that ethics are in conflict with at the commanders’ orders?
I have been to multiple presentations where military psychologists make it sound like dual loyalty is easily manageable, giving mild examples where commanders ask for information about treatment, and the military psychologists reminds the commander that treatment is confidential, and that is the end. Those exist, and are not unlike the situations faced by some counseling center psychologists in universities, and they are not the problem. The problem is when the order from the commander is in violation of ethics, and the situation is not easily resolved.
Military psychologists, together with some allies, have just gotten the largest organization of psychologists in the world to sign off on “guidelines” that allow them to engage in activities where they are not answerable to any professional person or body or values or expectations, but only to the military/intelligence chain of command. I suppose this is just getting APA to openly admit what was already true.
Military psychologists with a few allies, wrote some guidelines, and submitted them (as they are required to do) for comment. Many humanitarian and peace-oriented psychologists commented and some requested changes. The military psychologists brushed off most of the comments, then told the governing body of APA that the guidelines had been reviewed by (I paraphrase) peace, humanitarian, social-justice oriented psychologists. Not a lie. Just a blatant attempt to mislead the governing body of the organization—they had been reviewed, but not approved. And that, I think, is totally consistent with military values—the mission is the thing, and the end—fulfilling the mission—justifies the means, even if the means include violence, misleading, secrecy, etc. Here is an account of the process where the governing body got hoodwinked into approving totally inadequate guidelines.
Consider the possibility that if you disobeyed your boss, or your boss’s boss, etc, you might find yourself in court, risk a lifetime of shame, risk your intended career, educational benefits, the health care benefits you’d hoped to have for the rest of your life. Also, imagine that if you disobeyed, you might be considered a traitor, and your colleagues might think you were disloyal to them. And you might have to return that signing bonus you received. And the family members that depend on your economic support might lose that support. Then consider the possibility that your boss orders you to do something that violates your morals, principles, or professional ethics.
Do we really want to continue to put psychologists in that position, when the actual tasks to be performed could be performed perfectly well by a civilian psychologist who is simply not committed to obey, and who could decline an unethical order without such dire consequences?
So why do we have military psychologists? A 2018 paper published in the journal British Military Health dates the founding of military psychology to World War I, in Britain and in the US. Psychologists where
…it was integral to many early concepts and interventions for psychological and neuropsychological trauma. It also established a fundamental basis for the psychological assessment and selection of military personnel…
Yes, a hundred years ago, Americans and Brits thought that military psychology was a good idea. It is past time to rethink that.
If you want a more detailed analysis of the problematic and oxymoronic idea of military psychology, here is a link to a longer piece I wrote on this subject.
Arrigo, J. M., et al. 2022 A military/intelligence operational perspective on the American Psychological Association’s weaponization of psychology post-9/11. History of the Human Sciences 2022, Vol. 35(5) 51–79.