Soldiers face unique challenges related to their emotional, psychological, and physical well-being that are different from those faced by civilians. One such challenge is navigating the often conflicting desires for love, attachment, and security versus the need to remain focused on survival during combat situations. This can lead to feelings of ambivalence about close relationships, which can be especially difficult to manage while deployed away from loved ones. In this essay, I will explore how soldiers navigate relational ambivalence when desire, attachment, and survival imperatives conflict.
Navigating Relational Ambivalence: The Interplay of Desire, Attachment, and Survival Imperatives
When soldiers enter into battle, they must prioritize their own survival above all else. This means being able to make quick decisions, stay alert, and maintain focus on the task at hand.
As humans, soldiers also have emotional needs for connection and intimacy. These needs can create tension between their desire for attachment and their need for self-preservation.
Soldiers may feel torn between wanting to protect themselves and their fellow comrades while also feeling a deep sense of camaraderie with them.
Attachment Theory
To understand how soldiers navigate these conflicts, it is helpful to look at attachment theory. According to attachment theory, people form close bonds with others throughout life in order to meet basic needs for safety and security. These bonds are based on trust, empathy, and mutual caregiving. When soldiers are separated from family and friends during deployment, they may experience increased anxiety and stress due to separation distress. They may also become more vulnerable to depression or other mental health issues.
Desire for Intimacy
Soldiers may also experience sexual attraction towards one another during combat situations. This desire for intimacy can create feelings of guilt and shame if they cannot act upon it due to cultural norms or military regulations. Soldiers may feel conflicted about their desires, leading to ambivalent thoughts and behaviors.
Soldiers may feel pressure to form close relationships with civilians during deployment, especially if they are deployed for long periods of time. This can lead to complex feelings of guilt, jealousy, and fear of abandonment. They may worry that they will lose their loved ones back home while away, which can make it difficult to form new relationships with locals in foreign countries.
Navigating Relational Ambivalence: Strategies for Coping
Soldiers have developed strategies to cope with relational ambivalence when desire, attachment, and survival imperatives conflict. Some soldiers find solace in religion, spirituality, or physical exercise. Others turn to substance abuse or engage in risky behavior such as gambling or excessive drinking. Still others rely on rituals, routines, or hobbies to manage their emotions.
Some soldiers use humor as a coping mechanism. They may joke about sex or other taboo topics as a way to lighten the mood and maintain social connections. This can be helpful in reducing anxiety and tension but can also lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
Navigating relational ambivalence is a challenging aspect of being a soldier. By understanding the interplay between desire, attachment, and survival needs, soldiers can develop healthier ways of managing these conflicts. It is important for both military leaders and mental health professionals to provide support and resources to help soldiers process and manage these emotions in a productive manner.
How do soldiers navigate relational ambivalence when desire, attachment, and survival imperatives conflict?
Relational ambivalence refers to the contradictory feelings of closeness and distance that people may experience within their relationships, which can lead to confusion and complexity about how they should approach them. In the context of military service, where individuals are tasked with protecting and serving their country while also establishing meaningful connections with others, this type of ambivalence can be particularly challenging.