A Service Member's Self in Transition: A Longitudinal Case Study Analysis

Abstract

Adopting a narrative approach with a dialogical framework, a longitudinal case study is presented that describes a service member's self in transition from active service into the civilian population. An analysis and interpretation of the case study leads to the hypothesis that if a dominant military I-position appears in the self, a transition may initially create decentering movements of the self that in turn decrease integration and dialogical capacity of the self. New narrative concepts of who one is to become may take time to shape and anchor in corresponding I-position(s) of the self, and self-adaption may only reach a certain level of integration. However, the rise of a third position may unify two conflicting parts, or I-positions, of the self. This may prove to be a promising development for integration and dialogue of the self. Future research is encouraged that examines this hypothesis more broadly.

INTRODUCTION

It has been suggested that military cultures shape military identities that are rooted deep within the self (Beder, 2012, Bragin, 2010; Hall, 2012a, 2012b; Haynie & Shepherd, 2011; Moore, 2012; Thornborrow & Brown, 2009; Woodward & Jenkings, 2011). Such military identities may give rise to salient or dominant military I-positions of the self. While engaged in active duty, these dominant and deeply ingrained types of military identity constructions may help service members get the job done. But as service members transition and reintegrate into a civilian life, the tenacity of such identities can prove to be one among many challenges (Buell, 2010; Drops, 2004; Savion, 2009; Yanos, 2004).

In this article, the case of Sergeant Erik, who served approximately 5 years for the Swedish armed forces deployed in Afghanistan and elsewhere, will be presented. His case is selected as he represents a general trend of identity struggles among a group of service members participating in a longitudinal research project that focuses on existential issues in identity reconstruction among military personnel in the process of leaving active service. Erik was interviewed annually from 2013 through 2015, as he transitioned into the civilian population. In the first interview he was 3 months postexit, and the content thereof—analyzed and presented elsewhere—suggested that military culture shaped a narrative identity that gave rise to a military I-position that became a dominant voice of the self (Grimell, 2016a). For Erik the transition became filled with tension and conflict, as a part of him struggled with not losing the military identity and another part was simultaneously trying to construct a new identity as a student in a civilian context. This was effectively captured in the interview narrative that consisted of opposing themes, and in personal reflections about a rebellion inside of the self, related to conflicting desires and dreams.

In order to understand what was going on in Erik's self throughout this process of transition, dialogical self theory (Hermans, 1999, 2001, 2013; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010) was applied and appeared to be a useful framework for such a task. Among a number of things, dialogical self theory assumes that the self consists of different I-positions (e.g., “I as a service man,” “I as a brother,” “I as a student”) that can be displayed as voices in a personal narrative. Tension between such voices could reflect increasing struggle between old and new I-positions as the self attempts to adapt to a new situation in life. Additionally, integration and the dialogical capacity of the self likely decrease as conflict arises between I-positions. Thus a dialogical self theory conceptualization used through a narrative approach (McAdams, 1988, Sarbin, 1986; 1997; Slocum-Bradley, 2009), could provide us with a promising framework that is particularly tailored to the task of attempting to understand what is happening in a service member's self during a transition into the civilian population. The purpose of this article is to use Erik's longitudinal case study to describe how such a framework could be applied and used in order to generate a hypothesis on the subject matter.

One particular research question is addressed from a longitudinal outlook: What happens to Erik's self and his narrative identities during transition into the civilian population? The following subquestions will inform the analysis:

• How is transition into the civilian population experienced?

• How are narrative identities constructed in the process?

• How does the self adapt (i.e., reorganize old/new I-positions) in the process?

A Narrative Approach to Self and Identities

It has been suggested that humans use a narrative principle when we think, perceive, imagine, and make moral choices (Sarbin, 1986). The narrative structures we live by will influence us in both conscious and unconscious ways. Additionally, our narratives become an organizing principle for our lives (Polkinghorne, 1988). Already as children narratives are assembled from content, and channels of distribution will construct a certain disposition of the self. It could be said that the software of the self is built up through cultural and subcultural narratives within society. Such narratives will closely intertwine in the very shaping of a self, which is conceived of as a repertoire of stories or voices (Crites, 1986; Crossley, 2000; Hermans, Kempen, & Van Loon, 1992; Ricoeur, 1998; Scheibe, 1986; Webster & Mertova, 2007). Cultural narratives speaking up in the self are, to some extent, personal appropriations of narratives from society, and thus the individual is also an original author of his or her composition.

Within the broad field of narrative research, amid methodological differences, many researchers assert that personal narrative, identity, and self are closely related. Mishler (2004) formulated it this way: “We express, display, make claims for who we are—and who we would like to be—in the stories we tell and how we tell them” (p. 19). In line with such a postulate, there is an agreement that every story told is some type of a self-representation, which in turn equates a personal narrative to a kind of claim of identity (Clandinin, 2013; Mancuso, 1986; McAdams, 2013; Mishler, 1986; Sarbin, 1986). Additionally, such conclusions infer that a narrative approach is a productive and qualitative lens to use when narrowing in on empirical issues of identity in lived life (Clandinin, 2013; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007; McAdams, Josselson, & Lieblich, 2006, 2002; Polkinghorne, 1988).

In the stories of who we are, narrated characters will appear based on fragments from cultural and subcultural narratives (e.g., “I as a father,” “I as a mother.” “I as a warrior”). These cultural and subcultural characters are appropriated, perhaps further equipped and/or stripped, by the self in the construction of identities. Following in the steps of James (1890), Mancuso and Sarbin (1983), Mead (1934), and Sarbin (1986), it is suggested that the author of these narrative characters in the story of who I am is “I” of the self. Formulated in another way, “I” construct a character of “Me,” which the self then presents in the personal story of who I am (Sarbin, 1986, p. 18).

A development of this idea was proposed decades ago by Hermans and colleagues (1992) as they offered a progressive translation of the I-Me distinction through the self as a dialogical narrator. The self as a dialogical narrator holds several I-positions and, depending on time, situation, and audience, these I-positions author different characters of the self in the personal narrative (e.g., “I as a service member,” “I as a brother”). The narrative construction of characters, with different features, is the definition of identity (Slocum-Bradley, 2009). This implies that narrative identity consists of two aspects: the character as such (e.g., “I as a service member,” “I as a brother”) and the specific features of these characters (e.g., competent, focused, efficient, loving, caring), and the articulation between characters or voices. The challenge of several characters of the self is narratively solved through the distinction between character and story. “The many are the main characters; the one is the story within which the characters are given form, function, and voice” (McAdams, 1997, p. 118). This implies a set of I-positions that author a set of characters which become united, likely with tension and multiple plotlines, through a personal story of who I am (Grimell, 2016b).

A Dialogical Self

There have been important forerunners in the conceptualization of a dialogical self as a narrator of characters (Hermans et al., 1992). The idea of a dialogical self has developed further during the last decades, and continues to evolve, through the dialogical self theory (Hermans, 2001; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). This enterprise has been, and continues to be, pursued by many researchers. Dialogical self theory combines and goes beyond the traditional, modern, and postmodern views of the self: a dialogical self (see Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, for review). The self is described as an extension to its society and is viewed as a “society of the mind” that is not outside but rather is an intrinsic part of the self (Hermans, 2002, p. 147). This implies that the self harbors similar types of tensions, conflicting ideas, and potential for dialogue (Hermans, 2003, 2004). Additionally, this constructs a self with several or multiple I-positions that make up the position repertoire of the self (Hermans, 2001).

It has been suggested that there are two types of I-positions of the self: those I-positions linked to the internal and those linked to the external domain of the self. I-positions related to the internal domain of the self are located inside of a person (e.g., “I as restless,” “I as accurate”). External I-positions are extended to the external domain of the self (e.g., my colleagues, my wife) but are nonetheless an integral part of the self. It is important to underscore that, given the basic assumption of the extended self, the other is not outside of the self but, rather, an intrinsic part of it (Day & Jesus, 2013; Hermans, 2001, 2008). The composition of these I-positions is the position repertoire of the multiplicity of the self (Hermans, 2001). Unity, however, is still a central concept (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). Unity and continuity are narrated by attributing I, me, or mine to positions, and even if they are contradictory, they belong to the composite self.

I-positions of the composite self may have more or less conflicting desires that result in (expected) decentering and centering movements of the self. This movement may be viewed as a dynamic process of positioning and counter-positioning between I-positions. The multiple self promotes integration between such movements of the self (Hermans & Dimaggio, 2007). As external or internal I-positions diverge further or even come into conflict, the composite self may act to integrate such positions (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). The dialogical capacity of the self may differ from person to person; it may be flexible or unflexible (i.e., locked under a dominant I-position). The dialogical capacity of the self is tightly linked to society, and a lack of dialogue in a society may have a corresponding effect on the capacity of the dialogical self (Hermans, 2004; Hermans & Dimaggio, 2007). The dialogue of the self may be conducted between different I-positions. For example, between two internal I-positions (e.g., “I as impatient” agrees with “I as restless”), internal and external or extended I-positions (e.g., “I as restless” gets frustrated to work with “my lazy colleagues”), or between two external I-positions (e.g., “my wife” enjoys interacting with “my colleagues and their wives,” and that helps me to interact better with my colleagues).

A Dialogical Self in Transition

As new situations in life are encountered, such as a transition, the self may need to adjust its organization of positions. “In the case of a transition, the self is confronted with a new, unfamiliar or even threatening situation that requires an adaption or reorganization of the self” (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, p. 239). Such a transitional situation may become a challenge for a dialogical self, as it may result in decentering movements of the self. These movements, more or less, disrupt the existing integration and organization of positions. If this regressive movement becomes overly dominant in the self, it may entail the risk of chaos and fragmentation. But transition also implies the possibility of centering movements that work in directions of unity and integration. Such progressive movements may restore or reorganize positions of the self in the process of adjustment to a new situation in life.

Different dialogical strategies for the self could be used in the process of adaption. One example is the capacity to engage a coalition of positions built around shared desires, interests, and motives. Coalitions may work together for cooperation and support a dialogical approach of the self. Such a blend of I-positions engaging in a coalition may nurture adaption or innovation of the self amid the necessity of addressing change (Hermans, 2008). Nonetheless, the converse may also prove true, and a dominant coalition may decrease the dialogical capacity.

In a transitional movement I-positions may experience increased friction or even clash during the process due to differing desires. Additionally, such a development will affect the dialogical process, which may deteriorate or eventually become disconnected. The discovery and creation of a third position may potentially bridge such conflicts and restore dialogue (Hermans, 2013, 2003). A third position has the capacity to unify two conflicting positions without denying or removing their differences, and thus a third position can lead a dialogical self to find consolation and even resolution amid conflict. “At the same time, the third position has the advantage that the energy, originally invested in the resolution of the conflict, can be used in the service of the development of a third position” (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010, p. 156).

METHOD

A qualitative inquiry addressing a service member's self and narrative identities in transitional movement calls for a longitudinal and narrative approach wherein a story can be compared across time. The disruption of a story creates voids in a personal narrative, into which new characters may progressively emerge and grow. Meanwhile, old characters still exists. One of the basic premises of dialogical self theory is that different I-positions produce different narratives (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). The process of narrative analysis is an inductive inquiry, and the methodological principle is built around the interview (Clandinin, 2013; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000;McAdams, 1988, 1997, 2013).

Erik is 1 of 19 (N = 19) informants in the ongoing project, which started during the summer of 2013. The project is entitled, “Existential and Religious Dimensions in Identity Reconstruction Among Swedish Military Personnel During the Process of Becoming Veterans.” The informants have been followed via annual interviews as they have transitioned from active service to a civilian life.

The Interviewee

Erik (who goes by another name in real life) volunteered through a snowball sampling method and was informed about the study by a letter of information (Noy, 2008). The letter of information presented the background of the project (i.e., a need to gain knowledge about the process of transition among service members) and described the purpose of the project, the number of interviews, the research ethics, and the anonymity and formalities. This letter was distributed by email to Erik, who had to complete a response letter and return it. This also served as the informed consent agreement. In the response letter Erik was required, among a number of things, to suggest a time and place to conduct the first interview. Erik was chosen for this article as he is representative of a group of informants within the project that narrate identity struggles.

The Interview Procedure

All three interviews were conducted annually in November (2013, 2014, 2015) in a Swedish city, at different locations that were selected by Erik. The interviews generally lasted 100 to 120 minutes, even before counting about 30 minutes of research information and questions prior to the actual interviews and approximately 30 minutes of discussions afterward. The interviews were completely transcribed, so the spoken word has been transferred into written text.

The same interview guide was used throughout the interviews with Erik. The interview guide had a semi-structured design in order to cover topics, defined by the researcher, relevant to the research purpose (Kvale, 2007; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; van den Brand, Hermans, Scherer-Rath, & Verschuren, 2014). The interview guide allowed for case-sensitive questions.

The topics of investigation were the military story, transition, relationships, identity, and existential concerns of the interviewee. The questions were open and designed to allow Erik to construct answers in ways that he found meaningful (Riessman, 1993; Webster & Mertova, 2007). The interviews started with the question, “If you think a while, in what way would you describe your life or service as a soldier and military technician?” Through this approach, Erik was encouraged to tell his own story in his own way (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Crossley, 2000).

The Interviewer

In addition to the fact that I conducted the interviews as a researcher with a stated research purpose, the informants were also cognizant of my earlier military service as an officer. In the eyes of the informants, I am a person who has served and transitioned into civilian life, and this commonality makes it easy to communicate. We share a common military background and established a sense of basic trust throughout the interviews (Mishler, 1986, 2004).

Analytical Methodology and Codes

In the first phase of reading and rereading the transcripts, a variety of voices could be discerned that “function like interacting characters in a story, involved in a process of question and answer, agreement and disagreement” (Hermans, 1999, p. 72). The interview narratives were multilayered and filled with conflicting motives based on the voiced characters and their features (McAdams, 1988, 1997, 2013). It was assumed that the condition of Eric's self, in this process, could be analyzed through the levels of tension, conflict, cooperation, harmony, and dialogue between the voiced characters in the interview narratives (Hermans, 2013; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Hermans & Hermans-Jensen, 1995).

The subsequent step was to use a qualitative data analysis program called Atlas.ti to organize the content of the interviews related to the characters that were discerned (i.e., narrative identities). Erik's narrative constructions of characters were coded into different identity themes (e.g., military, student, brother, friend, boyfriend, others), including specific features of the characters added to the codes. Occurrences of tension, conflict, harmony, and other experiences were also attached to the codes. Furthermore, related to the coded identity themes, a corresponding set of I-positions was developed.

Finally, in order to validate the identity codes with the corresponding set of I-positions, Erik was sent through email the complete list of I-positions with a description of how they were derived, and asked to respond to the analytical suggestions made by the researcher. Erik replied, and agreed, to the identity codes with related I-positions by stating, “I can absolutely recognize all those I-positions in myself.”

A list of I-positions extracted from the interviews.

• “I as a service member”

• “I as a student”

• “I as a brother”

• “I as a friend”

• “I as a boyfriend”

The narrative analysis has been summarized in the results section, in which important aspects of the analysis are presented. Words or expressions with citations or italics are taken from the transcripts of the interviews. Some of the narrated accounts have been slightly altered in this article to protect Erik's anonymity.

RESULTS

Erik is about 28 years old and a sergeant (Other Ranks 5) with a naval background in the Swedish armed forces. He is trained as a military technician attached to the operative field and has participated in several types of international military missions in a variety of geographical areas, including Afghanistan. When we met for the first interview (T1), in November 2013, Erik was 3 months postexit and had just returned from a mission in Afghanistan. He had begun to study at a university and had by then devoted about 5 years to short-term employments for the Swedish armed forces. Erik still performs minor educational tasks for the armed forces, which implies that his military story and relationship to the armed forces continue.

Three Months Postexit: Narrative Struggle, Tension, and Conflict

In the first interview, Erik experienced the transition and return to a civilian population and life as a struggle filled with tensions and conflicts in many aspects. It was a challenge just to unpack his suitcase, and his sister was incredibly important, like a rock, for him in that process. Erik narrated a salient character as a brother; siblings hold prominent positions. They mean a lot to him, and as a brother, Erik is caring and responsible. His sister was an important supporter of keeping him on a civilian path as “she questions” any thoughts of enlisting again. Another realm of tension-filled experiences was the study setting. Sometimes conflict could arise in study group-related work as Erik became dominant, according to the others. The character of a student is not given much narrative space or features at all, except as a rebel, and Erik states:

I was thinking the other day like that, “Do I want to succeed with my papers now in social science, do I?” I don't know. “Do I wanna fail?” Is it that, is it why I don't commit myself, that is, is that what I am doing, is it some kind of rebellion against myself, or what is it that I am doing, and there is probably such an idea like that, what. “What is the driving force?”

Erik experiences difficulties in finding motivation for his studies, and a part of Erik would prefer to just let go of everything and have fun spending a season in some bar in the Chamonix ski resort region of France as an irresponsible bartender. Meanwhile, another part of him says, “But because I think it's fun, perhaps isn't a good enough reason for me to do it.” The military part of Erik would like to reenlist and send an application to the armed forces and deploy for a new mission. But another part of him seems to go against such plans, and Erik says:

The civilian rebellion is that I, that I fail to complete the application. Eh, I don't send a personal letter because I, eh, I, I want to fail, I don't want to go. So that is my civilian, “Me.”

At the same time, Erik is afraid of losing his military identity, and this obstructs the transition related to his self. It is a fear of losing a military identity that is such a large part of who he is:

It's a lot about self-image too, “Erik the soldier” or like I am a soldier in the broader sense of my person in some way, and it is difficult to cut it off, too, it's difficult to stop and to say, “But I will not do this anymore.”

The construction of Erik's military character is done through substories of achievements in service (e.g., getting the highest grades and recommendations, attaining position related ranks on mission that were impossible to receive at home in the regular system). Erik's military character is competent, motivated, efficient, never says “no” to assignments, and always delivers on time. The character has endured a heavy workload during missions and holds military camaraderie highly. But there is tension, too, related to the armed forces as an employer. Erik says, “I have banged my head against the wall so many times, against the organization, because they can't handle, that is, they can't handle employees.” Then there appears to be a dichotomy between military vs. civilian relationships, and Erik states, “If you have been in the military you have in some way reached the absolutely lowest demand to get, to get information about some things.”

Fifteen Months Postexit: Narrative Growth of New Characters

As we met for the second interview (T2) in November 2014, Erik was continuing his studies and pursuing an academic degree in social science. As I ask him about his emotions and experiences of transition up until now he replies:

Yes, but the emotions are incredibly muddled. The armed forces have been a central part of my being through basically six years and, eh, and to became a civilian is a process, eh, damn (laugh), what shall one say. It takes a while to leave, and with some friends you are recognized as “Erik the soldier,” and to climb out of that it takes a long time I would say. Eh, and then every time I have colleagues who still serve, every time you sit down and take a beer and talk trash, you wanna get back, you wanna get back so fucking badly that I would go tomorrow. And then you awake in the morning and realize, “Well, I shouldn’t, I shouldn't go tomorrow, I shouldn't start once again, right now.” … The civilian life has just started again, and then, it's many conflicts like that to sort out. There is a conflict, an internal conflict, yes but absolutely, if they call I go or I call and I go or I apply for those missions I would like to go on, eh, but in the same time I become somehow happy when I don't get enlisted for those missions, because then I can focus on what I’m doing, to complete my studies.

Erik's military identity is still salient, but many of the substories from the first interview are not mentioned or are referred to only briefly. Instead, Erik emphasizes his current experiences as an occasionally serving instructor in the armed forces as “very important.” Identity-related relationships from the first interview (e.g., siblings, friends from service) are narrated in the same way as before. A conflict with a close relative and the loss of a close relative sap energy from Erik.

New in the interview content is Erik's character as a student, who is much more elaborated and is given plenty of space in the second interview. Erik has adapted well to the study setting and consciously balances his leadership qualities from the military with a more sensitive civilian approach. The responses from Erik's fellow students, due to how he approaches and acts in the study setting, are “Generally positive I would say; I’m almost surprised,” he says. Because Erik is older than many of the other students, he has been given a role as an adviser and tries to help his peers in planning and distributing their study efforts. New to the situation is the fact that Erik has developed an important network of both student friends from the university and other friends. New relationships, Erik states, “are important, and it is important to cultivate this new network of friends too, eh, I think, I would say it is very, very important.”

Erik is very structured and combines a full course load as a student with military and other assignments that add up to 80 hours or more some months. He says, “There is a restlessness and, but I think that it's also, even if there is restlessness, there is a will to explore, too.” There is still a struggle between the civilian path and service, but Erik concludes, “I have sort of landed in that it is about damn time to complete my studies.” His goals are set on completion of his degree and finding a profitable civilian job.

A potential girlfriend has entered his life prior to the second interview. She allows for a new character (and a possible new character as a dad) to form, thereby initiating the dialogical process, as Erik states:

Well, do you dare to go all in? I was so burned last time because I deployed. I sacrificed something as I deployed. What if I wanna deploy again (laugh)? Is it worth it, the stress that it may be like that again, or is it not, or won't I go this time, and will I let go of someone I want? It is like a lot of those thoughts, too. What if I become a dad, will I go then, no, I don't know.

Twenty-Seven Months Postexit: “Tug of War” Between Narrative Identities

As we met once again for the third interview (T3) in November 2015, Erik had completed his degree in social science but was still engaged in some courses at the university. When Erik describes some of this coursework (i.e., papers, essays) he uses the metaphor of “a dead mass,” as “no one except the teacher will read them.”

Narrated identity-related relationships from the second interview are basically intact (e.g., siblings, friends from service, student friends). New to the situation is that Erik has entered a stable relationship with a girlfriend. He serves once in a while, with pleasure, as a military instructor.

Now Erik says that leaving active service “was like a jump off of a high-speed train.” It was a tremendous switch-over. Erik views the transition until now as a long, slow, and difficult process. He uses metaphors like “battled,” “wrestling struggle,” and “tug of war” to describe the fights between his military identity and the other identities who compete for the upper hand in the self. As I ask Erik to describe some more of his military sense of who he is today, he replies:

I absolutely think that my military self is split, because I still don't want to be recognized as the service man, I don't want to be “Erik the soldier,” but I probably don't hide that, and I am Erik, and I have been a service man and, so it absolutely affects my identity, and I have battled with this for some years really, and the wrestling struggle with the military identity, and in some way I have lost since I am partly on my way back again, and when you do that perhaps you lose a bit of the civilian identity.

It appears that Erik has reenlisted and has almost completed the training necessary to graduate to become a reserve officer. This is an interesting development for Erik, as he can combine and make use of his academic degree, as well as his military experience, in new positions as a reserve officer on higher and more complex levels within the armed forces. As I ask Erik to describe the process of reenlisting, he states:

I think it is, there are several reasons, the first is that it is difficult to leave, that identity, the military part is so strong, that if I would just stop and to have nothing left I would probably feel rather empty, because who am I then? And I guess that is somewhat scary.

Erik says “it would be a hard existential hit” and “existentially difficult” if he lost his uniform, as he has invested so much “time, energy, effort,” so much ”blood, sweat, and tears in that mixed bag of life.” Additionally, serving is significant, and “the sense of significance is intoxicating.” To serve is to “be part of something bigger than one's self.” Even though Erik does not retell the substories of service from earlier interviews, he still equips the military character with “capacity” and “competence.” His military friends are his “social safety net,” as they are “reliable” and “trustworthy.” Erik plans to go on mission(s) again as a reserve officer when a promising position appears. His girlfriend knows this. He is “restless.”

Throughout the years at the university, Erik says he has consciously focused on shaping a student identity. One way has been to consequently use “representative clothes,” a second has been to “interact with students outside of the university” and others, and third to “safeguard” a construction of a student identity from interference of the military identity. It is an important and “active choice” for Erik to “attend civilian events” not in uniform but in regular clothes, and he acknowledges “a civilian event as a civilian, and I have to be rather distinct to myself about that, yes, there are some kinds of politics of symbols internally in myself as a being.” He says, “it takes time” to construct a civilian identity, and it is “really important to safeguard” the civilian aspects of life. Today Erik feels that he controls his life in a more proactive way than as a service member, and that is a positive achievement.

DISCUSSION

As Erik encountered transition, a new situation in life, decentering movements of the self began, and the self needed to engage in reorganization and adaption (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). It has been both a demanding and a challenging process for Erik to transition from active service into a civilian population and life (Buell, 2010; Drops, 2004; Savion, 2009; Yanos, 2004). The general experiences from the transitional process are emotions of struggle, tension, and conflict of the self. These strong responses to transition may derive from his deeply rooted narrative identity as a serviceman (Haynie & Shepherd, 2011). Erik's narration of his military identity portrays a character of competence, efficacy, focus, endurance, and high capacity. Additionally, this character is an active part of something bigger than one's self, which underscores the magnitude of meaning or significance related to the military I-position, particularly, during deployment (Grimell, 2016a; Pargament, 2011). In Erik's words, “the sense of significance is intoxicating.” Considering the manner in which this I-position narrates Erik's military identity, and because of its endurance over the years of transition, it may be viewed as a dominant I-position in the self.

When Erik transitioned to a civilian life, he had little control or say in the process, as his employment was completed; he could not really influence that. This left his military I-position outside of the decisional process of leaving active service, which in turn created frustration because significance, meaning, and personal value as such had not changed. His sister played a particularly important role as a supporter in his first and most direct phase of transition. The new contextual life as a student into which he was about to navigate was in many aspects a counterculture compared to the collectivistic hierarchal military culture (Ben-Ari, 1998; French, 2005; Goldstein, 2001; Hall, 2012a; Huntington, 1957; Verrips, 2006; Wertsch, 1991). Erik's dominant military I-position was in command during the early phase of transition, which, based on the narrative account, generated tension and conflict in many levels of both his self and his interaction with other students. It is suggested that the encounter with a different culture (Pellegrino & Hoggan, 2015; Wheeler, 2012) started decentering movements of the self as the military I-position protected its local heritage (e.g., military values, attitudes, perceptions, emotions, way of life). The student position, based on the narrative account from the first interview, was not given much narrative space as “I as a service member” strengthened and defended its positioning. This suggests that an I-position as a student had difficulties forming in the presence of such a strong preexisting military I-position. In the first interview, Erik narrates experiences of rebellion in the new study context, perhaps a rebellion against a dominant military I-position. The metaphor of a rebellion is used by Erik several times in the first interview when he reflects on the military-civilian positions in his self. Earlier research has shown that self-innovation is closely linked with processes of self-opposition and self-contradiction via counter-positioning (Hermans, 1999). Additionally, it has been suggested elsewhere that a coalition of civilian positions may have cooperated or collaborated due to shared desires and motives (e.g., “I as a brother,” “I as a student,” “I as a rebel”) in order to keep Erik on a civilian path, against the will of “I as a service member” (Grimell, in press). The support of significant others in general appears to be important for the military identity, as well as for the old and new civilian identities.

However, in the second interview, narrative growth of a student character had proceeded, and Erik had developed a new and firm contextual I-position as a student. Much narrative space, especially compared with the first interview, is given to this character. It appears that “I as a student” had grown strong enough to counter-position “I as a service member” in the self. Although tension and conflict still existed in the second interview, the composite self was able to negotiate dialogue between the expected positioning and counter-positioning of these two salient I-positions. It is suggested, due to the narrative account, that when parts of the military identity (i.e., leadership qualities, strategic planning, decision=making skills) cooperate with a sensitive, open, and interactive character, they can combine to form what Erik describes as a student position. The metaphor of a rebellion is no longer used to narrate experiences of the self in transition, which, in combination with improved dialogue and cooperation, may serve as a narrative indicator of integration through centering movements of the self. The identity construction of a student character is supported by students, and Erik was ascribed, by himself and by fellow students, a role of an advisor. Through the eyes and position of the student character Erik has recognized the importance of cultivating a new network of friends (Wheeler, 2012). But the narrative theme of dichotomy between military and civilian spheres does persist, and this implies that the self experiences difficulties in bridging that gap and unifying those two realms. This appears, for example, in the dialogical discussion addressing the eventual commitment to a potential girlfriend.

At the time of the third interview Erik has a stable relationship with his girlfriend and therefore a new I-position as a boyfriend. The character of a student seems to have grown even more elaborate and developed. “I as a student” has an academic degree and seems to be a salient part of the self. But this process has been gradual and deliberate as Erik has consciously labored at sculpting this student identity. His composite self is aware of the dialogical challenges of positioning and counter-positioning between “I as a service member” and “I as a student with an academic degree” and recognizes that it is important to protect and safeguard the integrity of the student position. Because “I as a service member” is still a dominant I-position that boasts significant tried and tested support from other service members who are reliable and trustworthy (Wheeler, 2012), this social safety net for Erik must be proactively balanced with extra focus on building new relationships, support, and distinctions for his student identity.

The details and substories of service have declined remarkably throughout the years of interviewing. The dislocation from the self-image of “Erik the soldier” or “I am a soldier” in the first interview to “I am Erik, and I have been a serviceman” in the third interview is an interesting narrative change. Although a self-image is not an equivalent concept of an I-position, this narrative dislocation underscores a dialogical progression. But there is still a narrative gap, and possibly even contradiction and tension, between the military I-position and the complex of civilian I-positions. The way Erik uses the metaphor of “blood, sweat, and tears in that mixed bag of life” when he talks about military identity in contrast to “a dead mass” when he talks about some current academic work highlights this dichotomy. In addition to this metaphor of life related to military identity, the significance of deployment is described with the metaphor of being intoxicated. According to Erik's narrative accounts, his military identity seems to hold an existential dimension to which the student identity or other identities cannot be compared (in the set of these interviews). Therefore, the unforeseen rise of a third position as a reserve officer is interesting because such a position may have the capacity to bridge the military-civilian dichotomy, particularly between the military and academic I-positions. Such a third position may have the capacity to unify these conflicting I-positions (spheres and worlds) into a third position, which derives existential energy, experience, and knowledge from both (Branco, Branco, & Madureira, 2008). The one could not do that without the other. The self will benefit from a third position as a reserve officer wherein military experience and identity and civilian academic knowledge and identity could unite in a productive alliance. A third position of a reserve officer has the potential to connect and secure the continuity of the past, present, and future of the self. This would also put Erik in a position of control as he suddenly could choose deployment positions of mission and a career that suits his aims and scope far better.

CONCLUSION

From the start the transition has been an existential, spiritual struggle for Erik; if the self would lose and abandon the military identity it would create emptiness, “because who am I then?” (Grimell, 2016a; Kopacz & Connery, 2015). His military I-position has been struggling for its existence throughout the transition, as the “I” of Erik's military story never really ceased to narrate deeper meaning attached to the military identity of “Me.” In transition, the military identity was initially carried over into the story of an occasionally serving military instructor and later into the story of a (nearly graduated) reserve officer. The military character within all these stories, including the one from active service, has been narrated as a competent character with a high capacity. Nevertheless, although it was slow and toilsome, Erik constructed and added new characters to his self in the new stories that were told throughout the years. Yet the lack of deeper meaning attached to these new characters may have slowed and even prematurely stopped the adaption of the self, as it only reached a certain point. Integration and dialogue between I-positions of the self were stymied until the emergence of a third position of a reserve officer that can traverse the gap between military and civilian positions.

The interpretation of the analysis is tentative, and Erik's self is still in the midst of development. But within the course of a longitudinal study, through a dialogical self theory conceptualization, the adaption seems promising. Additionally, the findings could serve a broader quantitative approach on matters addressing identities and the self in transition.

There are, of course, limitations of the study. This is an analysis rooted in empirical interview narratives, and thus it is possible that Erik may recount a slightly different transitional story under different circumstances. Furthermore, the process of transition has been analyzed and interpreted through a particular theoretical and methodological lens. Other researchers, with or without the applied approach, could unearth alternate discoveries in the interview narratives. Moreover, this is merely one longitudinal case study analysis that implies the findings could be broadened with other similar qualitative case studies, but individual differences are many and generalizations tentative.

Notes

¹The first interview with Erik was presented as a transitional narrative of military identity (in press) in the International Journal for Dialogical Science. The purpose of the study was to describe what happened to the self in the immediate phase of transition, 3 months postexit, as Erik returned from Afghanistan.