Page 105 - JSOM Summer 2023

10
because the conventional resilience construct has come under Global War on Terror (GWOT). Military leaders concerned
a great deal of scrutiny for failing to engage in this process. with fielding forces that could perform and complete combat
The main critique of the conventional resilience construct is missions eagerly supported resilience research that could an-
the misalignment between the theoretical framing of research swer the question: “What makes people resilient?”
and what constituted stress in relationship to combat perfor-
mance. As the number of diagnosable stress pathologies con- While the study of traumatic stress and recovery is a necessary
tinue to increase, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) stated that and important aspect of military human performance research,
the conventional resilience construct needs to be conceptu- the coupling of resilience and PTS tightly binds human perfor-
ally and empirically re-evaluated. 12,13 Conventional resilience mance to a psychological category of pathology caused by com-
22
research started with the question, “What makes people re- bat performance. The aforementioned marriage is situated in
silient?” which superseded the definitional question, “What and sanctioned by the institution of modern scientific medicine,
is resilience?” and overlooked the methodological question: which relies on a mechanistic paradigm as seen above in the
23
35
“How ought we to study resilience?” This article will begin etymology of resilience. Within the medical model, research
with the latter question before engaging the former two ques- psychologists answer the question, “What makes people resil-
tions through an analysis of our empirical data. To evaluate ient?” using a bio-behaviorist theory. They articulate a triadic
24
25
and answer the question “How ought we to study resilience,” answer: One node of the triad defines a normative baseline
this article will present an argument that foregrounds the theo- of behavioral patterns that should enable all people to perform
retical architecture guiding our research process and according in an optimal, consistent, and predictable manner. Another
25
to which findings will be discussed across subsequent articles. node defines mechanisms of injury that cause deviation from
the normative baseline. The final node defines behavior mod-
25
To achieve our goal of arguing for an ethnographic re-eval- ification training that should return an injured individual to
uation of the resilience construct we (1) describe the histor- optimal, consistent, and predictable behavior. Using these re-
26
ical evolution of the strategic framework within which the search findings, clinical psychologists are licensed to examine,
conventional resilience construct is defined; 1,10 (2) highlight diagnose, and treat impediments to human performance. 27
certain limiting philosophical assumptions entailed in this
framework; 15,16 (3) explain how bottom-up ethnographic re- In the seminal resilience training known as BATTLEMIND, it
search relates the SOF medic’s practical performance to mili- is evident that the conventional resilience construct is focused
28
tary requirements and mission capabilities; and (4) articulate on combat performance and is coupled with PTS. Here resil-
the unique elements of our study that widen the aperture of ience is defined as “inner strength to face fear and adversity in
what constitutes resilience. We conclude by gesturing to initial combat with courage,” with an emphasis on enhancing mental
research findings and how those findings will be presented in strength to oppose fear. BATTLEMIND training encourages
30
subsequent articles. SMs to stop and check their thoughts and see whether they are
operating from a BATTLEMIND or civilian mind. If SMs are
Conventional Resilience Construct: operating out of a BATTLEMIND when not deployed, then
Historical Evolution of Strategic Framework they should slow down, check their thought process, let go of
negative thoughts, and shift into a civilian mind. 30
Inquiry into the human capacity to endure hardship has been
of particular interest to military scholars for millennia because Dr Martin Seligman, a renowned research psychologist at the
of the need to sustain human performance amidst the often de- University of Pennsylvania, collaborated with military health
manding and harsh context of the battlefield. 9,10,16 For the past researchers to develop resilience interventions that allowed
15 years, military health researchers have become increasingly SMs to “complete combat tours” while decreasing the number
invested in understanding human performance through the lens of SMs “who develop stress pathologies” post-deployment. 31,51
of resilience. 17–19 We use the term human performance when re- Master Resilience Training (MRT), the military’s premier resil-
ferring to research that studies human action using a top-down ience training program, is based on Seligman’s work in positive
approach in which abstract theory is the starting point to ex- psychology and provides a normative baseline of behavioral
plain human experience. The conventional resilience construct patterns that are assumed to create happiness, enjoyable ex-
originally emerged from psychological literature studying hu- periences, and pleasant emotions. PTS symptoms function as
31
man performance in the 1960s. 16,19,20 Initially, studies focused the mechanism of injury and manifest as negative thoughts
on a new construct of stress—a term metaphorically appropri- that deviate from an optimistic view of the world. MRT states
ated from the engineering discipline. Stress is the amount of that combat experiences tend to cause catastrophic thinking,
21
weight put on a bridge when attempting to describe its struc- leading to increased anxiety and paralyzed action. SMs are
tural capacity. Too much stress at one time or over a pro- trained to use positive thinking to regulate negative impulses,
21
longed period of time compromises the bridge’s performance. emotions, and behaviors to achieve personal goals. MRT is
32
21
Like a bridge’s weight-bearing capacity, stress was considered thought to both buffer and counteract the impact of adversity
to be a risk to human performance. Similarly, the term resil- experienced during combat deployments. 30,31
ience was metaphorically appropriated from the engineering
discipline. Resilience is the ability of any particular metal to Conventional Resilience Construct: Limitations
21
bear stress and return to its original state. Accordingly, resil-
21
ience is typically understood as the ability to “bounce back” The conventional resilience construct highlights several as-
to a previous level of human performance in the aftermath of sumptions that theoretically frame how human performance is
adversity. The conventional resilience construct emerged in researched. First, the medical model starts from a mechanistic
10
military health research from within the disciplines of clinical understanding of human behavior that seeks to explain nega-
24
and research psychology as an increased number of SMs were tive human experiences according disease categories. Second,
being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress (PTS) during the resilience is a trait defined by mental toughness that allows
SOST Catastrophic Injury Exposure | 103