Loss of Belonging

Following on from the loss of camaraderie, the participants spoke about losing their sense of belonging following separation from service. They struggle to understand what just happened in their lives and why the sense of belonging can never seem to be replaced. It seems that the longer they are in the service position and/or the more accustomed they have become to the camaraderie being a part of their lives, the more difficult it is to cope with the loss post-service. 

Participants also explain that they feel as though they are treated as if they never did belong. Considering the masculine characteristics that they needed to demonstrate in order to get through basic training and become a member of the group, and the contrasted feminine characteristics that were demonstrated by those who did not make it through basic training and/or did not make it as a member of the group, their separation from the service is likely perceived as weakness (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) by their former colleagues. The separation process leads to the perception that participants have more of the characteristics labelled as feminine and therefore their membership, not just of the physical group, but in the emotional support group associated with membership, including camaraderie, is revoked. From the descriptions of the participants it does not seem to matter that they performed the same activities, at the same skill level with the same group members only hours/days/weeks prior; once they separated they are considered to no longer demonstrate the masculine characteristics that are reflective of membership in this group.  

This is further demonstrated by the fact that former police, military and emergency services must go back through basic or recruit training if they separate from the service organisation and then choose to re-join or re-enlist. Similarly, their rank is stripped, and they recommence in service at the lowest rank. For some participants, when asked whether they would consider returning to their service organisation, the greatest hurdle was that they did not want to start all over again. The organisation as an institution dismisses their masculine characteristics, as we frame them, around their skills and knowledge in the area, relegating them to be non-existent until proven once more. Their membership of the team has been terminated and they must re-prove themselves worthy of that membership in order to return. One participant stated that, to his knowledge, there has only been one person re-accepted by the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade after leaving, in all its history. Therefore, if the organisation treats the individuals as if they were never there, there is limited possibility of the camaraderie withstanding that sort of organisational declaration. Yet, this exclusion is not a formal nor official position. It is not as if current members are told to not have any interaction with former members. The group mentality inside the masculine space seems to take it upon itself and the individual group members respond accordingly. 

For Michael, the teamwork was the difference in the post-service workplace environment, even though he perceived the job content to be the same. He was affronted by the lack of teamwork and that ‘basically people are really in it for themselves in that job’. The participants have been defined and cultivated in accordance with the masculine characteristics of the service organisation and find it strange and confronting if they move to an organisation that does not function in the same space. For those who choose continuity in type of employment, there are still considerable differences that become apparent, particularly concerning the collective goal and camaraderie. At the very least they run constant comparisons to their service organisation, whilst at the most, they continue to identify with their role from the service organisation and cannot effectively disconnect.