The Civilian World

The use of the term ‘civilian world’ by participants denotes the distinct line they draw between themselves and the rest of the community who have not served with police, military or emergency services. When questioning the participants as to why there is this distinction, few could articulate specific reasons other than it was their reality. There are practices in place within the services that literally distinguish the members from those not in service. Lucy explained that as a member of the military she did not have a Medicare card, and all her medical care was through the military at no cost to her. Once out of the military, she then needed help from family to understand how to pursue healthcare. This was just one example of how these service employees are distinct from other people in the community. The divide for the former police participants seemed to be because their role of law enforcement over the community they resided in created that distinction between them and the members of the public that they were policing. For emergency services, the distinction between them and the civilian world was not as apparent. Instead, any reference to the civilian world was made when describing how the skills they had acquired whilst in emergency services needed to be translated to civilian qualifications before they could seek employment in private organisations. This was even the case when they were moving into other fire or emergency response related roles. Sebastian explained  

And even to this day, I’ve got a mate of mine who is ten years in Melbourne, so he was a leading firey in Melbourne, then he was 15 years as a senior in WA and he still does not have Certificate III in Firefighting. And he’s going through that now trying to get his Certificate III because he’s going to, he wants to come and work with me here. But he’s got to have the Cert III.   

The participants were quite vocal in this area and most were able to provide direct examples of where they needed to make changes in order to adapt to what they consider to be the ‘civilian world’.  

For the purposes of this study, the civilian world is defined as the world outside of the police, military and emergency services. Civilians are those individuals in society who have never served with the police, military or emergency services in Australia or elsewhere; and civilian skills are exclusive in their nature so that they do not include any of the skills acquired by members of the police, military or emergency services. Jasper confirmed that they become institutionalised in the service organisation even though ‘they could still be say living among civilians and still have civilian friends’. 

Therefore, it is significant that any skills acquired inside the police, military and emergency services are considered, by the participants, to be unique to those organisations and cannot be equated in the civilian world. This widens the gap between the former service members and the world outside of service, further maintaining the ‘us and them’ mentality. Demers (2011) suggests that former military hold civilian employers accountable for not understanding the skills that they bring to the post-service environment and this contributes to difficulty gaining employment in the civilian world. Several participants struggled to gain employment when first separating from service however did not focus their frustration on civilian employers, instead pointing the blame back at their service organisation for not better preparing them to leave. 

Interestingly, the civilian world is referenced by all participants from each of their services in a separate manner. That is, the participants did not consider it to be the police, military and emergency services on one side, and the civilian world on the other. Instead, they saw their individual service organisation as separate to the civilian workplace, but not together with the other service organisations. Except for Natalie who was in the police and when describing her issues with the civilian world suggested ‘I think it’s the same with military’, and those participants who had served in both the police and military, or military and emergency services, all participants made no reference to other service organisations when discussing the transition into the civilian world. This indicates that reference to a civilian world comes from within each individual organisation but not from the organisations as a group. At no time do the individuals consider themselves to be part of a wider group of organisations that are isolated from the civilian world. 

The similarities in the reporting from the individuals in separate organisations in relation to the civilian world are due to similarities within the organisations that are not naturally recognised as shared. In fact, William explained that the former military members who joined the police with him ‘…had to be deprogrammed because the rules of engagement between military and police are completely different where you just can’t go out and indiscriminately shoot people’. He thought that these members understood the difference ‘but [did] not agree… with it, they’re just going no we just do it this way, we can’t do it that way’. However, Sebastian, who was a firefighter, did see some unity, stating ‘being an integral part of our community and also being an integral part of a much smaller community, that being the emergency services, us, ambos, coppers you know, that’s a pretty tight crew’. The differences are present and apparent when the service individuals are compared, but they have shared practices and environments that create the same issues for each individual in the post-service environment, regardless of which organisation they served with. This includes the hegemonic masculine space, the training, and the resulting development of unique workplace skills.  

Each organisation, the police, military and emergency services, demonstrates a hegemonic masculine space. The participants are not aware of the hegemonic masculine nature of their service workplaces and show no knowledge of this concept. This means they are influenced by extrinsic factors that are beyond their understanding and are ill-informed to counteract the effects in their post-service environment. Some participants hint at an awareness, like Harry who considered entering the police after leaving the military but said he ‘sort of planned to get away from the regimental side of it for a little bit’. Gary stated, ‘Because they see, well they see like we, like males, like all Defence people do is I’m a level above civilians now because I’ve been trained like this and I’m supposed to protect you’. Gary’s understanding of the environment is from his understanding of the training and the resulting skills, but he makes direct reference to ‘we males’. Similarly, Jasper explains  

And they’ve got a short amount of time the instructors to get, you know, someone off their mother’s apron strings into a combat soldier and with a war going on and their hands are tied as instruct[ors] on how far they can actually push the people.   

The strongest impact on the participants is the service-based training. The fact that this training occurred in a hegemonic masculine environment strengthens its effect on the individuals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The resulting skills are masculine in nature. Bob compared the three arms of the Defence Force, army, navy and air force, suggesting they are all the same. He explains that the principles of service are taught stating: 

the basic principles are the same, remove the source of ammunition, safety catch to safe, open the weapon up, clear the weapon, work and pass forward. And the same principles are there…And when we’re dealing with a lot of our stuff, the same principles are there. We don’t have to stop and take and do a take five and so on so yeah it’s just the foundations I think are there.  

It is the quick response nature of their training and the ability to act without thinking that improves their performance in their service role, but the same skills are difficult to ignore when post-service. Natalie describes the training as: 

…my job as a weapons trainer at the academy was to try and smash that into the student’s heads, for lack of word choice, but to try and really emphasise to them that your life depends on this, and not only is it your life but it’s the life of your partner and so much of our training was about officer safety and trying to get that hypervigilance and trying to get them to be aware and always be looking and be on edge and so I think it starts at the academy very much, but I don’t think it really, really truly starts until they’re on the street as a probationary constable and they start seeing things and experiencing things and start to feel the fear of what could potentially go wrong. I think that’s when you know their eyes really widen and they really, that really starts to happen. But at the academy I think we try as hard as we can to try and get that into their head.   

However, it is not just the skills that isolate them from the civilian world. There are other occupations that have similar skill sets. Armoured security escorts (such as Armaguard or Chubb) are weapons trained and carry those weapons in the community. There was no indication by the participants that this job role was included with them when comparing themselves to civilians. There are humanitarian organisations that deploy their members overseas to conflict environments (such as the Australian and International Red Cross), but these members were not included as non-civilians with the military. It is the type and level of training, delivered within a hegemonic masculine environment, that creates the difference. The level of training in the military pushes the physical body to extremes that create a robotic response (Godfrey et al., 2012). Similar practices are reflected in the police and the fire service, but not in the ambulance services. In addition, the nature of the training is ritualistic and ensures adherence to collective goals that are hypermasculine and force social cohesion (King, 2006). This creates the act of men positioning themselves against other men, which is the normative model for hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Females in the roles are included and position themselves as men against other men and/or women. It is the high level of training and resulting high-level demands on the skill sets within the services combined with the social cohesion encouraged by hypermasculine collective goals that instigates these individuals to see themselves as separate to the civilian world. Natalie explains:  

you go to a job and you have to treat everybody as though there is a potential threat that someone or something there could kill you, until you know that there is no threat and you only know that there is no threat when the job is over. So I think it’s because of that, because you have to always be on edge, always be aware, always rely on this other person to have your back because you don’t have eyes in the back of your head. I think it really does take over.  

In the civilian world, as they perceive it, there is no high-level skills training, it is questionable whether there are collective goals, and there are no consequences for weakness. This changes the landscape for the participants and sets them apart. From each service perspective, it is heightened by the fact that these skills are utilised to protect the ‘members of the community’ who make up the civilian world.  

The entry ‘back’ into the civilian world is, therefore, a realisation that they are now one of the many who, as perceived by them, have no use for high-level skills, have individual goals instead of a collective focus, and are, essentially, weak. Julie explained that at job interviews post-service she learnt to ‘think like a civilian, think like old nanas whenever I was answering any questions’. Harry believes the issue starts with the training but becomes a habitual behaviour that does not fit into the ‘civilian world’, explaining  

…because it’s teaching, you know, be aggressive, win the fight, win the argument don’t lose. And that’s what it teaches you. Unfortunately, when you bring that out from that environment and you bring it into a civilian life and there’s a missing pair of socks or something like that or, you know, there’s an argument over, I don’t know, who’s going to take the rubbish out or whatever, you approach that augment or conversation, with the same, with the same perspective, in a manner not to lose. And it’s not a deliberate thing, it’s not a, it’s just, it’s a condition thing.   

He elaborates, ‘…and all that training that you’ve been put through to basically, excuse the French again, teach you how to be a cunt…is not taken away. So, you’re left then with it and left to deal with it and the repercussions of it for the rest of your life’. 

This is compounded by the rejection by their peers when they leave their service employment (see Chapter 6). In order to maintain the social cohesion and focus on the collective goals within service, the remaining individuals cannot associate with those who are essentially perceived to be weak. The former service member, whilst often recognised as a former member, does not have a continuing place in the fold, because they no longer share the single focus of the group. Barry described ‘police officers that were still serving were like oh my god, you know, how are you coping, you know, do you think you’ve done the wrong thing, do you want to come back? I think it’s just because they couldn’t identify with the fact that I’d left’.