Abstract:
It is seemingly well known that America has a strong love both for its soldiers and veterans, as well as its justice system. There is a glorification of violence in the United States and it has an immense impact on our society.Trauma is not limited to those fighting for their country, it must be recognized that trauma can come from serving time in prison as well. Veterans can receive effective, standardized health care that serves in part to rehabilitate a soldier and to reintegrate them into society. Ex-convicts, on the other hand, are too often swept aside. With little funding and limited interest in serving the needs of those who violate the law, prison programs are often understaffed, inefficient, and ineffective if they exist at all. Studying this problem sociologically can provide valuable information regarding the conflicting stigmas of veterans and ex-convicts and what it means to be truly reintegrated into society. This perspective can express the importance of re-learning how to properly socialize with others at an age where this should already be the norm. Being successful at socializing can lead to positive connections and experiences as well as positive impressions that can lead to a successful adult life.
Introduction:
The reality of some soldiers and convicts lives are filled with violence, unease, and tension caused by their time in war or time spent incarcerated. The reintegration and socialization for both of these groups should look very similar regardless of the means for their respective situations. Realistically, the reintegration of veterans and ex-convicts into society are very different. This difference is due to concepts such as framing, the habitus, and the creation of an objective reality. The root of the difference between the treatment between veterans and ex-convicts comes from society’s view of them respectively, regardless of their time in the service or behind bars being completed.
Synthesis:
The difference in how veterans and ex-convicts are viewed by society is largely due to previous ideas. These ideas are comprised of perceptions based upon how individuals, groups and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. This phenomena is called framing. Coining the concept in 1974, Goffman wrote Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. In this work, he highlighted that frames are often created by mass media and political movements or leaders. The War on Drugs was launched by Richard Nixon in 1971, and since then, the federal prison population has jumped to over 800% (Gorski, 2014). With a staggering recidivism rate of 76.6% in the United States, the impact that politics has on the lives of ex-convicts is clear (National Institute of Justice, 2014). Declaring a “war” on drugs is not declaring war against a substance, but against an entire population; minority and low-income groups are disproportionately targeted. While the black population is just 1% more likely to use illicit drugs than the white population (10.5% and 9.5% respectively), 332 white individuals out of every 100,000 are arrested compared to a staggering 879 black individuals out of every 100,000 (Lopez, 2016). Widely broadcasted policies such as The War on Drugs has a significant effect on members of society, especially those who are not directly involved with crime or the criminals themselves. This fear that is instilled in people leads to a frame of anxiety and distrust that they will view ex-convicts with for the rest of their lives, unless an event occurs that will alter their frame. Ex-convicts are affected by this frame in a multitude of ways ranging from an inability to get well paying jobs, to a disconnect with their local community. More often than not, these pressures lead ex-convicts to return to what they know best: crime. The stigmas of criminals are among the harshest in the United States, and the corresponding high recidivism rate is a result of this negative frame given to the American people partially because of its government. Until this frame is altered or changed entirely, reintegrating ex-convicts will always be a struggle against the grain of society. Similarly, the United States’ glorification of war since its founding has created an extremely positive frame around veterans, especially veterans who have returned home from the service. These men and women are regularly considered heroes, and this is because of the frame that the public holds to view them through. This frame has been steady apart from maybe some waverings having to do with the Korean War and some conflicts of the like, but other than minor fluctuations, this framing is something as concrete as the backbone of America itself. Veterans are welcomed with open arms back into society, they have a similar experience finding a job as a regular people, and they are seen on the same moral level if not higher than those in the society around them.
Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus is also something that needs to be analyzed when considering why the reintegration of veterans and ex-convicts looks so different. Obviously, the need for reintegration comes from very differing reasons when comparing veterans and ex-convicts, despite their tendencies for violence as the result of their turbulent environment. Violence as committed and experienced by veterans is supported by the state, whereas violence as committed and experienced by ex-convicts is seen as acts committed against the state. The habitus, then, of a veteran would likely orient them in a social space that harbors opportunity, respect, and high levels of social capital. This is especially true when the habitus of the veteran is in a community that is made up of individuals with similar surroundings, therefore producing semi-similar habituses. Because the habitus distinguishes values, veterans can oftentimes have a much easier time aligning themselves within societies that support the same American values, especially when it comes to war. The habitus of an ex-convict can often be comprised of factors that come from a chaotic and or unstable upbringing. This, in combination, with relatively low forms of capital due to periods of incarceration can contribute to a habitus that orients them in a space where violence, fear, and lack of opportunity are the norm. The habitus, “is a mental filter that structures an individual’s perceptions, experiences, and practices” (Appelrouth, Edles, 2012). For this reason, it is likely that if an ex-convict who grew up in an unstable environment returns to the same environment, their label of ‘ex-convict’ would go largely unnoticed because it is taken-for-granted or considered common due to the habitus (Appelrouth, Edles, 2012). It is for the same reason that veterans would reintegrate easily into a pro-social society: which is that reintegration has significantly less friction when the habituses have more values in common than ones that they do not.
Lastly, Berger and Luckmann’s concept of how reality becomes objective is imperative to the investigation as to why the reintegration of veterans and ex-convicts looks so different despite their shared violent and unstable pasts. Berger and Luckmann state that all behavior is subject to habituation, which converts into stocks of knowledge. These stocks of knowledge are now information that is taken for granted, meaning that it frees up space in your mind, so you are not spending the same amount of time and thought on every microcosm that you encounter in a day. These stocks of knowledge eventually turn to institutions as entire classes of “actors” take for granted the same stocks of knowledge. When aspects of reality have become institutionalized, they have attained the character of objectivity as achieved by externalization, objectification, and reification (Appelrouth, Edles, 2012). When considering veterans and ex-convicts, this process looks fairly parallel in its function. Externalization and objectification function to make the social world something outside of oneself so that certain things are seen as undeniable facts (Berger, Luckmann, 1967). The belief that most, if not all, veterans are heroes with knowing little to no truths of their time in or out of service is proof of this taken-for-granted institution of war and heros in America. In reference to ex-convicts, the belief that they have a lack of capacity for growth after what was perhaps a mistake made in their youth is just as undeniable in the eyes of society when subscribed to the institution of criminal justice in the United States. Reification is the, “apprehension of human phenomena as if they were non-human or possible superhuman things” (Berger, Luckmann, 1967). This ties into both the society looking upon veterans and ex-convicts as well as the veterans and ex-convicts looking upon society. Veterans and active soldiers are perceived in many cases as heroes. Comparing a mortal man to that of an immortal, fictional figure destined to fight for nothing but the greater good has more weight than is often perceived. In a study done by Gallup, 73% of veterans claimed that they “have received the respect and thanks [they] deserve[d] for serving in the Armed Forces” (Saad, 2002). Considering that only a fraction of the population was sampled and the divided state that America is frequently finding itself in, these numbers are strongly in support of veterans despite not knowing anything about their experiences in service. Conversely, ex-convicts are perceived as non-human or potentially as villains. They are shunned from communities that learn of their past, employers discriminate against them despite how qualifications , and their lack of resources can be detrimental to their chances of reintegration after incarceration. This objective reality, while it may free up mental space and is not innately a negative concept, it often categorizes individuals into unfair classes that can lead to idolization, but also prejudice and discrimination.
Conclusion:
Interestingly enough, the titles of both “veteran” and “(ex-)convict” stay with the respected individual for the rest of their lives. One spells out a relatively smooth reintegration that includes respect and opportunity, while the other carries a burden of discrimination. Studying the differences between these roles sociologically can aid in deciphering society’s interpretation of them. Despite often times sharing similar upbringings and violent pasts, veterans and ex-convicts are dealt with very differently. By understanding the commonalities behind these two roles, the impact of discrimination can potentially be lessened through prison reform, education, and proper programs to focus on the reintegration of anyone who needs it, regardless of their past or the title that they hold.