Paper short abstract:

In the “psywars” of Britain since the early 2000s the psyche of the soldier and ex-soldier has become a problematised object of management, with implications for the delivery of good care, military politics, and the conduct of future war.

Paper long abstract:

Before the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan British military authorities had assumed that a highly trained and fit professional force was at little risk of psychological disturbance. But as the wars dragged on, a new military and wider national conversation opened up about the mental health of British soldiers and ex-soldiers. The military ramped up its psychological monitoring of personnel and launched new mental health awareness campaigns, while the psychological troubles of ex-soldiers attracted heightened public sympathy and support. In this talk I discuss the emergence of “post-stoic” military subjects in Britain who must not silently suffer, but are rather enjoined to talk about their mental health. However, whilst clinicians, charities, and the military itself now encourage soldiers to seek psychological help, I argue the recognition of valid service-connected mental suffering nonetheless is highly contested. Drawing on ethnography with soldiers, ex-soldiers, officers, and mental health professionals, I examine how different moral, military, and clinical environments shaped how my research participants talk about violence and suffering – and the consequences of such talk. In what I call the “psywars” of Britain since the early 2000s the psyche of the soldier and ex-soldier has become a problematised object of management, with implications for the delivery of good care, military politics, and the conduct of future war.