A Community Within “A Nation of Strangers”

During the past year over 700,000 U.S. Air Force individuals or families enjoyed, suffered, or otherwise went through a permanent change of station. For many it was a time of excitement and anticipation; for others, sadness and frustration. But for the majority, it was probably a mixture of all these emotions.

Until fairly recently, the military was the group most often identified as the gypsies or nomads of society. Many who have spent a tour in the civilian community have had a sneaking suspicion that our civilian counterparts were starting to enjoy—or suffer—the kind of transience that had previously typified mainly the military.

Vance Packard, in his recent book, A Nation of Strangers,* has explored for the first time the true breadth and depth of the recently evolved mobility patterns and fragmentation that have become a new way of life in American society.

While many have suspected that movement had increased, the phenomenal amount of the increase and, more important, the far-ranging impacts are cause for concern. Mobility in the civilian community is rapidly approaching that in the military in terms of frequency. Packard estimates that more than 25 percent of the population moves annually. Given the continuation of technological and societal changes now in play, there is reason to believe that this trend in the civilian community will not only continue but, in the short term, accelerate. Forces are simultaneously at play within the military to decrease the number of permanent changes of station (PCS). Air Force permanent changes of station are programmed to decrease in each of the next four years. It is altogether possible that in the near future the military will become one of the more stable and less transient groups in society.

Mr. Packard has done a truly impressive job, first, in defining the dimensions of the new mobility; second, in assessing the societal impacts; and, third and more important, in suggesting methods by which the undesirable impacts of the phenomena of mobility and fragmentation may be minimized. Mr. Packard employed unique approaches to ferret out the facts about mobility, a primary method being the number of telephone disconnects. The explanation of the methodology leaves little doubt as to the fidelity and interpretations of the data.

In the descriptive treatment, Mr. Packard pulls together a massive array of data from some of the most thoughtful and serious writers on the subject of mobility. He simultaneously explores such diverse but related aspects as the impact of the change on towns and cities, on retired people and their life styles, and on the way people behave. Finally, the book treats methods of reducing the fragmentation that usually results from the changes occurring. It is toward this final prescriptive portion of the book that the rest of this discussion will mainly be directed.

The Air Force has been forced to come to grips in the past with the kinds of problems that are just beginning to concern the rest of society. The doctrinal charter of the Air Force demands a capability and flexibility, coupled with a certainty peculiar to an armed force. Fighting or preparing to fight in a global context has caused Air Force members to be historically a highly mobile group.

Personnel planners are charged with the responsibility of providing a technologically intensive array of human resources. The men and women of the Air Force are the product of long lead-time procurement and training cycles prior to productive utilization. The selective retention of the appropriate numbers and skills is as essential as recruitment to force vitality and ability to deliver. The mobility and fragmentation problems described by Mr. Packard are precisely those addressed by Air Force planners over the past twenty-five years with a high degree of success. Success can be measured in only one substantive way; we possess the numbers and skills required. We have fought well in the most unpopular war in history, and, above all, the total fibre of our force is intact, vital, and reliable.

Given, then, that the Air Force has previously encountered to a significant degree the problems now confronting the greater society, and further given that the Air Force has addressed these problems with some degree of success, it might be well to examine Mr. Packard’s thesis in terms of where the Air Force has been, where it is, and future implications.

“Life on the Nuclear Frontier” is the title of the chapter in which Mr. Packard examines the role of the federal government in the changes confronting society, with particular attention given to Department of Defense and space activities. The chapter examines a variety of towns where the various services and defense-related activities have a large impact. The study focused only on the civilian-military interface and attendant trauma, with occasional personal “horror stories.” The point largely missed was the existence of a true military community, a community which has been forced by the necessity of physical and emotional survival into a series of intricate and unique mutually supportive relationships. The kinds of activities and programs which Mr. Packard would have found in these military communities largely address the developing societal problems which he identifies.

The final portion of the book, entitled “Toward Reducing the Fragmentation,” pursues two central themes: the first, “recovering a sense of continuity,” and the second, “approaches to a sense of community.” These two themes represent the distillate of the rest of the book. They therefore represent an excellent point of departure for discussing the means and methods by which Air Force members have managed through the years to maintain an identity, a sense of continuity, and a sense of community while undergoing the severest of stresses. Such an examination must be preceded by a selective look at those who comprise the Air Force.

The nature of the Air Force population and the relationships which emerge are central to any examination of the Air Force community. An initial parameter is established in the recruitment of Air Force people. While there are occasional overtones of draft motivation, it would be fair to state that the majority of Air Force members are true volunteers. They purposefully sought out and joined the Air Force. They compete to remain members. They are people willing to accept a commitment in what they must perceive as a team effort.

The myriad of available attitudinal surveys tells us much more about our Air Force in terms of how we think and feel. Of particular interest are the elements of the job and life style that are perceived as most important in making career decisions.

A recent survey focused on factors related to the military job that are of primary and secondary importance. When presented with such an array and asked, “Which one is of the greatest importance to you?” and an equally searching second question, “Which is the second most important?” the percentages selecting each factor are shown in the accompanying table. These data paint an interesting picture of our Air Force. Note particularly the preponderance of responses addressing the first three factors plus that of “opportunity to learn” and the relatively minor interest displayed in geographical location, physical conditions, and other “hygienic” conditions of work.

Two points need to be made. First, there is little concern with the transiency of life. Our men and women are concerned with what is going on rather than where. These interesting implications suggest two forces at work: people are selecting the Air Force life style and work while the Air Force is selecting them; and simultaneously the Air Force is being shaped by its members as the Air Force community shapes its members. Above all, these responses and the responses to subsequent questions indicate a reasonable degree of satisfaction. An example of the ongoing mutual shaping and fitting relationship within the Air Force is the cited survey, which is carefully studied by personnel planners. Survey results become the basis for future programs and actions.

The second point to be made concerning the data is the probable universality of the responses. While the question stipulated military job, we must consider a wider contextual application. The job in the Air Force does not exist as and cannot be portrayed as an independent variable separate and distinct from life style. We are, therefore, reasonably safe in assuming that the responses largely reflect a cluster of attitudes responding to Air Force life in a general way.

Other surveys characterize Air Force members as wanting to travel and having a deep concern for other people as well as their nation. Given their even normal statistical variations, those who comprise the Air Force are not a true cross section of the population. Rather, they represent a more finite universe of competent, task-oriented, ambitious, and concerned individuals.

The results speak cogently of men and women who seek and are largely finding a sense of community and continuity in a life style typified by transience. Air Force members vote with their feet: if they don’t find what they want, they leave. Yet they are staying.

Mr. Packard tells a frightening story of what is happening in society. After stating that “rootlessness seems clearly to be associated with a decline in companionship, a decline in satisfying group activities, a decline in mutual trust and a decline in psychological security,” he proceeds to state:

This, we submit, is a summary treatment of the community, Air Force style. Each of us views the Air Force from a separate vantage point of personal identity. To each of us, like the blind men describing the elephant, the Air Force community represents something different.

Most Air Force members, on reflection, would probably concede that they are in fact members of the Air Force community.

The single element that has created and now perpetuates this community is need. The single statement that best represents the philosophical underpinning of the Air Force community is “The Air Force takes care of its own.”

The meaning of this statement is individual and personal. To those thousands of families who have a child with a learning disability or physical or psychological impairment, it means Children Have A Potential (CHAP). It means a guarantee that the family will be assigned to an area where the child can get the special education he or she needs in order to be part of the academic mainstream. To those with extraordinary or even ordinary medical problems, it perhaps means CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services). To the tens of thousands of families who have had personal tragedies and requested and received preferential assignments, it means humanitarian transfers. To a minority group member, it means equal opportunity. To each individual who receives PCS orders and a letter from his commander and sponsor with a package of base, housing, and community information, it means the Sponsor Program. To the same family on arrival at a new station, using the lending cabinet, indoctrination, and other arrival services, it means Family Services. To all members of the Air Force community, there are certain common meanings. In a majority of cases there is a certainty of a wide array of base facilities, which we tend, often, to take for granted but for which our civilian counterparts would give their eyeteeth.

Most important is the process of community, which is the true fabric of continuity. In the process of participating, sharing, creating, and using the facilities, programs, and services, a series of intricate interrelationships is created that is the Air Force community.

Mr. Packard draws on a study by Dr. Robert S. Weiss, who worked extensively in a research project at the Harvard Medical School. Weiss focused on the lives of people who had been uprooted by broken marriages, by retirement, or by moving considerable distances. He concluded that people do indeed have needs that can only be met within relationships with other people. He then identified five relationships most generally required in order to have a sense of well-being: the opportunity of parents to nurture children, knowing people who share our concerns, knowing people we can depend upon in a pinch, having one or more really close friends, and knowing people who respect our competence.

Perceptions of the Air Force community are individual and personal. It would serve no purpose to editorialize further on Weiss’s findings and what they should or should not mean to the individual reader. Perhaps many members of the Air Force community will find on reflection that Dr. Weiss’s listed relationships are fully or substantially satisfied through the Air Force community. What Mr. Packard seems to be talking about mostly is the quality of life in society. Upon examination, it appears that the quality of life within the Air Force has much to recommend it, especially in terms of the problems steadily mounting in the greater society.

Read Mr. Packard’s book. He has a powerful message concerning a society in flux. The Air Force community is not, nor should it ever be, separate from the greater society. We cannot and should not be insulated. The impacts Mr. Packard describes will reach us. We need to be aware of them.

Contributors

Colonel Andrew J. Dougherty (M.B.A., Bradley University) is Assistant Director, Professional Military Education, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Education). Most of his assignments have been in tactical fighter, including combat tours in Korea and Vietnam, and he was USAF adviser to the Royal Thai Air Force. He recently served as Professor of Aerospace Studies, University of Pittsburgh.

Mrs. Marjorie M. Dougherty (M.S.W., University of Southern California) is a social worker and the mother of two girls. In addition to private practice, she has done extensive casework in psychiatric clinics, hospitals, and state dependent children’s services. Married in England, the Doughertys have experienced a variety of overseas and stateside assignments.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor

	Greatest Importance	Second Most Important	Greatest Importance	Second Most Important
Kind of people with whom I work	23.9	23.8	17.9	24.8
Challenging work	22.7	14.3	50.2	17.6
Recognition for my work	11.3	14.2	8.8	15.5
Pay	13.3	14.5	7.8	12.6
Geographical location of my work	7.2	8.8	5.7	8.5
Physical conditions under which I work	4.1	6.3	1.7	4.0
Hours of work	4.3	8.3	1.4	2.4
Opportunity to learn	13.1	9.7	6.5	9.8
Other	—	—	—	4.7
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0