Embedded in or with
Since I first heard the term embedded being used in 2002 to refer to the attachment of journalists with the United States military I have more than a vague feeling of dis ease. I knew that part of my discomfort was because of my understanding this was a policy decision made at the highest level. Some of the reason for the agreement , as I understand it, was: “These reporters signed contracts with the military promising not to report information that could compromise unit position, future missions, classified weapons, and information they might find."
“Joint training for war correspondents started in November 2002 in advance of start of the war. [4] When asked why the military decided to embed journalists with the troops, Lt. Col. Rick Long of the U.S. Marine Corps replied, "Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare. So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.” ( Wikipedia)
Although I am sometimes leery of what I read in Wikipedia, when I checked other sources I found general agreement about the use of the term in reference to military journalist.
I was intrigued that the term was also used to refer to a deputy sheriff who was described as embedded in the Spring Valley High School in Columbia, S.C. The officer is reported (and recorded on cell phones of students) to have “flipped a student backward in her desk and tossed her across the floor for refusing to leave her math class.” (Associated Press article by Meg Kinnard entitled “Girl was flipped backwards, tossed across the floor.") This was the first time I had heard the word embed used to describe the role of officers in schools in the United States. The NPR report to which I was listening went on to report that the role of the school “resource officer” varies from one primarily concerned with support to one directly responsible for discipline as was apparently the case in this South Carolina School. According to what I heard and read, the math teacher in this classroom requested that the student hand over her cell phone during the class. Having taught at the middle school, high school, and college level, I can personally attest that it is very frustrating when students are using their cell phones during class. Various schools have explored ways of handling these issues without setting up a potential confrontation or a power situation with a student.
The purpose of this blog is not to address the issues of how to address issues with disruptive students per se although I think I could greatly benefit from having a discussion about this with my six-year old adopted niece, Sam.
At this time, I am more interested in exploring the power of the use of the term embedded and the corresponding power of the role.
As I often do, I consulted oxforddictionary.com for current accepted definitions of the word embed. I found the following:
· Fix (an object) firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass:….
· Implant (an idea or feeling) within something else so it becomes an ingrained or essential characteristic of it.
· Place (a phrase or clause) within another clause or sentence.
· Computing – incorporate (a text or code) within the body of a file or document.
· Attach to a military unit during a conflict.
It is interesting that in this day of instant communication and updates, the use of the term to refer to journalist attached to a military unit is already in the online version of the oxford dictionary.
The first question that comes to mind when using this term to describe the relationship of the journalist to the military or the “resource officer” to the school system is, “Who is the employer?” In the case of the journalist, is the employer the military, news organization who pays the salary, the moral values of the journalist, the religious institution (if any) of whom the journalist is associated, the general United States public, or the world public? In the case of the so-called resource officer, we must ask the same question, “Who is the employer?” Is it the school, the students, the law enforcement body that pays his or her salary, the general public, or the values system of the individuals?
As a licensed counselor and a certified addiction counselor, I have often felt compelled to ask myself the same question. Who is my employer? Is it one of the professional organizations with a code of ethics to which I have agreed to adhere, the client and the people affected by the behavior of the clients, the organization that employs me (this could be a company, an agency or an insurance company), or my core value system?
As a U. S. Navy veteran and a former Presbyterian minister, I have often asked myself the question of whether it is possible to have a primary commitment or allegiance to the U. S. Military, the Presbyterian Church, the God of my understanding, and the person to whom I am providing spiritual guidance? Often it seems to me that there is a conflict with their various commitments.
It seems to me that in my role as counselor or in my former role as pastor/minister, my primary commitment is to the person I am counseling. The exceptions occur when that person is a danger to himself or herself, another person(s) (especially when that person is a child) ,or the community at large. Most of the time there is not a situation which makes it very clear that the person possess an immediate threat to the physical health of another person. When one is talking about the mental health of another the situation becomes cloudier.
In the case of the journalist who is embedded with the military they have, in most cases, apparently agreed that their primary commitment is to the military. To their credit, a number of journalists have raised the same questions I am raising. It is also true that although many of the atrocities committed by military personnel have been reported by the U.S. military personnel in Iraq, there have been journalists who held on to their primary commitment to report what is going on even if it meant jeopardizing their embedded role.
Although I am well aware of the need to protect the mission of a military or the overall mission of an academic institution once one has agreed to the basic premise that war is both moral and necessary and that individuals needs sometimes have to be secondary to the needs of the larger group, I think that terms themselves help shape one’s behavior.
Really. Unless one is thinking as a scientist or even the material of an artist, what do you, the reader, think of when you hear the term embedded? Does one think of a very clear psychological and emotional distance between the embedder and the embeddee? I certainly do not. Of course, I know that I have been accused of being "a perverted old man” but really? Does not the average reader think of going to bed with and, if thinking of adults (I am), does one not think of a very intimate (if not overtly sexual) relationship? When have I last said to someone I care about that I want to be embedded with him or her? When have I last felt comfortable or appropriate saying to someone at the gym, “I would love to be embedded with you?” In my gym, that would get me slapped and probably, if reported, barred from the gym. It is not a term that I use or even think of in my everyday conversation with friends, colleagues, or strangers.
If, on the other hand, my mind (for which I cannot be help responsible during my sleep) congers up a “potential embedding situation” it is not in the context of my professional role. In fact, if I had less than ethical/non-sensual/non-sexual thoughts about a client I would quickly have a “coming to Jesus” talk with the part of my mind in charge of my dreams. Given my romantic partnership history, which is not one I am always proud of (after all, I am twice divorced), I have not always been the sharpest tack in the box, but, even I would never have said to my partner “I am thinking of embedding myself with X.” Really!
Am I the only one who has these sorts of issues with the language we as a population seem to be eager to accept? I have had a difficult time having a thoughtful conversation with my concerns about the use of the term embedded as well as the concept.
I would like to think that we, as a population, are inundated with works via social media and other outlets that our poor minds are just too overloaded to even identify these sorts of issues, but I am not convinced that is the case.
At the risk of being accused of being a stand in for Mrs. Sheppard, my very strict, my 4th grade English teacher, or the new language police, I am going to challenge myself and others to begin to refuse to so blandly accept the use of terms which so effectively blur our relationships with each other and our roles to/with each other.
I do not want a journalist embedded with the military. I do not want law enforcement embedded with the school system. I do not want professional organizations to which I belong embedded with the funding sources. In fact, I am not sure I want to be associated with anyone who is embedded with another person or who wants me to be embedded with another person. I am perfectly comfortable with glassmakers, such as Chihuly, embedding a color into another color in one of his wonderful creations even if that is not the term which first comes to mind.
Written October 28, 2015
Since I first heard the term embedded being used in 2002 to refer to the attachment of journalists with the United States military I have more than a vague feeling of dis ease. I knew that part of my discomfort was because of my understanding this was a policy decision made at the highest level. Some of the reason for the agreement , as I understand it, was: “These reporters signed contracts with the military promising not to report information that could compromise unit position, future missions, classified weapons, and information they might find."
“Joint training for war correspondents started in November 2002 in advance of start of the war. [4] When asked why the military decided to embed journalists with the troops, Lt. Col. Rick Long of the U.S. Marine Corps replied, "Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare. So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.” ( Wikipedia)
Although I am sometimes leery of what I read in Wikipedia, when I checked other sources I found general agreement about the use of the term in reference to military journalist.
I was intrigued that the term was also used to refer to a deputy sheriff who was described as embedded in the Spring Valley High School in Columbia, S.C. The officer is reported (and recorded on cell phones of students) to have “flipped a student backward in her desk and tossed her across the floor for refusing to leave her math class.” (Associated Press article by Meg Kinnard entitled “Girl was flipped backwards, tossed across the floor.") This was the first time I had heard the word embed used to describe the role of officers in schools in the United States. The NPR report to which I was listening went on to report that the role of the school “resource officer” varies from one primarily concerned with support to one directly responsible for discipline as was apparently the case in this South Carolina School. According to what I heard and read, the math teacher in this classroom requested that the student hand over her cell phone during the class. Having taught at the middle school, high school, and college level, I can personally attest that it is very frustrating when students are using their cell phones during class. Various schools have explored ways of handling these issues without setting up a potential confrontation or a power situation with a student.
The purpose of this blog is not to address the issues of how to address issues with disruptive students per se although I think I could greatly benefit from having a discussion about this with my six-year old adopted niece, Sam.
At this time, I am more interested in exploring the power of the use of the term embedded and the corresponding power of the role.
As I often do, I consulted oxforddictionary.com for current accepted definitions of the word embed. I found the following:
· Fix (an object) firmly and deeply in a surrounding mass:….
· Implant (an idea or feeling) within something else so it becomes an ingrained or essential characteristic of it.
· Place (a phrase or clause) within another clause or sentence.
· Computing – incorporate (a text or code) within the body of a file or document.
· Attach to a military unit during a conflict.
It is interesting that in this day of instant communication and updates, the use of the term to refer to journalist attached to a military unit is already in the online version of the oxford dictionary.
The first question that comes to mind when using this term to describe the relationship of the journalist to the military or the “resource officer” to the school system is, “Who is the employer?” In the case of the journalist, is the employer the military, news organization who pays the salary, the moral values of the journalist, the religious institution (if any) of whom the journalist is associated, the general United States public, or the world public? In the case of the so-called resource officer, we must ask the same question, “Who is the employer?” Is it the school, the students, the law enforcement body that pays his or her salary, the general public, or the values system of the individuals?
As a licensed counselor and a certified addiction counselor, I have often felt compelled to ask myself the same question. Who is my employer? Is it one of the professional organizations with a code of ethics to which I have agreed to adhere, the client and the people affected by the behavior of the clients, the organization that employs me (this could be a company, an agency or an insurance company), or my core value system?
As a U. S. Navy veteran and a former Presbyterian minister, I have often asked myself the question of whether it is possible to have a primary commitment or allegiance to the U. S. Military, the Presbyterian Church, the God of my understanding, and the person to whom I am providing spiritual guidance? Often it seems to me that there is a conflict with their various commitments.
It seems to me that in my role as counselor or in my former role as pastor/minister, my primary commitment is to the person I am counseling. The exceptions occur when that person is a danger to himself or herself, another person(s) (especially when that person is a child) ,or the community at large. Most of the time there is not a situation which makes it very clear that the person possess an immediate threat to the physical health of another person. When one is talking about the mental health of another the situation becomes cloudier.
In the case of the journalist who is embedded with the military they have, in most cases, apparently agreed that their primary commitment is to the military. To their credit, a number of journalists have raised the same questions I am raising. It is also true that although many of the atrocities committed by military personnel have been reported by the U.S. military personnel in Iraq, there have been journalists who held on to their primary commitment to report what is going on even if it meant jeopardizing their embedded role.
Although I am well aware of the need to protect the mission of a military or the overall mission of an academic institution once one has agreed to the basic premise that war is both moral and necessary and that individuals needs sometimes have to be secondary to the needs of the larger group, I think that terms themselves help shape one’s behavior.
Really. Unless one is thinking as a scientist or even the material of an artist, what do you, the reader, think of when you hear the term embedded? Does one think of a very clear psychological and emotional distance between the embedder and the embeddee? I certainly do not. Of course, I know that I have been accused of being "a perverted old man” but really? Does not the average reader think of going to bed with and, if thinking of adults (I am), does one not think of a very intimate (if not overtly sexual) relationship? When have I last said to someone I care about that I want to be embedded with him or her? When have I last felt comfortable or appropriate saying to someone at the gym, “I would love to be embedded with you?” In my gym, that would get me slapped and probably, if reported, barred from the gym. It is not a term that I use or even think of in my everyday conversation with friends, colleagues, or strangers.
If, on the other hand, my mind (for which I cannot be help responsible during my sleep) congers up a “potential embedding situation” it is not in the context of my professional role. In fact, if I had less than ethical/non-sensual/non-sexual thoughts about a client I would quickly have a “coming to Jesus” talk with the part of my mind in charge of my dreams. Given my romantic partnership history, which is not one I am always proud of (after all, I am twice divorced), I have not always been the sharpest tack in the box, but, even I would never have said to my partner “I am thinking of embedding myself with X.” Really!
Am I the only one who has these sorts of issues with the language we as a population seem to be eager to accept? I have had a difficult time having a thoughtful conversation with my concerns about the use of the term embedded as well as the concept.
I would like to think that we, as a population, are inundated with works via social media and other outlets that our poor minds are just too overloaded to even identify these sorts of issues, but I am not convinced that is the case.
At the risk of being accused of being a stand in for Mrs. Sheppard, my very strict, my 4th grade English teacher, or the new language police, I am going to challenge myself and others to begin to refuse to so blandly accept the use of terms which so effectively blur our relationships with each other and our roles to/with each other.
I do not want a journalist embedded with the military. I do not want law enforcement embedded with the school system. I do not want professional organizations to which I belong embedded with the funding sources. In fact, I am not sure I want to be associated with anyone who is embedded with another person or who wants me to be embedded with another person. I am perfectly comfortable with glassmakers, such as Chihuly, embedding a color into another color in one of his wonderful creations even if that is not the term which first comes to mind.
Written October 28, 2015
RSS Feed