Introduction
The recent increase in suicide cases among military personnel indicates a complex issue that cannot be explained solely by individual psychopathology. On a global scale, suicide is defined as a significant public health problem and is observed at higher rates particularly among high-stress occupational groups (World Health Organization, 2021). Although the military structure is built upon discipline, hierarchy, and resilience, these characteristics may at times conflict with the psychological needs of individuals.
In military culture, the suppression of emotions and the perception of seeking help as a sign of weakness are among the major barriers to accessing mental health services (Hoge et al., 2004). In this context, understanding military suicides requires consideration not only of biological, psychological, and social factors but also of the institutional structure in which the individual operates. This study examines the factors that increase suicide risk in military settings through a fictional yet realistic case analysis and interprets them within a psychoanalytic framework.
Multidimensional Causes Of Suicide In Military Settings
Suicidal behavior among military personnel cannot be reduced to a single cause. At the psychological level, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms play a significant role. In particular, Major Depressive Disorder increases suicide risk by causing individuals to experience intense feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and detachment from life (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Additionally, constant exposure to stress and perceived threat may contribute to the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Hoge et al., 2004).
According to the interpersonal theory of suicide, one of the contemporary explanatory models, individuals’ perceptions of “thwarted belongingness” and “perceived burdensomeness” significantly increase suicide risk (Joiner, 2005). Social isolation and hierarchical pressure in military environments may reinforce these perceptions.
At the institutional level, the rigid structure of military culture is noteworthy. The obligation to appear “strong” prevents individuals from expressing vulnerability, leading to the suppression of psychological problems. Moreover, harsh treatment or mobbing-like behaviors within the hierarchical system may damage self-esteem and accelerate psychological deterioration (Bryan & Reger, 2017).
From a social perspective, isolation inherent in military life is an important risk factor. Being separated from family and social networks weakens support systems and increases feelings of loneliness. This situation may lead to identity and belonging crises, particularly among young individuals.
Case Analysis
The case of Mehmet (23) illustrates how suicide risk develops in a military setting. Mehmet began to experience significant adjustment problems during the first months of his military service. Initially mild symptoms such as insomnia and social withdrawal gradually intensified, evolving into complete social isolation, profound hopelessness, and feelings of worthlessness.
Frequent criticism and humiliation by his superiors damaged Mehmet’s self-perception, leading to an internalized sense of inadequacy. At the same time, reduced communication with his family deprived him of emotional support. As the process progressed, Mehmet’s statements such as “there is no way out” indicated the emergence of suicidal ideation.
This case clearly demonstrates how the interaction between individual vulnerability and institutional pressure can create a dangerous psychological state.
Psychoanalytic Evaluation
From a psychoanalytic perspective, Mehmet’s condition reflects the role of repressed emotions and internal conflicts. Thanatos (death drive) can be understood as the redirection of unexpressed aggression and destructiveness toward the self (Freud, 1920/2010). The intense pressure and helplessness experienced by Mehmet create a basis for the activation of this drive.
From Lacan’s perspective, the military structure functions as the “Big Other,” regulating the subject’s desires. In this process, the individual loses their subjective position and becomes shaped by the expectations of the system (Lacan, 2006). Mehmet’s identity erosion and sense of hopelessness can be interpreted as a consequence of this structural pressure.
From Kristeva’s viewpoint, the individual’s self-alienation and feelings of worthlessness indicate a form of existential exclusion (Kristeva, 1982). This state may lead individuals to feel meaningless and erased, thereby triggering suicidal thoughts.
Discussion
This study demonstrates that increasing suicide cases in military environments cannot be explained solely by individual psychopathology but must be understood within a multilayered framework. The case analysis reveals how individual vulnerabilities, when combined with institutional pressure and social isolation, form a critical risk profile.
A particularly striking issue is the suppression of help-seeking behavior within military culture. This limits opportunities for early intervention and contributes to the chronicity of psychological problems. The literature clearly shows that barriers to accessing mental health services can increase suicide rates (Hoge et al., 2004).
Furthermore, it becomes evident that interventions focused solely on the individual are insufficient. Institutional reforms such as strengthening psychological support systems and transforming leadership approaches may have preventive effects. Additionally, enhancing social support networks among soldiers may serve as a protective factor by increasing the sense of belonging (Joiner, 2005).
Finally, the psychoanalytic perspective emphasizes that such cases should be understood not only through observable behaviors but also through the individual’s internal world and repressed conflicts. This approach provides significant contributions, particularly in in-depth clinical evaluations.
Conclusion
The increase in suicide cases among military personnel represents a complex and multidimensional issue that cannot be explained by individual weakness alone. The case analysis presented in this study demonstrates how psychological vulnerabilities and institutional pressures interact to drive individuals toward suicide.
Therefore, solutions should not be limited to individual-level interventions but must also include structural transformations within military institutions. Strengthening mental health support systems, restructuring institutional culture, and enhancing social support mechanisms will play a crucial role in reducing this problem.
Reference
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.
World Health Organization. (2021). Suicide worldwide in 2019: Global health estimates. World Health Organization.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023). 2023 national veteran suicide prevention annual report. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Freud, S. (1920/2010). Beyond the pleasure principle. W. W. Norton & Company.
Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits. W. W. Norton & Company.
Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. Columbia University Press.
Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.
Nock, M. K., Borges, G., Bromet, E. J., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M. C., et al. (2008). Suicide and suicidal behavior. Epidemiologic Reviews, 30(1), 133–154.
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 13–22.
Bryan, C. J., & Reger, M. A. (2017). Military suicide prevention: A review of evidence-based strategies. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(10), 1–9.
Lester, D. (2012). Suicide in the military: A review of the literature. Psychological Reports, 110(3), 1–12.
Lester, P. R., Saltzman, W., & Pynoos, R. S. (2016). Family systems and military stress. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 19(3), 1–18.