I should be able to help out a little as I wrote about this topic for part of my degree. I focused mainly on the military and medical aspect towards PTSD as the general societal perception is quite mixed. I will provide sources at the end.

Shell shock was first characterised in the first two years of the war after many young men were described as having early symptoms of neurasthenia which “defied definition”. The contemporary lack of understanding surrounding shellshock allowed military officials to convey their own, predominantly negative, attitudes towards shellshock. The reason military perspectives on shellshock were negative was due to the conflict it had with contemporary masculinity identity. The most prevalent form of masculinity during this era would be that of the soldier hero. Men in the forty years preceding the Great War grew up in a cult of soldier rhetoric, with tales of soldier heroism emerging in newspaper articles and publishings such as The Boys Own Paper meant that societal perceptions of bravery, strength and honour were ingrained in the minds of men at an early age. The outbreak vitalised this persona and enlistment posters full of masculine rhetoric were across the nation, encouraging men to enlist. The war was an opportunity to live the ideal so it would be fair to assume that men whom would later pursue a career in the army and be of a senior rank during the Great War would retain such values from their childhood. This culture of bravado led to many in the army to believe victims of shellshock were not manly and cowards.

The link between cowardice and shellshock by many high ranking army officials is what lead to the execution of many British soldiers. One man who was executed for cowardice was private Harry Farr, it was the belief of the resulting court martial that Farr was a liability after refusing to go over the top and for this he was executed. He didn’t display any heroism or bravado unlike other men and although it was noted that he previously suffered from shellshock, it was believed that his actions were not that of a true soldier. The high command of the army retained such beliefs during the war with comments made by Colonel Lord Gort VC in a post war publishing by a War Office Commision into shellshock would later state that shellshock was “practically non-existent” in “first-class divisions” and believed those who suffered from it brought “a form of disgrace to the soldier”. This highlights how the high regard for the masculine ideal of the soldier hero often led to the victimisation of many afflicted men.

Within the medical sphere, Historians such as Lynda Stryker feel that it is unfair to use the medical field to gauge contemporary attitudes to masculinity as for most doctors and psychologists, their role was not challenge a man's masculinity but to treat and ideally cure him. Jessica Meyers however believes the opposite for Doctors and medical practitioners had little time to understand shell shock for their priorities in wartime were to return able bodied men to the frontline (with men being the keyword) which is why masculinity had to be questioned. This may explain why many men whom experienced “minor” shellshock were returned to the frontline promptly as they were perceived to be masculine enough to handle, what was perceived to be, a minor psychological impact. Those who had severe shellshock would be seen as effeminate/emasculated as they were not back fighting, unlike other “true” men. This highlights how the military perception of masculinity influenced other fields. It also proves that the medical sphere is an avenue historians can and do venture towards when regarding the study of masculinity.

I hope this helps you!

Sources:

Bogacz, T. 'War Neurosis And Cultural Change In England, 1914-22: The Work Of The War Office Committee Of Enquiry Into 'Shell-Shock''. Journal Of Contemporary History 24, no. 2 (1989): 227-256.

Corrigan, Gordon. Mud, Blood And Poppycock. London: Cassell, 2003.

Jones, Edgar, and Simon Wessely. 'Battle For The Mind: World War 1 And The Birth Of Military Psychiatry'. The Lancet 384, no. 9955 (2014): 1708-1714.

Laurinda Stryker, ‘Mental cases: British shell shock and the politics of interpretation’, in Gail Braybon (ed.), Evidence, History and the Great War: Historians and the Impact of 1914–18, New York, 2003, 154-172.

Leese, Peter. Shell Shock. Basingstoke [etc.]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Meyer, J. 'Separating The Men From The Boys: Masculinity And Maturity In Understandings Of Shell Shock In Britain'. Twentieth Century British History 20/1,(2008):1-22.

Stevenson, John, British Society 1914-45,London, Penguin books ltd 1984.

Wessely, S. The Life and Death of Private Harry Farr Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol 99, September 2006, 440-443.

I can help! This is my first post to this subreddit, so let me know if I'm missing/need to change anything.

I recently conducted research on the topic for a class project at my university. My work attempted to focus on soldiers from the US, but there is a fair amount of overlap between the topics in terms of how soldiers were treated.

I'm afraid I can't help you with how society viewed soldiers with PTSD, but the way their doctors treated them was, put simply, not good. This was a time when doctors listed "Terrorism" as an acceptable means of psychiatric treatment. Hundreds of soldiers experiencing symptoms of what they called Shell Shock were exposed to "painful shock therapy" (2) and consistent verbal abuse from their caretakers (1). Doctors faked injections, and prescribed alcohol to cure deafness. In one particular case (#512 in 2), doctors forcibly removed a man's crutches, and he fell to the floor. Treatment did improve as time went on, especially with Doctor W.H.R. Rivers' attempted to bring humane methods to aid soldiers with shell shock.

In Britain specifically, the prevailing view was that shell shock was a form of "hysteria or malingering," and a sign of personal weakness (3). What this meant for the military, and by extension the government, was the afflicted soldiers had to be whipped back into shape to send them back to the fight, because the treatment of PTSD was to return the soldiers not to health, but the battlefield (1).

I hope this was helpful in some small way. If you're looking for some sources to peruse, I would recommend my sources for this post:

Trauma and Recovery by Judith Herman. The book covers a wide variety of PTSD causes and treatments, but Herman's chapter on WWI fits within a fascinating narrative of the need for social movements to enact institutional change.

Shell-Shock and Other Neuropsychiatric Problems, Presented in Five Hundred and Eighty-nine Case Histories from the War Literature, 1914-1918 published by W.M. Leonard in Boston. This is exactly what it sounds like. An ideal primary source that discusses how soldiers were treated by their doctors.

"Healing the Soldier, Restoring the Nation: Representations of Shell Shock in the USA During and After the First World War" by Annessa Stagner. As the name suggests, the article primarily delves into US responses, but it also uses Britain as a comparison point.

If you'd like more, I still have a short bibliography saved that I can send your way.

/u/ImmaDevonian's answer is very good; I've also given some answers on occasion:

[PTSD and Therapy from WWI Onwards] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34f637/ptsd_and_therapy_from_wwi_onwards/)

[What kind of treatment did 'shell shocked' soldiers receive?] (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/354fnv/i_know_it_wasnt_good_but_what_kind_of_treatment/)

Thanks so much guys!

This information is incredibly useful to me, as I need a lot of context for the story.

I want to try and make it authentic and convincing, and I need to read up a lot on this time period.

All of the information that you have provided will definitely help me to write an authentic story.

Thanks again!