Abstract
From the mid-1990s onward, scholars in the field of military studies both in Europe and America have taken to using the term “postmodern.” Though there is some recognition that the trends which became apparent after 1989 had been at work in the West for some time prior to that watershed (Boene and Dandeker, 1998), they often use it rather loosely to refer to the transformations under way in the post-Cold War era.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Early use of the term “postmodern” in the military field was by American authors: see Charles Moskos, “Armed Forces in a Warless Society,” in J. Kuhlmann and C. Dandeker, (Eds.), 1992, pp. 1–19; and Charles Moskos and James Burk (1994). For more recent American assessments making it the main tool of analysis, see Charles Moskos, John A. Williams, and David R. Segal, (2000b). For a dissenting opinion, see Bradford Booth et al. (2001), “Are Post-Cold War Militaries Postmodern?”, Armed Forces & Society, 27 (3) 319–342. Yet, the term has caught on in Europe, as evidenced in the rather large share of European contributions to the above-mentioned edited volumes, and other, separate pieces, notably by Italian authors. But while some authors have embraced it enthusiastically, others use it much more cautiously. See note 4.
Michel Forseé (1989). Applying an “entropic” paradigm to the study of large social entities over long periods, the author shows that the most stable social structure, to which social processes tend spontaneously, is a pyramid characterized by an inverse exponential profile, in which relative inequality is constant. When the system is closed and material or symbolic resources are scarce, such a pyramid has a narrow base and tapers to a considerable height, betraying a high concentration of power, riches, or prestige; when they are in abundance, differentials decrease, producing a pyramid that is more broad-based and flat. Opening the system, as is the case today with the liberalization of world trade and other globalization processes, introduces a measure of negative entropy, thereby (temporarily) increasing differentials.
Cf. the works of M. Granet, B.L. Whorf, R. Needham, P. Winch, A.V. Cicourel, T.S. Kuhn, P. Feyerabend, D. Bloor, B. Barnes, K. Hübner, and others. For a pointed critique of such trends, see Raymond Boudon (1995).
The literature under this heading is abundant and growing fast. To restrict references to books published in the last few years: W. Perry (1997), L. Freedman (1998), R.O Hundley (1999), D.C. Gompert et al. (1999), R.F. Laird and H.H. Mey (1999), H. von Riekhoff and T. Gongora (2000), and R. Matthews and J.M. Treddenick (eds.) (2001).
The revolutionary potential of such technological developments is also perceived by critics, notably among “socially responsible” peace activists: see, for instance, Chris Hables Gray (1997).
See Peter D. Feaver, “La guerre de l’information,” pp. 225–249, in Boëne and Dandeker (Eds.) (1998), op. cit.
See Le Figaro, February 19, 1996.
Livre Blanc sur la Défense, Paris: La Documentation française (1994).
Karl Haltiner and Eduard Hirt, in Moskos, Williams, and Segal (Eds.), The Postmodern Military, op. cit., pp. 205–223.
Bernhard Fleckenstein, in Williams, and Segal (Eds.), The Postmodern Military, op. cit., pp. 205–223 ibid.
This was the case in Britain with the “Options for Change” debate from 1990–1991 onward. See Christopher Dandeker (1996).
This was a recurrent theme in Morris Janowitz’s later works, notably. The Reconstruction of Patriotism (1983). See also David R. Segal (1989).
In the late 1990s, a Swiss sociologist, on the strength of an expert survey, predicted that the old mass armed force model would be abandoned by all but a handful of European nations, namely those which still feel militarily threatened on their borders or which have constitutional provisions against professionalization of the military: Finland, Greece, Turkey, and Switzerland. He added that in the Swiss case a sea-change could not be ruled out. See Karl Haltiner, “Le déclin final de l’armée de masse,” in Boëne and Dandeker (Eds.) (1998) op. cit.
Haltiner, “Le déclin final de l’armée de masse,” in Boëne and Dandeker (Eds.) (1998) op. cit. The share in Swiss public opinion of those favoring an all-volunteer force has risen from 10% to over one third between the 1970s and 1995.
Fleckenstein, in Williams, and Segal (Eds.), The Postmodern Military, op. cit., pp. 205–223 op. cit. Also see Paul Klein, “Vers des armées post-nationales,” in Boëne and Dandeker (Eds.), (1998) op. cit.
“Who’s in Charge in Bosnia? NATO and UN Fight it Out,” International Herald Tribune, October 3, 1994.
See Fleckenstein (Germany), Haltiner (Switzerland), Boëne and Martin (France), in Moskos, Williams, and Segal (Eds.) op. cit.; also, Boëne and Dandeker (Eds.) op. cit. The latest Eurobarometer survey (November 2000) squarely places the military as the most trusted public institution in the EU at large. Approval ratings are in the 70–90% range, which represents a substantial increase over 2 decades in most Western countries.
Wilfried von Bredow, “The Profession of Arms as Social Work?” Presented at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces & Society, 1993 Biennial Conference, 22–24 October, Baltimore, Maryland.
Careful examination of American attitudes toward casualties, as James Burk, Peter Feaver, and others have shown, suggests that the general public is less shy than politicians if the goals of intervention are deemed worthwhile. In fact, it would appear that following the tragic deaths of 18 Rangers in Somalia, a majority of the American public were in favor of a continued effort to restore peace and order there: see S. Kull and I.M. Destler (1999).
This was also noted in the United States in the 1980s, despite the fact that it had an all-volunteer force. See Charles Moskos (1988).
In Britain, this was in the air in the late 1980s: Christopher Dandeker, “Le cas britannique (II): La politique des personnels militaires et ses problèmes dans les années 90, à travers l’exemple du recrutement de l’armée de terre,” in Boëne and Martin (Eds.) (1991), op. cit. It became policy with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (see especially the chapter entitled “Policy for People”).
See Bernard Boëne, “The Changing Place of Servicewomen under France’s New All-Voluteer Force,” in Gwyn Harries-Jenkins (Ed.) Extended Roles far Military Women, Hull/London, Centre for Research on Military Institutions (University of Hull) and U.S. Army Research Institute, European Branch, 2002.
S.L. A. Marshall (1947), Edward A. Shils and Morris Janowitz (1948), Samuel A. Stouffer et al. (1949), Stephen D. Wesbrook (1980), and William Daryl Henderson (1985).
For a statement of the issue that was meant to be provocative, see Bernard Boëne, “Diversity in the French Armed Forces: Trends and Prospects,” in Joseph Soeters and Jan van der Meulen (Eds.) 1999, pp. 85–103. The problem was tackled by David Segal by questioning the value of writings considered to be classical (see note 35 above) rather than by probing its continued relevance empirically: [that literature] “must for methodological reasons be regarded as heuristic rather conclusive, and contemporary research, which is also not yet conclusive, seems to stand the argument on its head” (David R. Segal, “Presidential Notes,” IUS Newsletter, Summer 2000). However, if (as can be presumed) the contemporary research alluded to applies to the field of work, it is moot whether conclusions derived from civilian settings can unproblematically be transferred to the context of military action.
Christopher Dandeker, “Farewell to Arms?”, in James Burk (Ed.) (1994).
Jan Van der Meulen, “Mission Bound: The Final Professionalization of the Dutch Military,” in Moskos, Williams, and Segal (Eds.) (2000).
Hew Strachan (Ed.) (2000), Military Culture in the 21 st Century; Peter Feaver and Richard Kohn (Eds.) (2001). Israel, too, seems affected by that trend: see Daniel Maman, Eyal Ben-Ari, and Zeev Rosenhek (Eds.) (2001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boëne, B. (2006). The Military as a Tribe among Tribes. In: Caforio, G. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34576-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34576-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-32456-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34576-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)