Abstract
The classic approach to the consideration of the military as a social phenomenon is no different from the one applied to every other sector of social life. Classic sociology has a total and comprehensive conception of “society,” and within the classics we find a general analysis of the various social institutions as considered not only in their peculiarities but mainly in their connections with the general society. The military is one of the many, and basic, institutions considered by classic sociologists according to the various sociological schools, and its features are seen as a distinct set of behaviors, rules, norms, and values coordinated around a defensive or offensive goal (or both) defined by a given society (but generally typical of every society) in their relationships with other, external, societies. The military is considered and explained within the different sociological theories, so that we have a positivistic explanation of the role of the military as a basic feature of the human society since its origins-as in Comte-or an evolutionary consideration of the military structure as a first stage in the society evolution-as in Spencer. In Weber a not only deeper but also much more articulated analysis of the structure and evolution of the military can be found, where some basic concepts for description and explanation of structural features and processes are given. Concepts like discipline, obedience to formal norms, formal authority, rationale division of roles and attributes, competence, and loyalty to an impersonal legitimate power, in a word, the typical bureaucratic organization, are all tools provided by Weber in the consideration of the military as a social institution and applied to the understanding of a general process such as rationalization and bureaucratization of Western society. With a development similar to that of many other specialized fields, the military is also considered by sociologists first within the framework of a general conception of society, and subsequent research topics that spawned military sociology are originally linked to the classic tradition of general sociology. But military sociology of today does not rely on the classics, but on a second generation of general sociologists who at a certain time in their lives began to define the military social field as a peculiar environment, thus acting as “founding fathers” of this discipline. To maintain this distinction, we define a “modern” sociological tradition, which can appear to be a terminological as well as a conceptual contradiction. This new tradition begins with the possibility of conducting social research in the armed forces and with the correlate possibility of defining the true first lines of a theoretical framework on which to base a new and autonomous sociological discipline.
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
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Studies on cohesion and morale cover a very huge amount of literature, and the topic is a major concern more for social psychology and psychiatry applied to the military than for military sociology. In this chapter, only the main studies which can be defined as pertaining to a sociological domain have been recalled, and among them only those who could be considered as key essays, either because proposing theoretical innovation or advancement, either because of their “state-of-the-art” studies purpose.
- 3.
Etzioni (1975).
- 4.
Little (1964, pp. 195–224).
- 5.
Savage and Gabriel (1976).
- 6.
Harries-Jenkins, Cohesion and Morale in the Military: The Regimental System, ISA RC No. 01 Interim Meeting, Munich, 1988, published in an Italian translation in M. Nuciari, Efficienza e Forze Armate, Angeli, Milano, 1990.
- 7.
Bartone and Adler (2001, pp. 85–107).
- 8.
Ibid. p. 105.
- 9.
For these definitions, treated also here in further paragraphs, see Moskos et al. (2000, pp. 1–13).
- 10.
Mintzberg (1979).
- 11.
- 12.
G. Caforio & M. Nuciari, “The Officer Profession: Ideal-Type”, cit. p. 34.
- 13.
Ibidem, p. 37.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Moskos (1992).
- 20.
Moskos (2000, p. 14).
- 21.
Country studies comprised in the volume are: United States, United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Israel, South Africa.
- 22.
Complete research results are published in the volume edited by Caforio (2001).
- 23.
Nuciari (2001, pp. 61–88).
- 24.
See on this Nuciari (2007, pp. 25–53). In the three-type typology, Warriors are those selecting 4 or 5 items from the “warrior list” and “NO” in the last cell; Peacekeepers are those selecting 4 or 5 items from the “peacekeeper list” and “YES” in the last cell. The third type, Flexible, is formed by those selecting 3 items on the one and 2 items on the other list (and the opposite), and “YES” or “NO” in the last cell.
- 25.
Marina Nuciari, Coping with Diversity, cited, p. 49.
References
Ammendola, T. (Ed.). (1999). Missione in Bosnia. Milano, Angeli.
Bartone, P. T., & Adler, A. B. (2001). Cohesion over time in a peacekeeping medical task force. Military Psychology, 11(1), 85–107.
Battistelli, F. (1997). Peacekeeping and the post-modern soldier. Armed Forces and Society, 23(3), 467–484.
Boene, B. (1984). The Moskos and Thomas models contrasted. In J. Kuhlmann (Ed.), Military and society: The European experience (pp. 35–66). SOWI-Forum Serie.
Caforio, G. (Ed.). (1994). The military profession in Europe. Current Sociology, 42(3).
Caforio, G. (2001). The flexible officer: Professional education and military operations other than war. A crossnational analysis. Gaeta: Artistic & Publishing Co.
Caforio, G., & Nuciari, M. (1994). The officer profession: ideal type. Current Sociology, 42(3), 33–56.
Dandeker, C., & Gow, J. (1997). The future of peace support operations: Strategic peacekeeping and success. Armed Forces & Society, 23, 327–348.
Dobbie, C. (1994). A concept for post-cold war peacekeeping. Survival, 36, 121–148 (Autumn).
Downes, C. (1985). To be or not to be a profession: The military case. Defence Analysis, 3, 147–171.
ERGOMAS WG 6. (1996). The present and future of the military profession—Views of European officers. SOWI-FORUM 18, Strausberg.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organisations (Revised and enlarged edition). New York: The Free Press.
Feld, M. D. (1977). The structure of violence: Armed forces as social systems. London: Sage.
Janowitz, M. (1959). Sociology and the military establishment (p. 26). New York: Sage.
Janowitz, M. (1960 & 1979). The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait. New York: The Free Press.
Larson, A. (1977). Military professionalism and civil control: A comparative analysis of two interpretations. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2, 57–72.
Little, R. W. (1964). Buddy relations and combat soldier performance. In M. Janowitz (Ed.), The new military (pp. 195–224). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Madge, J. (1962). The origins of scientific sociology. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Miller, L., & Moskos, C. (1995). Humanitarians or warriors? Race, gender and combat status in operation restore hope. Armed Forces and Society, 21(4), 615–637.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moskos, C. (1975). The army combat soldier in Vietnam. Journal of Social Issues, 31(4), 25–37.
Moskos, C. (1976). Peace soldiers: The sociology of a United Nations military force. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Moskos, C. (1977).From institution to occupation: Trends in military organization Armed Forces and Society, 4(1), 41–50.
Moskos, C. C. (1985). The emergent military: Institutional, occupational or plural?, Italian translation in “Forarmes”, 1(1), 67–89.
Moskos, C. (1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces and Society, 12(3), 377–382 (Spring).
Moskos, C. C. (1992). Armed Forces in the post-Cold War era with special reference to the United States Army. Paper presented at the Workshop on Sociocultural Designs for the Future Army, University of Maryland, College Park.
Moskos, C. C. (2000). Toward a postmodern military: The United States as a paradigm (p. 14). In C. C. Moskos, J. A. Williams, & D. R. Segal (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Moskos, C., & Burk, J. (1994). The postmodern military. In J. Burk (Ed.), The military in new times. Adapting armed forces to a turbulent world (pp. 141–162). Boulder: Westview Press.
Moskos, C. C., Williams, J. A., & Segal, D. R. (2000). Armed forces after the cold war. In C. C. Moskos, J. A. Williams & D. R. Segal (Eds.), The postmodern military. Armed forces after the cold war (pp. 1–13). New York, Oxford U.P.
Nuciari, M. (1984). Instituciòn vs. Ocupaciòn: discusiòn, y tentativa de adaptaciòn del modelo I/O a las fuerzas militares italianas. Iztapalapa, 5(10/11), 75–80.
Nuciari, M. (1985). Professione militare e modelli interpretativi. Alcune note di discussione. Forarmes, 1(1).
Nuciari, M. (1990a). Efficienza e Forze Armate. La ricerca sociologica sull’istituzione militare. Franco Angeli, Milano.
Nuciari, M. (1990b). Valori che cambiano. Sicurezza, sviluppo, difesa. Torino, Codex.
Nuciari, M. (2001). Officers education for MOOTW. A comparative research on military and civilian agencies problematic relationships. In G. Caforio (Ed.), The flexible officer (pp. 61–88). Gaeta: Artistic &. Publishing Company.
Nuciari, M. (2007) Coping with diversity. Military and civilian actors in MOOTW. International Review of Sociology, 17(1), 25–53.
Reed, B. J., & Segal, D. R. (2000). The impact of multiple deployments on soldiers’ peacekeeping attitudes, morale, and retention. Armed Forces & Society, 27(1), 57–78 (Fall).
Savage, P. L., & Gabriel, R. A. (1976). Cohesion and disintegration in the American Army: An alternative perspective. Armed Forces & Society, 2, 340–376.
Segal, D. R. (1986). Measuring the institutional/occupational change thesis. Armed Forces and Society, 12(13), 351–376 (Spring).
Segal, D. R. (1996). The social construction of peacekeeping by U.S. soldiers. The Tocqueville Review, 17(1), 7–21.
Segal, D., Harries, J., Rothberg, J., & Marlowe, D. (1984). Paratroopers as peacekeepers. Armed Forces and Society, 10(4), 487–506.
Segal, D. R., & Meeker, B. F. (1985) Peacekeeping, warfighting, and professionalism: Attitude organisation and change among combat soldiers on constabulary duty. The Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 13, 167–181.
Segal, D. R., Reed, B., & Rohall, D.E. (1998). Constabulary attitudes of national guard and regular soldiers in the U.S. army. Armed Forces and Society, 24, 534–548.
Shils, E. (1950). The american soldier and primary groups. In R. K. Merton & P. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in social research: Studies in the scope and method of “The American Soldier” (p. 19). Glencoe: The Free Press.
Shils, E., & Janowitz, M. (1948). Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 12(Summer), 280–315.
Stewart, N. K. (1988). The South-Atlantic conflict of 1982. A case study on military cohesion. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Social Studies, Research Report 1469, Alexandria.
Stouffer, S. A., et al. (1949). Studies in social psychology in World War II (Vol. 4). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, J.-P. (1981) Fonction militaire et système d’hommes. Stratégiques, 12(8), 18–41.
Thomas, J.-P., & Rosenzveig, C. (1982). French NCO’s career strategies and attitudes. Armed Forces & Society, 8(4), 275–301.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nuciari, M. (2018). The Study of the Military. Models for the Military Profession. In: Caforio, G., Nuciari, M. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71602-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71600-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71602-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)