Military values are the shared beliefs and standards of conduct, such as discipline, loyalty, duty, courage and obedience, that armed forces teach their members to make them reliable in conditions of danger and command. Sociologists study them as an example of how an institution shapes individuals and of how military culture relates to civilian society. The wider idea of values is covered elsewhere.
What are military values in sociology?
Armed forces typically name a short list of values, including discipline, honour, loyalty, courage, respect, duty, integrity and teamwork. Sociologically the list matters less than the function. The military needs individuals to follow orders under extreme stress, to trust comrades with their lives and to put the group ahead of themselves. Its values are therefore tied to hierarchy and cohesion, which are more heavily emphasised than in most civilian organisations.
How do sociologists explain military socialisation?
Erving Goffman’s idea of the total institution, from Asylums (1961), is often applied to basic training. Recruits are separated from civilian life, given uniforms and routines, and their old identities are stripped away so that new ones can be built. Durkheim’s emphasis on solidarity also applies, since shared rituals, drills and ceremonies create a moral community. Edward Shils and Morris Janowitz argued in 1948, in a study of the German army in the Second World War, that soldiers fought mainly for their immediate comrades and not for ideology, which shows the importance of group loyalty. Morris Janowitz’s The Professional Soldier (1960) and Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State (1957) are the classic accounts of the officer corps as a profession with its own ethic.
Have military values changed?
Charles Moskos argued in 1977 that Western armed forces were moving from an institutional model, based on duty and sacrifice, to an occupational model, in which service is a job with pay and conditions. The change reflects the end of conscription in many countries and the growth of professional armies. Others argue that the institutional ethos persists, particularly in combat roles.
How does the military relate to civilian society?
Janowitz argued in the 1960s that modern armed forces were becoming more like civilian organisations, a convergence thesis that suggested military values would soften as technology and professional skills became more important. Experience since has been mixed. Many armed forces have admitted women to more roles and ended bans on gay and lesbian service, which changed the traditional picture of the soldier, yet the culture of the combat arms is still often described as strongly masculine. Veterans’ difficulties on leaving the forces also show the gap between military and civilian values, since habits suited to the services, such as unquestioning obedience and emotional restraint, can be a handicap in civilian work and relationships. Sociologists such as Jenny Hockey, in her ethnography of infantry soldiers, Squaddies, have shown how humour, drinking and shared hardship create belonging within the ranks.
Examples of military values in society
Military values appear in civilian life through ceremony and commemoration, such as Remembrance Day in Britain, and through youth organisations and school cadet forces. The wider process by which military ideas spread is called militarism, and its presence in schools is examined in militarism in education and UK primary schools. The interests behind it are discussed in the posts on the military-industrial complex and the link with neoliberalism.
What are the criticisms of military values?
Critics argue that obedience can lead to harm. Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments of 1963 are often used to show how readily people follow authority, and military culture has been linked to abuses in war. Cynthia Enloe and other feminist writers argue that military values are strongly masculine and shape gender roles in wider society. Others say that valuing loyalty and toughness can discourage soldiers from seeking help or reporting wrongdoing. The argument is developed in the negative impact of military values on society, and the opposite process is described in demilitarisation.
Why do military values matter in sociology?
They show in an extreme form how institutions create commitment. The same mechanisms of ritual, hierarchy and shared hardship operate in schools, hospitals and corporations, but the military applies them most completely because members may be asked to risk their lives. Studying them also raises questions about how far a society should allow one institution to claim a special moral status. Students comparing the military with other total institutions can use consensus theory to ask whether shared values hold societies together, and the study of norms to see how conformity is enforced.
