The Ideal Type of the Democratic Soldier in Britain (original) (raw)
Related papers
Defining Soldiers: Britain's Military, c. 1740–1815
War in History, 2013
This article offers a critique of the methodology of military history. The question of what constitutes a ‘soldier’ is usually taken for granted, but history of Britain’s military between the wars of the 1740s and the end of the Napoleonic Wars suggests that current definitions are inadequate. By focusing on the themes of language, law and citizenship, life cycles, masculinity, and collective identity, this article proposes new ways of thinking about ‘the soldier’. In so doing, it suggests that military historians should rethink the relationship between the military and society, and engage further with the methodologies of social and cultural history.
The " Democratic Soldier " : Comparing Concepts and Practices in Europe
Since the end of the Cold War almost all European countries have reformed their armed forces, focusing on downsizing, internationalization and professionalization. This paper examines how these changes in security sector governance have affected the normative model underlying the military’s relationship to democracy, using the image of the “democratic soldier”. Drawing on a comparative analysis of 12 post-socialist, traditional and consolidated democracies in Europe, the different dimensions of the national conception of soldiering are analysed based on the official norms that define a country’s military and the ways in which individual members of the armed forces see their role.
For Queen and country? National frames of reference in the talk of soldiers in England
Human Relations, 2004
Social scientists frequently use the iconic figure of the soldier who fights and dies for the nation to exemplify the power of processes of national identification. However, little work has considered how soldiers themselves orient to the possibility of being motivated by a desire to 'serve the country'. The present study explored this through a series of interviews with members of the British Army and Territorial Army. While in explicit talk about 'the country' the soldiers typically downplayed the importance of 'serving the country' as motivation, in discussing the prospect of a European army the national basis of armies was taken for granted. The findings are discussed in terms of the problematic nature of displays of English 'patriotism' or 'pride'. It is argued that the relationship between national identity and military service, often assumed to be straightforward in social scientific texts, is oriented to as a delicate issue by soldiers themselves.
Oragnization , 2024
This paper argues the military are a central force in creating industrial-capitalist organisational order. It suggests that in the interests of preparedness for organised violence, the military come to see work organisation as a problem and so develop an 'organising logic' built on surveillance, control, and hierarchy. Using Foucault on discipline, security and population, and Marxist understandings of modes of production, it demonstrates how the military ensured productive workforces. In so doing, it developed a production network-a security apparatus-located in the real subsumption of labour, technical and bureaucratic controls, deskilling, and separating strategy and operations to ensure control, productivity, and state security. These processes and organisational forms were then diffused to the private sphere to reshape organisational order.
Democracy, Security, and the problems with labelling the military as a profession
Identifying the military as a profession carries with it conceptual baggage that clashes with democratic values because it inspires ideas of elitism that can lead to dogmatism. Along with seeking a monopoly on managing violence, the professional military narrative suggests that career military soldiers warrant a higher status in society. The military “expert” that wages warfare on behalf of their “client” (civilian citizen) seeks more autonomy, along with increased benefits and rights compared with those citizens who avoid military service. Such an outlook, based on an ideology, challenges civic accountability, the freedom of speech, civilian control over the military, and due process of law. As many occupations are portrayed as professions, military service entails fundamentally different values that are not conducive to a professional view. In a democratic republic, developing a professionalized military can risk denying opportunities to people of diverse backgrounds, worldviews, and values. As traditional professions such as medicine, law, education, and engineering require autonomy to conduct their work free from coercion to enhance benefits to society, such occupations also lack the capabilities to physically coerce or dominate the public. What makes the military career unique as a vocation vis-à-vis other occupations? What degree of autonomy and self-policing is warranted for the military?
The Amateur Military Tradition in Britain
War and Society, 1986
Traditionally, Britain has relied upon command of the sea as the main line of defence against invasion, itself a constant theme in English and British history. In consequence, the existence of a large standing army has been distrusted on the grounds that such a regular force was both unnecessary and dangerous, in that it might promote military despotism, a lingering fear which actually pre-dated the creation of a standing army. Thus, there has been a preference for amateur and temporary soldiers-the auxiliary forces-brought into existence as needs dictated both for defence against invasion and as a wider means of social control and assimilation through participation and example. The military obligations imposed upon the English people from earliest times and the more systematic organization of local auxiliary forces from the mid-sixteenth century have therefore continuously reflected and transmitted traditional attitudes towards military participation in Britain. In the absence of a large standing army prior to 1660 (technically, prior to 1689) and in the absence of regular troops permanently visible to society as a whole thereafter, it is the everpresent auxiliaries who have more often provided the essential point of contact between society and army in Britain. Yet, despite its importance, this amateur military tradition has been largely neglected by historians. Individual components of the auxiliary forces have received some modern attention, but rarely do the auxiliaries rate more than a passing reference in standard syntheses of social, economic, political and even military historiography. This article therefore seeks to redress some of the balance by focussing attention upon the role of auxiliary forces in British society since the mid-sixteenth century but with an emphasis upon the local rather than the national community. It will first seek to establish that an amateur military tradition is a viable concept and then proceed to examine the purposes fulfilled by auxiliary forces. After a brief discussion of the patterns of participation in the auxiliaries, the article will conclude with an examination of the relationship between auxiliary forces and society.
In recent years, there has been a sharp growth in political and sociological interest in the British military. Set against the backdrop of the armed forces' increasing presence in everyday life, alongside the organizations' ongoing restructuring, the current paper focuses on the MoD's problematic attempts to recruit 30,000 reservists by 2020; what has become known as the Future Reserves 2020 programme (FR2020). We argue that these changes are driven in part by the need to cut costs in defence. However, we also suggest that they are a reflection of the changing nature of modern military organisation, and the manner in which armed forces engage with the societies of which they are a part, and with the citizens that make up that society. We locate FR2020 programme in the context of a wider narrative about the changing nature of military organisation in contemporary western democracies, identifying structural, circumstantial and normative reasons for change. We also examine the specific challenges of implementing FR2020 in practice, including issues of recruitment and retention, integration and support, and relations with families and employers, drawing on the experience of comparator countries to do so. We conclude by considering the implications of these changes, both for the future of UK armed forces, and for the evolving nature of militarysociety relations in Britain.