Military sociology
Military sociology is a subfield within sociology. It corresponds closely to C. Wright Mills's summons to connect the individual world to broader social structures.[1][2] Military sociology aims toward the systematic study of the military as a social group rather than as a military organization. This highly specialized sub-discipline examines issues related to service personnel as a distinct group with coerced collective action based on shared interests linked to survival in vocation and combat, with purposes and values that are more defined and narrow than within civil society. Military sociology also concerns civil-military relations and interactions between other groups or governmental agencies.
Theory and methodology[edit]
Military sociology reflects the diversity of methods employed by sociology itself. These include large-scale data analysis, participant observation, social network analysis, survey research, comparative history, case studies etc.[3][4] The methods of military sociology also include philosophical perspectives and arguments.[5]
Contemporary military sociology is primarily a result of the World War II and Cold War. These events initiated the systematic study of military sociology, though it stands to reason that the relationship between the military and society would predate these events. The dismantling of the Soviet Union, the trauma of the terrorist attack on 11 September 2001 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also dramatically affected the field of military sociology.[6] There are numerous topics within military sociology, and it is important to note that its scope is not exclusively limited to the military institution itself or to its members. Rather, military sociology encompasses areas such as civilian-military relations and the relationship between the military and other military groups or governmental agencies.
Other topics within military sociology include: [7][8]
Military as a society[edit]
Military as profession[edit]
Two leading scholars, Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz, influence the notion of military professionalism in military sociology. Political scientist, Huntington argued that there should be a high degree of autonomy within the military profession over military matters, because civilians did not possess the necessary corporate quality or expertise to oversee military matters. He called this objective control.[1][9] Janowitz, on the other hand, asserted that the role of the military in modern society was so complex, and with such high stakes that the duty of the professional soldier went well beyond the execution of violence. The elite of the military had an obligation to maintain stable international relations, and this required management expertise and political skills in addition to the classical military officer skillset. Janowitz was concerned that the military profession could become a self-perpetuating, self-serving clique. Therefore, it was important that the military be socially representative of the citizen it served.[1][10] According to Sam C. Sarkesian and Robert E. Connor, the military profession holds the view that it is a unique profession.
There are six key elements that are paramount in shaping the character of the military profession: [11]
Military and society[edit]
Political control of the military[edit]
In the modern relationship between the military and the state, the state relies on the military to protect it from external threats as well as violence between various internal groups. Concurrently, the military draws so-called 'violent resources' from the state and from society. Such resources can include money, technology, raw materials, and manpower. The relationship has changed somewhat from the 16th and 17th centuries, however, where internal centers of power and specific sectors of society (e.g., skilled builders or guilds) were somewhat more autonomous than the rest. These sectors were not under the direct control of the sovereign power and could avoid feeding resources to the state. This meant that pre-modern militaries were 1) somewhat weaker than the modern version due to a lack of state-funded resources but also 2) powerful sectors of society that controlled certain privately funded resources and which could raise their own mercenary forces if needed. As this system began to evolve, states started to exert more control over society by exploiting 'existential fears' which led to the creation of various bureaucratic methods including mass conscription, tax systems, and territorial centralization. The result is that various civil sectors began to work exclusively for the state, which in turn desired a stronger military, and which used these sectors to extract more resources and more manpower for exclusive military use. This 'modern' military now was reliant on the state for its very existence, whereas, in pre-modern times, the military could be the tool of various autonomous sectors of society.[42]
Military's use of research and industry[edit]
Burkard Schmitt a Research Fellow for the EU Institute for Security Studies identifies two types of research. Pure research is done from the bottom-up with no specific demand and are long term oriented. Capability research is done from the top down, most research of this type is defined for mostly military use with a specific goal in mind.[43]
Few European countries have had significant investments in research and technology. National sensitivities and defense companies that are hesitant to share research findings has long hindered research in Europe. This is beginning to change with the formation and strengthening of the EU and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The EU is currently implementing its "Agenda for advanced research relating to global security" which is crucial to the future of European security. The idea in Europe is that research should be undertaken by all member states. A goal for member states and something to aid future research is a "harmonization" of military requirements.[43]
The American model for research is based on the old German standard, which the Americans emulated starting from the founding of the American Chemical Society in 1876. The use of research and industry to develop new and more deadly chemical and biological weapons is an intriguing aspect of the modern military. German universities were involved in early chemical gas development for use in World War I. German universities "carefully cultivated the ideal of science as an emphatically value-free activity; they bestowed upon their wards the right and the duty to serve the interests of knowledge and to brush aside other interests with which the welfare of scientific pursuits might clash." American universities also had chemical labs, Harvard University began work on poison gas in 1917. By World War I, the chemical industry began to influence politics because of the great interdependence between industry, military and politics.[44]
The amount of research that is done relates to the U.S. economy, which includes the largest military budget in the world. This has created a strong link between military, the state, and corporate America. This has been called the "military industrial complex", but the military has also dominated large university science departments. This concept is the military industrial academic complex, or MIA.[45]
The following scholars have published widely in military sociology. Many have held editorial responsibilities for the journal Armed Forces & Society and leadership positions in the professional organization the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS).
George Kaffes, Professor of Military Sociology at the Hellenic Army Academy, https://sse.army.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CVeng-1.pdf