While Einstein has strongly presented his aversion against the military as an institution of herd life that perpetuates violence, I consider the above quote very poignant as a commentary on how the military as an institution is socialized and organized using mechanisms of control. In this essay, I aim to investigate the processes of socialization and re-socialization in the military through the frameworks of Goffman's (1961) work about total institutions and Foucault’s (1975) concept of panopticism in his work Discipline and Punish. Shaffir and Pawluch (2014) define the concept of socialization as the initial configuring of the self with others and with the environment in the absence of total institutional control. Re-socialization, however, is a re-configuring away from the initial socialized self, until the mortification process of the initial socialized self sets in. There is also a process of distancing from the initial self's previous relations. In doing this research I plan to answer the questions “What are the characteristics of a total institution?” and “What methods are employed for re-socialization in a total institution such as the military?” My initial contention is …show more content…
I will first discuss Goffman’s (1961) concept of total institution. Although Goffman applied this concept to inmates and incarcerated persons, we can identify some key points in his discussion that relate to military life. The next part of the essay will look into Foucault’s (1975) concept of panopticism and how it is evident that the concept of total institution and panopticism are inherent in the current practices of military life. In the latter part of the essay, I will present my own critical analysis of how the total institution and panopticism as applied in military school, training, and life leads to herd-like behaviour and to the possibility of corrupting uniformed men and women's status as human persons with full rights and free
A social institution can shape individual behaviors because it can get someone used to having their life controlled daily. If someone’s actions are controlled and limited daily, they will get used to it and will seek to continue being controlled. For example, if one is used to receiving orders they will continue following through with the orders because that is what they were trained to do. In the article, “Anybody’s Son Will Do”, Dyer describes ways total institutions shape individual behaviors by explaining the method marines use to recruit new soldiers for war. When joining the marines, the methods marines use to shape the behavior of civilians begins at Parris Island when the civilians are intentionally picked up late in the day to ensure that when they arrive at Parris Island, they are tired enough to receive shock treatment.
The mannerisms, attitudes, and background of the American and British soldiers contrasted greatly. The values held by the individual soldiers of the two armies differed. American soldiers had a tendency to think on their own accord and often with liberty in mind (143). In contrast, the British soldiers held the values that their army held (144). American soldiers often fought with the same men from their town or village (142). The British soldiers, however, were pulled from society and isolated from it (144). During the time of the British soldiers’ isolation, they were tightly disciplined and rigorously trained (144). This too shows a contrast between the British and American soldiers. British soldiers underwent a stricter regimen of training while the training Americans had was more informal. The commanding men of the armies, the officers, were different as well. The British officers held themselves aloof from war and quite distant from their men (145). British officers were also much harsher on their men and trained them more effectively (136). The American officer sought to achieve the refinement of the British officers but often failed in achieving it. (145). The training American officers gave to their men was also not as cohesive like the
The United States Army is an important subculture within our society. It has many uniquely defining attributes, which separate it from the general culture and from the subcultures of the other branches of the military. The Army’s subculture is critical to the effective operation and discipline of the Army. The Army is critical to the survival of our country, our society, and our way of life. Only certain individuals are willing to accept the demands of this subculture to be soldiers in order to preserve our freedoms for their own, and future, generations.
In Gwynne Dyer’s article “Anybody’s Son Will Do”, the conversion of civilians to killers is being explained in stages. This articles focuses more on male psychology and malleable people. The author’s belief is that people can be easily brainwashed if they are put in constant stress. To support this idea, the author gives examples of military training around the world which psychologically destroys individual values and loyalties and rebuilds them to make combat troops that will do exactly what has been ordered and defend his groups to the death.
In a film we saw recently, one of the speakers, Dr. John Houghton was speaking on socialization. One remark he made, to the effect that what we, as individuals, become is based on what chances we are given and what we learn (Research Methods, 1996), was considered so important that it was repeated again at the end of the film. His statement fits perfectly with the topic of this study: the re-socialization of young men into the warrior society of the United States Marine Corps. Unlike the recruiting efforts of the other services, which seem to focus on what you have to gain by serving with them, the Marine Corps’ recruiting philosophy has always been one of challenging; giving young men the chance to prove that they have what it takes to be U.S. Marines. “We Never Promised You a Rose Garden,” “Take up the Challenge,” and “The Marine are Looking for a Few Good Men” are all recruiting slogans aimed at inviting prospective Marines to prove they have what it takes to be a Marine. This philosophy seems to work because the Marine Corps is the one branch of service that consistently meets its recruiting goals year after year. The question here is whether or not the re-socialization process is necessary and does it serve a useful purpose. If it does, what is that purpose?
The soldiers must depersonalize themselves. They must be detached."This is a book about seeing and not seeing, about not being there in order to be there. It presents the paradoxes of a psyche, of an art that is compelled to examine itself, and yet is determined to control reality in a way that makes it able to be indured."
This essay focuses on two theories of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault on how society is ordered; it will attempt to show how these two theorists approached understanding society and how it is ordered, as well as look for any similarities or differences between the two theories. When looking at how social order is constructed, it is not only important to study the role of the individual, but also the role of the state or government. The part they play in the order and rules of every day interactions. Social order refers to unspoken rules of conduct in everyday life, or stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change or if change occurs it is in predictable way. (Taylor, 2009, p.173). in addition these case studies; Buchanan report (1963), Monderman thesis (1980) will be linked to Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, to help us to understand how order is attained and maintained by individuals, authorities and institutions, in certain places, and in different contexts as well as how social order is constructed at different historical moments. This essay concentrates on Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, claims, and concepts, by comparing and contrasting their ideas on social order and who makes the order, the evidence that they draw upon, and the different levels of social life each theorist chooses to focus upon. Both Goffman and Foucault are concerned with the wider questions of how society is produced and reproduced, but specifically how social order is made and remade. At the same time, both also seek broader ways of understanding singular issues in interaction. Goffman focused on the individual, interactional order, and performances, while in contrast Foucault focuses on discourses, power, knowle...
The US Army campaign issues in todays world are growing more relevant by the day. As a result it is increasingly important for the US Army to launched the Army White Paper the Profession of Arms. Have you ever hear about this campaign before and are you part of it? This white paper should meet a common understanding beyond the US Army soldiers, however the Army as a profession of arms it self. its has some meaning to fully understanding. In this essay, we are going to prove that the army as a profession of arms.
Respect to me is admiring someone for their abilities, qualities, or achievements. I think respect is always earned an can never be given. As soldiers soldiers we should always respect our peers because they have made the same sacrifice as us. But as soldiers we should have a higher level of respect for our NCOs because they have done their time an have earned it. Being respectful is not hard it is simple, just treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves.
The Forgotten Soldier is not a book concerning the tactics and strategy of the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War. Nor does it analyze Nazi ideology and philosophy. Instead, it describes the life of a typical teenage German soldier on the Eastern Front. And through this examined life, the reader receives a first hand account of the atrocious nature of war. Sajer's book portrays the reality of combat in relation to the human physical, psychological, and physiological condition.
Over the years America has been in countless wars, which has exposed the people and their society's ideals to the military's influence. The United States were founded on the spilling of blood which is justified through the act of battle. Military branches have developed since they were first brought into being as the “Minutemen”, but one thing that hasn't changed over time is the people's’ trust. Andrew Bacevich exploits America's dependence and idealisation of their armed forces, as well as explains how the belief came to be.
By looking at the armed force as assets in which can be disposable for a greater cause instead of looking at them as an unpredictable union of people who could assist and aid for a common goal is interesting as today’s society there are time in which labor came as position for those who meet the requirements and those who took upon those position were no longer what they were before as they across a zone in which they are turned into pieces of pawn for a larger organization and the organization’s cause. If people were to chose, I wonder how many would chose to be a pawn for the greater good during a time period in which it was of the last option they had against other side of power. However, it's intriguing that people choices becomes the introduction of another person’s story as the decision are linked together and a similar fashion in which can be depicted by a posed question that goes “which came first the chicken or the egg?” Who can we place the blame upon when there’s a cycle in which people do not know where it begins nor where it ends? It's sad to think about the problems in which are risen by the conflict of two super power houses, however, people are left to pick up the pieces and decipher them to further allow himself/herself to accept what is left and to grow as an individual who can influence a handful of people with their story to tell and pass along their way of
Military has been predominant in our society: a statistic showed that world military spending in 2012 went over 1.7 trillion dollars. Its present everywhere: in the news, on TV, in videogames and in movie. A movie example could be Brothers, where we can relate situations to certain themes. Within this analysis, I will relate the movie to three major themes: men’s relationship to war, war and patriarchy and women’s relationship to war.
In the military, boot camp represents an abrupt, often shocking transition to a new way of life. Discipline is strict and there is an emphasis on hard work, physical training, and unquestioning obedience to authority. The new private is told when to sleep, when to get up and when to eat. He marches with his platoon everywhere he goes such as to meals and to training. Orders must be obeyed instantly and personal liberty is almost nonexistent. By the end of boot camp the new private has become a different person. Such was the hope for boot camp, or shock incarceration, programs in American prisons: that young, nonviolent offenders could be diverted from a life outside the law using the same tactics successfully employed by the military to turn civilians into soldiers. This reliance on a military atmosphere still provokes controversy over boot camp programs, with proponents arguing that the rigid discipline promotes positive behavior. (Clear, 1997; Cowels, 1995)
This has profound implications for applying this ethic in the organizational realm of the Army. Behaviors spring first and foremost from my identity and ongoing transformation. First among these is the view that all mankind also possess the imago dei. If soldiers, civilians on the battlefield, and enemy combatants all are made in the image of God then my treatment of each with reflect this fact and will necessarily be...