Change in Military Organization
Author(s): David R. Segal and Mady Wechsler Segal
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp. 151-170
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946061
Accessed: 14/10/2010 11:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1983. 9:151-70
? 1983 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved
Copyright
CHANGE IN MILITARY
ORGANIZATION 1
David R. Segal and Mady WechslerSegal
ofSociology,University
ofMaryland,
Department
CollegePark,Maryland
20742,and
ofResearch,WashingofMilitary
WalterReedArmyInstitute
Department
Psychiatry,
tonDC 20012
Abstract
Recentliterature
in military
sociologyis reviewedin thecontextof theories
on thepartof societies,organizations,
and
regarding
increasingrationality
individuals.Models thatemphasizeindividualistic
orientations
to military
servicearecompared
withmodelsthatassumea morecollectivistic
orientation.
froma mobilization-based
Attention
is paidtotheshift
armedforcetoa forcein
betweenmilitary
and civilianorganizations.
being,and to theconvergence
of themilitary
Severalconsequencesof therationalization
are considered,
includingpotentialchangesin willingnessto fight,militaryunionization,
thesubstitution
of management
forleadership,
changesin professionalism,
ofwomen,anddependence
increasedutilization
on research,including
social
scienceresearch.
INTRODUCTION
is reflected
incontemOneofthemajorthemesofclassicalsociologicaltheory
in the sociologyof economiclife: the themeof
poraryconceptualizations
In classicaltheory,
thethemeis manifested
in distincincreasing
rationality.
tionssuchas mechanicalvs. organicsolidarity
(see below).In thesociologyof
model"thathas dominated
economiclifeitappearsas the"modernization
the
fieldin thepost-WorldWar II years(Makleret al 1982).
andarenottobe
'Theopinionsorassertions
contained
hereinaretheprivate
viewsoftheauthors
of
as officialoras reflecting
theviewsoftheDepartment
oftheArmyortheDepartment
construed
Defense.
151
0360-0572/83/0815-015
1$02.00
152
SEGAL& SEGAL
themeproposeschangesat thesocial system,organizaThe rationalization
and
formilitary
organization
levelsthatareconsequential
tional,andindividual
model
to civiliansociety.At the social systemlevel, the
its relationship
such as adoptionof scientific
emphasizesthe emergenceof characteristics
declineofinforcommercialization,
secularization,
urbanization,
technology,
and
With
to
organizations
regard
mal customs,and theriseof legal systems.
and
profesof
bureaucratization
levels
greater
themodelportends
occupations,
on
behaviorbasedincreasingly
level,itanticipates
sionalism.Attheindividual
calculativeself-interest.
ofthesocietiesthathostthem,
tendtobe microcosms
Military
organizations
shouldbe
of societyand itscivilianinstitutions
and thustherationalization
is an
in themilitary
as well. In some ways,however,themilitary
reflected
the
whether
questionable
inmodemsociety,anditis empirically
anachronism
functions
of an armedforcecan be rationalized.It is certainly
primordial
is an appropriateor effective
questionablewhethereconomicrationality
warsbe lefttothosewho
Shouldfighting
inthemilitary.
forserving
motivation
to summarizethe ways in whichthe
need the work?This essay attempts
to
sociologyand of relateddisciplineshas attempted
of military
literature
addresstheseissuesin recentyears.
is an increasing
deBecause one of theaspectsof societalrationalization
pendenceon science,and because our disciplineand its siblingsclaim the
totherolethesocialscienceshave
mantleofscience,we payspecialattention
andmanpowofmilitary
personnel,
organizational,
playedinthedevelopment
on theUnitedStatesand its
erpolicy.Whileourempiricalfocusis primarily
we
theliterature
thatwe seekto summarize,
groundcombatforces,reflecting
we discussbelow are common,at leastamongthe
believethatthepatterns
democraciesof theWesternworld.
industrial
THE SOCIETAL CONTEXT: CHANGE IN MODERN SOCIAL
ORGANIZATION
TheRationalization
ofSocieties
concernschangesin
One ofthemajorthemesof classicalsociologicaltheory
with
tobe correlated
theorganization
ofsocialrelationships
thatcanbe inferred
forexample,refersto
Toennies's(1957) notionofGemeinschaft,
modernity.
than
areseenas endsrather
societiesinwhichsocialrelationships
pre-industrial
of
means,and people are seen as sharinga commonfate.Underconditions
peopleview each otheras meansin
industrialized
Gesellschaft,
by contrast,
Similarly,for Durkheim
theirrationalpursuitof individualself-interest.
andlittledivisionof
density
bylowpopulation
(1949), societiescharacterized
while
laborareheldtogether
bythemoralconsensusofmechanicalsolidarity,
societalcomplexity,
anddivisionoflaborlead to
growth,
increased
population
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
153
increasedindividualism
and a needto replacethemoralconsensuswithmore
organicformsof solidarity.
in
These typologies,and otherslike them,are based upon differences
in differences
rationality
at thesystemlevel(Weber1947) andaremanifested
inthedegreeto whichsocialvaluesandsocialstructures
grantprimacy
to and
areimportant
rewardindividualas againstcollectivegoals. Thesedifferences
tomilitary
tothoseconcerned
withmodernindustrial
sociologists,
particularly
tiesin military
societies,because,at leastforland warfare,strongaffective
Thustheinterpersonal
unitshavebeenshowntobe essentialforeffectiveness.
maybe
unitsforeffective
operation
relationships
required
within
smallmilitary
atvariancewiththevaluesystemsandinstitutions
ofpre-service
socialization
thatshape the perspectivesof theirpersonnel.Indeed, formalmilitary
organizationitself may interferewith the developmentof small-unit
cohesion.
society
thecharacteristics
ofa rationalized
ThattheUnitedStatesmanifests
in sociologicalanalysesof Americanlife.
is a themeappearingrepeatedly
"otherRiesman(1950), forexample,whilenotingthetrendtowardincreasing
of
collective
but
as
for
fulfillment
quest
goals,
directedness,"
doesnotsee this a
as measuredagainstconsenrather
forrecognition
of individualachievement
sual standards.Stein(1960) documentsthe changein the natureof social
in particular
to themilias well,extending
relationships
withincommunities
andthecaste-likeaspects
tary,wherethebureaucratic
aspectsoforganization
of therankstructure
of a collectivesenseof comprecludethedevelopment
attachments
among
munity.Indeed,in Stein's view, even theinterpersonal
groupsof buddiesthatmilitary
sociologymademuchof at theendof World
WarII, and thatwe discussat greaterlengthbelow,wereseen as relatively
unimportant
(see also Vidich& Stein1960).
This is notto arguethatAmericanlifehas becomewhollyindividualistic.
and achievement
Indeed,as Lipset(1963) notes,thethemesof individualism
coexistedwiththatofequalityat thebirthoftherepublic.Whileanalystslike
achievement
orientation
Riesman(1950) or Whyte(1956) see thetraditional
or thedevelopment
of a "social ethic,"
beingreplacedwith"otherdirection"
and
betweenthevalues of individualism
Lipsetsees a continuing
interplay
equality.
ofsocialchangecanbe
Froma morepsychological
thedirection
perspective,
in termsof themotivational
theoriesof Thomas(1923:4) and of
interpreted
thefirst150 yearsof
Maslow (1954). The individualism
thatcharacterized
to achievebasic goals:
America'snationalexistencecan be seenas a striving
inthe
theageofaffluence
safety
(Maslow)orsecurity
(Thomas).As we entered
mid-20th
century,
itmightbe argued,we movedbeyondthebasicsubsistence
and
belongingness,
needsandemphasizedinsteada questforlove, affection,
esteem(Maslow), recognition
and response(Thomas). This mightexplain
154
SEGAL& SEGAL
It also
at mid-century.
the"other-directedness"
and "social ethic"identified
andreplacedby
anticipates
further
changes,as belongingness
goalsarefulfilled
higherordergoals: Thomas'sneed fornew experiencesand Maslow's selfactualization.
is pervasive.Primary
In a Gemeinschaft
society,belongingness
grouprelationships
predominate;
individuals
bearstongallegiancesto theirgroups;and
thegroupsexertstrongsocialcontrolovermembers,
oftenlimiting
individual
freedomand achievement.
Social changestowardGesellschaft
provideindiforself-actualization,
buttheyalso make
vidualswithgreateropportunities
moreproblematic.
belongingness
Indeed,in thehighlysegmented,
pluralistic
Americaofthe1980s,we see variousresponsesamongouryouthtounfulfilled
needs for stronggroupties and consensualvalues, includingdevotionto
religiouscults.
is relevantto theanalysisof military
The
This formulation
organization.
UnitedStatesArmyinthe1980shasbeenemphasizing
"belongingness"
goals,
toimprove
unit
manifested
through
programs
groupperformance
byenhancing
of
battlefield
cohesion.Atthesametime,lookingtowardthehightechnology
fromindividual
the future,it is seekingways to elicithighperformance
tiedto
soldiers."Be all thatyoucanbe," a majorrecruiting
slogan,is explicitly
Maslow's notionof self-actualization.
The questionthatremainsis whether
in military
willin factproducethearmyofthe
self-actualization
organization
circa
itwillmorecloselyresembleSouthern
year2000, orwhether
California,
1970,whichmaybe ourmostdramatic
empirical
exampleto dateofa system
As we movebeyondbelongingness,
basedon self-actualization.
theinterplay
thatLipsetidentifies
as pervasivethemesin
betweenequalityandindividualism
Americansocietymayshifttowardthelatter.
TheRationalization
of Organizations
Weber'sanalysisoftherationalization
ofWesternsocietieswas accompanied
oforganizations
withinthosesocieties.This
by a visionoftherationalization
includedmilitary
organizations.
Like rationalized
society,therational-legal
bureaucratic
wasseenas characterized
organization
bya divisionoflaborbased
a clearhierarchy,
baseduponwritten
uponlaws andregulations,
management
basedon training,
thefullinvolvement
documents,
specialization
oftheofficial, and acceptanceof generalrules. Weber(1968:981) saw the military
as theobligationand rightto servein themilitary
becomingbureaucratized
weretransferred
fromthe"shoulders
ofthepropertied
tothoseofthepropertyless."Weberalso,ofcourse,sawemerging
military
technologies
as necessitatingthegrowthof military
bureaucracy.
Weber'sidealtypicalbureaucracy
theextreme
rationalizanotwithstanding,
tionof organizations,
manifested
by Taylor's(1911) approachto "scientific
did produceproblemsof alienation,
management"
earlyin the20thcentury,
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
155
itwas beingreplacedbya
By mid-century,
andlowproductivity.
disaffection,
(e.g.
more"humanrelations"orientedapproachto personnelmanagement
models
& Dickson 1939). In turn,thismovedorganizational
Roethlisberger
andtowardmoreadaptiveforms(e.g.
beyondtherigidWeberianbureaucracy
in a generalconcernforthe
Bennis& Slater1968). Thishas beenmanifested
ofHealth,Education,andWelfare1973)
qualityofworklife(e.g. Department
aimed
strategies
ofa rangeoforganizational
development
andtheintroduction
and
functioning
(e.g. Bowers1973).Mostrecently
atimproving
organizational
to adapt"QualityCircles,"a worker
therehave been attempts
specifically,
strategydevelopedin Americabut used mostwidelyin the
involvement
includingthemilitary
Japanesecontext,foruse in Americanorganizations,
(Blair & Hurwitz1982).
ofmanagement
havehad
philosophies
As we shallsee below,thesechanging
As we shallfurther
see, they
organization.
an effecton thenatureof military
Thegeneraltheoretical
a central
probleminthesociologyofrationality.
reflect
and indiat societal,organizational,
rationality
approachassumesincreasing
however,assume
rationality,
oforganizational
viduallevels.Classicaltheories
thanselfgoals rather
respondon thebasis of organizational
thatindividuals
can be seenin partas a resultof
strains
(Ritzer1982). Organizational
interest
and indiat the macro-organizational
betweenrationality
incompatibilities
viduallevels.
TheRationalization
ofIndividuals
at theindividual
levelhas been
Concernin thesocialscienceswithrationality
andbehavioralinutilitarian
economics,psychology,
manifested
moststrongly
ly orientedsociology-mostnotablyexchangetheory(Segal 1982). Most
fromthe
theindividual
haveinfactfailedtodistinguish
analysesofrationality
assumethatindicollectivelevel(Parsons1976),perhapsbecauseutilitarians
will, in the aggregate,serve the
viduals actingin theirown self-interest
by the
however,has notbeen supported
collectivegood. This assumption,
Olson(1965:2), forexample,addressesthe
weightofevidenceandargument.
to helpachievethecollective
itis rationalforindividuals
questionofwhether
holdsin smallgroups,
assumption
good. He findsthat,whiletheutilitarian
willnotacttoachievethecommoninterests
individuals
rationalself-interested
in mostcases, intheabsenceofcoercionorother
oflarge-scalecollectivities,
Similarly,Janowitz(1978:29) notesthat"the indispecial considerations.
collective
ofeconomicself-interest
can accountforneither
vidualistic
pursuit
social behaviornortheexistenceof a social order...
behavior
aredesignedto minimizethediscretionary
Rationalorganizations
toreplacelaborwithcapitaltomakeorganizaandintheextreme
ofindividuals
of
Increasingtheopportunity
tionalprocessesmoreroutineand predictable.
is notquiteconsisto makecalculatedchoicesamongalternatives
individuals
156
SEGAL& SEGAL
sincetheprocesses
tentwiththegoal oforganizational
rationality,
particularly
ofrationalindividual
choiceareconstrained
uncertainbylackofinformation,
and otherfactors(Arrow1951). Yet in a culturethatvalues
ty,complexity,
atthesocietalandorganizational
rationality
levels,thatsamevalueis likelyto
be manifested
at theindividuallevelas well,andtheseemingincompatibility
at organizational
and individuallevels is likelyto be
betweenrationality
as
consequential
at bothlevels.This is a problemthatmilitary
organization,
in modernindustrial
well as otherorganizations
society,mustaddress.
TRADITIONAL MODEL OF MILITARY ORGANIZATION
Rootsin MilitaryHistoryand MilitarySociology
Twomodelsdominate
debateonmilitary
andmilitary
contemporary
manpower
one emphasizing
traditional
mechanicalformsof socialsolidarorganization,
moreorganicforms.Thetwomodelsarerooted
ity,andtheotheremphasizing
in different
scholarlydisciplines.Theirinfluenceon thepolicyprocesshas
been affected
notonlyby theirinherent
worth,butalso, and perhapsmore
betweentheirparent
andthe
important,
bytherelationships
existing
disciplines
worldof publicpolicy(Segal 1983a).
mechanical
Thetraditional
model,emphasizing
solidarity,
appearedinmiliandwas affirmed
taryhistory,
bymilitary
sociology.PriortoWorldWarI, the
Frenchmilitary
analystArdantdu Picq (1958) recognizedthattherational
andmilitary
formations
tendedto be wrong,
analysisofmilitary
organization
because it neglectedintangible
to
factors,such as morale,thatare difficult
toeffective
determine
butthatarenonetheless
objectively,
imperative
military
operation.In theAmericanforcesin WorldWarII, S.L.A. Marshall(1947)
rediscovered
the principlethatmorale,rootedin a feelingof unity,gives
soldiersthecouragetofight.Marshall'sfindings,
basedonafter-action
combat
wereconfirmed
interviews,
by thesurveysof Stouffer
and his teamof researchers
in theWarDepartment
(Stouffer
et al 1949). The importance
ofthe
affective
relationships
notedin theAmericanArmywas also foundforthe
Wehrmacht
by Shils & Janowitz(1948).
As Moskos (1976a) notes,in the periodsince WorldWar II, military
haveobserveda declineintheprimary
sociologists
groupas thebasisforsocial
cohesionand combatperformance.
Little(1964) sees theprimary
groupas
intheKoreanWar;Moskos(1970:134beingreplacedbybuddyrelationships
a "privatized"
56) sees theAmericansoldierin Vietnamas fighting
war.The
cause of thedeclinein thecohesionof thefighting
unitis attributed
to the
rotation
military
system.
Moskos's (1976a) view is thatthe importance
of theprimary
groupfor
combatsoldiersinWorldWarII hasbeenoverstated.
We think
theimportance
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
157
ofprimary
relationships
hasnotdeclinedas muchas hasbeenthought.
Thiscan
be seeninempirical
evidenceofstrong
affective
tiesincombatunitsandinthe
implementation
of military
policiesdesignedto fostergroupcohesion.While
theindividual
rotation
policiesoftheKoreanperioddiddisrupt
primary
group
of interpersonal
relationsin theArmy,suchrelationspersistedas networks
linkages(Faris 1977). Moreover,recognizing
theimportance
of theprimary
withunitrotation
group,theArmyexperimented
duringKorea(Chesleret al
1955) and on at leastfouradditionaloccasionsbetweenKorea and Vietnam
(Segal 1982). Whilean individualrotation
policywas followedduringVietnam,primary
groupsdiddevelopamongsoldiers.Sincethisoccurred
despite,
rather
thanas a consequenceof,rotation
policies,primary
groupscrystallized
aroundcounter-organizational,
ratherthanorganizational,
norms(Helmer
1974).
AfterVietnam,a new and ongoingseriesof initiatives
werebegunin the
thatgeneratesand nurtures
cohesion.The
Armyto createan organization
Army'sChiefof Staffhas put intoplace programsto buildunitcohesion
stabilization
ofpersonnel,
withunits
through
developsymbolicidentification
the implementation
of a regimental
through
system,and developlinkages
betweenmilitary
unitsandtheirhostciviliancommunities
a program
through
to the
of home-basing.
He has publiclyattributed
manyof theseinitiatives
influence
of MorrisJanowitz
(Binder1982).
likethemilitary
itis not
It maywellbe thatin a large,rationalorganization
affective
tiesare
cohesiveprimary
possibleto createstrongly
groups.Primary
bonds.The
morelikelytobe characterized
as socialnetworks
ofinterpersonal
moredenselystructured
and interconnected
thenetworks,
themorecohesive
theunits.Theremayalso be performance
strength
in"weakties"(Granovetter
1973)becausethegroupcan remainintactandfunctioning
despitetheloss of
individualmembers.
and Symbols
Affectivity,
Solidarity,
The emphasisplaced on primary
groupsby studiesin military
sociologyin
WorldWarII has beeninterpreted
largelyin termsof a deterministic
model,
of otherfactorssuchas attachment
theeffects
to secondary
denying
symbols
(e.g. Savage& Gabriel1976).Actually,Shils& Janowitz
(1948), whilenoting
theapoliticalattitudes
of Germansoldiers,notedas welltheirpersonaldevotionto nationalleaders.Similarly,in thecase of theUS forces,Shils(1950)
oftheAmericansoldiercontributed
tocombat
notedthatthe"tacitpatriotism"
of "latentideology"for
motivation.
Moskos(1970) discussedtheimportance
Americantroopsin Vietnam.Indeed,Moskos (1976a) viewedideologyas
moreimportant
of American
thangroupcohesionforthecombatmotivaton
soldiersin WorldWar II, Korea, and Vietnam.In the Soviet Union,the
158
SEGAL& SEGAL
in
of soldiershas been manifested
of ideologyin themotivation
importance
of politicalsocializatonbothin supportof, and within,the
activeprograms
military
(Jones& Grupp1982).
Throughthelasttwo decadesof debateon thedraftand theall-volunteer
force,sociologistshave arguedforthe citizenshipcomponentin military
service(Janowitz1967). However,withthe adventof the conceptof the
"welfarestate"in sociology,and a concernwiththe benefitsthatsociety
inthenotionthatcitizenship
provides,or shouldprovide,to thecitizenry,
of
emergence
gotdisplaced.Theconcurrent
volvesobligations
as wellas rights
afterWorldWarII produced
force-in-being
thewelfarestateandthemilitary
andhelped
foreconomicresources
between"gunsandbutter"
thecompetition
betweenthecitizenandthestateintermsofeconomic
therelationship
redefine
tothe
hastherebeena return
1981). Onlyrecently
support
(see Harries-Jenkins
of citizenship(Janowitz
inclusionof obligationsin the conceptualization
andpatriotism
have
thattheconceptsof citizenship
1980), and a recognition
(Janowitz1979, 1982a). Empirical
organization
consequencesformilitary
willsupport
establishthemilitary
thatthepopulation
fortheprinciple
support
mentwhenthereis a clear senseof nationalpurposeand need comes from
forregistration
andfora military
draft,
support
surveydatathatshowgrowing
of
a
as well as a willingnessamong plurality youngAmericanmales to
war(Segal 1981a). One ofthe
forserviceintheeventofa necessary
volunteer
is
how
educationandmilitary
in
citizenship
issues military
sociology
emerging
inwhichcitizenship
itself
ina welfarestatecontext
servicearetobe articulated
1983;
thanpoliticalterms(Janowitz
definedineconomicrather
is increasingly
Segal 1983b).
MODERN MODEL OF MILITARY ORGANIZATION
and IndustrialPsychology
RootsoftheModel in Econometrics
has been developedby learned
solidarity
The mechanicalmodelof military
mobilizahave,exceptforperiodsofwartime
disciplineswhosepractitioners
more
in universities.
The model was therefore
tion,been based primarily
it.Theorganicmodel,bycontrast,
popularoutsidethepolicyarenathanwithin
havelongfeltitlegitihas beenadvocatedbydisciplineswhosepractitioners
mateto leave thegrovesof academeand involvethemselvesin thepolicy
military
Theblueprint
foranall-volunteer
process:economicsandpsychology.
manpower
forcein theUnitedStateswas drawnduringthedebateon military
likeFriedman(1967) and Oi
duringtheVietnamWar,largelybyeconomists
wasproducedlargelybyeconomists
withacademic
(1967). Whiletheblueprint
the subsequentuse of economistswithinthe Officeof the
appointments,
tothatoffice,incorporated
the
ofDefense,as wellas undercontract
Secretary
Nixon's
utilitarian
intothepolicyprocess.President
individualistic
perspective
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
159
on an All-Volunteer
Commission
ArmedForce(Gateset al 1970) definedthe
military
personnel
issuelargelyintermsofeconomicconcernsandconcluded
thatintermsofwageandlaborelasticities,
an all-volunteer
forcewas feasible.
The military
manpowerproblemwas seen as the problemof the rational
economicactor.Was therean affordable
wage thatwouldattractsufficient
numbers
tomilitary
ofindividuals
servicetomeetAmerica'snationalsecurity
needs?The answertheCommissionarrivedat was affirmative.
The individualistic
orientation
to Defenseby theeconomistswas
brought
withthebehavioralscienceresearchprograms
compatible
withinthemilitary
services.Since WorldWarI, whenpsychologists
beganto developselection
andclassification
testsfortheWarDepartment,
behavioralsciencewithinthe
serviceshas been conceivedprimarily
in individualistic
terms
psychological
and has been devotedprimarily
to psychometric
testdevelopment,
human
of trainingtechnologies(Segal
factorsengineering,
and the development
1983c). Withthe adventof the all-volunteer
militaryforcein 1973, the
emphasisplaced on individualincentives
by theeconomistsin theDefense
of increasing
andan assumption
similarities
betweenmilitary
and
secretariat,
civilianorganizations
in theservices
(discussedbelow),led thepsychologists
toconsulttheworktheircolleaguesweredoinginindustrial
settings.
Theythus
set outto measure,and to improve,thequalityof worklifein themilitary.
Whilethepsychologists
an emphasison theindisharedwiththeeconomists
toserveinthemilitary
vidual,theydidnotbelievethatmotivations
werepurely
economic.Thus thehumanrelationsapproachto management
has become
inmilitary
manifested
forces.Thistrendtowardresearchandpolicyfocussing
on thequalityof worklifein themilitary
has appearedacrossservicesandin
severalindustrialized
nations(Holz & Gitter1974;Manleyetal 1975;BorupNielsenet al 1974; Stenton1980; Payne1974).
Individualism
and Utilitarianism
Since the adventof the all-volunteer
forcein America,the natureof the
Americanmilitary
institution
has comeunderwidespread
criticism
frompoliandsociologists,
& Moscy-makers,
journalists,
amongothers(e.g. Janowitz
kos, 1979). Muchof thesociologicalcritiquehas concerned
shortrecruiting
falls,thequalityof personnelrecruited,
thesociodemographic
unrepresentativenessoftheforce,andthealteration
in thedefinition
ofcitizenship
obligationsthataccompaniedtheall-volunteer
force.Responsesby Department
of
Defenseeconomists
to thesechargeshavenotdirectly
addressedtheissuesof
andcitizenship
buthavefocussedonvariablesmostrelevant
representativeness
to themandmostmanipulable
at theindividuallevel:personnelquantity
and
have
that
the
allEconomic
demonstrated
either
quality.
analyses
repeatedly
volunteer
forcewas notdoingas badlyas itsdetractors
claimed(e.g. Cooper
1982),or thatifithad problems,theyweredue to notmeetingtheeconomic
160
SEGAL& SEGAL
requirements
assumedby theGatesCommission(e.g. McNownet al 1980;
Hunter
& Nelson1982). Theissueofwhether
numbers
simplybringing
greater
ofpersonnel
intothearmedforcesproducedan effective
military
organization
was in themainnotraisedby scholarsworkingfromthisperspective.
moredirectly
The approachof industrial
has confronted
the
psychologists
aimedat improving
issuesofqualityofworklife,bothbydirectinterventions
andbymoregeneralattempts
theclimateoftheworkenvironment
to improve
thequalityof organizational
life,broadlydefinedto includeproblemsof the
in the
military
familyand themilitary
community
(see below). Interventions
workenvironment
have metwithlimitedsuccess. Studieshave repeatedly
showngreaterdiscrepanciesbetweenemployeepreferences
and employee
experiencesin militarythanin civilianworkenvironments
(Segal 1978).
thesediscrepancies
theuse oforganizational
Correcting
through
development
strategies
devisedintheciviliansectorassumessimilarity
betweenmilitary
and
civilianorganizations.
As we arguebelow,therearelimitstothesesimilarities.
of military
Moreover,manyof thesourcesof dissatisfaction
personnelare
of nationalpolicy,beyondthecontrolof themilitary
matters
servicesthemlevelsandfringe
benefits.
selves-e.g. compensation
Amongtheorganizational dimensions
thataremanipulable,
haveproduced
someintervention
programs
modestimprovements.
A recentreviewof the US Army'sorganizational
effectiveness
forexample,notesthatmostsuchoperations
havebeen
program,
considered
butthatmostofthedatasupporting
successful
thisconclusioncame
from
theprogram
orsupporters
ofit(US ArmyResearchInstitute
peoplewithin
1980).
THE CONVERGENCE OF CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
ORGANIZATION
and theEmergenceofa Force inBeing
Convergence
Priorto WorldWarII, therewereimportant
differences
betweencivilianand
military
organizations,
betweenthe military
and civilianworkforces,and
betweenmilitary
serviceand civilianemployment.
Therewerecrucialtechnologicaldifferences
betweenthetwospheres,rootedin thefactthatmilitary
and civilianpersonnelspenttheirtimedoingdifferent
things.Warfarewas
primarily
a land-basedactivity;
infantry
and,increasingly,
armor(whichhad
onlyrecently
replacedthemountedcavalry)werethecoreof thearmy.The
worldwas overwhelmingly
military
male,predominantly
young,andpredominantlyunmarried.
The military
workforcewas elastic,expandingrapidlyin
timesof war,largelythrough
anddemobilizing
conscription,
rapidlythereafto civilianlife.Forthosewhoweremobilter,withmostpersonnel
returning
ized, military
servicewas seen as a short-term
obligationto thestate,rather
thanas a career.
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
161
Withtheincreased
useofairpowerbetweenthetwoworldwars,andwiththe
adventof nucleartechnology
in WorldWarII, warfare
becamemorecapitalinthemiddlepartofthe20thcentury.
intensive
Military
organization
beganto
requirepersonnelwithskillsthatwerealso neededin thecivilianeconomy.
Moreover,as technology
deprived
nationsoftheleadtimerequired
tomobilize
forwarfroma smallbase, and as it becameobviousthatin a confrontation
betweenmajorpowersvictory
wouldbe Pyrrhic,
themilitary
missioncameto
be definedintermsofdeterrent
andpeace-keeping
operations
(Janowitz
1960:
418-41; Janowitz1974; Moskos 1975; Moskos 1976b). The distinction
betweenpeacetimeandwartime
becameless relevant
formilitary
organization.
Theneedtomaintain
a largestanding
forcebecameobvious,as thedeterrence
concept,and the need to respondrapidlyshoulddeterrence
fail, assumed
primacy(Segal & Segal 1983). The mass force,based on themobilization
model,declinedafterWorldWarII. Withtheemergence
ofa "newlongterm
trend. . . towardsmaller,fullyprofessional,
and morefullyalertedand
self-contained
military
forces,the directionwas away froma mobilization
forceto a military
force'in being' " (Janowitz1975:121).Thusthemilitary
begantorequirea largefull-time
workforce.By the1950sand 1960s,military
sociologywas stressing
theincreasedsimilarity
ofmilitary
andciviliansectors
of Americansociety(Janowitz1965:17).
Scholarsquicklyrecognized,
however,thatcommontechnologies,
leading
to commonorganizational
forms,couldnoteliminate
thefundamental
differencebetweenthemilitary
andcivilianspheres,(Janowitz1971), a difference
rootedin theuniquemissionof themilitary:
themanagement
of large-scale,
organized,
legitimate
violenceonbehalfofthestate.Moskos(1970:70)tookan
extreme
position,whichhe has sincerejected,thatthetrendtowardconvergence of civilianand military
had beenreversed.
organizations
The positionMoskos subsequently
adoptedbecamethebasis fora more
refined
modelofcivil-military
convergence.
Moskos(1973) arguedthatsome
elementsof thearmedforceswouldbe organizationally
and tradidivergent
thegroundcombatforces,whileotherswouldbe
tionally
military,
particularly
and civilianized,particularly
organizationally
convergent
clerical,technical,
andadministrative
areas.Thisthemeoforganizational
differentiation
hasbeen
further
developedbyotheranalysts(Hauser1973; Bradford
& Brown1973).
Institutional
and OccupationalModels
Thesechangesinmilitary
haveledtoa variety
ofconceptsdealing
organization
withtheissueof rationalization.
The conceptthathas hadthemostimpactis
thatof Moskos (1977), who arguesthatmilitary
serviceis changingfroma
callingor vocation,legitimizedby institutional
values, to an occupation,
Fromthisperspective,
legitimized
bythelabormarket.
ofthearmed
a member
servicescomes to see his/her
servicein muchthe same termsas does an
162
SEGAL& SEGAL
bya desireto
Insteadofbeingmotivated
employeein a civilianorganization.
andthequality
is concerned
withpay,benefits,
servethecommongood,he/she
of workinglife(Levitan& Alderman1977).
(Janowitz1977),Moskos's
Although
it has beensubjectto somecriticism
sociology.It has been
theresearchagendaof military
modelhas influenced
intheUnitedStatesinboththeArmy(Segal etal 1983)and
testedempirically
countries,
theAirForce(Stahlet al 1978, 1980, 1981),andin severalforeign
ofthesestudiesis thatthe
including
Canada(Cotton1981). The majorfinding
thatareinpart
byconsiderations
modalmodernsoldierseemstobe motivated
In addition,
orrationalistic.
andinpartoccupational
institutional
ornormative
froma
direction.
Equallyinteresting
theremaybe a trendin theoccupational
is thefactthatall of theUnitedStates
sociologyof knowledgeperspective
to
thatexplicitly
attempt
designedprograms
military
serviceshave recently
the institutional
natureof
and reaffirm
reducethe occupationalorientation
military
service(Moskos 1982).
CONSEQUENCES OF RATIONALIZATION
to Fight
Willingness
ofa job-oriented
military
One ofthemajorquestionsraisedbytheassumption
bylaborforceconsidsoldiers,sailors,andairmenmotivated
forceis whether
erations
willinfactbe anymorewillingtogo towar,shouldtheneedarise,than
in an automobile
plant.In fact,in a seriesof
workers
wouldtheassembly-line
withenlistedpersonnel,Gottlieb(1980:77) foundthat
extensiveinterviews
"fewseemedto havegivenanyseriousthought
as to howtheywouldfeelor
behavegiventheneedto entera combatsituation."
In a surveyof358 soldiers,Brown& Moskos(1976) foundthat79% oftheir
forcombat,or go intocombatifordered,while
respondents
wouldvolunteer
in eliteunits
21% wouldtryto avoidcombatorwouldrefuseto go. Personnel
morewillingto go intocombatthan
andranger)weresignificantly
(airborne
units(infantry
andarmor).Other
thoseinmoreconventional
groundmaneuver
studiesofparatroopers
(Cockerham& Cohen1981;Segal, Harris& Rothberg
of
willingness
thegreater
1984)andMarines(Burrelli& Segal 1982)confirm
elitecombattroopsto go to war.
MilitaryUnionization
The redefinition
of militaryserviceas a job ratherthanas a citizenship
mightbe made to unionizethe
obligationraisedthepossibilitythatefforts
of
six
of
the
NATO nationsare,to varying
armedforces.The armedforces
the
American
Federationof Government
and
in
1975
degrees,unionized,
civil
announcedthatit was
federal
service
union,
the
Employees(AFGE),
to military
personnel.Concernoverthis
considering
openingitsmembership
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
163
inthepassageofa law andtheissuanceofa Department
possibility
resulted
of
Defensedirective
prohibiting
military
unionization.
A flurry
of socialscience
researchalso ensued.In 1976and 1977,threeanthologies
(Krendel& Samoff
1977; Sabrosky1977; Tayloret al 1977) and a specialissue of a scholarly
journal(ArmedForces and Society,1976) werepublishedon thetopic.This
literature
described
theEuropeanmilitary
organizations
thatwereunionized,as
wellas thespecialcase oftheAirNationalGuard'sciviliantechnicians,
who
areunionizedcivilianemployeesduringtheweekbutdonuniforms
to do the
same jobs as weekendwarriors.Empiricalresearchon Americanmilitary
personnelrevealeda generalconcernovera perceivederosionof fringebenefits,a feelingthatunionization
mightimprovethe economiclot of the
soldier,anda fearthatunionization
andprofesmightimpairtheeffectiveness
sionalismofthemilitary.
A significant
ofmilitary
minority
personnel
(roughly
one thirdin a seriesof surveys)reported
theywouldjoin a military
union.
was highestamongjuniorpersonnel,
thosewhowere
Supportforunionization
notcareer-oriented,
and thosein noncombat
specialties.
TheNatureofMilitaryProfessionalism
ofoccupations
ofsocietalrationalTheprofessionalization
is onecharacteristic
has been the subjectof
ization,and the issue of military
professionalism
extensivesocial science analysis.Two of the earliestinfluential
worksin
military
sociology(Janowitz
1960;Huntington
1957) soughttodefinetherole
ofthemilitary
vis-a-vissociety.However,onlyinthewakeofthe
professional
VietnamWar did analystsbegin to recognizethatdespitetheircommon
functionalist
therewereimportant
differences
betweentheJanoorientation,
witzand Huntington
An alternate,
morecriticalorientation
deperspectives.
veloped.
in a
Recentanalyseshave focussedon themilitary
professional
operating
incontrast
ofthe"classicbureaucratic
totheindividual
environment,
activity
al" professions,
law andmedicine.A secondthemehas beenthesubservience
of themilitary
to civilianpoliticalpower,againin contrast
to the
profession
presumedautonomyof theclassicalprofessions
(Segal & Schwartz1981).
Finally,therehas beena widespreadconcernwiththebehaviorof American
in Vietnam,intermsofbothhowthisreflected
on military
military
personnel
inthemilitary,
professionalism
andhowitreducedpublicconfidence
againin
contrast
to widespreadtrustandpublicacceptanceof otherprofespresumed
sions (Huntington
1978; Peters& Clotfelter
1978; Sarkesian1975, 1978,
thatthesefactorsreflect
haveinvestigators
1981). Onlygradually
recognized
thanthedifferences
betweenthemilitary
morethesimilarities
andtheclassical
in bureaucratic
contexts
Doctorsand lawyersworkincreasingly
professions:
theirautonomyhas been challenged,the
ratherthanas sole practitioners;
esteemin whichtheyare heldby thepublictarnished
(Segal & Lengermann
1980).
164
SEGAL & SEGAL
Leadershipand Management
is thatof thewarrior.A
commander
imageof the military
The traditional
fromthisimagein theUnitedStatescan be datedto theearly20th
departure
management,
of Taylor'sscientific
century.Duringthegreatestpopularity
Secretaryof War Elihu Root reviewedthe experiencesof the SpanishtheArmyhadmadeinthat
Waranddecidedthatmostofthemistakes
American
problems.He broughtrational
conflictwerecausedby basic organizational
to thedefenseestablishment
(Segal & Lengerand management
organization
decades,andparticularly
mann1980:172;Bickeletal 1982).Inthesubsequent
andsystems
analysisinthe
ofoperations
research
sincetheinstitutionalization
ofDefenseRobertMcNamarainthe1960s,theDefense
bySecretary
Pentagon
on dispassionate
rationalistic
managehas focussedincreasingly
Department
fromtheircalculations
anyconsidhaveomitted
researchers
ment.Operations
andtheir
as anaffective
betweencommanders
ofleadership
relationship
eration
to morale,espritde corps,and other
thatcontributes
soldiers,a relationship
to measureas leadershipitself(Segal 1981b;
crucialintangibles
as difficult
Moskos1981). Thishas occurreddespitethetrendinthearmedforcestoward
to management
and away fromthe more
the humanrelationsorientation
scientific
approach.The samegeneraltrend
management
crudelyrationalistic
nationsas well(Martin1981).In theUnited
hasbeenobservedinotherWestern
thattherationalmanagement
States,therehas been a growingrecognition
mustbe balancedby
military
organization
bya large,high-technology
required
if the military
is to function
effectively
leadershiprelationships
traditional
(Korb 1981).
Utilization
of Women
in societyentailsincreasing
emphasison indiThe processof rationalization
Such decharacteristics.
and a deemphasison ascriptive
vidualachievement
ofcitizenship
disenalso involvesthegranting
rightstopreviously
velopment
franchized
groups.One of theconsequencesof thesetrendsis themovement
towardsequalityof treatment
of malesand femalesin societalinstitutions.
womenhasundergone
changeinmanyinstitutions
ThepositionofAmerican
of
in thepast twentyyears.Most notablehas been the"subtlerevolution"
laborforceparticipation
(Smith1979). Thoughtheoccuwomen'sincreasing
of
(Smith1979; US Department
pationalworldis stilllargelysex segregated
in previously
Labor 1980;Waite1981),morewomenhavebeenparticipating
themilitary.
Indeed,during
thedecadeof
domains,including
male-dominated
ofjobs theyperform
ofmilitary
womenandthevariety
the1970s,thenumber
totheserviceacademiesfor
andwomenwereadmitted
increaseddramatically,
ofDefense
thefirst
time(Binkin& Bach 1977;DeFleuretal 1978;Department
etal 1977;Priestetal 1978b;Safilios-Rothschild
1981;Hoiberg1978;Johnson
1978; Segal & Blair 1978; M. Segal 1978; Stiehm1981;US ArmyResearch
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
165
Institute
1977). However,theforceof traditional
culturalvaluescontinuesto
opposetrendstowardrationalization
indecisionsaboutwomen'smilitary
role
(Segal & Segal 1983).
Themilitary
hastraditionally
beenanexclusivemaleprovincecharacterized
by prototypic
masculinenorms,withmilitary
as a riteof
servicefunctioning
passagetomanhood.As withotherpredominantly
maleoccupations,
research
showsthatmilitary
men in newlygender-integrated
settingshave negative
attitudes
towardthepresenceandperformance
ofwomen(DeFleur& Gillman
1978;Durning1978;Larwoodetal 1980;Priestetal 1978a;Stiehm1981).The
oftraditional
influence
valuescan also be seeninthelegalprohibition
against
womenincombatintheNavyandAirForceandinrecentpolicychangesinthe
Army.These policiesincludea return
to gender-segregated
basic training,
a
intheplannedexpansioninthenumber
reduction
ofwomen,andtheexclusion
of womenfromsomejobs previously
heldby them.This slowingof gender
integration
intheArmyalso reflects
theattempt
toenhanceunitcohesion.The
beliefthatthepresenceof womeninterferes
withgroupcohesionand "male
hasnotbeenthesubjectofempirical
bonding"
research
(M. Segal 1982,1983).
MilitaryFamiliesand Communities
ofAmericansocietyhasbrought
The increasing
withita -separation
rationality
ofworkandfamily
is atanearlierstageinthis
spheres.Themilitary
community
processthanotherworksettings.
The relationship
betweenthemilitary
organizationand military
familiesis currently
beingtransformed
by manyfactors,
ofpayandbenefits
including
changesinthestructure
(Bachmanetal 1977:20of married
23), an increasedproportion
juniorenlistedpersonnel,increased
labor forceparticipation
of militarywives, and the increasednumberof
military
women,dual servicecouples,and sole parents(Croanet al 1980;
Grossman1981;Hunter1977;Hunteret al 1980;Hunteret al 1978;Hunter&
Shaylor1979;McCubbin& Marsden1978; Orthner
& Bowen
1980; Orthner
1982; Orthner
& Nelson 1980).
Whilemanyof thetrendsin military
familiesresemblethosein civilian
certain
families,
uniquecharacteristics
ofthemilitary
organization
andlifestyle
maylead todifferent
adaptations.
Demandsareplacedon familiesbymilitary
requirements
(e.g. geographicmobility,
overseastours,and absenceof the
military
familymember),and military
familiesare makingdemandson the
forrecognition
andservices.Themilitary
is struggling
to
military
organization
definetheboundariesof itsresponsibilities
to families.
Research
Utilization
ofScientific
on his experienceas an Armyresearcher
Reflecting
duringWorldWar II,
Stouffer
(1962: 291-92) notedresistanceto researchon personnelissues.
Rationalization,
however,assumesincreaseduse ofscience,andtheexpenditureforbehavioraland social scienceresearchby defenseestablishments
has
166
SEGAL& SEGAL
indeedbeen increasing(Segal 1983a). While psychologyand economics
in theUnitedStates,theresearch
dominatethesocial scienceresearcheffort
program
oftheGermanBundeswehr
hasmadegreatprogress
inarticulating
the
sociopolicalcontextin whicha modemmilitary
establishment
operates(e.g.
Zoll 1979; Lippert& Wachtler1982). Even therelativelysmallpersonnel
of theCanadianforceshas shownincreasing
researchprogram
awarenessof
as opposedtoindividual,
social-structural,
variables(e.g. Cotton1981;Pinch
1982).
ofsocialscienceresearch
onmilitary
Studiesoftheeffects
manpower
policy
yieldmixedresults.Segal (1983a) andBoene (1983) arguethatsociologyhas
hadless effect
thanothersocialsciences.Focussingon policyresearchon the
hasbeenrelevant
all-volunteer
force,Snyder& Davis (1981), findtheresearch
and timely.Janowitz(1982b), evaluatingseveralspecificcases of applied
is a somewhat
socialscience,concludesthatthemilitary
better
institution
than
itmighthavebeenhadtheresearchnotbeendone.Whilethemostpositiveof
these evaluationsare guardedat best, we findit notablethattheywere
conductedat all. Theirone commonfinding,
thatsocial scienceresearchhas
been used in thepolicymakingprocess,reflectsincreasing
rationalization.
CONCLUSION
in modemsocietyhavebeenreflected
in theAmerTrendstowardrationality
icanarmedforcesinbureaucratization
andin increasing
concernswithprofesandthecashnexusthatlinkstheserviceperson
tothe
sionalism,management,
worldas well.Thusinone
military.
Thesetrendsarecommoninthecorporate
sense the military
can be seen not as a uniqueinstitution
but ratheras a
in whichwidespread
laboratory
socialprocessescan be observed.Perhapsthe
mostgeneralobservation
is theapparentincompatibility
betweenindividual
and collectivelevelsof rationality
(see Barry& Hardin1982).
ofthemilitary,
Everyinstitution,
however,is unique.The combatfunction
institutional
coupledwitha conservative
culture,have led to vacillationin
themaintenance
of themilitary
policiesaffecting
as a "companytown,"the
of theinstitution
forthefamiliesof its members,therole of
responsibility
women,and the associationbetweenmilitaryserviceand citizenship(see
Sherraden
& Eberly1982). Heretoo,however,theunderlying
factorseemsto
be themilitary's
desireto maintainsocial solidarity
in an increasingly
individualisticsocial environment.
forsociologyas a discipline,as itmovesoutof the
Particularly
interesting
is thedegreetowhichtherationalization
andintoappliedsettings,
of
university
has been reflected
in theutilizaionof social scienceresearch.
themilitary
Indeed,themilitary
maybe thearenainwhichsociologicalconceptshavehad
theirgreatest
policyimpact.
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
167
Literature
Cited
ArmedForcesand Society.1976. Specialsymposiumon tradeunionismin the military,
Vol. 2, no. 4. BeverlyHills, CA:Sage
Arrow,K. J. 1951.Mathematical
modelsinthe
social sciences.In ThePolicySciences,ed.
D. Lerner,H. D. Lasswell, pp. 129-54.
Stanford,
CA: Stanford
Univ. Press
Bachman,J.,Blair,J.,Segal,D. 1977.TheAll
Volunteer
Force. AnnArbor:Univ. Michigan Press.210 pp.
Barry,B., Hardin,R., eds. 1982. Rational
Man in IrrationalSociety?BeverlyHills:
Sage. 416 pp.
Bennis,W. G., Slater,P. E. 1968. The Temporary
Society.NY: Harper& Row. 147pp.
Bickel, M. D., Blades, A. C., Creel,J. B.,
Gatling,W. S., Hinkle,J.M., Johns,J.H.,
Kindred,J. D., Stocks,S. E. 1982. Cohesion in theU.S. Military.Washington
DC:
Natl. DefenseUniv. 158 pp.
Binder,L. J. 1982.A talkwiththechief.Army
32:16-25
Binkin,M., Bach, S. J. 1977 Womenand the
Military.Washington
DC: BrookingsInst.
134 pp.
Blair,J.D., Hurwitz,J.V. 1982. Qualitycircles forAmericanfirms?
In Management
by
Japanese Systems,ed. S. N. Lee, G.
Schwendiman,
NY: Praeger.In press
Boene,B. 1983. La Quadriture
du Pentagone.
Rev. Franc. Sociol. In press
Borup-Nielson,
S., Kousgaard,E., Rieneck,
B. 1974.Measurement
ofattitudes
within
the
Danish armedforces.Copenhagen:Danish
ArmedForcesPsychol.Serv. Tech. Rep.
Bowers, D. 1973. OD techniquesand their
resultsin 23 organizations.
J. Appl.Behav.
Sci. 9:21-43
Bradford,Z. B., Brown, R. F. 1973. The
UnitedStatesArmyin Transition.Beverly
Hills: Sage. 256 pp.
Brown, C. W., Moskos, C. C. 1976. The
Americanvolunteersoldier:will he fight?
Mil. Rev. 61:8-17
Buck, J. H., Korb,L. J., eds. 1981. Military
Leadership.BeverlyHills. Sage. 270 pp.
Burrelli,D., Segal, D. R. 1982. Definitions
of
missionamongnoviceMarineCorpsofficers. J. Polit. Mil. Sociol. 10:299-306
Chesler,D. J.et al. 1955. Effecton moraleof
teamreplacement
andindividual
infantry
replacementsystems.Sociometry
18:73-81
W. C., Cohen,L. E. 1981.VolunCockerham,
teeringforforeigncombatmissions.Pac.
Sociol. Rev. 3:325-54
Cooper,R. V. L. 1982. Militarymanpower
procurement
policyinthe1980s.InMilitary
Servicein theUnitedStates,ed. B. Scowcroft,pp. 151-94. EnglewoodCliffsNJ.
Prentice-Hall
Cotton,C. A. 1981. Institutional
and occupational values in Canada's Army.Armed
Forces and Society8:99-110
Croan,G. M. et al. 1980. RoadmapforNavy
FamilyResearch.Columbia,MD: WestinghousePubl. Appl. Syst.Div.
DeFleur,L. B., Gillman,D. 1978. Cadetbeliefs,attitudes,
and interactions
duringthe
earlyphasesofsex integration.
See Segal &
Blair 1978, pp. 165-90
DeFleur, L. B., Gillman,D., Marshak,W.
1978. Sex integration
oftheU.S. AirForce
Academy.See Hoiberg,1978, pp. 607-22
Department
ofDefense.1981.Background
Review: Womenin theMilitary.Washington
DC: Off.Ass. Sec. Def. Manpower,Reserve
Affairs,
and Logistics.149 pp.
Department
of Health,Education,and Welfare. 1973. Workin America.Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press
du Picq, A. 1958.BattleStudies,Trans.J.N.
Greely, R. C. Cotton. Harrisburg,PA:
StackpoleBooks. 273 pp.
E. 1949. TheDivisionofLabor in
Durkheim,
Society,Trans.byG. Simpson.Glencoe,IL:
FreePress.439 pp.
Durning,K. P. 1978. Womenat the Naval
Academy:an attitudesurvey.See Hoiberg
1978,pp. 569-88
Faris,J.H. 1977.An alternative
to
perspective
SavageandGabriel.ArmedForces
andSociety3:457-62
Friedman,M. 1967. Why not a volunteer
army?See Tax 1967, pp. 200-7
Gates,T. etal. 1970.ReportofthePresident's
Commisionon an All-VolunteerArmed
Force. Washington
DC: USGPO 211 pp.
Gottlieb,D. 1980. Babes in Arms.Beverly
Hills: Sage. 173 pp.
M. 1973. The strength
Granovetter,
of weak
ties.Am.J. Sociol. 78:1360-80
Grossman,
A. S. 1981.Theemployment
situationformilitary
wives.Monthly
LaborRev.
104(2):60-64
G. 1981. Armedforcesand
Harries-Jenkins,
thewelfare
state.InCivil-Military
Relations,
ed. M. Janowitz,
pp. 231-57. BeverlyHills:
Sage
Hauser,W. 1973. America'sArmyin Crisis.
Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press.242
PP.
Helmer,J. 1974.Bringing
theWarHome.NY:
FreePress.346 pp.
Hoiberg,A., ed 1978. Womenas new "manpower."ArmedForces and Society4:555731 (Spec. Iss.)
Holz, R. F., Gitter,
A. G. 1974.Assessingthe
qualityof lifein theU.S. Army.Arlington,
VA: US ArmyRes. Inst.Behav. Soc. Sci.
Tech. Pap. 256.
168
SEGAL & SEGAL
Janowitz,
M., Moskos,C. C. 1979.Fiveyears
Hunter,E. J. 1977. ChangingFamilies in a
oftheall-volunteer
force.ArmedForcesand
ChangingMilitarySystem.San Diego, CA:
Naval HealthRes. Cent.94 pp.
Society5:171-218
D.
et
C.
al. 1977. WomenContentin
Hunter,E. J., DenDulk,D., Williams,J. W. Johnson,
77 (REF WAC77).
theArmy-REFORGER
1980. TheLiterature
on MilitaryFamilies,
Alexandria,
VA: US ArmyRes. Inst.Behav.
Colorado
1980:AnAnnotated
Bibliography.
Soc. Sci.
Springs,CO: US Air Force Acad. 199
Jones,E., Grupp,F. W. 1982. Politicalsopp.
cializationin the Soviet military.Armed
E. J.,Nice,D. S., eds. 1978.Military
Hunter,
Forces and Society8:355-87
Families:Adaptation
to Change.NY: PraeKorb,L. J. 1981. Futurechallenges.See Buck
ger.278 pp.
& Korb 1981, pp. 235-47
Hunter,E. J., Shaylor,T. C., eds, 1979. The
Military
Familyand theMilitaryOrganiza- Krendel,E. S., Samoff,B. L., eds. 1977.
theArmedForces. Philadelphia:
tion.Washington
DC: USGPO. 77 pp.
Unionizing
Univ. Penn.Press. 198 pp.
Hunter,R. W., Nelson, G. R. 1982. Eight
yearswiththeall-volunteer
armedforces.In Larwood, L., Glasser, E., McDonald, R.
1980. Attitudes
of male and femalecadets
Military
Servicein theUnitedStates,ed. B.
sex integration.
Sex Roles
towardmilitary
Scowscroft,
pp. 80-128. EnglewoodCliffs
NJ:Prentice-Hall
6:381-90
Huntington,
S. P. 1957. The Soldierand the Levitan,S. A., Alderman,K. C. 1977. Warriorsat Work.BeverlyHills: Sage PublicaState. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ.
Press.534 pp.
tions.216 pp.
Huntington,
S. P. 1978. The soldierand the Lippert,E., Rossler,T. 1980. Midchenunter
statein the1970s. See Margiotta1978, pp.
Waffen?Baden-Baden, West Germany:
Nomos. 181 pp.
15-35
M. 1960. TheProfessionalSoldier. Lippert,E., Wachtler,G. 1982. MilitdrsoJanowitz,
NY: FreePress.464 pp.
ziologie-eine Soziologie "nur fur den
M. 1965.Sociologyand theMilitary
Soz. Welt1:335-55
Janowitz,
Dienstgebrauch?"
Establishment:
rev. ed. NY: The Russell Lipset,S. M. 1963.TheFirstNewNation.NY:
Basic Books. 366 pp.
Sage Foundation.136 pp.
M. 1967. The logic of nationalser- Little,R. 1964. Buddyrelationsand combat
Janowitz,
vice. See Tax 1967, pp. 73-90
role performace.
In The New Military,ed.
In
M. Janowitz,
Janowitz,
M. 1971. The emergent
military.
pp. 195-224.NY: The Russell
Public Opinionand theMilitaryEstablishSage Foundation
ment,ed. C. C. Moskos,pp. 255-70,Bever- Makler,H., Sales, A., Smelser,N. J. 1982.
Recenttrendsin theoryand methodology
ly Hills: Sage
M. 1974. Towarda redefinition
of
in thestudyof economyand society.In SoJanowitz,
strategyin international
relations.World
ciology:theStateof theArt,ed. T. BottoPol. 26:471-508
more, S. Nawak, M. Sokolowska, pp.
M. 1975.MilitaryConflict.Beverly
Janowitz,
147-71. London:The RussellSage FoundaHills: Sage. 319 pp.
tion
Janowitz,
M. 1977. Frominstitutional
tooccu- Manley,T. R., Gregory,
R. A., McNichols,C.
W. 1975. Qualityof life in the U.S. Air
pational:the need for conceptualclarity.
ArmedForces and Society4:51-54
Force.Proc. 1975 Mil. Test.Assoc. Conf.,
Janowitz,M. 1978. The Last Half-Century. Indianapolis,pp. 453-67
Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress.583 pp.
Margiotta,F. D., ed. 1978. The Changing
Janowitz,M. 1979. The citizen-soldier
and
Worldof theAmericanMilitary.Boulder,
nationalpurpose.Air Univ. Rev. (Nov.CO: WestviewPress.488 pp.
Dec.):2-16
Marshall,S. L. A. 1947. Men AgainstFire.
M. 1980.Observations
Janowitz,
onthesociolNY: Morrow.215 pp.
ogyof citizenship.
Soc. Forces 59:1-24
M. L. 1981Warriors
Martin,
toManagers:The
Janowitz,
M. 1982a. Patriotism
and the allFrenchMilitaryEstablishment
Since 1945.
volunteermilitary.Air Univ. Rev. (Jan.Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. NorthCarolina
Feb.):31-39
Press.424 pp.
M. 1982b. Consequencesof social Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation
Janowitz,
and Persoscienceresearch
ontheU.S. military.
Armed
411 pp.
nality.NY: Harper& Brothers.
Forces and Society8:507-24
McCubbin,H., Marsden,M. 1978.The MilitM. 1983. Civic consciousnessand
Janowitz,
aryfamilyandthechangingmilitary
profesmilitaryperformance.In The Political
sion. See Margiotta1978, pp. 207-21
EducationofSoldiers,ed. M. Janowitz,
S.
McNown,R. F., Udis,B., Ash,C. 1980.EcoWesbrook,pp. 55-80. BeverlyHills: Sage
nomic analysisof the all-volunteer
force.
Publications
ArmedForces and Society7:113-32
MILITARY ORGANIZATION
Moskos,C. C. 1970. TheAmericanEnlisted
Man. NY: The RussellSage Foundation.
military.
Moskos,C. C. 1973. The emergent
Pac. Sociol. Rev. 16:255-79
Armed
Moskos,C. C. 1975.UN peacekeepers.
Forces and Society1:388-401
Ann.Rev.
Moskos,C. C. 1976a.The military.
Sociol. 2:55-77
Moskos,C. C. 1976b.Peace Soldiers.Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress. 171 pp.
to ocMoskos,C. C. 1977. Frominstitution
ArmedForcesand Society4:41-50
cupation.
Moskos,C. C. 1981. Makingtheall-volunteer
forcework.For. Aff.60:17-34
Moskos,C. C. 1982. Armedforcesin society.
Presentedat WorldCongr. Sociol., 10th,
Mexico City
ofan
Oi, W. 1967. The costsandimplications
all-volunteer
armedforce.See Tax, 1967,
pp. 221-51
Olson,M. 1965. TheLogic of CollectiveAcMA: HarvardUniv.Press.
tion.Cambridge,
176 pp.
D. K. 1980.FamiliesinBlue:AStudy
of
Orthner,
Marriedand SingleParentFamiliesin the
DC: Off.Chiefof
U.S. AirForce.Washington
Chaplains,USAF. 111 pp.
D. K., Bowen,G. L. 1982.Families
Orthner,
in Blue: Phase II: InsightsfromAir Force
Families in the Pacific. WashingtonDC:
SRA Corp. 115 pp.
D. K., Nelson,R. S. 1980.A DemoOrthner,
graphicProfileofU.S. NavyPersonneland
NC: Fam. Res. Anal.
Families.Greensboro,
45 pp.
on the
Parsons,T. 1976. A fewconsiderations
in modemcultureand
place of rationality
society. Cahiers VilfredoPareto 38-39:
443-50
Payne, G. D. 1974. Measurementof the
characteristics
oftheenvironpsychological
mentof a militaryinstitution.
Melbourne:
AustralianArmyPsychol.Res. Unit Res.
Rep. 3/74.
J. 1978. The military
Peters,B. G., Clotfelter,
See
professionand its task environment.
Margiotta1978, pp. 57-68
Pinch,F. C. 1982. Militarymanpowerand
social change.ArmedForces and Society
8:575-600
Priest,R. F., Prince,H. T., Vitters,A. G.
1978a. The firstcoed class at West Point:
andattitudes.
See Segal & Blair
performance
1978,pp. 205-24
Priest,R. F., Vitters,A. G., Prince,H. T.
1978b. Coeducationat West Point. See
Hoiberg1978, pp. 589-606
Ritzer,G. 1982. Rationality:a sociological
perspective.Presentedat World Congr.
Sociol., 10th,Mexico City
Riesman,D. 1950..The LonelyCrowd. New
Haven& London:Yale Univ.Press.315 pp.
169
F. J., Dickson,W. J. 1939.
Roethlisberger,
Managementand the Worker.Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniv. Press
Sabrosky,A. N., ed. 1977. Blue-CollarSolFor. Pol. Res. Inst.166
diers.Philadelphia:
PP.
C. 1978. Young women
Safilios-Rothschild,
andmenaboardtheU. S. CoastGuardbarque
study.
andinterview
"Eagle": anobservation
See Segal & Blair 1978, pp. 191-204
Army
Sarkesian,S. C. 1975. TheProfessional
Officer
ina ChangingSociety.Chicago:Nelson-Hall.268 pp.
Sarkesian,S. C. 1978. An empiricalressessSee Marprofessionalism.
mentof military
giotta1978, pp. 37-56
Sarkesian,S. C. 1981.BeyondtheBattlefield.
NY: Pergamon.290 pp.
Savage, P. L., Gabriel,R. A. 1976. Cohesion
in the Americanarmy.
and disintegration
ArmedForces and Society2:340-76
in
Segal, D. R. 1978. Workerrepresentation
See Margiotta1978,
organization.
military
pp. 223-46
Segal, D. R. 1981a. Militaryservicein the
attitudes
of soldiersand
nineteen-seventies:
civilians.In ManningtheAmericanArmed
Forces,ed. A. R. Millett,A. F. Trupp,pp.
42-63. Columbus,OH: MershonCent.Ohio
StateUniv.
Segal, D. R. 198lb. Leadershipand manageSee Buck& Korb
theory.
ment:organization
1981, pp. 41-69
Segal, D. R. 1982. Sociologicalandeconomic
modelsof military
manpower.Presentedat
attheUniv.ofChicagoinhonor
symposium
of MorrisJanowitz
Segal D. R. 1983a. Applied sociology in
nationaldefense.InAppliedSide Sociology,
ed. H. Freeman,R. Dynes,P. Rossi,W. F.
Whyte.Boston:Jossey-Bass.In press
Segal, D. R. 1983b.Frompoliticalcitizenship
to industrialcitizenship.In The Political
S.
EducationofSoldiers,ed. M. Janowitz,
Wesbrook,pp. 285-306. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
military
Segal, D. R. 1983c.The all volunteer
force:multidisciplinary
analysisof an interissue. In ServantsofArms,ed.
disciplinary
E. S. McCrate,M. L. Martin.NY: Free
Press.In press.
Segal, D. R., Blair,J.D., eds. 1978. Women
in themilitary
Youthand Society10:99-224
(Spec. Iss.)
J. J.,
Segal, D. R., Blair, J., Lengermann,
andoccuThompson,R. 1983. Institutional
pationalvaluesintheUnitedStatesmilitary.
In ChangingU.S. Military
ManpowerRealiJ.Brown,M. J.Colties,ed. F. Margiotta,
lins, pp. 107-27. Boulder,CO: Westview
Press.
J. 1984.
Segal, D. R., Harris,J., Rothberg,
170
SEGAL & SEGAL
Paratroopers
as peacekeepers.
ArmedForces
ceton,NJ:Princeton
Univ. Press354 pp.
and Society.In press
Stenton,E. L. 1980. Qualityof workinglife
Segal,D. R., Lengermann,
J.J. 1980. Profesprinciplesin theCanadianforces.Willowsional and institutional
considerations.
dale, Ontario:Canadian Forces Personnel
In
CombatEffectiveness,
ed. S. C. Sarkesian,
Appl. Res. UnitWork.Pap. 80-14
pp. 154-84. BeverlyHills: Sage
Stiehm,J.H. 1981.BringmeMenand Women.
Segal, D. R., Schwartz,J. 1981. Professional
Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press.348 pp.
autonomy
ofthemilitary
intheUnitedStates Stouffer,
S. A., Lumsdaine,A. A., LumsandtheSovietUnion.AirUniv.Rev. 32:21daine,M. H., Williams,R. M., Smith,M.
30
B., Janis,I. L., Star,S. A., Cottrell,L. S.
Segal, M. W. 1978. Womenin themilitary:
1949. TheAmericanSoldier.I. Adjustment
research
andpolicyissues.See Segal& Blair
duringArmyLife,II. Combatand itsAfter1978, pp. 101-26
math.Princeton
NJ:Princeton
Univ. Press.
Segal, M. W. 1982. The argument
forfemale
675 pp.
combatants.In Female Soldiers-Com- Stouffer,
S. A. 1962. Social Researchto Test
batantsor Noncombatants?
Historicaland
Ideas. NY: Free Press.814 pp.
ed. N. L. Gold- Tax, S., ed. 1967. TheDraft.Chicago:Univ.
Contemporary
Perspectives,
man, pp. 267-90. Westport,CT: GreenChicagoPress.
wood Press
Taylor,W. J., Arango,R. J., Lockwood,R.
Segal,M. W. 1983.Women'srolesintheU.S.
S., eds. 1977. MilitaryUnions. Beverly
ArmedForces:anevaluation
ofevidenceand
Hills: Sage. 336 pp.
argumentsfor policy decisions. In Con- Taylor,F. W. 1911. ThePrinciplesofScienscriptsand Volunteers,
ed. R. K. FullinwidtificManagement.NY: Harper.144 pp.
er. MarylandSeries in Public Philosophy. Thomas,W. I. 1923. The UnadjustedGirl.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. In
Boston:Little,Brown& Co. 261 pp.
press
Toennies,F. 1957. Community
and Society,
Segal, M. W., Segal, D. R. 1983. Social
Transl. and intro.by C. P. Loomis, East
changeandtheparticipation
ofwomeninthe
Lansing:MichiganStateUniv. Press. 298
Americanmilitary.In Research in Social
pp.
Movements,
and
Vol.
5, US ArmyResearchInstitute.1977. Women
Conflicts, Change,
ed. L. Kriesberg,pp. 235-58. Greenwich,
Contentin UnitsForce DevelopmentTest
CT: JAIPress.
VA: US ArmyRes.
(MAXWAC).Alexandria
M. W., Eberly,D. J., eds. 1982.
Sherraden,
Inst.Behav. Soc. Sci.
NationalService.NY: Pergamon.240 pp.
US ArmyResearchInstitute.1980. Impact
M. 1948.Cohesionand
Shils,E. A., Janowitz,
Analysis of U.S. Army's Organizational
in the Wehrmacht
disintegration
in World
EffectivenessProgram: InterimReport.
War II. Publ. Opin. Q. 12:280-315
Washington,
DC: Arthur
Young & Co.
Shils,E. A. 1950.Primary
groupsintheAmer- US Department
of Labor. 1980. Perspectives
ican army.In Continuitiesin Social Reon Working Women: A Databook.
search,ed. R. K. Merton,P. F. Lazarsfeld.
Washington
DC: Bur. Labor Stat. Bulletin
NY: FreePress
No. 2080.
SmithR., ed. 1979. The SubtleRevolution. Vidich,A. J., Stein,M. R. 1960. The disWashington
DC: Urb. Inst.279 pp.
solved identity
in military
life. In Identity
Snyder,W. P., Davis, J. A. 1981. Efficiency andAnxiety,
ed. M. Stein,A. J.Vidich,D.
and usefulnessin policy research.Publ.
M. White,pp. 493-506. Glencoe,IL: Free
Admin.Rev. 41:34-46
Press
Stahl,M. J.,Manley,T. R., McNichols,C. W. Waite, L. J. 1981. Womenat Work.Santa
1978. Operationalizing
theMoskos instituMonica,CA: Rand Corp.
model. J. Appl. Psychol. Weber,M. 1947. The Theoryof Social and
tion-occupation
63:422-27
EconomicOrganization,
transl.A. M. HenStahl,M. J.etal, 1980. An empirical
example
derson,T. Parsons,Glencoe,IL: FreePress.
oftheMoskosinstitution-occupation
model.
436 pp.
ArmedForces and Society6:257-69
Weber,M. 1968.EconomyandSociety,ed. G.
Stahl,M. J.,McNichols,C. W., Manley,T. R.
Roth,C. Wittich.NY: Bedminster
Press.
1981. A longitudinal
testof theMoskosin1469 pp.
model. J. Polit. Mil. Whyte,W. H. 1956. The Organization
stitution-occupation
Man.
Sociol. 9:43-47
NY: Simon& Schuster.429 pp.
Stein,M. R. 1960. TheEclipseofCommunity: Zoll, R., ed. 1979. WieIntegriert
istdie BunAnInterpretation
ofAmericanStudies.Prindeswehr?Munich:Piper.255 pp.