1
Sociology, the Military and Civil-Military Relations: an
under-explored field.
Ben Wadham
Flinders University
This paper outlines and reviews the field of sociology and the military in Australia. It
argues that sociology and the military have an impoverished relationship in Australia.
A brief history of the field is outlined. Key events are described to outline the
importance of building the relationship between sociology and the military. The idea
of military criminology is floated to describe the richness of a research field that
describes and explains institutional behaviour that results in criminality or
misconduct.
Keywords: Military Criminology, Australian Defence Force, Skype Affair
2
As a sociologist with a keen interest in the military, the field of civil-military relations
appears ripe with possibilities for sociological research.
Even a cursory glance
reveals subjects including power, gender, cultural conflicts, violence, crime, politics,
governance, the media and numerousscandals involving sex, violence and bizarre
initiation rituals. Yet despite the fact that the Australian media and public are clearly
fascinated by all things military, there has been remarkably little attention given to
this area by Australian sociologists.
In this paper I will give a brief historical overview of sociology’s engagement with
the military and civil-military relations, and drawing on my own engagement in this
area, I will survey the key areas which I believe should be the focus of further
research. In this sense this paper is a review of the field within which I have been
research rather than a discrete research report.
Sociology and the Military: An Overview
Since the establishment of the Journal of Sociology (JOS) in 1965, one can count the
number of articles published in that journal on the military or civil-military relations,
on one hand. Two articles represent the key sociological contributions to this field in
the JOS. The Study of Militarism in Australiaby Sol Encelwas published in 1967,
andThe Changing Military Professionby Hugh Smith and Ian McAllister, was
published in 1991.
Matthewman wrote and talked about the neglect of the military by mainstream
sociology at the 2008 TASA conference. In articulating this claim he makes an
important distinction between military sociology and a sociology of the military:
War and peace research has largely proceeded at the behest of military institutions less
concerned by the general human condition than the efficacy of their own force. The resulting
military sociology is inner directed, considering the military as its own society. Instead of
military sociology we advocate a sociology of the military, one which sees the manifold ways
in which society at large is militarised (2008)
Jansmakes a similar pointin an article published in the Australian Defence Force
3
Journal (ADFJ) in 2008.
Military sociology focuses on why people behave as they do within military organisations and
on the underlying social issues associated with important practical matters, such as military
professionalism, the military ethos, recruitment, retention, career development, combat
motivation, leadership, family adjustment, military–civilian career transitions, and military–
civil/ political relationships (2008: 43).
From this perspective, military sociology is characterised by a preoccupation with the
profession and the institution, in contrast to the sociology of the military’s concern
with military institutions and their apparatus within the context of the changing
relations of militarism. Indeed at the 2010 TASA conference Jans, with Talbot and
Eijkman (2010) extends this to include concerns with external factors including the
state and society. Yet this vision excludes engagement with a critical sociology of
militarism, something that Matthewman (2008), with whom I concur, is trying to
distinguish for clarity of purpose.
Journals such as theAustralian Defence Force Journal (ADFJ), Security Challenges,
Armed Forces and Society (AFS) and internal documents do have sociological
contributions, but they fall into the “military sociology” category.
This type of military sociology has attracted some interest within the Australian
Defence Force Academy (ADFA) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW).
The Australian Study Group on Armed Forces and Society (ASAGS), which was
established around 30 years ago by Dr Hugh Smith (RMC/ADFA), has taken a similar
approach.This group met annually for small conferences/symposia, and it was
eventually taken over by the Australian Defence Studies Centre at the Defence
Academy (ADSC). Jans (2008:43) explains that:
While the ADSC continued to champion the field for another 10 years, its later conferences
focused on politics and strategy, with little attention to military sociology. And even this
potential forum was removed when the University College disestablished the centre in 2004
and replaced it with a ‘Defence Studies Forum’, the activities of which are modest indeed.
The lack of importance given to this area by the military is further underlined
4
by Jans, when he says:
It would be safe to say that very few Australian officers are aware that there is such a field as
military sociology and that it can inform on practical ‘people issues’ in the military institution.
(Jans, 2008: 43)
The late Phillip D’Alton took a “sociology of the military” perspectivein an
undergraduate topic he ran at the University of Wollongong in the early 1980s.
However, at this point there is no national engagement with a “sociology of the
military” approach, although the Australian National University runs a Masters in
Military Studies out of the national capital.
The situation is rather different in the USA, where sociology constitutes elements of
military education, and is seen as a productive contributor to military and Defence
discourse (see Caforio, 2005, 2007). International options for interested Australian
sociologists include membership of the Inter University Seminar on Armed Forces
and Society (IUS AFS), which is aligned with the International Sociological
Association (ISA).
To find significant contributions to the field of sociology and the military, it is
necessary to engage with literature that emerges from critical sources such as
feminisms, social theories, post colonialism and other critical theoreticalperspectives.
However, sociology of the military is not to be conflated with a range of literature that
is more aptly categorised as inhabiting the field of international relations, political
science, or social psychology, for example (although much work is multidisciplinary).
My own theoretical approach to researching the military is heavily influenced by a
critical appraisal of militarism and militarisation in terms of hegemony and
difference. I draw on British cultural studies and corresponding social theory to decamouflage the military. From this perspective, the military and/or militarism are
ubiquitous, pervasive and influential.
5
Over the past decade I have undertaken research from this perspective on the reform
of the military justice system, case studies on abuse within the ADF, discourse of
women in combat, an exploration of military art and the notion of camouflage to
develop a critical framework for making sense of the military and research on young
Australians’ attitudes to the ADF and military service. I have developed an archive on
military culture and its relationship to the tradition of bastardisation and I am now
analyzing the cultural reviews that Defence undertook over the past 2 years1.
Militarism in short comprises those structures, practices, beliefs, and values that adopt
or embellish militaristic values. Militarism is a major force that shapes our lives, yet
is cloaked. In the first instance militarism and the military are cloaked in the sense
that the institution is highly secretive, it is set apart from broader society and it
engages in secret state business. On the other hand militarism is profoundly
naturalized, so it tends not to be noticed – it is ubiquitous (Wadham & Hamilton,
2009: 1). What does it mean to uncover the military and make it evident to us all, to
name, mark and describe it? This, I argue, ought to be a central function of a
“sociology of the military”.
The Place of the Military in Australian Society
Since the late 1970s the ADF has greatly increased in size and activity. At the time of
writing this paper the Department of Defence (DoD) is the largest Australian
government department and it employs around 102,685 people (ADF Census 2011). It
has an annual budget of $24.2 billion that accounts for 1.56% of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) (Thompson, 2012: vi). Since the early 1990s the ADF has sent
deployments to Bougainville, Cambodia, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, East
Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. The ADF has contributed to various regional disaster
clean–up programs, such as those following the Asian Boxing Day Tsunami and the
Queensland Floods.
1
All papers relating to these studies are referenced in the paper.
6
Along with the growth of the military, the ANZAC culthas regenerated and thrived
since the mid 1980s as a core element of Australian nationalism (Howe, 1995).Rituals
of military remembrancehave flourished, particularly among young Australians
travelling to places such as Vietnam and Gallipoli to see the places where Australians
fought (Reynolds & Lake, 2010). The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has
established an ongoing history curriculum program that spends around $5,878,000 for
the development of school military history lessons each year (Lake, 2010: 138).
It has been the work of revisionist and/or feminist historians particularly that has
argued that ANZAC is a mythology that distorts the national narrative through
conservatism. The ANZAC tradition, despite being attended increasingly by ‘new’
Australians, perpetuates a conservative valorization of whiteness and Britishness
(McKenna, 2010: 110).
The Military in a Democratic Society
One very important question, which emerges from an examination of military culture,
is how it fits within the wider context of democratic values in a modern, western
society.
The Australian constitution establishes a distinction between the civil and military
spheres. That distinction renders the military servants of the state who must respond
to civilian orders - the military is supposed to be controlled by civilian society. Kohn
(1997) explains that the point of a civilian-controlled military is to manage militaristic
values and culture in the broader civil domain: “the purpose of the military is to
defend society, not to define it.”
The civil-military challenge is to maintain a military with the capacity to achieve any
task they are consulted to do, but with suitable deference to civilian authority
(Janowitz, 1975, 1971, Huntington, 1957). As Peter Feaver explains:
7
This is a special case of the general problem of political agency: how do you
ensure that your agent is doing your will, especially when your agent has guns
and so may enjoy more coercive power than you do? (Feaver, 1996:149)
This is a structural relationship and the integrity of this relationship is of great
importance to the shape and form of democratic values.
This distinction, however, also structurally embeds a contest between egalitarianism
and authoritarian militaristic values within our society (Gronke, 2001). Wolfendale
(2007: 129) draws on the words of an American Officer explaining this tension:
Vital to combat operations and therefore a necessary part of the traditional
military professionalism is a set of values which to some even appear contrary to
those held by liberal civilian society. Military organization is hierarchical, not
egalitarian, and it is oriented to the group rather than the individual; it stresses
discipline and obedience, not freedom of expression…
Richard Kohn, a sociologist of the US field of civil military relations, argues that:
The military is, by necessity, among the least democratic institutions in human experience;
martial customs and procedures clash by nature with individual freedom and civil liberty, the
highest values in democratic societies (1997)
Given the centrality of the military, and their antithetical cultural disposition to civil
society, the organisation is ripe for ethnographic appraisal. Not only is the divergence
in cultural mores of interest, but also the manner in which this institution adapts to
and changes in response to the challenges presented by broader social change. By its
very nature as a conservative and insular institution it is resistant to change (Fleming,
2010:32).
The Civilianisation of the Military
8
One important set of changes that has overtaken the military in recent decades, relates
to an increasing civilianization of its structure and practices. The DoD was structured
as a diarchy in 1973, placing authority for the DoD with both the Chief of Defence –
military personnel – and a Secretary for Defence – a civilian counterpart - and this
structure of shared authority has continuedto evolve until the present time.
Associated with thisprocess of “civilianization” has been an increased engagement
with peace-keeping activities, which require much closer engagement with civilian
populations than does traditional conflict-based military action. From the 1990s until
the present, the ADF has been involved in peace-keeping activities in Bougainville,
Rwanda, Cambodia and East Timor, and even theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan
come with far greater expectations of engagement with civilian populations than
would have been the case in the past.
At the same time, the ADF has developed and implemented a range of policies and
practices associated with the civilian realm and modern democratic values. These
include complicated machinery relating to public health and health promotion, drug
and alcohol prevention and education, gender and cultural awareness, equity and
diversity.
There is a tension inherent in these developments. On the one hand the ADF, and
militaries in general, must keep pace with changing community values and practices,
and on the other such changes impel activities (i.e. gender sensitive training) that
challenge the cultural disposition of the military (e.g. anglo, male, militaristic). The
burgeoning policy development, which implies regulation and accountability, works
against the disposition of the military to be autonomous from state and civil society
and to be the master of its own affairs. There is considerable resistance to adopting
the machinery of civil society when it is feared to reduce military effectiveness.
It has indeed been ‘people’ issues that have produced some of the greatest challenges
facing the ADF.
In brief, key matters such as bastardisation and hazing, the
9
incorporation of women into the ADF and the question of cultural diversity loom
large for Defence as they attempt to modernise.
Military Culture and Public Scandals
The question of “military culture” must be a central focus in any sociological analysis
of the military, and civil-military relations (see Moore, 2010, Winslow, 2004; Moore,
2003, Theweleit, 1987). A particularly rich entry point to this area is the long history
of public scandals surrounding publicly unacceptable military behavior, such as the
“Skype Affair” in 2011. In this incident, five men colluded to secretively broadcast
one of their mates having (consensual) sex with an unwitting female colleague via
Skype as they watched in an adjacent dormitory room. The incident attracted
widespread community disgust and outrage, generated a suite of cultural reviews, and
placed civilian and military relations at the centre of public discourse.
As the “incident” evolved into an “affair” it came to represent the many complex
facets of civil-military relations. These included military culture and its relationship to
broader community values, the relationship between the Minister and the
Chief/Secretary of Defence, the role of the media and its place within these relations,
and place of women within the ADF.
The question of military culture has always been of interest to the Australian public,
while the military establishment energetically rejects the very idea that there is such a
thing as “military culture” at all. Certainly, the media have had a long-standing
interest in reporting military culture stories, and recruitment and public attitudes to the
military are influenced by military scandals. This is not unique to Australia, and
similar relations exist in the UK, the USA, Canada and New Zealand.
The first scandal concerning military culture reported in the Australian media was
sparked by an initiation ritual at the Royal Military College (RMC) in 1913. It is
described in detail by Moore (2001: 349) in his history of R.M.C. It included,
10
amongst other things, climbing a greasy rope, whipping with belts and wet towels, a
mock trial, rough haircuts, hosing down with a fire hose and being dunked in a bath of
icy water.
Hazing or fagging rituals such as this became a steadfast part of RMC tradition. While
hazing is not restricted to RMC and is part of entry into, and controlling practices
within, the ADF more generally, RMC provides an instructive case study.
On this occasion the initiation was considered scandalous by the main Sydney
newspaper. The College, however, felt the newspaper completely misunderstood and
misrepresented the ritual. The College Journal wrote: “needless to say everyone at the
College was very indignant at this point of view taken by the paper” (2001:349).
From the outside, the ritual appeared to be perverse, bordering on abuse, by a group
of young, tribal men. From the inside, according to General Bridges, this was merely
boys having fun. What’s more ‘it was nothing different from that which occurred at
similar institutions such as universities’ (2001:349). These opposing perceptions of
military practice are a marker of the ongoing civil military divide, and the civil
military culture gap.
Occurrences like those in 1913 have continued to mark the RMC story throughout its
history. Bastardisation scandals hit RMC in 1969/70, in 1983 (see Savva, 1983,
Baulderstone, 1984) with the Melbourne Age Officers and Not So Gentlemen expose
of hazing and initiation by Andrew Rule, and in 1992 (Easterbrook, 1992) with five
cadets reporting the prejudice displayed toward them. Other minor incidents scattered
these decades.
Scandals such as these are important because they provide an entry point into military
attitudes and behaviours, which are otherwise largely inaccessible to civilian
researchers.
11
Gender and the Military
Given the iconic status of the military as a bastion of traditional, dominant
masculinity, it provides a very fertile ground for a sociological engagement with
gender issues. The areas open for research include the gradually increasing
opportunities for women across the services and the broader issue of cultural diversity
in the context of broader Australian demographic change (Smith, 1991, see Wadham,
2010). The ADF is 87 per cent populated by men, and around 90 per cent of them are
white Australian born settler men (ADF Census 2011). Several interesting research
foci emerge. Firstly, the question of gender, sexuality and masculinities is rich ground
for considering military and civil attitudes to women’s service (see Agostino, 1997,
Woodward 2000, Hockey, 2003 Wadham, 2004). This extends to how women are
treated within the Defence force, the history of male predation against women in the
military (see Gyles, 2011, Hindi, 2011, Flood, 2008) and the policy, planning and
practice for enhancing women’s engagement with the military. Moreover, questions
about men’s bonding and military performativity are of great interest (see Cooper &
Tugwell, 2012, Baker & Mackenzie, 2011, Loy, 1995, Wadham, 2010, 2005, Kirk,
2004). These include bastardisation, and physical, sexual and social abuse against
other military men.
National Reviews and Inquiries
The long history of military scandals has generated an equally long history of official
reviews and inquiries. These provide a rich source of material for the sociologist of
the military. In just the last year, evolving from the Skype incident, were a series of
DoD cultural reviews, covering the areas of social media, complaints handling,
women’s employment pathways, treatment of women at ADFA, and abusive
behaviour within the defence force. The resulting Pathways to Change(2012)
document presented a platform for cultural change;cultural change that had been
presented to the ADF in many of its preceding reports and inquiries, yet rejected in
12
public statementsby the Defence establishment, in what amounted torationalization
and minimization of its members’ practices.
The DLA Piper review of sexual and other abuse within the ADF provides a
fascinating insight and entry point into an under-researched field of inquiry, which
encompasses the sociology of law, organisational sociology, military criminology and
the sociology of policing. The Defence abuse phenomenon invites questions about
military culture, authority and the use of violence. How does sexual and physical
abuse become a cultural tradition within the institution?How is it transmitted and how
does a culture of hierarchy and command dissuade reporting, or undermine
complaints handling? What is the real incidence of this phenomenon? How is data
collected and analyzed?
Of particular interest to me has been the way in which Defence understand and
account for culture in its response to these reviews. Culture is a dirty word to the
Defence establishment(see Wadham, 2011), and the very existence of a “military
culture”has been resisted forcefully ever since the earliest scandal in 1913. These
reviews and the key reports, scaffolded by public representation of the issue by the
Chief of Defence, for the first time refute the ‘few bad apples’ justification and accept
that culture is the site of badly needed investigation and reform.
Conclusion
The military is not an incidental element of liberal democracies. It is a structural
element of the state/military/civil society triad. In this sense, its centrality and
significance is especially deserving of sociological interest. The manner in which
relations change between the state and the military underlie cultural change
nationally.
13
How can such a massive and significant institution avoid sociological scrutiny in
Australia? In providing a short and incomplete history of sociology and the military in
Australia I have distinguished between military sociology and the sociology of the
military. Both provide rich opportunities for Australian sociology to contribute to
public policy, critical citizenship and the study of militarism.
14
Reference List
Agostino K. (1997) The Making of Warriors: Men, identity and Military Culture
Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, 3: 58-7
ADFCensus
(2011).
http://www.defence.gov.au/
dpe/defencecensus/public_report_2011.pdf: accessed May 21, 2012
Department of Defence (2012) Pathways to Change: Evolving Defence Culture,
available
from
http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/120410%20Pathway%
20to%20Change%20-%20Evolving%20Defence%20Culture%20%20web%20version.pdf, accessed September 24, 2012
Baker, R. & McKenzie, N. (2011)Defence Force rocked by vicious gay-hate
campaign
on
Facebook
available
from
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/
technology-news/defence-forcerocked-by-vicious-gayhate-campaign-on-facebook-20110412-1dcqa.html,
accessed May 21, 2012
Baulderstone, S.(1984)New DuntroonCO: No more bastardisation, Melbourne Age,
Tuesday, 24 January 1984
Box, D. (2008) Carry Me Home: The Life and Death of Jake Kovco, Allen & Unwin,
NSW
______ (2012) New military police to get real powers to chase criminals available
from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/newmilitary-police-to-get-real-powers-to-chase-criminals/story-e6frg8yo1226422974161 accessed September 24, 2012
Caforia, G. 2007. Social Sciences and the Military, Routledge, London
__________ 2005. Handbook of the Sociology of the Military, Springer, USA.
Cooper, H. and Tugwell, N.(2012) Facebook group reveals ugly side of Defence
Force
culture
fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/
2012/
s3442781.htm, accessed 21 May 2012
Dandeker, C. (1994) New Times for the Military: Some Sociological Remarks on the
Changing Role and Structure of the Armed Forces of the Advanced
Societies, British Journal of Sociology, 1994, 454. p637-654
Easterbrook, M. (1992). Investigation starts today on claims of bastardisation, The
Age, Monday 4 May 1992: 17
Encel , S. (1967) The Study of Militarism in Australia, Journal of Sociology; vol. 3:
pp. 2 - 18.
Feaver, P. D. (1996). The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and
the Question of Civilian Control, Armed Forces and Society, Winter, Vol
23, No. 2: 149-178
Feaver, P.D. and Kohn, R. (2001). Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil Military Gap
and American National Security, BSCIA, Massachusetts.
Fleming, B.(2010). Bridging the Military-Civilian Divide, Potomac Books, Virginia
15
Flood, M. (2008). ‘Men, Sex and Homosociality: How Bonds between men shape
Their Sexual Relations with Women’, in Men & Masculinities, 103.: 339Gronke, P. (2001) Uncertain Confidence; Civilian and Military Attitudes about CivilMilitary Relations, Paper prepared for the Triangle Institute for Security
Studies Project on the Gap Between the Military and Civilian Society,
Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, Co-Principal Investigators
Gyles, R. (2011)HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry, COA, ACT
Hindi, I. (2011). ‘Australian Army says sex scandal ‘isolated’ incident’ from
2011/04/09/australian-army-says-sex<http://www.inewsone.com/
scandal-isolated-incident/42244>, accessed 21 May 2012.
Hockey, J. (2003). ‘No More Heroes: Masculinity in the Infantry’, pp. 15-26 in P.
Higate, Ed.. Military Masculinities: Identity and the State. Praeger:
Westport
Howe, A. (1995). ‘Anzac Mythology and the Feminist Challenge’, pp 302-310 in J.
Damousi & M. Lake ed., Gender and War: Australians at War in the
Twentieth Century, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
Janowitz, M. (1975). Essays in the Institutional Analysis of War and Peace, London:
Sage.
__________ (1971). The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait, Free
Press, New York.
Jans, N. (2008) The Sorry State of Military Sociology, Australian Defence Force
Journal,
Kirk, A. (2004). “Further Investigation of KKK Photo Underway: Klan Photo Angers
Many, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 11 November
Kohn, R. (1997) An Essay on Civil Control of the Military on American Diplomacy
at http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/
amdipl_3/kohn.html accessed July 20, 2012
Lake, M. and Reynolds, H. (2010). What’s Wrong with ANZAC?: The Militarisation
of Australian History, New South, NSW.
Lee, R. and Daly, R. (1987). ‘Man’s Domination and Woman’s Oppression: The
Question of Origins’ pp 1-27 in Ed. M. Kaufman, Beyond Patriarchy:
Essays on Pleasure, Power and Change. Oxford Uni Press: New York.
Loy, J. W. (1995). The Dark Side of Agon: Fratriarchies, Performative Masculinities,
Sport Involvement and the Phenomenon of Gang Rape, in eds.. K.H. Bette
& A Rutten, International Sociology of Sport: Contemporary Issues,
Stuttgart, Verlag: 263-281
Matthewman, S. (2008) Sociology and the Military, TASA Conference Proceedings,
La Trobe University , Victoria.
Mcilveen, L.(2004). ‘Our Ku Klux Klan Troops Exclusive: Army Shamed By Racist
Ritual’, The Advertiser, 11 November, p.1
Moore, B. (1993). A Lexicon of Cadet Language: Royal Military College, Duntroon
in the Period 1983 to 1985, ANU, ACT.
16
Moore, D. (2009). The Soldier: A History of Courage, Sacrifice and Brotherhood,
Icon Books, NSW.
__________ (2001). Duntroon 1911-2001: The Royal Military College of Australia,
Ligare, NSW
Savva, N. (1983). Duntroon 4 Punished, The Melbourne Sun, Wednesday, 13 April
Smith, G. (1992) The State and the Armed Forces: Defence as Militarism in (Ed) J.
Muetzlefelt, State, Society and Politics in Australia, Pluto Press, NSW
Smith. H and McAllister. I. (1991) The Changing Military Profession: Integrating
Women in the Australian Defence Force Journal of Sociology, Jan 1991;
vol. 27: pp. 369 - 391.
Talbot, S,. Jans, N. & Eijkman, H. (2010) Where Have All the Sociologists Gone?
Invigorating a Sociology of the Military in Australia?, in Eds: Velayutham
S.; Ebert N.; Watkins S TASA 2010 Conference Proceedings:Social
Causes, Private Lives The Australian Sociological Association
http://www. tasa.org.au/uploads/2011/01/Talbot-Steven_-Jans-Nick_Eijkman-Henk.pdf
Theweleit, K. (1989). Male Fantasies Vol 2. University of Minnesota Press:
Minneapolis.
Thompson, M. (2012) The Cost of Defence: ASPI Budget Brief 2012/2013,
Australian Strategic Policy Institute, ACT.
Towell, N., Grattan, M., & Welch, D. (2011). Jeffery backs Defence culture from
http://www.theage.com.au/national/jeffery-backs-defence-culture20110412-1dcpi.html> accessed 21 May 2012.
Wadham, B. 2010. Soldiers’ comments racist, disgusting, embarrassing, from
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/soldiers-comments-racist-disgustingembarrassing/ accessed 21 May, 2012
__________ 2004. Mogan Hunts and Pig Nights: Military Masculinities and the
Making of the Arms-Corps Soldier. TASA 2004 Conference Proceedings.
Wadham, B. and Hamilton, A. (2009). Camouflage: how the visual arts and sociology
make sense of the military. The Future of Sociology. TASA Conference
Proceedings
Wadham B. and Pudsey J. (2005). Un.Masking Hegemony: Militarism, White
Masculinity and the Logic of Contemporary Empire,International Journal
of Critical Psychology, 16, 146-165
Winslow, D. (2004). Misplaced Loyalties: The Role of Military Culture in the
Breakdown of Discipline in Two Peace Operations, Journal of Military
and Strategic Studies, 6:1-19
Wolfendale, J. (2007). Torture and the Military Profession, Palgrave, London
Woodward, R (2000). ‘Warrior Heroes and Little Green Men: Soldiers, Military
Training and the Construction of Rural Masculinities’, Rural Sociology,
Vol 65, Issue 4: 640-651.
17
Sociology and the Military articles JOS 1965 - present
Smith.H and McAllister. I. (1991) The Changing Military Profession: Integrating
Women in the Australian Defence Force Journal of Sociology, Jan 1991; vol. 27: pp.
369 - 391.
Impact and Consequences of the Military Transfer of Technology to Developing
Countries John Saunders Journal of Sociology, Jan 1976; vol. 12: pp. 204 - 212.
Encel , S. (1967) The Study of Militarism in Australia, Journal of Sociology; vol. 3:
pp. 2 - 18.
Militarization and social development in the Third World Julia Kwong and Zachary
Zimmer Journal of Sociology, Jan 1995; vol. 31: pp. 64 - 81.
Evaluations of Legitimacy John Maddock Journal of Sociology, Jan 1974; vol. 10: pp.
140 - 142.
Physical Education and Regimes of the Body David Kirk Journal of Sociology, Jan
1994; vol. 30: pp. 165 - 177.