Between Order and Execution: A Phenomenological Approach to the Role of Relationships in Military Culture

Michael Hoffman

doi:10.21061/jvs.v6i3.213

Abstract

Despite the growing recognition that military identity and veteran identity are interrelated, there is scant literature that seeks to describe or define military culture—perhaps an indication of the degree to which veterans and civilians alike take military culture for granted as a factor in veteran identity. One important factor in veteran identity is relationship: relationships amongst veterans and between veterans and civilians. In the latter case, trust is often wanting, and that lack of trust seems to be connected to the experience of military service. To explore a possible connection between military culture and veteran experience, in-depth interviews were conducted with a diverse group of veterans to develop an understanding of the phenomenon of relationship, or relationality, within military service. Close attention was paid to the daily routines and rhythms of military life. Veterans were given wide latitude to discuss both the positive and negative relationships that they regarded as key to their military experience. The results, presented here as case studies, suggest that relationships of trust in military service often develop out of routine training experiences and are grounded in unique military expectations regarding the public performance of common skills. This phenomenological study is a first step in developing a more comprehensive understanding of the many ways that military experiences may become veteran expectations with respect to relational ideas such as trust.

Highlights

Veteran identity is deeply rooted in the experience of military service and military culture (Castro & Kintzle, 2014; Smith & True, 2014; Meyer et al, 2016; Lancaster et al, 2018; McCormick et al, 2019)
Classic works like Samuel Huntington’s (1957) The Soldier and the State, and more recent entries on military culture in general (Wilson, 2008; Hall, 2013), begin with organizational elements—such as rank and role, the use of orders, and the mission of the military—and deductively construct the soldier. Useful this approach may be when considering armies en masse, a different understanding of military culture is necessary when faced with a particular veteran with particular needs, and with a particular identity that is informed by their military service
While the military relies on collectivist ideals and principles that are instilled beginning with the oath of enlistment, military ethos is not a monolithic entity; there is considerable variation in how individual service members take up implicit elements of military culture, and how those elements inform their experiences in service (Brim, 2013; DeVries & Wijnans, 2013)

Summary

Introduction

Veteran identity is deeply rooted in the experience of military service and military culture (Castro & Kintzle, 2014; Smith & True, 2014; Meyer et al, 2016; Lancaster et al, 2018; McCormick et al, 2019). Classic works like Samuel Huntington’s (1957) The Soldier and the State, and more recent entries on military culture in general (Wilson, 2008; Hall, 2013), begin with organizational elements—such as rank and role, the use of orders, and the mission of the military—and deductively construct the soldier Useful this approach may be when considering armies en masse, a different understanding of military culture is necessary when faced with a particular veteran with particular needs, and with a particular identity that is informed by their military service. Brim’s (2013) description of military culture distinguishes between explicit cultural elements such as service branch, unit affiliation, and formal roles and relationships such as sergeant, or squad leader; and implicit elements—shared values or ideals that are fundamental to the military ethos. I propose that these implicit elements of military culture, while critical to military performance on the battlefield, are not formed on the battlefield but rather in much more mundane places such as the mess hall, the rifle range, and the PT field

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion