The New Military : Changing Patterns of Organization : Research Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PUBLICATIONS OF RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION Russell Sage Foundation was established in 1907 by Mrs. Russell Sage for the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States. In carrying out its purpose the Foundation conducts research under the direction of members of the staff or in close collaboration with other institutions, and supports programs designed to develop and demonstrate productive working relations between social scientists and other profes¬ sional groups. As an integral part of its operations, the Foundation from time to time publishes books or pamphlets resulting from these activities. Publication under the imprint of the Foundation does not necessarily imply agreement by the Foundation, its Trustees, or its staff with the interpreta¬ tions or conclusions of the authors. The New Military Changing Patterns of Organization Research Studies Edited by Morris Janowitz Russell Sage Foundation New York • 1964 CONTENTS Preface . 7 One: Introduction Organizing Multiple Goals: War Making and Arms Control.11 MORRIS JANOWITZ Two: Managerial Forms and Succession Technology and Career Management in the Military Establishment.39 KURT LANG The Effects of Succession: A Comparative Study of Military and Business Organization.83 OSCAR GRUSKY Three: Professional Socialization The Professional Socialization of the West Point Cadet . 119 JOHN P. LOVELL Military Self-Image in a Technological Environment . 159 MAURY D. FELD Four: Social Cohesion Under Prolonged Stress Buddy Relations and Combat Performance . 195 ROGER W. LITTLE Deterioration of Military Work Groups Under Deprivation Stress.225 RICHARD W. SEATON Five: Career Commitment and Retirement Career Opportunities and Commitments Among Officers. 257 MAYER N. ZALD AND WILLIAM SIMON Sequels to a Military Career: The Retired Military Professional.287 ALBERT D. BIDERMAN Six: Bibliographic Guide Selected Literature on Revolutions and Coups d’Etat in the Developing Nations.339 MOSHE LISSAK Index.363 5 PREFACE Research scholars are chronically dissatisfied with the forms of - scholarly communication and publications. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the volume of monographic research in the field of social organization which seeks to collect empirical data on important theoretical propositions. Scientific journals appear unable to devote sufficient space to the substantive and methodological detail of such research, while full book length publication of these materials is both excessively expensive and elaborate. Thus Studies in Social Organization, of which this is the first volume, is an experiment to meet the changing needs of publication in the field of social organization research. The basic plan is to present, periodically, papers of substantial length which focus on a central theoretical, re¬ search, or policy issue. The objective is twofold. First, the social scientist is freed from arbitrary space limitations. Second, by bringing together a number of papers on a related theme, fragmented publication is avoided, and the results of sociological research are made more available to related disciplines and professional specialists. Most of the papers presented in this volume are an outgrowth of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society sponsored by Russell Sage Foundation. The purpose of the seminar was to supply a focal point for discussion and research on the changing nature of military organization in the United States. Against the backdrop of The Profes¬ sional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait, over a three-year period, 1960 to 1963, a series of research papers was discussed that sought to probe the extent to which the military establishment and the military profession were adapting to the new requirements of international rela¬ tions. The members of the seminar wish to acknowledge the generous assistance of Russell Sage Foundation, as well as the guidance and stimulation of Dr. Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., who actively participated in their deliberations. By means of the resources of the Inter-University Seminar, it was possible for the members to carry out their research and analysis on an independent basis. Thus this volume is not the report of the proceedings of a conference or symposium, but rather the result of the ongoing work of a number of social scientists. There has been no attempt to present these papers as if they constituted a unified intel¬ lectual approach; instead they are related original research studies. The sociology of military institutions has been beclouded by the question of “values,” in particular, the values of the sociologist. The fundamental assumption which has guided my own work was that the 7 8 THE NEW MILITARY study of military institutions was a legitimate object of scientific analysis. For it to be a legitimate object of scientific analysis it has to be ap¬ proached on a realistic basis. It was necessary to strive to overcome dis¬ tortions that come from hidden and even explicit biases, or from the pressures of political objectives. The sociology of military institutions becomes a meaningful enterprise only when scholars can project them¬ selves into the institutional life of the military. In any institutional sector there is no understanding without some ability to take the role of the other. In American sociology it was once widely assumed that to study military institutions was an expression of a particular political or value point of view. How many times have sociologists said to me with pro¬ found naivete and without realizing their bias, why study the military and thereby make it better. The naivete is based on an exaggeration of the consequences of sociological research; the bias, in that it is a distor¬ tion to believe that a more effective military is more dangerous than an inefficient institution. In the contemporary period, academic hostility toward the study of military institutions is absent. This point of view is absent not because it has been eliminated but at least it can no longer be voiced with intel¬ lectual respectability. The members of the Inter-University Seminar yield to none in their personal concern with peace—or in their general interest in the responsible application of knowledge to social problems. But intellectual issues are not solved by fiat, by committee reports of professional associations, or even by the discussion of values. To the contrary, the intellectual relevance of the sociology of military institu¬ tions has to be grounded in its content and in its scholarly character. It is with this goal in mind that these research studies were assembled. The field of social organization has its unfolding character in the specific writings of individual scholars who make use of comprehensive and quantitative field techniques, but those interests dedicate them to an understanding which comes only by prolonged and direct contact with the complexity of social institutions. This series on organizations and professions is related to the work of the newly created Center for Social Organization Studies of the University of Chicago, which is an experi¬ ment in graduate education and research designed to assist individual scholarship on the comparative study of social organization. Morris Janowitz Center for Social Organization Studies University of Chicago April 15, 1964 Part One INTRODUCTION Introduction ORGANIZING MULTIPLE GOALS: WAR MAKING AND ARMS CONTROL Morris Janowitz If the human community were ever to free itself of disease and illness, the world would not be without doctors. But it is probable that under the conditions of a medical utopia, doctors would be called by another name. In fact, the term “public health doctor” is an expres¬ sion of the powerful contemporary effort to transform the medical profession and increase its capacity for preventive practice. Likewise, a world without war would not be a world without soldiers, or “specialists in violence.” But the role of the professional soldier, even in the initial halting steps toward arms control, is a subject which needs to be clarified by social science analysis and resolved by public debate. In fact, there are two very different models of the role of the military in the international relations of arms control and disarmament. One set of assumptions excludes the military. This approach focuses on the explicit negotiation of civilian political leaders searching for the terms of reference to initiate treaties or agreements as the prime mechanisms. From this point of view, the organizational aspects of arms control are secondary and present few special problems beyond the technical fea¬ tures of inspection and the like. The basic issues are the political, social, and psychological requirements in order to ensure the success of the diplomatic and negotiating process. In one version or another this is the approach that runs through the bulk of the literature produced by university-based social scientists when they have written on this topic.1 The second model, and the one on which this volume proceeds, does not exclude the military from a positive role in arms control and dis¬ armament. In this view there is more to the problem than political, social, and psychological preconditions for bargaining and negotiating at the diplomatic level. There is an organizational aspect. International relations, including arms control and disarmament, involve all the 11 12 THE NEW MILITARY institutions of foreign policy, political, economic, and military. It is not enough to speak of policies without a concern for the organizations