Becoming Soldiers: Army Basic Training and the Negotiation of Identity By John W. Bornmann Master of Science, May 2002, George Washington University Bachelor of Arts, December 1998, University of Pittsburgh A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 17, 2009 Dissertation directed by Roy Richard Grinker Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that John W. Bornmann has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as March 26, 2009. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Becoming Soldiers: Army Basic Training and the Negotiation of Identity John W. Bornmann Dissertation Research Committee: Roy Richard Grinker, Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs, Dissertation Director Alfred Hiltebeitel, Professor of Religion, Committee Member Ronald Weitzer, Professor of Sociology, Committee Member ii Dedication For my father, whose spirit exists in every word I have written. iii Acknowledgements The process of writing a dissertation is difficult, complex, and arduous. Over the course of my studies, many people have been helpful in many different ways, and I could not possibly thank them all. My committee deserves special thanks for their consistently patient and understanding feedback as I attempted to process the varied and numerous different elements of Basic Training into some coherent whole. All of my committee members kept me on track, thinking, and challenging my preconceptions. Richard Grinker provided prompt and thoughtful responses to my various drafts, kept me focused on my final goal and ultimately believed in my work when it truly mattered. Alfred Hiltebeitel provided constant support and many needed criticisms when I ventured too far into speculative territory. Ronald Weitzer provided many hours of discussion and directed down avenues which I never would have noticed without his help. I would also like to pay my respects to all of the soldiers I have served with. So many of your voices exist in this dissertation, and unfortunately I can not identify you here without giving you away. Special thanks do go to the members of my team during my deployment. As I mention in this dissertation, the bonds of soldiers who have served together go deeper than friendship, and you will always be my brothers. Many of my friends and associates also deserve particular recognition. Dr. Lucy Laufe provided a constant friendly ear and positive encouragement when desperately needed, even if she didn’t know how much it mattered at the time. The opportunities for teaching and leadership she provided also forced me to return to my basics in ways which iv were more helpful than I can express. Daniel Singer was always available for assistance with every element of my work, from grammar to advice on how to deal with academic bureaucracy. The entire Thursday Night Gaming Group provided not only much needed decompression, but also some remarkably astute insights into the world of the military. And finally, for putting up with my long hours, late nights, and overall stress, eight months in Iraq, and countless hours of necessary solitude, my partner, Carrie Blank. v Abstract of Dissertation Becoming Soldiers: Army Basic Training and the Negotiation of Identity This dissertation examines the process of Basic Training and how that process works to convert civilian recruits into soldiers. The common conception of Basic Training is that the Army “breaks you down and builds you back up again.” However, the nine week process of Basic Training is hardly enough to overcome a minimum of eighteen years of prior life experience. Rather, Basic Training is an introduction to the institution of Army life, through the accumulation of skills and knowledge of how to properly negotiate that institution. Throughout Basic Training, recruits accumulate social capital through their performance of the role of soldier, emulating Drill Sergeants as well as mythical heroes from film and literature who they think best epitomize what a soldier should be. Thus, the definition of soldier is unique to each individual, learned before Basic Training, and performed by each soldier as he continues his career into the regular Army. vi Table of Contents Dedication …………………………………………………………………………..……iii Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………iv Abstract of Dissertation ………………………………………………………………….vi Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..vii Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review…………………..………..…………...1 Chapter Two: Language and Mythology ………………………………………………..71 Chapter Three: Basic Training as Rite of Passage ………………………..…………....126 Chapter Four: Sacrifice and Basic Training …………………………………..……..…191 Chapter Five: The Soldier, His Rifle, and the 21st Century Battlefield …………..…...256 Chapter Six: Military Revolutions and the Field Training Exercise ………………...…301 Chapter Seven: Fictive Kinship in the United States Army ………………………..….353 Chapter Eight: The Contemporary Soldier in the Field ………………………………..390 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..……428 References ………………………….. ………………………………………………... 437 Appendix .……………………………………………………………………………....461 vii Chapter 1: Introduction The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been underway for almost seven years, and take up a large part of the considerations of our media and public consciousness. However, despite the large numbers of journalistic and first person accounts of those wars, there has been very little academic discussion of the military, and more importantly, the soldiers and other servicemembers which make it up. A proper understanding of the military, and particularly the Army, is essential in a new era when so many of our American citizens are deployed overseas in combat assignments. As I began my research, it seemed to me that a good first step in studying the military would be to study the first step of most soldiers joining the military, namely to go through Basic Training and experience the events firsthand, then examine those events to see what type of instruction was received, how incoming soldiers received that instruction, and whether there were any other elements of Basic Training which could not be easily described in a day by day recitation of the events which occurred. As such, I entered Basic Training as a private, proceeding through a recruiter to enlistment, and eventually shipped off to Basic Training in the summer of 2002. My experiences at Basic Training were highly charged, as the environment is very emotional, intense, and stressful. However, the immersion in the environment provided me insight which an outside observer would likely miss, and allowed me to build rapport with other privates in my Basic Training class as an equal in their worlds, and provided me with the shared history essential to speaking with other soldiers about their own experiences. 1 Since World War II there have been a limited number of academic studies of the military or the Army, and less than a handful of examinations of the process of Basic Training itself. Although the truism that the Army “breaks you down and builds you back up again,” remains common, there has been little study of the process itself, and whether or not it actually does serve this function. If the goal of the Army was to turn out identical soldiers from its Basic Training program, in my case this most definitively failed. Instead, each individual in my Basic Training class continues to express himself as an individual, even if within the structure of the military itself. According to our Drill Sergeants, the Basic Training class to which I was assigned was not particularly different from any other class they had instructed. The composition of our Basic Training class was wide and varied, with every region of the country represented, and ages ranging from eighteen to thirty four years old. Each of these individuals dealt with the environment of Basic Training differently, and although each individual changed over the course of the nine week training, there were very few changes which were similar from one person to the next, and out of 57 individuals who entered Basic Training with me, 57 individuals graduated. If Basic Training did not produce the typical or ideal “soldier,” then what is the purpose of the training program? I argue that the indoctrination process of Basic Training is not designed to produce a “soldier,” nor could it, but is instead designed to teach incoming recruits the proper way to perform as a soldier. Specifically, in an institution constructed on restrictive and often contradictory rules, Basic Training teaches individuals how to manipulate and negotiate the rule structure and maintain their individuality. Although modeled after a traditional rite of passage in many ways, Basic 2 Training is more of a process of becoming a soldier through the constant and reiterated performance of the soldier role. This approach has a number of far reaching implications, as the Army is one of the most restrictive institutions within American society. If individuals find ways of expressing themselves within this rigid institution, then it follows that in other arenas which present even fewer rules agency is both possible and likely. Over the course of this work, I will show how Army recruits challenge boundaries and negotiate rules through