U.S. Army and Social Classification

{c}Social Classification in a Total Institution: A Soldier’s View


Elementary forms of religious life can show us the simple roots of social classification when studying the core collective beliefs of what Emile Durkheim called churches (Elementary Forms, pp. 1, 41). The individual people of churches, whether they are a small group of people, a nation, or an entire ethnic group, unify in their ideas of what should be considered sacred, and what should be considered profane (Elementary Forms, p. 34). Things which are sacred, including, but not limited to gods, have some power or positive influence associated with them, and things that are profane are either vehemently shunned or are marked with attitudes of indifference toward them (Elementary Forms, pp. 34, 35). In The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life, Eviatar Zerubavel took Durkheim’s social theory about religion and laid in over our more complex, contemporary social circumstances. He explained that the two categories the rigid social mind deals with, which are similar to Durkheim’s categories, are the pure and the ambiguous, (The Fine Line, p. 37). What lies outside our digital, rigid classification, or in the “’twilight zones’” either confuses us or frightens us, and those objects or ideas force sociologists to examine our social make-up and what makes other defined groups different (The Fine Line, p. 35). Using Durkheim’s theory about religious social classification and Zerubavel’s extended use of it, I will examine the classifications of a complex, rigid “church” that not many laypersons enter into: the U.S. Army (Elementary Forms, p. 41).

To understand why a certain person finds some things sacred and other things profane we must look at the group or groups in which they belong. To understand a soldier and the way he/she thinks requires us to look at, not only what the leaders in the U.S. Army teach, but also the core values which he/she is exposed to on a daily basis and the language used to express them.. I will focus on Regular Army service, rather than National Guard or Inactive Reserves, mainly due to the fact that the former live in what is called a total institution, and the latter may have other group activities of involvement which do not hold to the standards of the U.S. Army. By total institution I mean that the soldier is never really off duty and can be called on anytime to come in with very short notice.

How an individual is molded into this new social group shows how coercive collective classification can be. He/she is raised to uphold certain standards, values, and social categories that he/she holds dear. The U.S. Army, which is a different realm of thought, will question those very things. The values of personal freedom and democracy are sacred to most Americans, but those values must be subdued for the betterment of the mission at hand, whether it be training, guard duty, or a wartime situation. The group is held in higher esteem than the personal self. The core, or sacred, values of the U.S. Army show that there is a crossover in the rigid American values we hold dear. It is not an easy transition. An individual person comes into basic training with his/her ingrained social categories, and a soldier, who is socialized into this new church, as Durkheim called it, marches on that field during the sacred rite of graduation (Elementary Forms, p. 41). They are now a part of the sacred realm of U.S. Army life and have left the profane civilian life. The civilian life which used to be sacred, now is considered profane, and I’ll explain the two rigid categories later. These values are what unify the individual soldiers into the new social group. Those who hold jobs in which one can clock in and out or can quit, get laid off, or fired cannot understand how much a soldier clings to these values on a daily basis. Soldiers are paid 24/7, and have the stress that goes along with it. Their family members also must make a transition to understand these values. And, like much of the army language, it is an acronym: LDRSHIP. Here are the meanings of the letters:
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage

These values have power which should never be disputed, once a soldier is socialized. When someone fills out the initial paperwork and takes the oath, he/she writes and speaks of a loyalty and service he/she may not yet comprehend, unless his/her past involved friends or family who were already members of the U.S. Army or that of a another military service component. The idea that he/she will be working for an entity much larger in scope than he/she could imagine is not evident until he/she beholds the seriousness of the training. The fact that he/she held up his/her right hand and actually pledged to give his/her life in defense of the United States and what it stands for, if need be, isn’t often fully comprehended right away. The socialization begins with training, and then continues with day-to-day discourse with leaders and other fellow soldiers.

As Zerubavel explained, in groups with rigid social categories, there is a classification of members and nonmembers, and one of his examples is that of the military (The Fine Line, p. 52). Something that a soldier comes to understand about the profane world of civilians, is that the members of that world are not held to the standards that are imposed on him/her daily. They are considered, in an extreme view, to be lazy and undisciplined, and, in a subtle negative view, to be out for themselves and not unified with the sacred group. The only exception to this rule is if the person had former military experience. In that case, they are called veterans, who are esteemed much higher than the former social category.

Another point that Zerubavel elaborated on was the distinction specific social categories that the group makes within itself (The Fine Line, p. 52). The rank structure of the U.S. Army is no different. A soldier learns the rank structure and the differences between commissioned, noncommissioned officers, and lower ranking enlisted soldiers. He/she will also quickly learn the about the personal prestige of being promoted in public ceremonies, if the U.S. Army values are upheld. And, out of respect, based on an old tradition, a soldier must salute a commissioned officer in certain situations, but he/she does not have to salute noncommissioned officers or other enlisted soldiers. Calling a soldier by his her rank, if enlisted, is quite common, as is using that title along with the last name. A non-commissioned officer is called sergeant until he/she reaches the eighth rank, and then a higher degree of respect is given when addressing him/her. A commissioned officer, however, is hardly ever called by his/her rank in address, in uniform or out. He/she is referred to as sir or ma’am, which ever is appropriate. There is also a common adage that noncommissioned officers use when they are called sir or ma’am. They will reply and say that they do not wish to be called that because they work for a living; an implication that commissioned officers don’t. The role of the noncommissioned officer is training and molding the soldiers into socialized group members and future leaders, will commissioned officers plan and do much of the administrative work for the position in the unit that they hold. Manual labor is considered work by a majority of soldiers and administrative duties are not.

While working in an administrative capacity as an enlisted soldier, I beheld how professional and private categories intermingled, which would make the average corporate civilian cringe, as Zerubavel call this slip between categories on of the “twilight zones” (The Fine Line, p. 35). When speaking of total institutions, one must realize that there is not a huge distinction between whom he/she works with and who he/she socializes with, especially if you are stationed in a foreign country, which was the case in my experience. The two categories are usually one in the same, with little variation. Soldiers depend on one another, not only for professional support, but also for personal growth. Emergency leaves, or absences, are quite personal in nature, usually having to do with a death in the family, but official paperwork is done to insure that the soldier has due time to grieve. Also, a soldier, no matter what his/her rank will have official paperwork drawn up for even “off duty” offenses, such as writing a bad check to someone or driving while intoxicated. If a soldier continues down a road that misrepresents the core values, symbolic of the U.S. Army, he/she is chaptered, or separated, and it may not be honorable. A dishonorable discharge from service is detrimental to soldier who must transition to a civilian job market that examines past credentials. A soldier represents the U.S. Army, whether on or off duty, and whether in uniform or out. The sacred values, LDRSHIP, must be upheld no matter what.

There are two categories within the collective thought of the U.S. Army which must be kept from touching one another, and they are personal courage and disability: the former being sacred, the latter being profane. The ability to overcome physical and psychological adversity is highly respectable within the group. There is often bragging by an injured or ill soldier when he/she pressed on anyway and overcame. When soldiers complain that that they are hurting, it is not often taken seriously unless it is visually obvious that they are telling the truth. To the soldiers who admit they are injured or sick and seek medical care too often, there is a stigma of weakness placed on them. If that soldier receives a medical limitation, or profile, which is more official documentation of a personal matter, then they may not be able to participate in the activities that the other soldiers are doing, even if it is vital to the mission. This results in further separation from the group. Personal and professional values are intertwined now, so it is hard to see which ones are at work, but we do know that they are collective and social by nature. Considering the social implications, the profiled soldier might go against doctor’s orders, which are held as law in theory, but often only a suggestion in practice. If the physical or psychological problem escalates, then the soldier is officially chaptered from the U.S. Army and must go back into the profane civilian world.

In sum, there are other still other differences that separate the U.S. Army from the civilian world, when looking through the social lens of someone who was once a member of the former group and now a member of the latter, but books could be, and probably have been written to illustrate this. The transition into and out of this social group, or church, is made difficult by these opposing social categories of belief systems. There is even a language barrier to overcome in the process, for the acronyms that a soldier will use in daily conversation would be completely foreign to a civilian. This misunderstanding can be bridged by an understanding of how one is made to think in different social circles, and sociologists are to be the bridge builders. Quitting a battle that is under way and leaving it unfinished is considered defeat to a soldier, whether he/she believes its cause is justified or not. A soldier does what he/she is told and it is not encouraged to think on his/her own unless the situation is dire enough to merit an informed leadership decision. That is often what a chain of command is for.



References

Durkheim, Emile. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translation by Carol Cosman. Oxford University Press. New York: 2001.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. University of Chicago Press. Chicago: 1991.