Abstract
The classic approach to the consideration of the military as a social phenomenon is no different from the one applied to every other sector of social life. Classic sociology has a total and comprehensive conception of “society,” and within the classics we find a general analysis of the various social institutions as considered not only in their peculiarities but mainly in their connections with the general society. The military is one of the many, and basic, institutions considered by classic sociologists according to the various sociological schools, and its features are seen as a distinct set of behaviors, rules, norms, and values coordinated around a defensive or offensive goal (or both) defined by a given society (but generally typical of every society) in their relationships with other, external, societies. The military is considered and explained within the different sociological theories, so that we have a positivistic explanation of the role of the military as a basic feature of the human society since its origins-as in Comte-or an evolutionary consideration of the military structure as a first stage in the society evolution-as in Spencer. Both Comte and Spencer consider the inevitable decline of the military structure and function as a consequence of the development of human society from its primitive features to its highest manifestation, the industrial society (as it was seen and intended in the 19th century).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Stouffer et al. (1949). For comments on the background of this research project see J. Madge, The Origins of Scientific Sociology, New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.
A. Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations, revised and enlarged edition, The Free Press, New York, 1975.
Roger W. Little, “Buddy Relations and Combat Soldier Performance,” in M. Janowitz (Ed.), The New Military, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1964, pp. 195–224.
Paul L. Savage and Richard A. Gabriel, “Cohesion and Disintegration in the American Army: An Alternative Perspective,” in Armed Forces & Society, 1976, Vol. 2, pp. 340–376.
G. Harries-Jenkins, “Cohesion and Morale in the Military: The Regimental System,” ISA RC No. 01 Interim Meeting, Munich, 1988, published in an Italian translation in M. Nuciari, Efficienza e Forze Armate, Angeli, Milan, 1990.
Paul T. Bartone and Amy B. Adler, “Cohesion Over Time in a Peacekeeping Medical task Force,” in Military Psychology, 2001, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 85–107.
Paul T. Bartone and Amy B. Adler, “Cohesion Over Time in a Peacekeeping Medical task Force,” in Military Psychology, 2001, Vol. 11, No. 1, p. 105.
For these definitions, treated also here in further paragraphs, see Charles C. Moskos, J. A. Williams, and D.R. Segal, “Armed Forces after the Cold War,” in C. Moskos, J. Williams, and D. Segal (Eds.), The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 1–13.
Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organisations, Prentice Hall, 1979.
The first publication of this research’s results is in Current Sociology, Winter 1994, Vol. 42, No. 3 (special edition, G. Caforio ed., The Military Profession in Europe). The typology is discussed in G. Caforio and M. Nuciari, “The Officer Profession: Ideal-Type,” in Current Sociology, Winter 1994, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 33–56.
G. Caforio and M. Nuciari, “The Officer Profession: Ideal-Type,” in Current Sociology, Winter 1994, Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 34.
G. Caforio and M. Nuciari, “The Officer Profession: Ideal-Type,” in Current Sociology, Winter 1994, Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 37.
We mention here only the most interesting contributions to the development of a “military peace-keeper” theory; see Segal, D. R., Harris, J., Rothberg, J. M, and Marlowe, D. H. (1984); Segal D. R., and Meeker, B. F. (1985c); Miller, L., and Moskos C.C. (1995); Segal, D. R. (1996a); Battistelli, F.(1997); Segal, D. R., Reed, B., and Rohall, D. E. (1998). On Italian units deployments see Ammendola, T. (Ed.) (1999); Reed, B. J., and Segal, D. R. (2000).
Research results are published in the volume The Flexible Officer: Professional Education and Military Operations Other Than War. Artistic & Publishing Company, Gaeta, 2001.
Edward Shils, “The American Soldier and Primary Groups,” in R. K. Merton and P. Lazarsfeld (eds.), Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Scope and Method of “The American Soldier,” Glencoe, The Free Press, 1950, p. 19; Morris Janowitz, Sociology and the Military Establishment, Sage, 1959, p. 26.
C. C. Moskos, “The Emergent Military: Institutional, Occupational or Plural?”, Italian translation in Forarmes, Vol. 1(1), 1985, pp. 67–89. Critics and redefinitions of the I/O model are presented in M. Nuciari, “Instituciòn vs. Ocupaciòn: discusiòn, y tentativa de adaptaciòn del modelo I/O a las fuerzas militares italianas,” in lztapalapa, Vol. 5(10/11) 1984, pp. 75–80; M. Nuciari, “Professione mi-litare e modelli interpretativi. Alcune note di discussione,” in Forarmes, Vol. 1(1), 1985; D. R. Segal, “Measuring the Institutional/Occupational Change Thesis,” in Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 12(13), 1986, pp. 351–376.
Jean-Pierre Thomas, “Fonction militaire et systéme d’hommes,” in Stratégiques, Vol. 12(8), pp. 18–41; see also Jean-Pierre Thomas and C. Rosenzveig, “French NCO’s career Strategies and Attitudes,” in Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 8(4), 1982, pp. 275–301.
Bernard Boene, “The Moskos and Thomas Models Contrasted,” in J. Kuhlmann (ed.), Military and Society: The European Experience, SOWI-Forum Serie, 1984, pp. 35–66. See also on the same subject M. Nuciari, “Professione militare e modelli interpretativi: Alcune note di discussione,” in Forarmes, Vol. 1(1), 1985.
C. C. Moskos, “Armed forces in the post-Cold War era with special reference to the United States Army,” presented at the Workshop on Sociocultural Designs for the Future Army, University of Maryland, College Park, March 1992.
C. C. Moskos, Toward a Postmodern Military: The United States as a Paradigm (C. Moskos, J. Williams, and D. Segal, Eds.), p. 14 (2000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nuciari, M. (2006). Models and Explanations for Military Organization: An Updated Reconsideration. In: Caforio, G. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34576-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-34576-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-32456-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34576-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)