No abstract

This article suggests a new perspective for examining the particular social and organizational characteristics of military reserves forces and the special experiences of serving in the reserves. To illustrate the unique social position of reservists, the authors develop a theoretical model that likens them to transmigrants. Accordingly, the authors suggest that society may benefit from looking at reserves both as sorts of social and organizational hybrids or amalgams-they are soldiers and civilians, they are outside yet inside the military system, and are invested in both spheres-and as continual migrants journeying between military and civilian spheres. The authors end by suggesting that it may be fruitful to study three segments of the military, each of which has its own dynamics: regulars, conscripts, and reserves. This differentiation allows society to examine different patterns of motivation, cohesion, political commitment and awareness, and long-term considerations that characterize each segment.

This article poses the question of how multinational forces can achieve a working level of cooperation and coordination despite their high cultural diversity? It first illustrates the range of cultural diversity in multinational forces. Then, relying on the literature on diversity in organizations and cross-cultural differences in value priorities, and on an analysis of the circumstances under which such forces operate, the possible implications of high diversity for their operations are discussed. On the basis of further theoretical analysis, as well as existing literature and documents, a number of possible integrating conditions and integrating mechanisms are described that enable the forces to function as integrated units. Finally, the article suggests a number of research questions derived from our theoretical analysis.

No abstract

As an epilogue to the present volume, this article picks up its central themes. It elaborates some of the main points about casualty aversion that are made in the preceding contributions. At the same time, by adding its own themes and insights, this article is complementary in character. It focuses on how a “good” military death is defined by cultural scripts and how, in accordance with those scripts, death is dealt with by the military organization and its guild of experts. Cultural scripts change over time and may differ from one society to another. As a consequence, the practices of dealing with military death may differ too. Generally speaking, though, military organizations throughout the West echo the ways in which casualties nowadays are looked upon by parent societies.