The limits of socialization and the underproduction of military violence

Abstract

Research on socialization can obscure the agency of its targets, presenting socialization as a uni-directional process shaping beliefs and behaviors. This assumption is even stronger for the military, a totalizing institution often portrayed as fashioning its members into violence professionals through a top-down process of domination. In contrast, this article argues that even powerful socialization processes are not omnipotent, and that individuals retain a measure of agency even under pervasive social control. Drawing on the case of the Israel Defense Force during the Second Intifada, it shows that norms inculcated during military socialization can be undermined by the more ambiguous conditions of deployment. When soldiers also subscribe to competing norms and receive social support for their dissent, resistance can emerge, increase, and become more overt. Analysis of resistance to violence underscores the power of military socialization while drawing attention to its limits. It therefore challenges homogenizing views of soldiers, illuminating the processes through which military violence is produced and curbed.

The persistence of sexual assault within the US military

“…In particular, that formal socialization processes may, when prohibited, become informal processes that reinforce problematic behaviors may be a general phenomenon. The reproduction of hypermasculine norms and beliefs through informal socialization suggests that reforms to formal socialization processes fail through the active resistance of those targeted (Checkel, 2017; Manekin, 2017).…”

Rogues, degenerates, and heroes: Disobedience as politics in military organizations

“…Equally critical, obeying orders is a requirement for the application of effective command and control (Biddle, 2010;Grauer, 2016). Moreover, the interaction of conflict environments with individual agency can lead to shirking (Manekin, 2017). Acts of disobedience can also change the course of a conflict by, for instance, forcing tactical shifts or disrupting peace negotiations.…”

“…A third scholarly trajectory explores the relationship between military socialization, education, and training in creating cohesion and driving -or discouraging -outcomes such as sexual violence or civilian abuse (Cohen, 2013(Cohen, , 2016Green, 2016Green, , 2017Green, , 2018Wood, 2006Wood, , 2009. Scholars such as Manekin (2013Manekin ( , 2017 build on this work by emphasizing the importance of soldiers' environments and deployment durations for outcomes such as civilian victimization and shirking, thus introducing the role of evolving context in fluid outcomes.…”

“…Relational approaches have yet to be applied to officers’ disobedience. While past work often assumes that soldiers become unquestioningly loyal to military organizations, arguing that “discipline would destroy the loyalties and habits of behavior that soldiers brought with them into the army from society” (Rosen, 1995: 17), scholars have increasingly challenged this prior (Albrecht and Ohl, 2016; Manekin, 2017). Indeed, while unquestioning obedience has been seen as crucial to unit cohesion, battlefield effectiveness, and harmonious civil–military relations (Brooks and Stanley, 2007; King, 2006; Marshall, 1947; Siebold, 2007), it rarely (if ever) obtains.…”

Military socialization, disciplinary culture, and sexual violence in UN peacekeeping operations

“…In the peacekeeping context, this may occur because commanders do not view SEA as problematic, suggesting agency on the part of commanders to either enforce discipline or not. Alternatively, some commanders may prefer to prevent SEA, but fail to punish it because they do not believe their troops would comply, suggesting resistance on the part of the targets of socialization and weak commander authority (see Checkel, 2017 and Manekin, 2017 on the role of agency in socialization).…”