Band of Brothers or Band of Professionals? Military Views of Unit Cohesion

• In Event: The Politics and Influence of Military Service

Abstract

The image of a “band of brothers”, a socially cohesive unit of men fighting side-by-side in the trenches, is a powerful idea that many Americans have about the nature of combat and military service. However, recent scholarship has focused on a different conception of cohesion that assumes that soldiers, like other groups of people, are professionals, and that ties are based on demonstrated competency. Recent scholarship argues that increased military experience leads to more task-cohesive conceptions of service. Contrary to existing literature, we show that belief in social cohesion is not dispelled by military experience. Instead, we argue that the ‘band of brothers’ conception of cohesion exists for reasons of political ideology and individuals’ particular identity in the military. Belief, or non-belief, in social cohesion as an important aspect of military service is more closely tied to a respondent’s identity within the military--whether they see themselves in idealistic or professional terms. We utilize two scales to measure an individual’s self-identity and their conception of military service: the Military Professional Identity Scale and the Warrior Identity Scale. We expect more conservative service members are more likely to endorse a “band of brothers” logic, whereas more liberal service members are more likely to endorse a task-based logic. However, we expect individuals who more strongly see their military service as part of a warrior rather than professional identity to favor the ‘band of brothers’ logic. Using an online survey of active and veteran service members, we examine the interactions between political ideology, identity, and views on military service and cohesion. This project has implications for policy debates about who can serve in the military, and provides a framework for understanding how military service can (or cannot) change views regarding military policy.

Authors

• Jennifer Spindel, University of Oklahoma

• Robert Ralston, Texas A&M / University of Minnesota