Superordinate themes Page. No
& location
Group Identity Processes Creating group identities
Bury: Sandhurst started its programme of ‘socialization’ P.26
Fick: History is the Marine Corps’s religion P.72
Killing for the group
Bury: For love melts fear like butter on a furnace P.136
Wasdin: My buddies’ not bleeding in war was every bit as im- portant as my not bleeding
P. 5
‘Decompression’ and validation to make sense of combat.
Fick: because combat command is the loneliest job in the world
P. 90
Lewis: It keeps everyone together in a very relaxed environ- ment to allow them to start to share and process their experi-
176
6.2 Analysis
Group Identity Processes
Creating Group Identities. Initially, throughout the collective narratives the authors con- sidered how the military created the group identity during socialisation. These sometimes harsh, archaic and at times seemingly futile exercises will be revealed in the analysis by the authors as amongst the most important ways the military have in creating a type of social identity amongst soldiers. This sub theme will explore how the authors made sense of these mechanics, which sets up the scene for understanding killing for the group. Bury begins:
Drill was the perfect method with which Sandhurst started its programme of ‘socialization’. Throw the new platoon together in an alien environment. Deny them sleep. Change their terms of reference and benchmarks of self- worth. Replace societal and language norms with an alien culture and vo- cabulary. Deny them wrist-watches. Put them together and dress them iden- tically. Scream commands at them and watch as they respond without ques- tion, without thought, moving as one body, united. - British Army, Call Sign Hades, Patrick Bury, 2011, p.26
By being ‘thrown’ together Bury is acknowledging how the new in-group is essentially a created construct by the military in which an accelerated, extreme transition occurs to form group bonds. Bury’s experiences suggest that in order to achieve this transition, the mili- tary used techniques such as altering the individual’s measure of ‘self-worth’, and by alter- ing the individual’s societal norms, such as language and ‘benchmarks’, with a new type of ‘culture’. Dyer (2006) notes how the military can, and have, converted young men into
soldiers in only a few weeks in preparation for war-time. Elite training for certain infantry units spans only 12 weeks, in that time the military must override 18-20 years of civilian attitudes and beliefs (Dyer, 2006). Taking this into account, the military have a relatively short amount of time to take individuals from a democratic and individualistic society, and change them into a team orientated dictatorship, which goes some way to explaining the extreme nature of this process outlined by Bury. The author further suggests that as a group
177
they begin to respond ‘without question, without thought’, and as ‘one body’. In this way Bury is describing a shift away from the focus of sense of self as an individual, to a type of collective self, which responds as one entity. Thus Bury is likening this shift from an indi- vidual to a collective state of mind as a body, which functions automatically, such as by breathing and blinking, without hesitation or thought. As such Bury can be said to be de- scribing a type of surrender by the individual members of the group as an independent sense of self, and their respective pre military lives, to form a new type of identity as a mil- itary unit, which functions as ‘one body’.
Within Chapter 5, Bury, and the other authors described their desire to be soldiers in the combat arms in typically hegemonic masculine ways of being ‘tested’ ‘feeling manly, strong’ and facing tough challenges to prove themselves. Yet this extract paints a picture of
a much more submissive Bury, which in western society is typically considered a more ‘feminine’ trait (Hooper, 2000). Indeed this extract by Bury consists of not only submis- siveness: ‘watch as they respond without question’ but also a lack of independence: ‘with- out question’ and without logic: ‘without thought’. In making sense of these seemingly
contradictory traits, Duncanson (2007) suggests that military masculinities can be complex, and not simply understood in terms of straightforward, hegemonic masculinity. Further, DeVisser, and McDonnell (2013) suggest that men acquire ‘masculine capital’ by engaging
in masculine behaviours, which also allows them to also engage in less typical masculine behaviour. In this way perhaps Bury and his men are allowing themselves to be submis- sive, and lack independence because they are compensating by doing what is considered the ultimate in masculinity; becoming a warrior (Enloe, 1993). This would make sense in light of the fact that although being a soldier is the ultimate test of being a man to Bury, to be a soldier also means to be subservient, obedient and almost totally dependent (Enloe, 1983). Bury continues to talk about his powerful construction of the group:
The late nights stretched us to the limit. Once lessons finished at about nine, we were free to conduct our own ‘administration’. Maps had to be marked
178
and laminated. Uniforms had to be tailored, boots bulled. This was the time for ironing, for folding, for stacking, for polishing, leaning, sweeping. Communal jobs in our block kept us busy until midnight before the next morning’s daily inspection. Then it was into our rooms to measure the gaps between stacks of regulatory folded T-shirts and the cupboard, to check that all our socks were in the correct drawer and folded the correct way, showing an inch of ankle material front. Sometimes we slept on the floor for fear of creasing our beds. It was endless, it was pedantic and it was stupid. But to- gether we laughed through it. And because we laughed, as a team, it was very important. We became a platoon. - British Army, Call Sign Hades, Pat- rick Bury, 2011, p.29
In this dialogue Bury touches upon a technique utilised by the military of using an out- group, (the personal trainers and staff) to punish unnecessarily, and set meaningless and banal tasks, in order to help solidify bonds within the in-group (Bury and his fellow train- ees). The idea of creating an in-group out-group, through means of punishment is not new and has been noted in other areas of Psychology, such as crowd psychology and collective action. For example, Drury & Stott (2013), note how during protests the police can use tac- tics such as ‘kettling’ to force a group of protestors and civilians together, holding them
against their will for an unknown period of time, regardless of wrongdoing or not. This creates an in-group of the protestors and as a consequence, made the police a perceived out-group. In short, even if the protestors had nothing in common before, they now form a new social identity or collective identity, as one group, in response to the situation. In this part of the narrative Bury is demonstrating how in forcing individuals to do seemingly pe- dantic exercises, and punishing them accordingly, causes the group to band together. Bury uses terms such as ‘stupid’ and ‘pointless’ in reference to tasks they are asked to perform,
demonstrating frustration toward the tasks required, and thus those that set the tasks. Fur- ther, Bury clarifies the importance of such techniques by specifically stating that by ‘laugh- ing together’ through the ‘menial’ tasks, made them ‘into a platoon’. This clearly demon- strates how the punishment and ‘menial’ tasks set by the training staff help solidify the
soldiers into a group. Sometimes however, the process utilised by the military is passive, and less intrusive, as outlined by Fick:
179
History is the Marine Corps’s religion. I’d seen it throughout my training and felt it at the Marine Corps War Memorial, as I read the list of battles outside 1/1’s headquarters at Camp Pendleton, and even when I saw the name of the lone lieutenant killed aboard the Arizona. Past deeds are a young Marine’s source of pride, inspiration to face danger, and reassurance that death in battle isn’t consignment to oblivion.
…His buddies and all future Marines will keep the faith. Some people in my life would call that naiveté, but I was coming to know it as esprit de corps. My platoon lingered at the rail that evening, talking softly and watching Guadalcanal fade in the gathering darkness US Marines, One Bullet Away, Nathaniel Fick, 2009, p.72
By suggesting that the Marine’s history is the ‘corps religion’ and that membership within the Marine Corps means that death in battle is not ‘consignment to oblivion’, Fick draws
parallels between being a member of the Marine Corps and being part of a religion. Like religion, the in-group of the Marine Corps is based upon a set of principles, guidelines and beliefs, bringing people together with a single unifying mode of thought. Further, like reli- gion, these beliefs and principles guide behaviour, thought and action, as Fick says, it gives him pride, and reassurance to know he is part of something bigger than any one person. By using words such as ‘faith’ Fick is describing a belief in the Marines corps that almost
transcends the need for proof or evidence. As such, Fick is suggesting that he trusts the Marine Corps almost explicitly, which is highlighted by explaining how he ‘felt’ the im-
pact of the history-religion; an emotional connection that is not based on logic. Fick con- tinues:
President Harry Truman once said that the Marines had a propaganda ma- chine second only to Stalin’s. He was right. My impression of the Corps, even as a newly commissioned officer, was one of a lean, mean fighting force, all teeth and no tail. - US Marines, One Bullet Away, Nathaniel Fick, 2009, p.33
Propaganda is, by default, usually associated with negative connotations by virtue of repre- senting only one side of the argument. Within his transcripts it is possible to elude that Fick is an educated man, who attended an Ivy-League school and passed officer selection.
180
Such accomplishments suggest an ability to reason, and think critically about cultural and society. Yet in describing the propaganda as ‘second to none’ it appears as if Fick does not view this use of propaganda with disdain. In going hand in hand with the previous tran- script, Fick is demonstrating how he is becoming a part of the Marine Corps by allowing himself to be immersed into their culture of ‘All teeth and no tail’- in direct accord with
how he views himself as a warrior in the combat arms. In this context, ‘all teeth’ can be seen as metaphorical for the violent, aggressive and destructive role he is immersing him- self into. Whereas ‘no tail’, symbolises the almost polar opposite: submission and retreat.
Once again this immersion into the warrior culture is one heavily based on hegemonic masculine principles associated with being a warrior, based on aggression, violence and toughness. Perhaps critically, Fick is also using the more ‘feminine’ ‘no tail’ metaphor,
lined with submission and weakness, as a contrast to what his unit is. Lewis continues this line of thought:
September marks our most famous battle honour, Arnhem. It was during the battle of Arnhem that the Parachute Regiment’s ethos and culture were formed – tenacity, courage and a determination to fight until the bitter end. I feel it right that we should mark this day in some way- British Army, Com- pany Commander, Russell Lewis, 2013, p.340
The very first man in this whole snake that will weave its way out into the green zone and actively hunt out the enemy. I can’t see his face but I know him. A young nineteen-year-old private. He has probably been out of basic training less than a year, yet already he is in the middle of a war. He joined the Parachute Regiment because he believes they are the best and the hard- est regiment in the British Army. Since serving in the battalion he believes this more than ever. - British Army, Company Commander, Russell Lewis, 2013, p.8
…The indoctrination and the tribal rituals have worked. He is a paratrooper. He feels fear, but he isn’t going to show it. He is scared. He is scared be- cause he is at the very front and, statistically, the most likely to walk in to the enemy. He has seen the horrors of war. He has seen mates injured and some killed. He knows exactly what a bad day looks like. - British Army, Company Commander, Russell Lewis, 2013, p.8
The Battle of Arnhem is an infamous World War II battle, an aspect of which is commonly known as ‘operation market garden’ in which Airborne troops were to land in Arnhem and
181
hold bridges to secure advance by allied troops. The hard fought battle saw a significant loss of life and resistance from the German military. With reinforcements unable to make the scheduled rendezvous, the Airborne unit fought for over nine days under heavy re- sistance, taking heavy casualties. To Lewis this battle signifies the ethos of the regiment; tenacity, courage determination and willingness to fight to the end. By focusing on the ‘proud’ history of his regiment, and the deeds of ‘warriors gone by’, Lewis is assimilating
these traits of the group he wishes to be a part of, into his sense of self. Lewis goes further by describing how events such as these have paved way for a type of indoctrination into the regiment as ‘the best’ and ‘hardest’ of the infantry units. Going through the indoctrina- tion has given the young 19 year old trooper, as well as Lewis, a sense of belonging to that group. By describing him as ‘he is a paratrooper, he feels fear, but he isn’t going to show it’ Lewis is describing how the group are brought together by an ethos surrounding their
regiment, firmly rooted in historical deeds of the paratroopers. There is also a significant element of perception of masculinity within these transcripts. Lewis describes the para- trooper regiment as the ‘hardest’ in the British army, a quality that is desirable to obtain and can be done by joining the regiment to be the ‘best’. As such Lewis is suggesting that being the hardest is equal to the best, and thus having a ‘masculine’ ethos leads to the best the army has to offer as a combat arm. This may explain why the 19 year old trooper being described is ‘scared’ yet ‘doesn’t show it’, as being part of a highly masculine organisation means supressing those emotions of vulnerability (Duncanson, 2007).Lewis continues to explain how the history of the regiment also dictates behaviour during combat:
This will be the best soldiering opportunity of our careers. But, it’s not all about ‘smashing’ the enemy. We have to pace ourselves and we have to be ready for setbacks. 13. Remember who we are. We are B Company. Re- member our heritage and remember those that have gone before. Maintain the traditions set by the Falklands veterans. Be professional; do your best. - British Army, Company Commander, Russell Lewis, 2013, p.47
182
By belonging to the regiment Lewis feels a certain code of how to conduct himself and his men on a tour of duty. Lewis uses the heritage of a ‘battle hardened’ regiment that has, as
he suggested elsewhere in his narrative, proven themselves in battle during WWII and the Falklands, something he wishes to live up to. Indeed in this way there is an element of pro- fessionalism that goes beyond just ‘smashing’ the enemy in battle, it is a way of conduct-
ing oneself professionally in the face of adversity. Therefore to Lewis, being a warrior also contains an element of professionalism, in line with the ethos set out by the individuals who served in the regiment before him. By ‘remembering who we are’ Lewis is providing
a glimpse into how his sense making of the self is influenced through the heritage of the group he has joined. However, as demonstrated in previous extracts, Lewis did not simply join the paratroopers, it was something he was ‘indoctrinated’ into, during a rigorous and
tough selection and training program. This tough selection and training into the paratroop- ers meant Lewis had to invest and immerse himself into the culture. As such it stands to reason that Lewis has high stakes in maintaining a sense of his self and the group as living up to previous deeds of his group, which includes honourable, tough, and heroic acts.
Killing For the Group. The process of ‘socialisation’, or creating groups, is described by the authors as being vital in preparing soldiers to kill for the group. The authors describe a sense of bond between each other that sets as a reminder that being within their combat arms gives them a sense of being more than the sum of their parts. As individuals fighting for ‘each other’ the authors describe the ways in which group bonds play a role in killing in
combat. Bury explains:
It is not often that a man tells another he loves him. Especially in front of other men. I think of the bust-ups we’ve had, think of the effort I have made to repair things, to be myself, to respect and protect the boys, to build this team. To earn their trust and respect. And we call it respect because it’s easy to say. It’s not soft and it’s not embarrassing. But Matt [A soldier working underneath Bury] has called it by is true name, love. Simple platonic love. This love that motivates men to do the most touching, brave, selfless things
183
for their brothers. A love so deep it burns and tingles in you when it flick- ers, reminding you there are things greater than you, more important than you, things that last longer than you. …….
..You understand why soldiers charge machine guns or hold out to the death while others escape. Love. For love melts fear like butter on a furnace; it transcends it. - British Army, Call Sign Hades, Patrick Bury, 2011, p.136