External and Internal Identities

I am fascinated by the formation of synthetic identities, where regardless of background, one can be considered a full member in an identity through some voluntary process. Where the identity is composed entirely of volunteers, merit seems to consistently emerge as communal capital. I see some fascinating analogies between American military culture (juxtaposed with the American civilian society) and America itself. This is not to say that America has the only synthetic identity out there. Liberia’s initial national identity formation is intriguing, as are the struggles to create national identity in post-colonial states. France makes an interesting counterpoint to the American identity; to be American is to buy into American ideals, to be French is to buy into French culture. This has the interesting effect of some Chadian elites referring to France as ‘home,’ even though they have never been there. Also, commercial flights between Niger and Chad go through Paris, even though the two countries are neighbors. (I would chalk this up to the French intentionally ordering to their own continuing benefit the consequences of their colonial adventures (usually to the detriment of the former colonies.)) The point being that the American identity has something to do with voluntary acceptance of a set of ideals, and this has much in common with the identity formation patterns involved in a professional military.
How can understanding this benefit us? There are some very interesting social dynamics that occur in the military that would generally be considered as positive if the construction of a meritocracy is considered an American ideal. In terms of promotion, the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy in this country. There is far less in the way of whispering of ‘he just got the job because he’s X,’ and the like. In the dispensing of justice, the military consistently stacks up favorably to civilian courts in regards to being color-blind. The military has differences in the ethnic composition of its officer corps and its enlisted force, but because a commission is a function of a college degree, a large chunk of this can be ascribed to educational inequities in the society as a whole. When this is taken into account, the military stacks up favorably to the civilian world, not in some small part due to aggressive promotion of education in the enlisted corps and Green-to-Gold type commissioning programs. Citibank does not take promising tellers and send them to Wharton to come back as executives. The military does. If we can understand this culture of meritocracy in the military, perhaps we can in some way use that understand to reduce inequality in the country as a whole. (I love the irony, an overwhelmingly conservative group achieves progressive metrics more effectively than groups that call themselves progressive. By the same token, the K-School Christian Fellowship was percentage-wise the most diverse group on campus, and we weren’t even trying.).
Let me first say that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to the use of the military as a social engineering tool or as a sociology laboratory. Let me also annotate that the military is far from perfect, as it is composed of human beings. This is not a apologetics or propaganda exercise; I am not trying to write Henry V type inspirational speeches here. Most of the sociological work on the military has been second-wave feminist type stuff accusing us of all sorts of misogyny, and attacking us as the last bastion of traditional maleness. Of course, I find most of this stuff offensive and ignorant, suffering from in-group/out-group problems. I also find a conspicuous lack of charity in the research, normal benefit of the doubt that would certainly be extended to any indigenous group is totally lacking, as is any real cultural context or understanding. Something akin to ‘I watched ‘The General’s Daughter’ once so I understand the military, which is equivalent to the totally offensive assertion that ‘I watched ‘Spanglish’ so I understand the experience of a Mexican illegal immigrant.’ An example of this was the incessant questions about the USAFA Scandal while at the K-School. As my female friend B. points out (who worked on the assault crisis hotline at USAFA,) the static average rate of assaults at Harvard College was higher both per (female) capita and in absolute numbers than the Academy at the height of the scandal. Zero is the only acceptable rate, and I want to express my absolute abhorrence of that horrific crime, but if USAFA is to singled out, then a discussion of context is appropriate. Context didn’t matter much to most of the people who confronted us about it, they had already made up their minds. That is a much longer topic, one that I don’t care to discuss. The military is not the only place where in-group/out-group understandings of identity exist, though, it is the only place I can speak to them meaningfully (although the movie Something New addresses the in-group/out-group identity issue in depth.) So that is the real topic: the difference between the identity that is presented to the out-group and the identities that exist on the inside of the group. All the rest of that was background. Don’t you wish I had said so earlier? Hahaha.
If anyone wants to plagiarize this, feel free… I’d recommend taking out all the parentheses or making them footnotes…(you still probably won’t get a good grade, though.)
So you roll up to some people who are arguing about something or other. You try to insert yourself into the dispute, but you are surprised to find that when you do so, the fissures between them magically disappear as they assert themselves as a united front against you? Yeah, I don’t recommend doing that. But it illustrates a point. In West Side Story, the cop asks two gangs who were obviously just fighting with each other what was going on. He clearly favors the WASP-ish gang against the Puerto Rican gang, and offers to pin the whole thing on the Puerto Rican gang if the WASP one will give him some information. Both gangs, previously occupied by bashing each other’s skulls in, now present a united front against the clearly out-group cop. They stake out a very opaque perimeter around their identity, ensuring that the out-group member does not have access to internal group politics or information. Let’s call this a ‘perimeter identity.’ A specific brand of exclusive identity, usually a super-strate identity, the perimeter identity ensures external uniformity while allowing (even facilitating) internal diversity. It increases the span of an inclusive identity by allowing it to manage a higher degree of tension within its bounds. The perimeter identity correctly identifies that the gravest threat to its continued existence is not its internal fissures themselves, but external exploitation of those fissures. By maintaining an opaque screen to the outside world, the perimeter identity ensures that external forces will not be able to exploit these fissures. The perimeter identity has three critical aspects that we will explore here: external unity, internal diversity, and transition processes.
External Coherence. The perimeter identity, viewed from the outside, is without fissure. It is unitary, and any attempts to create division are resisted fiercely as interference from an interloper. The identity group members will have distinguishing characteristics which to the external observer will indicate sameness. The window to the internal workings of the group will be opaque to non-group members. Before passing through the identity ‘membrane,’ the group will seem to move and act as one. Note that this does not necessarily mean that those actions will seem rational to the outside observer. Identity politics (in the broadest sense of politics) has as much to do with the interactions between the sub-groups of the identity as they have to do with rational plans of the whole. Without access to any understanding of or information about the sub-groups, the actions of the group will seem at least to some degree mysterious to the observer. This is not unintentional, as it greatly limits the influence an outsider can wield in group workings. The observer has to be brought into the group, transported through the membrane, before he is allowed a window on group understanding. This barrier can be constructed through dialect, space, or external identification (clothes, etc.) The barrier can be transparent (limits functional access but not information,) but the stronger boundaries are usually translucent to opaque (limiting both access and information.) Using military culture as an example, five USAF Academy graduates / Kennedy School students were attending a lecture on harassment in the military. These five students were fairly diverse, in terms of backgrounds and political views. Yet when the discussion turned inevitably into an inquisition on the USAFA scandal, the Academy grads answered basically as one to the accusations leveled. Any of the Academy grads’ answers to any question were basically interchangeable with what the others would have answered. It was amazing to see five people who were so different all at once become one fissure-less united front. (This does not mean that we were not forthright, much to the contrary. But we moved as one instinctively when the identity was questioned.)
Internal Diversity. Once one spans the gap from outsider to member, they see all the internal diversity of the group that seemed so fissure-less from the outside. The same distinguishing characteristics that indicate sameness to outsiders actually indicate difference to the group members. We will explore this point further through the use of the uniform later. The opaque membrane belies tremendous complexity in its internal workings. The external narrative may differ greatly from any of a number of internal narratives. Actions that previously seemed mysterious will intuitively make sense, although in the process of crossing the membrane some degree of objectivity will likely be lost. There may be a tremendous degree of dynamic tension contained with the identity, which may be the engine by which it moves or adapts. Fostering internal competition can be a regulatory mechanism, and one that would be transparent to the outsider unable to understand the differences. Within the bounds of the identity, difference may actually be emphasized rather than mitigated in order to take advantage of this dynamic tension. Therefore, the perimeter identity in some ways serves as a containment vessel for a group. In terms of this internal diversity, consider the tremendous differences between the Army and Air Force sub-cultures contained in the perimeter identity ‘military.’ Or consider the rivalry between the F-16 and the F-15C communities contained in the very strong perimeter identity ‘fighter pilot.‘ To the outside observer, one might say, ‘what’s the big difference,’ but to the Viper driver, the difference is enormous. Internal and external identities can be layered. Under military, you have Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps, all of which see themselves as tremendously different from the other. Under Air Force, you have rated (flyers) and non-rated , both of which go out of their ways to emphasize their differences. Under rated, you have pilots, which see themselves as very different from navigators. Under pilots, you have fighter pilots and heavy pilots. Under fighter pilots, you have F-16s and F-15s. Under F-16s, you have different squadrons. This may be the limit of resolution, unless one wants to make the fairly conclusive argument that the fundamental unit of analysis for the fighter pilot is the self. Transport Mechanisms. If a perimeter identity is to maintain itself (other than by simple reproduction,) it must have some mechanism by which an outsider becomes an insider. This should be one-way (barring excommunication,) and must cause the outsider to take on whatever defining characteristics indicate sameness to the outsider and difference to the initiated. There must be a socialization process by which the new group member is stamped. Rites of Passage are one common socialization method used to imprint and indicate entry into a group. An example of this military basic training, or the barriers to exit involved in gangs, not that this makes the most complimentary analogy. In the transport mechanism, we can understand why these identities are usually the stronger ones. An identity with weak barriers to entry can be redefined fairly easily by those without strong allegiance to the group (a sort of Bleeding Kansas of identity definition.) However, one with such strong barriers to entry ensures that only the ’true believers’ of the group will be able to define it. (This sets up a possible principal-agent problem when the gatekeepers from the Osmotic model of the last post act in their own interests a la Sharpton.) Equally importantly, the imprinting process ensures that the ‘defined by’ rather than the ‘defining’ part of the identity dialectic is strongly favored in the acolyte, at least initially. In this process, the perimeter identity enforces its dual roles as containment vessel and defense mechanism. It ensures only authorized members will reach positions where they can shape the identity, for interlopers will be identified and be rejected as foreign intervention.
Uniforms. I find the uniform as a case study fascinating. It is the quintessential symbol of the perimeter identity. They are an indicator of sameness to the outsider, but difference to the group member. The function of the uniform is not to eliminate differences, but to standardize and confine them. To the military member, much more information can be gleaned from a uniform than from street clothes. In fact, in the same way that uniforms may look the same to a civilian, civvies may look fairly similar to a military member. Consider a flight suit. Almost all of it is the same, but the differences are all in the same places. One patch is for wings and names, where the way the name is written may indicate information about the community the wearer is from. Another patch indicates command, another for unit, another for a flag or a weapons school patch, depending on whether the wearer has earned it. The shoulders indicate rank, confusing to the uninitiated but instantly identifiable to the member. The modifications on the flight suit indicate community as well. Interestingly, the different levels of identity are allocated their own territory on the uniform (command, wing, squadron, etc.) Whatever area remains unregulated becomes a nexus for expressing individuality. This could be haircut, or the Velcro on the pen pocket, usually used for humorous morale patches. Therefore, a uniform does not eliminate differences, it just standardizes them and assigns space to them. The uninitiated will be unable to read the language of the uniform, therefore the overwhelming sameness of it will be the only thing he sees. Therefore, the uniform allows the perimeter identity to camouflage itself in plain sight. The military uniform is not the only uniform out there. Gangs certainly uses uniforms, as do corporate types or punk rockers. I can’t read a corporate uniform. A Brooks Brothers suit and a J.C. Penney suit look about the same to me. Yet this difference conveys information to those who can detect it, as do college rings and a doctor‘s white coat. This method of standardizing differences within an overwhelming sameness does not only apply to uniforms, but after 3 minutes I couldn’t think of another good example, so I’m going to keep going. Anyways, the uniform epitomizes the semi-transparent boundary by simultaneously informing difference between the initiated, and portraying sameness to the uninitiated.
So that’s the theory. Perimeter identities. I haven’t figured out how this is useful, and considering my closet engineer teleological fascination, this frustrates me. Wait… here’s one. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research. There seems to be a quantitative fetish amongst social scientists. While quantitative research offers a better degree of objectivity and allows higher degrees of certainty, there seems to be an element of compensation in this. There seems to be a deep insecurity about being ‘real’ scientists, the way ‘hard science‘ types are. So to be cool and taken seriously like physicists, there is a strain within social science (UCLA’s Poli Sci department) that wants to have the certainty of numbers and laws. I think that is why there is such a ruckus about Democratic Peace Theory or whatever (the one that says that democracies never go to war with each other.) While generally true, there is still this desire to make it a Maxwell’s Equations-type law, 100% right and all. The gymnastics it takes to do this (American Civil War, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia) leave me somewhat unconvinced. What I mean to say is there is some strong preference for quantitative research over qualitative research. As a guy who likes numbers and hard science-type laws, I sympathize to some degree, but if you don’t know where to find the variables, your regression won’t work out. If you use the wrong variables, then you will probably reach the wrong conclusions. Qualitative research tells you which are the important variables. Qualitative research allows you to crack the shell of a perimeter identity. While you can’t ‘go native’ doing quantitative research, quantitative research can’t always wrest reliable conclusions from inside an opaque identity membrane. The two methodologies complement each other. Chaotic hypervariate problems require intuition to get a handle on them (consider donut solutions from Chaos theory.) Once you have pinned them down, then pull out your F-stats and R-squareds. Point: Qualitative research is good and necessary.
Next time we’ll conclude our ‘sociology of the military’ discussion and steal a page from Tolkien in order to examine the interaction between language and culture. Good times.