The Army and Military as a Subject of Sociology: Military Sociology

Year 2012, Volume: 3 Issue: 24, 279 - 314, 12.11.2012

Adem Başpınar

Abstract

Military sociology emerged as a subfield of sociology during the Second World War, as a result of the social psychological research conducted in the U.S. Army. The first studies began in the army and later became an academic interest. In this paper, the focus will be on the sources of military sociology within the discipline of sociology, and its development as a discipline before and immediately after the Second World War. Following the dynamics of institutionalization, new issues that emerged during the Cold War and the Vietnam War, as well as the new items on the agenda of military sociology, and current tendencies will be brough to attention in this paper. Finally, the historical and thematic development of military sociology will be discussed.

Keywords

Military Sociology, Topics of Military Sociology, Second World War, Literature of Military Sociology, Military Sociology in Europe, Cold War, Vietnam War.

Sosyolojinin Konusu Olarak Ordu ve Asker: Askeri Sosyoloji

Abstract

Askeri sosyoloji, İkinci Dünya Savaşı süresinde Amerikan ordusu içerisinde yapılan sosyal psikolojik araştırmalarla birlikte, sosyolojinin bir alt dalı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. İlk çalışmalar ordu içi çalışmalar olarak başlamış ve daha sonra akademide bir ilgi haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada askeri sosyolojinin, sosyoloji disiplini içerisindeki kaynakları, İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve savaşın hemen sonrasında bir disiplin olarak gelişmesi konu edilmiştir. Kurumlaşma dinamiklerini müteakip Soğuk Savaş ve Vietnam Savaşı dönemlerinde, askeri sosyolojide gündeme gelen yeni meseleler ele alınmış ve günümüzdeki yönelim dikkat çekilmiştir. Son olarak da Avrupa'da askeri sosyoloji çalışmalarının tarihsel ve tematik seyri ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

Askeri sosyoloji, askeri sosyolojinin konuları, İkinci Dünya Savaşı, askeri sosyoloji literatürü, Avrupa’da askeri sosyoloji, Soğuk Savaş, Vietnam Savaşı

References

• Abbott, A. (2002). The army and the theory of professions. D. M. Snyder ve G. L. Watkins (Ed.), The future of the army profession içinde (s. 523- 536). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
• Albord, T. (1958). La défence nationale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
• Andreski, S. (1954). Military organization and society. Londra: Routledge.
• Aron, R. (1951). Les guerres en chaînes. Paris: Gallimard.
• Barnet, C. (1970). Britain and her army: A military, political and social survey 1509-1970. Londra: Allen Lane.
• Başpınar, A. (2010). Askeri sosyoloji: Tarih ve kaynaklar. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Bauer, R. A., Indeles, A. ve Kluckhohn, C. (1959). How the Soviet system works: Cultural, psychological, and social themes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Benedict, R. (1974). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. New York: Plume.
• Boene B. (2000). Social science research, war and military in the United States: An outsider’s wiev of the field’s dominant national tradition. G. Kümmel ve A. D. Prüfert (Ed.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline içinde (s. 149-254). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• Booth, B., Falk, W. W., Segal, D. R. ve Segal, M. W. (2000). The impact of military presence in local labor markets on the employment of women. Gender & Society, 14, 318-332.
• Booth, B. ve Segal, D. R. (2005). Bringing soldiers back in. Race, Class & Gender, 12, 34-57.
• Bouthoul, G. (1951). Les guerres, éléments de polémologie. Paris: Payot.
• Bowers, R. V. (1967). The military establishment. P. F. Lazarsfeld, W. H. Sewell ve H. L. Wilensky (Ed.), The uses of sociology içinde (s. 234- 274). NY: Basic Books.
• Bozon, M. (1981). Les conscrits. Paris: Bibliotheque Berger-Levraul.
• Burk, J. (1994). The military in new times: Adjusting armed forces to a turbulent world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Caforio, G. (2006). Some historical notes. G. Caforio (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of the military içinde (s. 7-26). NY: Springer.
• Caire, R. (1979). Le condition féminine dans les arméees. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Paris IV Üniversitesi, Paris.
• Chomsky, N., Katznelson, I., Lewontın, R. C., Montgomery, D., Nader, L.,
• Ohmann, R. ve ark. (1998). Soğuk Savaş ve üniversite: Savaş sonrası yılların entellektüel tarihi. İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
• Coakley, R. W. ve MacDonald, C. B. (1979). The United States and the world military scene since 1945. J. E. Jessup, Jr. ve R. W. Coakley (Ed.). A guide to the study and use of military history içinde (s. 251-282). Center of Military History.
• Dandaker, C., Barkawi, C., Wells-Petry, M. ve Kier, E. (1999). Rights and fights: Homosexuality and military service. International Security, 24 (1), 181-201.
• Dandeker, C. (2000). Armed forces and society research in the United Kingdom: A review of British military sociology. In G. Kümmel & A. D. Prüfert (Ed.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline içinde (s. 68-90). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• Dandeker, C. ve Segal, M. W. (1996). Gender integration and armed forces: Recent policy developments in the United Kingdom. Armed Forces & Society, 23, 29-47.
• Dietz, P. ve Stone, J. F. (1975). The British all volunteer army. Armed Forces & Society, 1 (2), 159-190.
• Dougherty, W. E. ve Janowitz, M. (1958). A psychological warfare casebook. Washington, D.C.: Operations Research Office, The Johns Hopkins University.
• Elias, N. (1950). Studies in the genesis of the naval profession. The British Journal of Sociology, 1 (4), 291-309.
• Feser, H. ve Schenk, J. (1974). Wehrpflicht und abweichhung. Zur sozialpsychologie des militars. Boppard am Rhein.
• Geppert, H. (2000). Commissioned military sociological research: The military’s point of view. G. Kümmel ve A. D. Prüfert (Ed.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline içinde (s. 55-67). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• Giddens, A. (1985). The nation state and violence. Cambridge: Polity.
• Girardet, R. (1964). La crise militaire Française, 1945-1962. Paris: A. Colin.
• Hall, R. L. (1956). Military sociology 1945-1955. H. L. Zetterberg (Ed.), Sociology in the United States of America içinde (s. 59-62). Netherlands: UNESCO.
• Hamilton, V. L., Rohall, D., Segal, D. R., & Segal, M. W. (2001). Downsizing the Russian army: Consequences for organizational leavers, survivors, and spouses. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 29, 73-91.
• Harries-Jenkis, G. ve van Doorn, J. (1974). Armed forces and the social order: A pluralist approach. Current Sociology, 22 (1), 1-33.
• Howard, M. (1996). The armed forces and the community. RUSI Journal, 144 (4), 9-11.
• Inkeles, A., & Bauer, R. A. (1959). The Soviet citizen: Daily life in a totalitarian society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Kelty, R. D. (2005). Civilianization of the military: The social-psychological effects of integrating civilian and military personel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
• Klein, P. (2000). Sociology and the military in Germany. G. Kümmel ve A. D. Prüfert (Ed.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline içinde (s. 44-54). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• König, R. (1968). Beitrage zur militarsoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie [Özel Sayı 12], 38-58.
• La Gorce, P.-M. de (1963). The french army: A military political history. K. Douglas (Fransızcadan Çev.). New York: George Braziller.
• Malesic, M. (2003). Conscription vs. all-volunteer forces in Europe. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Mann, M. (1988). States, war and capitalism: Essays in political sociology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Marshall, G. (1994). –Sociological studies of– military and militarism. G. Marshal (Ed.) The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology içinde (s. 330-331). Oxford University Press.
• Martin, M. L. (1981). Warriors to managers: The French military establishment since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Martin, M. L. (1989). From Algiers to N’Djamena: France’s adaptation to low-intensity wars, 1830-1987. D. Charter ve M. Tugwell (Ed.), Armies in low-intensity conflict: A comparative analysis içinde (s. 77-138). Londra: Potomac Books.
• Martin, M. L. (2000). French military sociological research: A still promising field. G. Kümmel ve A. D. Prüfert (Ed.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline (s. 22-43). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
• Martindale, D. (1976). American sociology before World War II. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 121-143.
• Messmer, P. ve Chevénement, J. P. (1977). Le service militaire. Paris: Balland.
• Moore, B. (1996). To serve my country, to serve my race. New York: New York University Press.
• Moore, B. (2003). Serving our country: Japanese American women in the military during world war II. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Nyrop, R. F. (1973). Turkey a country study: Area handbook for the Republic of Turkey. Washington, D.C.: American University, Foreign Area Studies.
• Obraztsov, I. (2003). The study of the military and society in Russia. J. Callaghan ve F. Kernic (Ed.), Armed forces & international security: Global trends and issues içinde (s. 121-125). Munster: Lit Verlag.
• Otley, C. B. (1970). The social origion of British army officers. Sociological Review, 18 (3), 213-240.
• Otley, C. B. (1973). The educational background of British army officers. Sociology, 7 (3), 191-209.
• Phelps, R. H. ve Farr, B. J. (1996). Reserve component soldiers as peacekeepers. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
• Picht, G. (1965-66). Studien zur politischen und gesellschaftlichen situation der Bundeswehr (3 Cilt). Witten ve Berlin: Eckart-Verlag.
• Schweber, L. (2002). Wartime research and the quantification of American sociology: The view from “The American Soldier”. Revue D’histoire des Sciences Humaines, 6, 65-94.
• Segal, D. R. (2005). Time, race, and gender differences in the effects of military service on veteran outcomes. K. W. Schaie ve G. H. Elder (Ed.), Historical ınfluences on lives and aging içinde (s. 166-189). New York: Springer.
• Segal, D. R. (2007). Military sociology. C. D. Bryant ve D. L. Peck (Ed.), 21st century sociology: A reference handbook içinde (s. 353-360). Londra: Sage.
• Segal, D. R. ve Babin, N. E. (2000). Institutional change in armed forces at the dawning of the 21st century. S. Quah ve A. Sales (Ed.), International handbook of sociology içinde (s. 218-235). Londra: Sage.
• Simpson, C. (2000). Üniversiteler ve Amerikan imparatorluğu: Soğuk savaş döneminde sosyal bilimlerde para ve siyaset. M. Ceylan (Çev.). İstanbul: Kızılelma Yayıncılık.
• Speier, H. (1950). The American soldier and the sociology of military organization. R. K. Merton ve P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.),Studies in the scope and method of “The American Soldier” içinde (s. 106-132). New York: Free Press.
• Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., Devinney, L. C., Star, S. A. ve Williams, R. M. Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Strachan, H. (2000). British army manpower and society into the twentyfirst centry. Londra: Frank Cass.
• Turner, S. P. ve Turner J. H. (1990). The impossible science: An institutional analysis of American sociology. Newburry Park, California: Sage.
• Vial, J. (1959). Introduction a la sociologie militaire. Revue de Défense Nationale, 15, 1225-1235.
• Vogt, W. R. (1992). Warless or armyless society: Dispute about the appropriate paradigm of peace-(military) sociology for the post-military-era. J. Kuhlmann ve C. Dandeker (Ed.), Armed forces after the cold war (SOWI forum international, Cilt 13, s. 11-33). Münih: GESIS-Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.
• von Bredow, W. (2005). Military sociology. A. Kuper ve J. Kuper (Ed.), The social science encyclopedia içinde (s. 927-929). Londra ve New York: Routledge.
• Warnke, R. ve Mosmann, H. (1971/72). Der offizier der Bundeswehr I-III. Bann: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung.
• Wong, L. ve Mcnally, J. (1994). Downsizing the army: Some policy implications affecting the survivors. Armed Forces & Society, 20, 199-216.