Handbook on the Sociology of the Military (review)

This ambitious compilation is a much-needed general, but thorough, overview of military sociology from the time it emerges as a specific subdiscipline in the 1940s. For this, the volume deserves immediate praise. The handbook's excellent summary of social thought frames major classical and contemporary debates by careful selection of recent scholarship. The contributors, from several countries, study issues from various national and international contexts, and their works are commendably interdisciplinary.

The editor's own work dominates the introductory selections. His chapter on the emergence of military sociology is a truly remarkable synopsis. For example, he effectively traces dominant themes emerging from the American School — such as the Huntington and Janowitz divergence/convergence debate — to the seminal influences of classical theorists before bringing the readers up to date on recent research under this heading. From his own cross-national survey of researchers in the field, Caforio reports a general crisis in theory relative to "practical" empirical studies favored by research groups outside academia (and sometimes sponsored by governments or their militaries). Perhaps in response, the works in this volume are thoroughly grounded in theory, and a large section of the book is devoted to theoretical models. Most notable among these is James Burk's "Military Mobilization in Modern Western Societies," which uses a synthesis of several change theories to explain the likely consequences of the international trend away from mass armies and toward volunteer ones.

Another large section devoted to civil-military relations features two articles about how evolving military structures affect military families and includes Hans Born's suggestions for new, post-Cold War frameworks to study ongoing concerns about democratic control of armed forces. Noteworthy here is Bernard Boëne's criticism of the popular notion that rapid technological innovations largely explain structural changes. He claims that today's organizational trends — networks of smaller units with flatter hierarchies, decentralized decision making, an increasing capacity to tolerate ambiguities, and permeable boundaries — follow from postmodern, ideological shifts that dismantle an overarching, universally valid, and socially meaningful vision of the military.

Concerning military culture, the increasing participation of women among armed forces is a subject of wide interest. Marina Nuciari notes, in one of the better articles, that this trend is necessarily consistent with others: that is, the transition to volunteer forces and force downsizing, the need for technological expertise, and new "nonconventional" or "humanitarian" missions. Other works concentrate on the conversion or restructuring of the military. Significant trends include a need for "constabulary forces" that respond quickly to flash conflicts (Manigart), finding new functions for "downsized" military forces as civilian employees occupy a larger role in military operations (Jelu(check)ic), factors encouraging more flexible and collaborative multinational missions (Dandecker), and the global evolution of the perceptions and identities of soldiers themselves as "humanitarian peacekeepers" (Kümmel). Caforio appropriately concludes the volume with concise summaries of these trends and suggests some larger implications from the whole to guide the next round of scholarship. One important structural change not adequately covered in this volume is represented by P.W. Singer's Corporate Warriors, which documents the dramatic increase in the "outsourcing" of traditional military functions to private, capitalist enterprises.

A few comments on the reference value of this handbook may be useful. Readers are thoughtfully directed to earlier bibliographies to complement an extensive list of references (although I found it less convenient that all these were piled into one section at the end rather than at the conclusion of each piece). Some sociologists might note that more often than not references come from outside their field. Caforio makes a strong case for sociology as "the most sound and complete scientific approach to the study of the military" but argues that the field is rightfully interdisciplinary, preparing readers for research dominated by approaches from related fields (particularly political science, cultural anthropology, and social psychology). He justifies this tack using a quote from...