Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clausewitz and Military Politics: Theoretical Reflections on a Strong Program Approach to War and the Military

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Militarization and the Global Rise of Paramilitary Culture

  • 299 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter takes up West and Matthewman’s (2016) call for a strong program in the sociology of the war and the military. It first explores the ways in which two fields of research (the study of how militaries influence societies and of how societies influence militaries) have slowly grown apart from one another—while also growing away from the battlefield. In order to correct these developmental tendencies, the chapter offers a neo-Clausewitzian foundation for a strong program approach. Three features are particularly emphasized. First, that the field takes seriously the reciprocal character of interactions between the military, public and government. Second, that the density of war as a social event is comprehended, disaggregating war into three levels: the strategic, the operational, the tactical level. Finally, in order to prevent over-correcting and ignoring those aspects of military affairs not directly connected to war, I posit the enterprise level, which concerns the health and well-being of the military institution. Focusing on the dynamic role militaries play in shaping their publics and governments, and the ways in which they are affected in turn, will allow scholars to keep pace with the military’s own rapid evolution as a political actor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Althusser, L. (2020). On ideology. New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avant, D. (1998). Conflicting indicators of ‘crisis’ in American civil-military relations. Armed Forces and Society, 24(3), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacevich, A. J. (1998). Absent history: A comment on Dauber, Desch and Feaver. Armed Forces and Society, 24(3), 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkawi, T. (2011). From war to security: Security studies, the wider agenda and the fate of the study of war. Millennium, 39(3), 701–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkey, K. (1994). Bandits and bureaucrats: The Ottoman route to state centralization. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basham, V., & Bulmer, S. (2017). Critical military studies as method: An approach to studying gender and the military. In R. Woodward & C. Duncanson (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of gender and the military (pp. 59–71). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, A. (2003). Don‘t ask, don‘t tell: Is the gay ban based on military necessity? Parameters, 33, 108–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, A. D. (1967). What is the military? In S. Tax (Ed.), The draft: A handbook of facts and alternatives. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, A. D. (1971). Toward redefining the military. Teachers College Record, 73, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, A. D., & Sharp, L. M. (1968). The convergence of military and civilian occupational structures: Evidence from studies of military and civilian occupational structures. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binkin, M., & Bach, S. J. (1977). Women and the military. The Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boene, B. (2000). Social science research, war and the military in the Unitd States: An outsider’s view of the field’s dominant national traditions. In G. Kummel & A. D. Prufert (Eds.), Military sociology: The richness of a discipline. Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd, P. (2013). Clausewitz: His influence on current marine corps doctrine. Marine Corps Gazette, 97(7), 81–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (2020). Paradoxes of professionalism: Rethinking civil-military relations in the United States. International Security, 44(4), 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burk, J. (1998). The logic of crisis and civil-military relations theory: A comment on Desch, Feaver and Dauber. Armed Forces and Society, 24(3), 455–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burk, J., & Espinosa, E. (2012). Race relations within the US military. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. S. (1976). Inequality in the military: An examination of promotion time for black and white enlisted men. American Sociological Review, 41(5), 807–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, H. (2006). Gender and the military: Women in the armed forces of Western democracies. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Centeno, M. A., & Enriquez, E. (2016). War and society. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausewitz, C. (1984[1832]). On war. M. Howard, & P. Paret (trans.). Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. A. (2002). Supreme command: Soldiers, statesmen and leadership in wartime (2002). Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coletta, D., & Crosbie, T. (2021). The virtues of military politics. Armed Forces and Society, 47(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, C. A. (1981). Institutional and occupational values in Canada’s army. Armed Forces and Society, 8(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosbie, T. (2015). Coser, Lewis A. International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. (2nd Edn).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosbie, T. (2020, February). “Michael Howard and military politics.” Texas national security review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalfiume, R. M. (1969). Desegregation of the US armed forces: Fighting on two fronts, 1939–1953. University of Missouri Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echevarria, A. J. (2007). Clausewitz and contemporary war. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhower, D.D. (1961). Farewell address. January 17. Box 38, Speech series, papers of Dwight D. Eisenhower as president, 1953–61, Eisenhower Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P. D. (1998). Crisis as shirking: An agency theory of the souring of American civil-military relations. Armed Forces and Society, 24(3), 407–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight and civil-military relations. Harvard UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P. D. (2011). The right to be right: Civil-military relations and the Iraq surge decision. International Security, 35(4), 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P. D., & Kohn, R. H. (2001). Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foner, J. D. (1974). Blacks and the military in American history: A new perspective. Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writiners, 1972–1977. Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, J. M. (1976). The impact of the admission of women to the service academies and the role of the woman line officer. American Behavioral Scientist, 19(5), 647–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier, M. A. (1975). Technology, organizational culture and recruitment in the British military academy. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 3, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geva, D. (2013). Conscription, family, and the modern state: A comparative study of France and the United States. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N. L. (1973). The changing role of women in the armed forces. American Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 892–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N. L. (1977). The utilization of women in the armed forces of industrialized nations. Sociological Symposium, 18, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, A. J., & Huntington, S. P. (1977). Civil-military relations. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, G., & Smith, C. L. (2004). The treadmill of destruction: National sacrifice areas and native Americans. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, A. (2018). Forget “militarization”: Race, disability and the “martial politics” of the police and of the university. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, W. M. (2004). The continuing influence of Clausewitz. Military Review, 84(2), 60–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M. (1971). Military organization. In R. W. Little (Ed.), Handbook of military institutions. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M. (1977). From institutional to occupational: The need for conceptual clarity. Armed Forces and Society, 4(1), 51–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M. (2017). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J., & Brennan, M. (2009). Alien: How operational art devoured strategy. Strategic Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestnbaum, M. (2005). Mars revealed: The entry of ordinary people into war among states. In J. Adams, E. S. Clemens, & A. S. Orloff (Eds.), Remaking modernity: Politics, history and sociology. Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestnbaum, M. (2009). The sociology of war and the military. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (Ed.). (2015). Frontline: Combat and cohesion in the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (2019). Command: The twenty-first-century general. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krulak, V. (1999). The strategic corporal: Leadership in the three block war. Marines Magazine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. D. (1974). Military professionalism and civil control: A comparative analysis of two interpretations. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2, 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. B. (1941). The garrison state. The American Journal of Sociology, 46, 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2019). Whose life is worth more?: Hierarchies of risk and death in contemporary wars. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, G., & Sasson-Levy, O. (2008). Militarized socialization, military service and class reproduction: The experiences of Israeli soldiers. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 349–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (1998). Militarizing inequality: A conceptual framework. Theory and Society, 27(6), 873–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. W. (1964). Buddy relations and combat performance. In M. Janowitz (Ed.), The new military. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrence, J. D., & Murdock, J. L. (2009). Political, military, economic, infrastructure, information (PMESII) effects forecasting for course of action (COA) evaluation. Air Force Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malešević, S. (2010). The sociology of war and violence. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malešević, S. (2017). The rise of organized brutality: A historical sociology of violence. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr. (1988). Soldiers and sociology. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr. (1966). Racial integration in the armed forces. American Journal of Sociology, 72(2), 132–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr. (1973). The emergent military. Pacific Sociological Review, 16, 255–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr. (1977). From institutions to occupations: Trends in military organization. Armed Forces and Society, 4, 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr. (1986). Institutional/occupational trends in armed forces: An update. Armed Forces and Society, 12(3), 377–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskos, C. C., Jr., & Wood, F. R. (1988). The military: More than just a job? Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. Secker and Warburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, A. (1977). The military and politics in modern times: On professionals, praetorians and revolutionary soldiers. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pommerin, R. (Ed.). (2011). Clausewitz goes global: Carl von Clausewitz in the 21st century. Miles Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxborough, I. (1994). “Clausewitz and the sociology of war. British Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 619–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, D. R., & Segal, M. (1971). Models of civil-military relations at the elite level. In M. R. Van Gils (Ed.), The perceived role of the military. Rotterdam University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, D. R., Blair, D., Newport, F., & Stephens, S. (1974). Convergence, isomorphism and interdependence at the civil-military interface. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 2, 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, D. R., & Yoon, Y. H. (1984). Institutional and occupations models of the army in the career force. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 12, 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shils, E. A., & Janowitz, M. (1948). Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in world war II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 12(2), 280–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict & The web of group affiliations. In K. H. Wolff, & R. Bendix (trans.). The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. (1994). Social revolutions in the modern world. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, H. (1994). New perspectives on the military profession: The I/O debate and esprit de corps reevaluated. Armed Forces and Society, 20(4), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, M. J., Manley, R. T., & McNichols, C. W. (1978). Operationalizing the Moskos institution-occupation model: An application of Gouldner’s cosmopolitan-local research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 422–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, R. J., II. (1968). Integration of the Negro into the US armed forces. Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990–1992. Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, J. (1965). The officer corps: A fusion of profession and organization. European Journal of Sociology, 6, 262–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1963). Economy and society: An outline of an interpretive sociology. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.). (Vol. 2). Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). From max weber: Essays in sociology. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, B., & Matthewman, S. (2016). Towards a strong program in the sociology of war, the military and civil society. Journal of Sociology, 52(3), 482–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Danish Defence College, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Thomas Crosbie

Authors
  1. Thomas Crosbie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Crosbie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Brad West

  2. Royal Danish Defence College, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Thomas Crosbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crosbie, T. (2021). Clausewitz and Military Politics: Theoretical Reflections on a Strong Program Approach to War and the Military. In: West, B., Crosbie, T. (eds) Militarization and the Global Rise of Paramilitary Culture . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5588-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5588-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-5587-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-5588-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation