Scarborough's role in historical and literary contexts

¶ … Military Dualism in Culture

According to the argument presented by Scarborough, there is a persistent and pervasive divide between the cultures of the United States military and civilian, American culture as a whole, viewed in its entirety. Scarborough argues as if the United States military is a separate entity that stands apart from the fabric of ordinary, daily life as a special institution. Given the extremity of Scarborough's stance, and the author's perhaps own biased view from the vantage of the then-recent (at the time of the author's writing) Navy scandal, the attitude that the United States military is so unique it transforms within its framework members of ordinary American culture may be allowed to some degree. But ultimately, Scarborough's central thesis is problematic, given the leaps of logic deployed in the essay, particularly Scarborough's use of hasty generalization. The United States military is a profession and has a professional code of ethics, which makes it no more or less unique than other professional organizations that possess their own special rules and hierarchies.

In creating a contrasting framework between United States and civilian culture, Scarborough states that there is a generational divide in the debate between military and civilian persons. For instance, the Internet has given the young greater opportunities to speak out, suggests Scarborough. Even young officers now have more opportunities to speak out, through the use of such relatively unregulated mediums. This cuts into the military code of secrecy, creating a divide between military individuals of a traditional perspective, and people whom embrace the civilian ethos of free and personal choice and thus come into conflict with the secrecy of military culture. However, although Scarborough may state that there is more and more openness and candor are readily available from young officers, in terms of offered venues, this does not mean that all young officers agree with the lack of secrecy embraced by some. Merely because a few younger people speak out more does not mean all are speaking out more, and moreover, secrecy is important to any military organization, for tactical as well as cultural reasons.

Scarborough also writes before the increased levels of secrecy and monitoring of officer communications as deployed, given recent and heightened fears about terrorism. Again, the generalizations made from the actions of a few individuals about the nature of the military hierarchy may be very much of a particular cultural moment, and certainly do not represent the military for all time, much less in the present. It is difficult, moreover, for Scarborough's stress upon the emotional divide between military and civilian life not to come into sharp relief, causing the author to argue from emotions, as Scarborough centers specifically upon discussing sexual allegations of misconduct, one of the most emotionally charged issues of misconduct, which makes it tempting to view the suggestions of reform with a more tolerant eye than a reader might, if the issues at hand were not so emotionally coded. In other words, Scarborough's arguments regarding supposed dualities of cultures may in fact be a difficulty between men and women in all workplaces, not so much between officers and civilians.

Lastly, the author suggests that if the military embraces a less organizationally enclosed and paranoid structure of top-down hierarchy, military and civilian culture might be better integrated. The military's assumptions and expectations regarding a high level of behavior regarding adultery, for instance, are seen as evidence of its contrary spirit to the more lax civilian ethos and culture. The author even quotes military individuals who state, stone faced, that the suggestion is that the problem is with the civilian culture, not with the military, and that the military culture is absolute keystone cold right and the civilian culture is wrong regarding sexual matters in a way that highlight the author's argument from emotions and expressed attitudes, rather than logic.