Structure and Function of a Military Model

Structure and Function of a Military Model and the Sociological Aspect of the Military The objective of this work is to describe and discuss the structure and function of one of the six military models and analyze the military as a social institution explaining the relationship impact of social institutions. The military model that will be reviewed in this work in writing is the Institution/Occupation Model reported to be the model, proposed first in 1977 by Charles C. Moskos.

This model involves the identification of "a set of polarized empirical indicators…ranging from an Institutional to an Occupational format of military organization." (Caforio, 2006) In the first proposal of Moskos, there are two "ideal types of armed forces & #8230;defined that can be considered mutually exclusive to some extent." (Caforio, 2006) The original proposal or Moskos was revised and such that made the provision of a "new interpretation that considered the possibility of a pluralist military without a zero-sum game effect between the two polar models in the sense that institutional and occupational traits can coexist within a given military force and take different shapes among the service, branches and echelons." (Caforio, 2006) I.

The I/O Military Model This model was one of the models that resulted in a major influence on social scientific research in the military. (Alpass, et al., 1999) The institution described by Moskos (1986) is an institution viewed as something "in which: individualism is outweighed by collective good" and one that requires "sacrifice and commitment" from its members.

This institution features wages that are lower than market wages but which are "often compensated for by other non-cash benefits like housing, uniform, medical treatment…" (Alpass, et al., 1999) In addition, there is practically never an organization of the institution's members when they have a grievance but instead the members trust the institution to take care of them.

This is stated to be in contrast to an occupation stated to be "determined by market forces, which means that appropriately, determined monetary reward is provided for requisite skills and greater employee involvement in the wage and condition establishing process is allowed. Additionally, and possibly most significantly, the occupational model emphasizes individualistic motivations rather than the good of the organization." (Alpass, et al., 1999) The I/O model is such that contains several implications for the work environment and stated by Alpass et al.

(1999) is: (1) It was argued by Segal and Segal (1983) that the I/O modalities represent traditional 'mechanistic and organic types of military structure; (2) the institutional model places emphasis on 'referent power where leadership is transformational, value-oriented, caring and inspiring thought to promote group cohesion; and (3) some elements of the military requiring skills that are highly technical or specialized "will be more occupational than elements that involve general routine tasks. (Alpass, et al., 1999) II.

The Military as a Social Institution The work of Andersen and Taylor (2007) states that the military "is a social institution whose function it is to defend the nation against external threats. A strong military is held to be essential in the maintenance of peace while principles of preparedness for the military borders dangerously close to the values of war that result in military aggression being perpetrated against others.

(Andersen and Taylor, 2007, paraphrased) Andersen and Taylor report that the military is "a strict and formal social institution" and those who join the military are "explicitly labeled with rank, and if promoted pass through a series of well-defined levels, each with clearly demarcated sets of rights and responsibilities." (Andersen and Taylor, 2007) The military, just as do other hierarchical institutions, is stated to be inherent of structural inequality.

(Andersen and Taylor, 2007, paraphrased) Military life is reported to be quite different from civilian life however; the military is stated to e "intimately linked to other institutions in the society." (Andersen and Taylor, 2007) The 'military-industrial complex' describes the "linkage between business and military interests." (Andersen and Taylor, 2007) This link is such that the military provides support to a great deal of basic research and development projects.

(Andersen and Taylor, 2007) The military is viewed by many as "a distinctly masculine institution" with the organization resting on "masculine cultural traits such as aggression, competition, hierarchy, and violence." (Andersen and Taylor, 2007) The military as an institution is inherently interwoven into the society as not only a form.