So let's begin with war and citizenship.
I want to argue that from the mid-19th Century through
the immediate post-World War II period, European and North American
armed forces served, in a sense, as a social institution
that only for national defense, that was their obvious role.
But also wants to shape young men
into productive and responsible members of society.
That these institutions weren't just military,
they were in a sense pedagogical.
I want to argue that through mobilization, exposure to
nationalist doctrine, and the cohesion encouraged by the shared danger.
Armies, in a sense, built citizens and nations.
On an individual level, the transformation that occurs when
one joins the military may be dramatic, but also very positive.
The initiation and training in the army may improve physical health.
They may teach basic skills, and encourage discipline, and self respect.
On a larger social level, on a
more aggregate level, the collective experience could introduce
previously isolated individuals to the variety of
ethnic groups with who they share a territory.
And built, in a sense, a sense of social camaraderie while
also exposing them to nationalist themes and sense of patriotic duty.
So consider this, the military service not only brings the population
together, not only shows different people who they share the space with,
but also provides a common grammar, and a common language, and
a common set of beliefs by which they can understand each other.
Now conscription, understood as a forced participation in the
military, is neither new, nor unique to modern western Europe,
but what distinguishes the European pattern after the 19th century is a
theoretically, theoretically universal conscription including all social sectors.
It is a conscription and obligated that is
legitimated by a common membership in a nation state.
This isn't, although some might talk of conscription as slavery, and certainly
we see these references in the nineteenth and the twentieth century, modern
conscription takes more a form of an obligation of a citizen to
a state, rather than a burden that a state imposes on a few.
Now, the citizen-soldier has played a huge
role in the self-definition of Western civilization.
Contrast for example, the despotism of the East as portrayed in the Greek Classics.
Again, with all sorts or Orientalist tendencies.
The East with it's slave armies and
contrast that with the fallance of Greek complex.
To the extent that these are exaggerations and of
course there are, nevertheless they reflect a certain belief.
They reflect a certain importance that Western societies
have given to this notion of a citizen-soldier.
Now of course, this tradition has been breached more often than honored
over the past 2000 years, beginning for example with the imperialization of
the Roman Republic, fighting in the army came to be seen as
a job for professionals, and not very well respected ones at that.
During the Middle Ages, the gulf between those who fought for honor and the
large mass who merely obeyed orders, and
who's status was not enhance by military activity.
This gulf grew, so we're not talking about
a constant relationship between participation
in the society and participation to
the military, but we can see some rough trends beginning at,
at very heart of, at the beginning of classic Western civilization.
With again, these interruptions during the late Roman
Empire, and certainly during the Middle Ages.
During this period, the common foot soldier was not seen
as particularly commendable, nor did his service earn him special privileges.
Although, in some societies, the myth of the common soldier.
For example, the myth, or the legend, or the reality, to a certain extent, of the
English yeoman, and his role in fighting the French.
You're beginning to see the new formulation of
this notion of the average person participating on the military.
But nevertheless, usually these people were just daint.