the Professional Soldier [Import] [Paperback]

Morris Janowitz (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 464 pages
• Publisher: Free Press; Later Printing edition (1964)
• ASIN: B0000CMCKD
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.4 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,126,507 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A rewarding study of the military's role in American society, February 23, 2002

By 

Daniel Jolley "darkgenius" (Shelby, North Carolina USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (Paperback)

This book is an effort to bring to bear the tools of social science (Janowitz is a sociologist) in explaining the interrelationship between the military establishment and civil society in America. In the author's own words, this work is "an attempt to describe the professional life, organizational setting, and leadership of the American military as they have evolved during the first half of this century." Of particular interest to the era in which this book was published (1960) is the role of the military in the age of atomic warfare. Janowitz discusses the power the military establishment has as a "pressure group" over domestic affairs and international relations. In this world of technological change, Janowitz explores the adaptability that is required of the military establishment in order to keep the system "healthy" and how this affects not only society's view of the military, but the military's view of itself. Janowitz identifies a rift in professional military thinking, one which he compares to civilian disagreements over conservative and liberal policy. In modern society, the military has necessarily come into close contact with the "political fabric of contemporary society" and has thus come to play a role in sociopolitical affairs--both directly and indirectly. Janowitz's focus is on how both civil society and the military establishment will be changed by this modern interdependency.

In the vein of the social scientist, Janowitz puts forth five basic hypotheses and seeks to test them. Briefly encapsulated, these five hypotheses concern: a changing organizational authority, one more oriented to group consensus than to unqualified directives; a narrowing skill differential between military and civilian elites, brought together by the military's increasing dependence on technical specialists; a shift in officer recruitment to a broad socioeconomic base; the importance of adaptiveness and boldness in reaching an elite position in the military; and the development of a "political ethos" around the military profession in the modern age. He describes a changing role for the military elite; the modern "professional" soldier must somehow maintain an aura of "heroism" while also serving in a position of management of men and machines, topped off by a commitment to public service--both nationally and internationally.

Determining the future role of the military is made more difficult by a rift between two schools of thought within the military profession. The traditional school sees war as "absolute" and inevitable, a means by which to achieve political goals. This "conservative" mindset has been challenged during the atomic age, as more "liberal" thinkers, fearing the unpredictable effects of modern warfare, promote a "pragmatic" approach to warfare, with an emphasis on adaptation of military means and negotiation as the proper means by which to secure political ends. Janowitz and other social scientists favor the "pragmatic" approach, arguing that because the military cannot possibly remain in isolation from the polity, both civilians and the military elite must cooperate in the interest of mankind both at home and abroad.

Janowitz incorporates into his study qualitative sources involving individual human perceptions as well as quantitative data from questionnaires and statistical profiles. He is not entirely successful at incorporating a historical dimension into his argumentative framework, and there is a lack of documentation for a number of generalized notions he espouses. There are, as well, a number of factual errors--e.g., his reference to the historian John Hope Franklin as James Franklin Hope. This book is designed to make the reader ask new questions of the role of the military in American society, and in this it is successful. 40+ years after its original publication, it is still a valuable read.