¹ Stacey, C. P., The Canadian Army, 1939–1945: An Official Historical Summary (Ottawa, 1948), 1.Google Scholar

² Ottawa Citizen, May 17, 1954.

³ Stacey, , The Canadian Army, 308.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid., 307.

⁵ Canada, House of Commons Debates, speech by the Hon. Brooke Claxton, Minister of National Defence, June 24, 1952, 2.

⁶ See the Globe and Mail, Toronto, March 31, 1954: “The strength of the [three] armed services is about 6 percent below the figure previously set as its objective.”

⁷ Financial Post, Toronto, 05 22, 1954, 19.Google Scholar

⁸ See, in this connection, Bush, Vannevar, Modern Arms and Free Men: A Discussion of the Role of Science in Preserving Democracy (New York, 1949).Google Scholar

⁹ For an account of the activities of one group of psychologists see Bray, Charles W., Psychology and Military Proficiency: A History of the Applied Psychology Panel of the National Defence Committee (Princeton, N.J., 1948).Google Scholar For a more recent review of psychologists' interests in military affairs see Geldard, Frank A., “Military Psychology: Science or Technology?” American Journal of Psychology, LXVI, 07, 1953, 335–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar As examples of the contributions of anthropologists see Leighton, Alexander H., The Governing of Men: General Principles and Recommendations Based on Experience at a Japanese Relocation Camp (Princeton, N.J., 1946)Google Scholar, and his Human Relations in a Changing World (New York, 1949).Google Scholar For two sets of essays by sociologists and anthropologists, see Linton, Ralph, ed., The Science of Man in the World Crisis (New York, 1945)Google Scholar; and Ogbum, W. F., ed., American Society in Wartime (Chicago, Ill., 1943).Google Scholar The main research of interest to social psychologists and sociologists is, of course, Stouffer, Samuel A. et al., Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, 4 vols. (Princeton, N.J., 1949–1950)Google Scholar; and the review volume, Merton, Robert K. and Lazarsfeld, Paul F., eds., Continuities in Social Research (Glencoe, Ill., 1950).Google Scholar A number of papers of interest are listed in the bibliography of Lerner, Daniel and Lasswell, Harold D., eds., The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (Stanford, Calif., 1951).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hughes, Everett C., “The Sociological Study of Work: An Editorial Foreword.” American Journal of Sociology, LVII, 03, 1952, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ninth Census of Canada, 1951, IV, “Labour Force,” Table 19.Google Scholar

¹² Hughes, , “The Sociological Study of Work,” 426 Google Scholar: “It is of importance for the understanding of human work—in the industrial and in other settings—that we develop a set of problems and processes applicable to the whole range of cases. The terms for describing these problems and processes can be got by comparison of the work drama in various occupations… . In studying work we are not merely applying sociology to work. We are studying work by sociological methods. We do not learn our method in some pure or generalized society or part of society and then apply it and the findings to industry, crime, or religion. Rather, we study group life and process where they occur, learning our method and developing our knowledge of society as we go. We may learn about society by studying industry and human work generally. In our particular society, work organization looms so large as a separate and specialized system of things, and work experience is so fateful a part of every man's life, that we cannot make much headway as students of society and of social psychology without using work as one of our main laboratories.”

¹³ This division of the field is suggested by Hall, Oswald, “Sociological Research in the Field of Medicine: Progress and Prospects,” American Sociological Review, XVI, 10, 1951, 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See for example, Watson, Goodwin, ed., “Problems of Bureaucracy,” Journal of Social Issues, I, 12, 1945, 2–3 Google Scholar: “Bureaucracy is an old complaint… . Bureaucracy is a name for a kind of social clumsiness.”

¹⁵ Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, tr. Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott (New York, 1947)Google Scholar; Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, trs. and eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1946).Google Scholar See also Merton, Robert et at., eds., Reader in Bureaucracy (Glencoe, Ill., 1952)Google Scholar; and Dubin, Robert, ed., Human Relations in Administration: The Sociology of Organization (New York, 1951).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gerth, and Mills, , From Max Weber, 223 Google Scholar: “Such terms as ‘regiment’ and ‘battalion’ usually had quite different meanings in the eighteenth century from the meanings they have today. Only the battalion was a tactical unit (today both are); the ‘regiment’ was then a managerial unit of an economic organization established by the colonel's position as an ‘entrepreneur’. ‘Official’ maritime ventures … and army procurement belong to private capitalism's first giant enterprises of far-going bureaucratic character. In this respect, the ‘nationalization’ of these enterprises by the state has its modern parallel in the nationalization of the railroads, which have been controlled by the state from their beginnings.”

¹⁷ Ibid., 221–2: “Tlie bureaucratic structure goes hand in hand with the concentration of the material means of management in the hands of the master… . War in our time is a war of machines. And this makes magazines technically necessary, just as the dominance of the machine in industry promotes the concentration of the means of production and management.… Historically, the bureaucratization of the army has everywhere been realized along with the transfer of army service from the propertied to the propertyless. Until this transfer occurs, military service is an honorific privilege of propertied men.”

¹⁸ Ibid., 222: “Only the bureaucratic army structure allowed for the development of the professional standing armies which are necessary for the constant pacification of large states of the plains, as well as for warfare against far-distant enemies, especially enemies overseas. Specifically, military discipline and technical training can be normally and fully developed, at least to its modem high level, only in the bureaucratic army.”

¹⁹ Ibid., 229.

²⁰ These are briefly reported in Solomon, David N., “Civilian to Soldier: Three Sociological Studies of Infantry Recruit Training,” Canadian Journal of Psychology, VIII, 06, 1954, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ See, for example, the Financial Post, 05 22, 1954, 19 Google Scholar: “The defense services have long been laughed at for red tape—which is another name for administrative systems designed to record responsibility and prevent peculation.”

²² Canada, House of Commons Debates, 06 24, 1952, 4 Google Scholar: “The last figure I gave, of 70,000 men and women taken into the armed forces in the two years since Korea, has been in part made necessary by the principal of rotation. So far as I know this is the first time in Canadian history that we have had a considerable force abroad in peacetime, and have had to face the necessity of maintaining them at the same time.… Where before Korea we had in existence … a total of only six major units, today we have twenty-two major units either in Canada or abroad. This represents a considerable problem in rotating forces and in providing accommodation.… ”

²³ McCracken, George W., “Your Army,” Current, Affairs for the Canadian Forces, XV, 05 15, 1953, 4–5 Google Scholar: “The Permanent Force, between the two wars, was never given the responsibility of providing the country with an effective standing army, no matter liow small.… The job of the old Permanent Force was to be an administrative and training cadre.”

²⁴ See, for example, ibid., 21: “Here is the list of the tradesmen and specialists in a heavy anti-aircraft battery: Gun Mechanic, Gun Number RCA, Technical Assistant AA, Operator Fire Control A A (Radar or Control Room), Telecommunication, Mechanic Radar, Driver Mechanic, Vehicle Mechanic, Administrative Clerk, Storeman Clerk, Cook.”

²⁵ Wintringham, Tom, New Ways of War (Harmondsworth, England, 1940).Google Scholar See also Marshall, S. L. A., The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation (Washington, 1950).Google Scholar

²⁶ See the following by Marshall, S. L. A.: The River and the Gauntlet (New York, 1953)Google Scholar, Island Victory (Washington, 1944)Google Scholar, and Men against Fire (Washington, 1947).Google Scholar

²⁷ Stouffer, S. A. et al., Studies in Social Psychology, I, chaps, I-II.Google Scholar For novelistic insight into some of these problems see, for example, Jones, James, From Here to Eternity (New York, 1951)Google Scholar, Monsarrat, Nicholas, The Cruel Sea (London, 1951)Google Scholar, and Wouk, Herman, The Caine Mutiny (New York, 1951).Google Scholar

²⁸ Jones, Frank E., “The Infantry Recruit: A Sociological Analysis of Socialization in the Canadian Army” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Social Relations, Harvard University, 04, 1954).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Dubin, Robert, “Decision-Making by Management in Industrial Relations,” in Merton, , et al., eds., Reader in Bureaucracy, 233–40.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ See S. A. Stouffer et al., Studies in Social Psychology; Shils, Edward A., “The Study of the Primary Group,” in Lerner, and Lasswell, , eds., The Policy Sciences, 64–5Google Scholar; and Shils, Edward A., “Primary Groups in the American Army,” in Merton, and Lazarsfeld, , eds., Continuities in Social Research, 16–39.Google Scholar

³² Dubin, “Decision-Making by Management in Industrial Relations,” 234: “There is an interesting paradox involved in the growth of governing by rule in large business. The goal of standardization and hence of predictability is certainly achieved. But making the rule for the class rather than the individual does two things to the individual worker. He becomes aware of his personal inability to make an individual ‘deal’ for himself outside the company rules and procedures, except under the circumstances of a ‘lucky break’. He tends also to view himself as a part of a group of similarly situated fellow-employees who are defined by the rules as being like each other. In addition, uniform rule-making and administration of the rules makes unionism easier and, in a sense inevitable.… ”

³³ See the remarks of General MacNaughton, A. G. L. in Canada, House of Commons Debates, 11. 23, 1944, p. 6690 Google Scholar: “I do not believe that commanding officers have given enough consideration to the human aspects of the problem.… Unless proper steps are taken within a unit, the reinforcement officer, or soldier, goes into action as an individual rather than as a member of a unit team.” See also Marshall, , Men against Fire, 150 Google Scholar: “We [United States Army] have never had any continuity of policy which is based upon the simple idea that esprit de corps depends upon comradeship, and our changing policies too frequently reflect an obliviousness to the, factors which compose the moral strength of fighting forces.”

³⁴ See Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill., 1949), 66 Google Scholar: “There is some evidence that it is precisely at the point where the research attention of sociologists has shifted from the plane of manifest to the plane of latent functions, that they have made their distinctive and major contributions.”

³⁵ See Maas, Henry S. et al., “Personal and Social Disequilibria in a Bureaucratic System,” Psychiatry, XVI, 05, 1953, 129–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Cooley, Charles H., Social Process (New York, 1922), 14.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., 19.