Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:27:00.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Method and Substance in the Military Field*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Bernard Boëne
Bernard Boëne*
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Rennes II, member of the Research Group on Security and Governance, University of Toulouse I [[email protected]].
Get access

Abstract

This article tries to assess the cognitive merits of various research programmes in the treatment of military issues. It contends that, on such topics more than on others, method influences conceptualization and theory construction. Having noted the infrequent showings of some programmes in the military field, it goes on to demonstrate, based on the literature produced over a century, that the blames laid at positivism's door are especially justified in it. The Weberian/Simmelian tradition has shown more promise. A brief synthetic formulation of its achievements suggests that it alone accords with Clausewitzian thought, and shows sufficient flexibility to account for recent changes which baffle other programmes, or to open avenues of collaboration with promising new approaches (notably, nonlinear dynamics).

Résumé

L'article entend évaluer comparativement les différentes orientations de recherche sur la chose militaire, qu'il s'agisse des sujets d’étude, des concepts et méthodes comme des théories. La revue de travaux sur un siècle est sévère pour le positivisme. La tradition Simmel/Weber a été plus fructueuse. Un bref essai de synthèse montre sa compatibilité avec la pensée de Clausewitz et ouvre sur la perspective de collaboration avec des approches nouvelles telles que les dynamiques non linéaires.

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Aufsatz setzt sich mit den verschiedenen Forschungsrichtungen im militärischen Bereich auseinander und hebt hervor, dass die Methodik die Konzeptualisierung und den theoretischen Aufbau beeinflusst. Hundert Jahre Literatur zu diesem Thema lassen den Positivimus in einem fahlen Licht erscheinen. Die Simmelsche und Webersche Tradition scheint vielversprechender und dem Gedankengut Clausewitz näher, wie ein knapper Essai aufweist. Es zeichnen sich neue Perspektiven für eine Zusammenarbeit ab, die auch nichtlineare Dynamiken miteinbezieht.

Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , December 2008 , pp. 367 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew, 2007. “Mechanisms and Relations”, Sociologica [Italian Journal of Sociology on line], 2.Google Scholar
Alberts, David and Czerwinski, Thomas, eds., 1997. Complexity, Global Politics and National Security (Washington, D.C., National Defense University).Google Scholar
Aron, Raymond, 1967. “Qu'est-ce qu'une théorie des relations internationales?”, Revue Française de Science Politique, 17, 5, pp. 837-861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aron, Raymond, 1976. Penser la guerre, Clausewitz (Paris, Gallimard).Google Scholar
Augustine, Norman, 1975. “One Plane, One Tank, One Ship: Trend for the Future?”, Defense Management Journal, 11, 2, pp. 34-40.Google Scholar
Battistella, Dario, 2003-2004. “L'apport de Karl Deutsch à la théorie des relations internationales”, Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 10, pp. 567-585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, Dario, 2006. Retour de l’état de guerre (Paris, Armand Colin).Google Scholar
Battistelli, Fabrizio, 1997. “Peacekeeping and the Postmodern Soldier”, Armed Forces & Society, 23, 3, pp. 467-484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudrillard, Jean, 1991. La guerre du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu (Paris, Galilée).Google Scholar
Beckerman, Linda, 1999. “The Nonlinear Dynamics of War” (Science Applications International Corporation).Google Scholar
Berthelot, Jean-Michel, 2000. “Programmes, paradigmes, disciplines: pluralité et unité des sciences sociales”, in Berthelot, Jean-Michel, ed., Épistémologie des sciences sociales (Paris, Puf, pp. 457-519).Google Scholar
Beyerchen, Alan, 1992. “Clausewitz, Nonlinearity and the Unpredictability of War”, International Security, 17, 3, pp. 59-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boëne, Bernard, 2000. “Sociologie militaire”, in Montbrial, Thierry(de) and Klein, Jean, eds., Dictionnaire de stratégie (Paris, Puf, pp. 510-518).Google Scholar
Boëne, Bernard, 2001. “Western-type Civil-Military Relations Revisited”, in Maman, Daniel and Ben-Ari, Eyal, eds., Military, State and Society in Israel: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives (New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers, pp. 43-80).Google Scholar
Boëne, Bernard, 2003. “The Military As a Tribe Among Tribes: Postmodern Militaries and Civil-Military Relations?”, in Caforio, Giuseppe, ed., Handbook of the Sociology of the Military (New York, Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 167-185).Google Scholar
Booth, Bradford, Kestnbaum, Meyer and Segal, David, 2001. “Are Post Cold War Militaries Postmodern?”, Armed Forces & Society, 27, 3, pp. 319-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boëne, Bernard, 1962. Le phénomène-guerre (Paris, Payot).Google Scholar
Boëne, Bernard, 1970. L'infanticide différé (Paris, Hachette).Google Scholar
Bremer, Stuart and Cusack, Thomas, eds., 1995. The Process of War: Advancing the Scientific Study of War (Amsterdam, Gordon & Breach, pp. 1-33).Google Scholar
Bruneteaux, Patrick, 1996. Maintenir l'ordre (Paris, Presses de Sciences Po).Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley, 1977. The Anarchical Society (London, MacMillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald, 1980. “Models of Network Structure”, Annual Review of Sociology, 6, pp. 79-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, John, 1962. Peace Theory (New York, Alfred Knopf).Google Scholar
Burton, John, 1968. Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Burton, John, 1969. Conflict and Communication (London, Macmillan, 1969).Google Scholar
Burton, John, 1972. World Society (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, John, 1979. Deviance, Terrorism and War (Oxford, Martin Robertson).Google Scholar
Cilliers, Paul, 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems (New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Cooley, Charles Horton, 1917. “Social Control in International Relations”, Publications of the American Sociological Society, 12, pp. 207-216.Google Scholar
Czerwinski, Thomas, 1988. Coping With the Bounds: Speculations on Nonlinearity in Military Affairs (Washington, DC, National Defense University).Google Scholar
Degenne, Alain and Forsé, Michel, 1994. Les réseaux sociaux (Paris, Armand Colin).Google Scholar
Edmonds, Martin, 1988. Armed Services and Society (Leicester, Leicester University Press).Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert and Freud, Sigmund, 1933. Pourquoi la guerre? (Genève, Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle, Société des Nations).Google Scholar
Ekstrom, Mats, 1992. “Causal Explanation of Social Action: The Contribution of Max Weber and of Critical Realism to a Generative View of Causal Explanation in Social Science”, Acta Sociologica, 35, pp. 107-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon, 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa, 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology”, American Journal of Sociology, 103, pp. 281-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ender, Morten, 1998. “The Postmodern Military: Soldiering, New Media, and the Post-Cold War”, Journal for the Study of Peace and Conflict, pp. 50-58.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, 1958. “H.D. Lasswell's Developmental Analysis”, Western Political Quarterly, 11, pp. 229-242).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, Sigmund, 1934. “Malaise dans la civilisation”, Revue Française de Psychanalyse, VII, 4.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Gustaaf, 1998. “Nonlinear Dynamics and the Prediction of War”, Pole Paper Series, 4, 1.Google Scholar
Geller, Daniel and Singer, J. David, 1998. Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, Robert, 1984. War and Change in World Politics (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Goldstein, Joshua, 2001. War and Gender (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gray, Chris Hables, 1997. Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict (New York, Guilford Publications).Google Scholar
Hassner, Pierre, 2007. “Le siècle de la puissance relative”, Le Monde, 3 October 2007.Google Scholar
Heinsohn, Gunnar, 2003. Söhne und Weltmacht. Terror im Aufstieg und Fall der Nationen (Bern, Orell Füssli).Google Scholar
Higate, Paul, ed., 2003. Military Masculinities: Identity and the State (Westport, Praeger).Google Scholar
Higate, Paul and Cameron, Alisa, 2006. “Reflexivity and Researching the Military”, Armed Forces & Society, 32, 2, pp. 219-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hower, Gretchen and Zinnes, Dina, 1989. “International Political Conflict: A Literature Review”, Data Development for International Research-Update, 3, 3, p. 11.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel, 1957. The Soldier and The State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Janowitz, Morris, 1960. The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (Glencoe, Free Press).Google Scholar
Juan, Salvador, 2006. “Le combat de l’Organisation et de l’Institution”, SociologieS (an on-line journal), 22 October 2006, http://sociologies.revues.org/document582.html.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert, 1984. After Hegemony (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend, 1981. “K. Deutsch and the New Paradigm in International Relations”, in Merritt, Richard and Russett, Bruce, eds., From National Development to Global Community. Essays in Honor of Karl Deutsch, Allen & Unwin, 1981, pp. 233-251.Google Scholar
Malis, Christian, 2005. “Raymond Aron et le concept de puissance”, Institut de Stratégie Comparée, http://www.stratisc.org/act/malis_powerII.html.Google Scholar
Mann, Steven, 1992. “Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought”, Parameters, pp. 54-68.Google Scholar
Moskos, Charles and Burk, James, 1994. “The Postmodern Military”, in Burk, James, ed., The Military in New Times (Boulder, Westview Press, pp. 141-162).Google Scholar
Moskos, Charles, Williams, John Allen and Segal, David, eds., 2000. The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War (New York, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K., 1958. World Politics (New York, Knopf).Google Scholar
Organski, A. F. K. and Kugler, Jacek, 1980. The War Ledger (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, 1962. “Polarization of the World and the International System”, in Wright, Q., Evan, W. M. and Deutsch, M., eds., 1962. Preventing World War III: Some Proposals (New York, Simon & Schuster, pp. 310-331).Google Scholar
Patomäki, Heikki, 2002. After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics (London, Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramel, Frédéric, 2004a, “Les relations internationales selon Durkheim – un objet sociologique comme les autres”, Études Internationales, 35-3, pp. 495-514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramel, Frédéric, 2004b. “Durkheim au-delà des circonstances: Retour sur L'Allemagne au-dessus de tout. La mentalité allemande et la guerre”, Revue Française de Sociologie, 45-4, pp. 739-751.Google Scholar
Ramel, Frédéric, 2004c. “Marcel Mauss et l’étude des relations internationales: Un héritage oublié”, Sociologie et sociétés, XXXVI-2, pp. 227-245.Google Scholar
Richardson, Lewis, 1960. Statistics of Deadly Quarrels (Pittsburgh/Chicago, Boxwood Press/Quadrangle Books).Google Scholar
Saperstein, Alvin, 1995. “War and Chaos: Complexity Theory May Be Useful in Modeling How Real-World Situations Get Out of Control”, American Scientist, 83, pp. 548-557.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas, 1960. The Strategy of Conflict (New YorkOxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas, 1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Segal, David, 1996. “The Social Construction of Peacekeeping by U.S. Soldiers”, Tocqueville Review, 17, 1, pp. 7-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Rupert(Gen. Sir), 2005. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (London, Allen Lane).Google Scholar
Sorokin, Pitirim, 1937. Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol. III: Fluctuation of Social Relationships, War, and Revolution (New York, American Book Company).Google Scholar
Speier, Hans, 1941. “The Social Types of War”, American Journal of Sociology, 46, pp. 445-454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph and Bilmes, Linda, 2008. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (New York, Norton).Google Scholar
Stouffer, Samuel, 1949. Studies in Social Psychology in World War II: The American Soldier, vol. 2 (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Virilio, Paul, 1991. L’écran du désert (Paris, Galilée).Google Scholar
Virilio, Paul, 1999. Stratégie de la déception (Paris, Galilée).Google Scholar
Virilio, Paul and Lotringer, Sylvère, [1983] 2008. Pure War (New York, Semiotext(e)).Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth, 1979. Theory of International Politics (New York, McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
White, Harrison, 1992. Identity and Control (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Wilson, Garrett, 1999. Nonlinear Dynamical Systems as a Paradigm for International Relations Theory, http://www.garretwilson.com/essays/internationalrelations/complexworld.html.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Murray, Puri, Anil and Martelli, Mario, 1992. “The Nonlinear Dynamics of International Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36, 1, pp. 119-149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Quincy, 1942. A Study of War (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar