Anthony King
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- May 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199658848
- eISBN:
- 9780191752483
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199658848.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics, Political Economy
The usage of the term cohesion is complex and multiple. This chapter aims to identify a coherent definition of the concept of cohesion. The chapter explores the use of the concept of cohesion in the ...
More
The usage of the term cohesion is complex and multiple. This chapter aims to identify a coherent definition of the concept of cohesion. The chapter explores the use of the concept of cohesion in the sociological literature on the military, beginning with the famous article by Janowitz and Shils, and in social psychology, especially the work of Festinger et al. The chapter claims that in all this scholarship cohesion refers to the individual motivation which arises from the special bonds of comradeship and close personal relations. Because they like each other, individuals are willing to do things which they would not do independently. Motivation is clearly important but this chapter proposes that it is better to understand cohesion not as a special form of motivation but as collective performance itself and specifically collective combat performance.Less
The usage of the term cohesion is complex and multiple. This chapter aims to identify a coherent definition of the concept of cohesion. The chapter explores the use of the concept of cohesion in the sociological literature on the military, beginning with the famous article by Janowitz and Shils, and in social psychology, especially the work of Festinger et al. The chapter claims that in all this scholarship cohesion refers to the individual motivation which arises from the special bonds of comradeship and close personal relations. Because they like each other, individuals are willing to do things which they would not do independently. Motivation is clearly important but this chapter proposes that it is better to understand cohesion not as a special form of motivation but as collective performance itself and specifically collective combat performance.
Omer Bartov
- Published in print:
- 1994
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195079036
- eISBN:
- 9780199854455
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195079036.003.0003
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History
Cohesion in the German army was to a large extent maintained by a conscious and systematic nurturing of what has come to be termed as “primary groups”, a social organization with its roots tracing ...
More
Cohesion in the German army was to a large extent maintained by a conscious and systematic nurturing of what has come to be termed as “primary groups”, a social organization with its roots tracing back to military tradition that expected soldiers to feel a special kind of bond and loyalty to their unit. This chapter explores the destruction of the “primary group,” the social unit which had traditionally constituted the backbone of the German army. The chapter explores how the tremendous losses in the fighting, the lack of replacements, and the rapid manpower turnover among combat units, diminished the Wehrmacht reliance on the “primary group” as the key for its cohesion. Further, the chapter displays how the widely accepted sociological theory of Shils and Janowitz, which states that the Wehrmacht avoided disintegration due to its social organization, is irrelevant in Eastern Front conditions.Less
Cohesion in the German army was to a large extent maintained by a conscious and systematic nurturing of what has come to be termed as “primary groups”, a social organization with its roots tracing back to military tradition that expected soldiers to feel a special kind of bond and loyalty to their unit. This chapter explores the destruction of the “primary group,” the social unit which had traditionally constituted the backbone of the German army. The chapter explores how the tremendous losses in the fighting, the lack of replacements, and the rapid manpower turnover among combat units, diminished the Wehrmacht reliance on the “primary group” as the key for its cohesion. Further, the chapter displays how the widely accepted sociological theory of Shils and Janowitz, which states that the Wehrmacht avoided disintegration due to its social organization, is irrelevant in Eastern Front conditions.
