The literature that is used to consider critically the formation of a military self is more often than not deliberated in relation to classic theoretical perspectives on identity formation (both individual and social). Therefore, this introductory chapter provides a brief overview of the classic perspectives. The chapter is not a catch-all, but rather an attempt to introduce some foundational literature and classic models of thought that influence the critical interpretation of military identity and transition.
Defining Identity
Howard (2000) suggests the term āidentityā became a central focus of psychological research and theory development in the modern world due to the shift over time from a stable society in which identity was āassigned rather than selected or adoptedā (p. 367). Howard argues that āmodern timesā had developed within us a greater sense of a need to know who we are due to the āoverwhelming pace of change in surrounding social contexts and changes in the groups and networks in which people and their identities are embedded and in the societal structures and practices in which those networks are themselves embeddedā (p. 368).
However, the term āidentityā is not easy to define (Beart, Hardy, & Buchan, 2005) and despite making the observation over 30 years ago, Gleasonās (1983) opinion that dictionary definitions of the term do not encompass its complexity, remains true to this day. Gleason argued that despite the proper use of the word in everyday discourse, āidentityā as a recent social construction is complicated and difficult to surmise in a short, adequate summary statement. Nevertheless, a general attempt at a definition is provided by Sarup (1994) who implies identity is āthe story we tell of ourselves and which is also the story others tell of usā (p. 91). More specifically, Stryker and Burke (2000) suggest that when one restricts the field to that of sociology and social psychology , three clear uses of the term become apparent. In the first instance, they describe identity as relating āessentially to the culture of a peopleā (p. 284), where one does not distinguish between, for example, ethnicity and identity. In the second example of the usage of the term, they outline Tajfelās (1982, cited in Stryker & Burke, 2000) notion of identity which posits that it is based on ācommon identification with a collectivity or social categoryā (p. 284). The final usage of the word, which underpins personal identity perspectives discussed in the next section, takes a symbolic interactionist approach to identity, claiming that identities are parts of the self which are ācomposed of the meanings that persons attach to the multiple roles they typically play in highly differentiated contemporary societiesā (p. 284). The theoretical exploration that follows initially outlines two main approaches to understanding identity. In the first section, we explore Identity Theory (e.g. Burke, 1991; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1980) and, in the second, we explore Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1985, 1987).
Identity Theory
Influenced by a symbolic interactionist view (e.g. Mead, 1934), Identity Theory (Burke, 1991; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1980) aims to explain social behaviour in terms of the mutual, or reciprocal, relationship between society and self. More explicitly, identity theorists propose that the self is a reflection of the wider social structure composed of the role positions engaged by the individual, which represents self as a collection of identities (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Although Identity Theory is rooted in symbolic interactionism , Hogg et al. (1995) claim that it is not wholly homogenous due to a fundamental difference in how society is organised, with traditional symbolic interactionism viewing society as āa relatively undifferentiated, cooperative wholeā (Stryker & Serpe, 1982, p. 206) and identity theorists arguing that society is ācomplexly differentiated but nevertheless organisedā (Stryker & Serpe, 1982, p. 206). The focus of the literature covered here relates to the original suppositions of Identity Theory (Stryker, 1968, 1987; Stryker & Serpe, 1982), although as Hogg et al. (1995) recognise, the term is also applied to a body of theoretical work (e.g. McCall & Simmons, 1978) that also links the idea of a āmultifaceted notion of self to a wider social structureā (p. 256). Stryker and Serpeās (1982) model of society as being ādifferentiated yet organisedā forms the central basis of the Identity Theory perspective; that is to suggest, as Hogg et al. (1995) does, āas a reflection of society, the self should be regarded as a multifaceted and organized constructā (p. 256). On this basis, identity theorists argue that these multifaceted elements of the self can be seen as identities, often referred to specifically as role identities , which have a direct impact on social behaviour. The variations in the extent to which any particular role identity affects social behaviour in different social contexts is further explained using the notion of identity salience and commitment , each of which will be briefly explored in turn.
Role Identities
As previously suggested, Identity Theory sees the self as a multifaceted social construct that develops from an individualās various roles in society and stipulates that variations in self-concept are due to the individual occupying these different roles (Hogg et al., 1995). These unique components of the self are often referred to as role identities (Stryker, 1968) and represent the role positions we inhabit in society. In short, a role identity is the meaning we attribute to ourselves in a role; and on that basis, Burke and Reitzes (1981) suggest three main characteristics of a role identity .
Firstly, they suggest that role identities are ā social products ā (p. 84) which are maintained through the process of naming or locating the self in socially recognisable categories (e.g. father role, worker role, friend role, etc.), interaction with others and through the process of validating and confirming our self-concepts through ā self-presentation and altercastingā (p. 84). Secondly, in line with Strykerās (1968) description, role identities are self-meanings, developed in particular situations and organised hierarchically, which constructs the self; whilst the meanings of these roles are in some part assigned based on the opportunities and demand characteristics of the situation and via the comparisons of the āsimilarities and differences of the role to complementary or counter-roles ā (Burke & Reitzes, 1981, p. 84). Finally, Burke and Reitzes (1981) refer to role identities as being characterised as symbolic and ref...