Postmodernist Command: A Contradiction in Terms for the British Army?

The Psychological Impact of Sending Children Away to Boarding Schools in Britain: Is there Cause for Concern?

“…Not unlike boarding schools, the British army also operates as a ‘total institution’ (Kirke, 2007, p. 8) whereby a number of people are removed from the wider society for a period of time and live together in a formal, institutionalized environment and a similar hierarchical structure (Kirke, 2007) to that of boarding schools (Lambert, 1968; Schaverien, 2015). In particular, one can draw a comparison between the school's aforementioned unofficial mandate of shaping individuals, to the culture of bullying in the British army that is seen as a necessary means to an end, that is, ‘oppressive coercive behaviour’ used to elicit ‘operationally advantageous’ (Kirke, 2007, p. 9) outcomes. Aggressive behaviour, the threat of violence, discipline and humiliation are all deemed acceptable if the motives behind the perpetrator's actions are within the cultural norms and in the best interest of the wider institution (Kirke, 2007).…”

“…In particular, one can draw a comparison between the school's aforementioned unofficial mandate of shaping individuals, to the culture of bullying in the British army that is seen as a necessary means to an end, that is, ‘oppressive coercive behaviour’ used to elicit ‘operationally advantageous’ (Kirke, 2007, p. 9) outcomes. Aggressive behaviour, the threat of violence, discipline and humiliation are all deemed acceptable if the motives behind the perpetrator's actions are within the cultural norms and in the best interest of the wider institution (Kirke, 2007). Recruits are socially isolated and consequently more susceptible to bullying in an organization that takes advantage of the psychological vulnerability of adolescents.…”

“…Kirke's (2007) argument for replacing the word bullying with ‘oppressive coercive behaviour’ (p. 9) is that an act of aggression can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. For example, a physical attack on an individual by a group may be perceived by the group as acceptable corrective behaviour; from the victim's point of view as excessive force and intimidation; or from a commanding officer's standpoint, anything including and in between (Kirke, 2007). Notwithstanding the military's understandable difficulties in defining bullying (Kirke, 2007; Stuart & Szeszeran, 2020), that is, balancing aggressive behaviour with building a robust army where lives are at stake (Kirke, 2007), it is arguably the perception of the victim that is important when it comes to the individual psychological effect of any form of bullying.…”

“…In contrast to these behaviours, Kirke (2007) notes the necessity for, and expectation of, senior officers to form warm and supportive bonds with juniors in a pastoral sense. A similar relationship was noted by Lambert (1968, p. 68) in the earlier days of ‘fagging’ 2 at boarding schools, whereby a mutually supportive and beneficial relationship is formed despite the imbalance of power.…”

“…Any child faced with the challenge of a new school environment would be subject to similar forces (Lester & Mander, 2020). However, Lambert (1968) asserts that tensions are intensified when living communally, Kirke (2007) suggests that living in close quarters makes individuals more susceptible to bullying, and Lester and Mander (2020) point out that children who board have the additional burden of dealing with these difficulties without the support of their parents or siblings. Furthermore, Mander, Lester and Cross (2015) found levels of stress, anxiety and depression to be substantially higher in boarding students than in their non‐boarding peers.…”