When Alexis de Tocqueville studied democracy in America from 1835 to 1840, he had no idea that his observations would pose increasingly relevant almost 200 years later. Individualism versus conformism is an extremely popular debate that has been and is still prevalent in American society, where democracy allows for individual freedom. However, does the United States always practice what it preaches? That's the debate, and we can start by exploring the military and its control over American citizens' individual freedom. Obligatory military service hinders the idea of individualism in the U.S. and creates political and personal challenges for those involved.
Tocqueville “admired American individualism but warned that a society of individuals can easily become atomized and paradoxically uniform when ‘every citizen, being assimilated to all the rest, is lost in the crowd.’” (History.com Editors, 2009). There is no truer form of "uniform" people than those in the military, and not necessarily by choice or free will. It’s almost as if the United States pressures its people into the military and then forces conformity upon them just so everyone else in America is "free" and can express his/her individualism. It's an ironic notion for sure, and the argument is that the sacrifice of one's individualism is for the greater good of the nation. But it's not, and it's definitely not fair. Individualism should be a right for all, not just a select few whom we force (and by force, I mean conscription) into a uniformed pact. “Regardless of who you are, how smart you are, or what job you have, you are molded, formed, and presented as a uniform character of like resemblance to both the brother to your right and to your left. Through discipline, uniformity was pervasive.” (DeBusk-Lane, 2015). Morgan L. DeBusk-Lane joined the United States Marine Corps in 2002 and explores social identity, or the lack of it, in the military.
There is no such thing as individualism in the military; “first names are gone, rank is given, uniforms are worn, standards are high, regulations on presentation, grooming standards, and conduct are significantly regulated and enforced.” (DeBusk-Lane, 2015). Below is just one example of conformity in the military. While these people are out fighting for the freedom of others, they have succumbed to a completely captive environment lost of everything that makes them, them. It fulfills the “promise” of American individualism for everyone but those in the military, which is why it is considered a “sacrifice.” However, when conscription and obligatory military service are at play, individualism for all is nowhere near realistic. Having someone "sacrifice" themself is not for the greater good of the country.
Drafts have been significant in the prominent wars fought by American soldiers: WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War. This means that many of these soldiers were forced to fight against their will, which led to many challenges. In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien explains his internal battle after being called to war. After trying to flee to Canada, he turns back because he "couldn't risk the embarrassment… couldn't endure the mockery, or the disgrace, or the patriotic ridicule." He says, "I would go to war—I would kill and maybe die—because I was embarrassed not to.” (O’Brien, 2010). Just by this set of statements alone, it is clear that one is forced to sacrifice his individuality against his will for the sake of his country because he fears public opinion, which is another toxic form of conformity. He uses "patriotic ridicule" because so much of America believes that fighting for your country is an honor, which makes him feel as though he can't be afraid. It's ironic because even these "patriotic" people who have no idea what war is even like are also part of a uniform group of people who have conformed to a set of ideas and beliefs. The idea of conformity does exist outside of the military; however, the military is just forced.
The other pressing challenge is when United States military personnel don't precisely know what they're fighting for. Many soldiers don't just battle with themselves; they battle immensely with the politics involved. This was primarily true for those involved in Vietnam and Afghanistan. For instance, there wasn't even an identifiable enemy in the Vietnam War because how was one supposed to differentiate between a Vietcong and an average Vietnamese citizen? The United States just used a body count policy, which basically made every Vietnamese death, communist or not, a valuable death for the United States. If someone was killed, he/she was automatically labeled a Vietcong, whether he/she was or not. This notion was detrimental to the mental health of those in war and the politics back home. After American citizens realized they were, in fact, not winning the war, the tension between government and citizens grew immensely. The United States citizens became skeptical of the government, which started a new era of government doubt.
In the following video, John Dennett, a 95-year-old WWII veteran, faces Ste Nicholls, a 34-year-old soldier who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this chilling conversation between the two, comparisons of war, then and war now, are brought to light as well as how shared experiences may impact people differently. When asked about his feelings toward the enemy then and the enemy now, Nicholls explains that he "didn't have any hate for them." He says, "I believed that we were fighting in someone else's country, and they were defending it." “I didn’t believe in it in the end,” he explains. It’s interesting to listen to real stories, story-truth versions of wars we have always heard about but never personally. Many men don't understand what they are fighting for, which leads to anger, frustration, and a change in personality. As we also saw in The Things They Carried, “you come over clean and you get dirty and then afterward it’s never the same.” (O’Brien, 2010).
This leads to the very real and harmful effects of those who survived the war. As described in The Things They Carried, Norman Bowker is just one example of someone who couldn’t escape the events that had transpired in Vietnam. There was no “normal” life he could return home to like O'Brien mentions he did. His end came due to suicide, as did many others. In fact, "suicides among active-duty troops are also at record levels, killing more of our soldiers than enemy actions in recent years." (Ketwig, 2017). This poses a very raw example of how personally challenging conscription and war is and was for many soldiers.
All in all, obligatory military service does require the sacrifice of individualism, but I wouldn't consider it for the greater good of the nation when the nation includes those fighting in a war against their will. Military service supposedly fulfills the promise of American individualism for American citizens (not including soldiers), but in reality, conformism is something that happens no matter what; the military is just an extreme and forced example. The draft experiences experienced by many added many political and personal challenges that were associated with obligatory military service.
Works Cited
DeBusk-Lane, M. L. (2015, February 27). Social Identity in the Military. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2015/02/27/social-identity-in-the-military/
History.com Editors. (2009, November 09). Alexis de Tocqueville. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.history.com/topics/france/alexis-de-tocqueville
Ketwig, J. (2017, November 10). Ketwig: More veterans commit suicide than were killed in Vietnam. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/ketwig-more-veterans-commit-suicide-than-were-killed-in-vietnam/article_2d841f24-c167-50bd-9e0b-02e42feb98d1.html
O'Brien, T. (2010). The things they carried: A work of fiction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Comments