Military Loyalty as a Moral Emotion

Abstract

Loyalty between soldiers is idealized as an emotion that promotes cohesion and combat effectiveness. However, little empirical work has examined how military personnel understand, feel, and enact loyalty. We use a symbolic interactionalist informed frame to explore the lived experience of 24 retired Australian Defence Force members via in-depth semi-structured interviews. Our analysis revealed three core themes: (1) Loyalty as reciprocity, where there was an expectation that loyalty would be returned no matter what. (2) The importance of emotional connection for cohesion. (3) Loyalty as a prioritizing process, where a soldier’s loyalties gave them a way of choosing between competing demands. Loyalty is a moral emotion that enabled sensemaking. Close interpersonal loyalties tended to trump wider/diffused loyalties. Respondents understood their loyalties to fellow soldiers within wider social constructs of mateship and professionalism. The findings show the risks that come from a reliance on loyalty for combat cohesion.

Keywords

sociology discipline loyalty emotions cohesion

Why soldiers engage, fight, and kill the enemy is an enduring question that has captivated militaries since warfare began. As killing is a universal taboo, strong motivators are required to encourage deviation from social norms (Kooistra & Mahoney, 2016). A popular perception is that a soldier’s loyalty—to compatriots, unit, and country—provides a motivation for violence. However, as a concept loyalty is fuzzy, undertheorized, and suffers greatly from the “I know it when I see it” phenomenon (Connor, 2007). Thus, when loyalty is called upon by armies to inspire soldiers, we do not yet have a theoretically informed, empirically supported analysis of exactly what that means to a soldier (Powell & Gilbert, 2008). This gap is 2-fold. First, the microinteractional processes of loyalty are unclear. Second, how an individual’s lived experience of loyalty as a moral emotion connects with meso- and macro-interactional/political frames is understudied.

While there is a small but growing body of work on loyalty in general (Connor, 2007, 2018; Prinz, 2007) and military loyalty in particular (Coleman, 2009; Connor, 2010; Kirke, 2009), few authors have explored the concept using empirical data. We conceptualize loyalty as an emotion and draw on the sociology of emotions literature, in particular symbolic interactionism (Collins, 1984, 2004, 2008; Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Luhmann, 1995), to argue that emotions drive behavior via ongoing interactions. Loyalty was examined as moral emotion via a series of qualitative interviews with 24 retired service personnel to investigate their understanding of loyalty, duty, and reciprocity.

This article is structured as follows. In “Loyalty as a Moral Emotion,” we observe the research gap for loyalty as a moral emotion and then discuss the sociology of emotions literature in relation to this concept. In “Method,” we detail our methodology and its advantages over more traditional virtue-ethics approaches. In “Results,” we discuss the data that revealed three key aspects of loyalty in a military context; reciprocity, the significance of loyalty for small unit cohesion and the function of loyalty as a guide by which interviewees prioritize obligations. Finally, in “Discussion,” we suggest a new direction for the study of loyalty, namely, as a guiding moral emotion that presents a theoretical bridge between the lived experience of loyalty and meso-level group dynamics and social structures.

Loyalty as a Moral Emotion

Loyalty is an understudied yet crucial component to cohesion and effectiveness. It is telling that the seminal work on small unit cohesion (e.g., Siebold, 2007) mentions yet never defines what is meant by loyalty. Kirke (2009) identifies the loyalty/identity structure as central to belonging within nested groups that matches Connor’s (2007) description of loyalty layers. Further, Salo and Sinkko (2012) acknowledge the importance of loyalty in their affective component of cohesion yet do not explore it further. Similarly, Verweijen (2018) notes the importance of loyalty but does not explain it, while Käihkö (2018), in a review of the literature critiqued by Siebold (2018), calls for new approaches. What we offer to this debate is a more theoretically and empirically grounded exploration of the experiences of loyalty from servicemen. While many authors reflect on military decision-making by drawing on cognitive frameworks, the conception of loyalty as a moral emotion that we advance in this section suggests that it is important to focus on the underlying reasoning processes.

We explore loyalty from a symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1986; Goffman, 1961) as it directs us to examine the lived experience of loyalty as a situated emotion. Emotions emerge in the context of an actor’s interactions within their social sphere (Connor, 2007), within social relationships (Kemper, 1984), and are recursively reproduced via the social structures that they in turn support (Barbalet, 1998; Collins, 1984). Consideration of the group and organizational contexts of individual interpretation and action is vital as emotional interactions are novel and habitual, enabled and constrained by circumstances both past and present (see Collins, 1984, 2004; Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Luhmann, 1995). However, we acknowledge the disagreement within the sociology of emotions literature concerning the origins of feelings (Hallett, 2003; Turner, 2009) and how they might be studied (Katz, 1999).

Within organizations, emotional norms and emotional management help goal attainment through individuals managing their feelings to fit social expectations (Fields, Copp, & Kleinman, 2006; Hochschild, 1983, 1998; Hockey, 1986). For instance, how a group defines a given situation in which they must act helps individual members determine what actions they ought to undertake. Consistently, employing the same interpretation of actions and rules results in habitualized patterns (Blumer, 1986) as group members share an imagined set of assumptions about feeling rules (Butler & Gross, 2009; Hallett, 2003; Harber, 2009; Rimé, 2009). As such, differing social units express different emotion cultures, where local particularities shape the emotional climate (Turner, 2009). As Haidt (2012) notes with the moral foundations theory approach, loyalty/betrayal is a key foundation of decision-making and tribal coherence.

Previously, scholars such as Coleman (2009), Fletcher (1995), Keller (2007), and Klenig (2014) have examined loyalty as a virtue and as a principle for social cohesion, with much debate on the “value” of the feeling. Consequently, while there are sophisticated inquiries concerning how virtuous loyalty ought to be done, we have only a partial understanding of how loyalty is practiced.

We propose that loyalty is a moral emotion rather than just a behavior or an instrumental, contract-like relation (Connor, 2007, 2018; Keller, 2007). This allows us to deploy an interactionist framework and ask how loyalties inform a person’s sense of self (identity), connection to others, and sensemaking processes. Morals have an emotional basis; they are felt (Connor, 2010; Haidt, 2012; Prinz, 2007) and cannot be disentangled from one another. Hence, though not in the sense of virtue ethics but in the sense of social experiences and expectations, an emotional bond functions at least to some degree as a moral bond, and vice versa. That is, an emotional bond can make me feel as though I owe an obligation to someone or something, and a moral bond with someone or something can elicit certain emotions in response to the fulfillment or failure to fulfill the terms of said bond.

Invariably relational to associated others and wider society, moral emotions bear a vital normative component that is concerned with the words and deeds that individuals ought, or ought not, to perform. Moral emotions such as loyalty motivate behavior in line with a person’s moral code (Prinz, 2007). Prinz (2007) argues that moral emotions are intrinsically motivating as they impel us to react to the source of the emotion. For instance, when someone we know violates rules or norms that we value, we not only experience strong emotional reactions, they motivate us to seek redress (Prinz, 2007). Herein, moral emotions serve as a person’s guide to immediate and future action.

To act out of a sense of loyalty, or to repudiate one’s loyal relationship to another by acting in contravention of it, is to ask oneself what one ought to do in a particular circumstance given an existing relationship with another. In this way, loyalty normatively orders an individual’s relationships with others and, generally, guides their actions in accordance with the needs and interests of those to whom their loyalty is attached. Thus, the lived experience of loyalty is intrinsically bound up with others and ties into our intimate sense of belonging. Through this, the lived experience of loyalty discloses an individual to themselves as a normative actor whose actions are guided by consideration of the commitments they make to others as well as what others expect of them.

All emotions involve an element of reciprocity (Connor, 2007); however, loyalty depends upon reciprocity and the fulfillment of responsibilities to others. Notably, this reciprocity is neither contractual nor instrumental in essence (though it may involve contractual and instrumental elements) but rather is founded upon the belief of a mutual recognition of value between at least two or more people (Connor, 2018).

Although complex, loyalty is a deeply felt moral emotion insofar as genuine loyalty from one person to another implicates that individual’s sense of self-identity. Voluntarily committing to a reciprocal relationship validates the value of those others to and for oneself. To be genuinely loyal is therefore, in part, to assert who you are and intend to be. Expectations of social interaction and validation of identity also shape emotional experience (Bericat, 2015). Actors form emotional attachments to roles that in turn inform their sense of self. For example, with nationalism and national identities, pride and loyalty are often strongly felt and, without such emotional attachments, roles and allegiances would be able to be much more readily discarded (Connor, 2007). As our shared experiences of belonging within these groups affirms us as valued members, our loyalty to the group develops. Yet, even as loyal relationships affirm self-value, the multiplicity of loyal relationships we maintain produces the potential for loyalty conflicts.

Loyalty relationships are highly discretionary and targeted rather than general and diffuse. An individual’s commitment to a particular group ordinarily reflects some degree of loyalty to at least one or more members of the group. However, loyalty to a group member does not imply loyalty to the group as a whole, just as loyalty to the group as a whole does not necessarily imply loyalty to all group members (Connor, 2007). Per this, the strength of an individual’s loyalty relationships is variable and iterative, developing via shared experiences to wax or wane. Loyalties can be conflicting, and different loyalties can arise and take precedence in different scenarios (Coleman, 2009).

For groups, having loyal members is vital to perpetuating the group. Insofar as groups require the acquisition of resources for the achievement of group goals, the fostering of loyalty among a group’s members motivates them to commit to satisfying the group’s needs. However, to the extent that individuals have multiple loyalty layers, differences in the strength of an individual’s loyalty to different groups will translate into differing levels of commitment. A group with mildly loyal members will find it harder to satisfy its needs if those members have stronger commitments elsewhere. Yet creating a strong bond between an individual and a group can be difficult. Contractual arrangements and instrumental incentives are common means by which groups try to obtain such commitment from its members. But such arrangements are ultimately provisional per the existence of the contract and the ongoing satisfaction of promised incentives.

Conversely, the effective socialization of loyalty among a group’s members creates a moral bond between an individual and group that is emotionally charged and implicates an individual’s self-identity. An individual who is loyal to a group does not just identify the group as comprising part of their self-identity, it also provides for them a normative guide to action. Loyalty prompts an individual to reflect upon their actions in terms of the group’s needs and interest: to fulfil my commitment to this group, how ought I act in this situation. An intended function of loyalty at the meso-level is to produce social cohesion among the members of a group such that they identify the group’s needs and interests with their own, over and against the satisfaction of the needs and interests of others. This is why military institutions place such special emphasis on loyalty and intensely socialize new recruits. Sublimation of individual identity into one of the strong group identification is a key purpose of military training and addresses the problem of motivation to fight (Janowitz, 1959; Moskos, 1976; Shils & Janowitz, 1948; Siebold, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2018). This is elsewhere classified as primary-group cohesion, defined as the emotional bonds within the unit and toward its leader (Salo & Sinkko, 2012).

Thus argued, this article serves a 2-fold purpose; on the one hand, to advance the study of loyalty as a moral emotion that is pragmatically fostered by groups among group members and on the other hand to explore how military members understand their lived experiences of loyalty and the functions they saw it fulfilling in a military context.

Method

Interviews with 24 retired military servicemen were conducted to understand how loyalty was operationalized during their deployments, the meanings of loyalty to them, and their experiences of military loyalty. Participants were males aged 25–70 who had been deployed in war, peacekeeping, and humanitarian missions including both Gulf Wars, Vietnam, the Solomon Islands, and East Timor. All had served in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for at least 5 years and up to 25 years. We recruited males for this study due to the homosocial and hypermasculine nature of the military (Wadham, 2013, 2016) and the legacy effect of the exclusion of women from combat roles meaning few would meet the recruitment criteria. Subjects were recruited in 2013–2014 via advertisements in retired service organization newsletters and e-mail lists. Snowball sampling was then undertaken via initial respondents. A research assistant (RA) who was very familiar with the military and military sociology (a former ADF member who had previously been deployed himself) was hired to conduct the interviews. The RA was naive to the theoretical framework being explored so as to limit bias/leading in questioning. Questions were focused on the subjects’ thoughts and experiences of loyalty and hence the questions were semi-structured to allow for an open exploration of the research concepts (interview questions are presented in Appendix). Interviews went for 1–3 hr. Transcripts were professionally transcribed then de-identified, pseudonyms are used in this article.

Data analysis was inductive and iterative with a grounded theory approach to data collection (Grbich, 2007; Srivastava & Hopwood, 2009). To avoid confirmation bias, an author, who was very experienced in interviewing and qualitative data analysis (Noack-Lundberg, 2013), but not in military sociology, undertook coding and data analysis initially and separately from the other authors (who were already aware of the study purpose and grounding/framing literature). Emerging themes were then cross-checked, confirmed, and discussed (Flick, 2002; Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998). We approached the data with a framework derived from the combination of military cohesion and emotion literatures (Neuendorf, 2017; Stemler, 2001). We utilized an inductive analysis (Patton, 2002) allowing themes and patterns to emerge from the data through an iterative multi-loop system where transcripts were critically analyzed by all researchers. The team engaged in repeated interpretations and reinterpretations toward a stable understanding of the themes revealed by the interviews. The quotes used in Results are the most illustrative examples of the themes that consistently arose from each interview transcript.

There are limitations with the data set. Davies and Dwyer (2007), building on Law (2004), explain how difficult it can be to research emotion from historical narrations (see also Bondi, 2014; Katz, 1999). In the interviews, our subjects were remembering experiences, and the accounts provided are therefore dependent on the subject’s recollection and processing of events. The interviews produced data concerning how male-gendered subjects experienced loyalty and thus does not include data concerning how female-gendered subjects may experience loyalty in a military and in what ways this may differ from those of their male counterparts. Further, the data set only collected snapshots of a set of Australian former servicemen whose experiences were distributed across time and organizational positions. Hence, our research did not capture data involving servicemen with specific shared experiences that could be compared with one another. However, the nature of this data, as comprising snapshots of experience across time and organizational position, does permit us to suggest that there is some degree of common experience among servicemen regarding loyalty in the military.

Results

Our study revealed the experiences of loyalty in the Australian Military context. The concept of reciprocity emerged as having a significant effect on small unit cohesion. We found that some respondents distinguished between loyalty and mateship, where mateship, as synonymous with friendship, denoted a liking for and connection with others in the unit. Conversely, they acknowledged that they could be loyal even to people they disliked, as long as they were task competent and part of the “team.” Our findings accord with the literature on likeability, professionalism, competence, and acceptance (Bury & King, 2015; King, 2013). This leads us to propose that loyalty may be socialized and practiced differently across organizations, cultures, and historical periods. In the case of the respondents and the ADF, the “mateship doctrine of loyalty” involved very strong reciprocity norms and informal in-group norm regulation that respondents acknowledged could produce norm underenforcement, organizational rule violations, and procedural noncompliance. The study also revealed a recurring theme of loyalty as a prioritizing guide by which respondents interpreted events and rationalized their actions on behalf of the group and other group members.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity was found to be a key component of loyalty. This was particularly true within small units, as many servicemen expressed that they would do anything, or almost anything, for their mates, including giving their lives, and in turn, they assumed that their mates would support them in similar ways. Respondents also noted that loyalty and expectations of reciprocity were affected by situational contexts. For instance, the expectation of reciprocal protection intensified greatly under operational conditions compared to domestic postings. The expectation of reciprocal relationships was expressed in relation to their immediate colleagues and to the wider military. When the expected reciprocity was not fulfilled by the military, due to a perceived lack of support, poor conditions, or missed opportunities for advancement, loyalty was tested. Reciprocity to mates is illustrated by the comment from Dean below. This sentiment was commonly and repeatedly expressed.

Dean:

Yep. Just the trust of knowing that they’d do the same thing for me…They wouldn’t exactly put themselves in danger to preserve my life, but by God, they’d do exactly the same thing for me as I would for them. And it goes back to, like I said before, you know, I do it because I know they would do it for me too.

This strong expectation of reciprocal loyalty toward mates could also lead servicemen to break rules. Most participants stressed that they were breaking minor rules, but the examples below support our contention that if military loyalty is prioritized over other ethical concerns, then it can produce malfeasance and may result in poor organizational outcomes (Connor, 2010; Winslow, 1999).

Gary:

Yeah. Definitely. I’d say, well, now there are rules which…everyone breaks rules and stuff.…I’d never, like, let a mate down if they ever required something to be done. You’d make sure you look after, hold up your end of the deal.…Like, you wouldn’t…you’d never renege on a deal…you would look after your mates.…

Barry:

And one kid got into strife one day and I went to bat for him. And you only have to do one thing, and you win the whole lot of them.…You’ve got to display loyalty to them first, and then you get…you earn the loyalty of them later. You can’t demand it. It’s like respect; you can’t demand respect, you’ve got to earn it.

Dylan:

It’s bred into you, it’s trained into you that, you know, you’d look after each other and I think with that thought and that belief your confidence is so much higher and your belief that your mate next to you will risk his life or do the same for you.

Nigel:

I suppose loyalty just goes…it’s a two-way street, and because we have…especially in…not the officer ranks, but we don’t have a lot of peers, so to speak, your loyalty goes up and down a lot more and if your boss looks after you you’ll do what you can to look after them and make sure the troops are all excited. Your loyalty goes to your mates. You’d fairly much do whatever you could to help them out, so I suppose, would you break the law to help them if it was reasonable, yes, if not then you’d just…you’d not so much be loyal to them by protecting them, so to speak, but you’d definitely help them through the time and that kind of stuff. So loyalty was a big thing; it wasn’t really described as loyalty, I think we all just come under the Australian mateship-type thing, rather than…and camaraderie rather than loyalty.

The above quotes highlight an enduring theme: that you look after your mates first. The need for reciprocity also extends to the return on loyalty from the institution itself, as the comment below notes, it is expected that the hierarchy will look after the interests of the soldier.

Justin:

I had an obligation to the military. I mean, I have gained, I genuinely believe I’ve got a lot more out of the army than the army has ever gotten out of me, and it was my turn to give back, and so I did. In terms of while we were over there, look, I understand that the military runs on, and must necessarily run on, discipline, otherwise it’s just a bunch of blokes with guns and it was very hard to maintain a positive outlook on the mission when the stupid decisions that were made, it was really, really difficult to maintain that military composure and to be a part of that system when you just felt like you were constantly being fucked over. And, you know, this is stuff I haven’t thought about in years, but I’m actually getting really angry just thinking about it. Some of the stuff they did was just out of control. And so definitely it was very difficult to maintain a professional, positive outlook for an extended period of time when the hierarchy just had their heads up their arses.

This demonstrates the shift from tight, personal interactional loyalty that is immediately lived/felt to loyalty being directed toward abstract entities—the “military” or service.

Small Unit Cohesion

One of loyalty’s primary functions is to ensure social cohesion. Most interview participants stated that their main loyalty was to their mates, unit, and family, while subsidiary loyalties were to the chain of command and, more abstractly, to the military or nation. While there were a few participants who mentioned different loyalties (such as primarily being loyal to the nation, role, or professional identity), it was much more common for loyalty to small units to be the strongest.

Dean:

But like I said, the camaraderie within an infantry section or a platoon or even a battalion is so strong, it’s like when you leave, you’re leaving your family.

Ken:

The army is all about teamwork. If you don’t stick together, well, you’ve got nothing. You know, you’re just a pack of rabble. So, right or wrong, you’re stuck together.

Small unit cohesion has positive effects on health and performance (Boer, 2001) and morale (Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, & Laberg, 2002; Rielly, 2000).¹ Small unit-cohesion is a force that motivates soldiers to fight, even under duress and in extreme conditions (Siebold, 2007). However, unit-cohesion could have negative effects if loyalty to peers overrode ethical concerns or a sense of duty. The quotes below illustrate the strength of loyalty to small units.

Dean:

If you haven’t got that loyalty and that trust, you don’t have a cohesive force, if you know what I mean.…And if you don’t have that cohesiveness, then all you’ve got is just a group of people.

Tim:

What happens is you’re really with your mates you know, you’re with your platoon or your section and squad all the time, and mates look after each other. So you don’t feel, I mean sort of the, what’s the phrase? You know safety in numbers, yeah, safety in numbers. So everyone’s in the same boat. That’s what tends to happen. And you get your strength from that and support from your own mates.

Michael:

He was just a young, stupid digger, right? And some…you know, look, because you’re living in each other’s pockets sometimes you just want to throttle him but would that ever stop me from saving his life? Never. Would that ever stop me from working side-by-side with him to save somebody else or to do something else regardless of what it is? It never got in the way and it never got in the way of…personality never got in the way of what you were doing, if that makes sense, because everybody knew there was a time and a place.

Barry:

I mean, now, a lot of these blokes I’ve never met.…but that’s mateship, that’s esprit de corps. We all operated under the same badge, the Royal Australian Regimental Badge, and our corps…our regimental motto is “Duty First.” And that’s what we all do. It’s our duty to help our mate.

Cohesion is strongly associated with identity development, and this means that the small unit as a loyalty layer can supersede other loyalties.

Justin:

We had a couple of reasonably sort of hairy incidents that happened when we were over there which could have gone pear-shaped, and I had to know, I did know, that the guys that were standing behind me were going to be…they had my back. And right throughout the whole deployment, you know, from the tiniest little thing, I knew that if I’d set a task that it would get done; that the whole machine, the whole mechanism would continue to operate because we had a loyalty to each other. Those guys, I hope, had a loyalty to me and I certainly had a loyalty to them, and it was the, for want of another word, it was probably the glue that held the whole team together, was the loyalty to each other, because as the end of that day, that’s all you’ve got, probably, is the people standing next to you.

Michael:

But if you didn’t have your mates and there wasn’t that loyalty and trust, you wouldn’t be able to cope, mentally, after you’d been on deployment. Like, on an emotional level, if you didn’t have your mates and there wasn’t the loyalty and the trust between them, what have you got?

Tim:

I would have died for them, as simple as that. We had a very, very strong bond in the [Regiment].

Participants claimed that this loyalty was strengthened by experiencing challenging conditions together, living in close quarters and spending their time with one another (Goffman, 1961). This was particularly evident on deployment.

Loyalty as Prioritizing Guide to Action

Our loyalties operate in layered and nested combinations and they can be complementary or conflictual depending upon the circumstance. Subjects identified how they tended to rank varying loyalties that indicated which relationship they were likely to prioritize in times of challenge or conflict.

Stephen:

I guess those around us came first. I mean, because everybody’s dependent on everybody else for…you know, for what they did and how they lived their lives. Ship probably second, and what we were doing for the country was probably third.

Dean:

Maybe within your section, you have your loyalty to your pit mate or your buddy. And then you have loyalty to your group, and then you have your loyalty to your section. Then company…But, yeah. So my first loyalty was towards my job; second loyalty would have been to the people around me, again acting as a cohesive force; and then it would have been to Australia, and so on and so on.

Dylan:

The loyalty certainly was among my peers than my chain of command. My loyalty was for my mate next to me and other ranks, I guess. Certainly working in a multinational base where there were certain countries, my alliance was very much and my loyalties were to my Army or the Army and then several, you know, different countries after that.

Gary:

Yeah, definitely. It’s sort of like you know, with platoons and regiments you look after your platoon, if someone from another platoon had a go at one of your mates, you’d protect your mate. If someone from another platoon had a go at your platoon, you’d protect your platoon. And, like, even like if someone from the Navy picked on someone from the Army, you’d defend the Army.

These quotes demonstrate how subjects prioritized the layers of loyalty. The participants were very aware of the hierarchies they had in place and the effects these would have on themselves and their interactions with others. Importantly, respondents’ accounts strongly suggested that the prioritization of some loyalty relationships over others had notable influence over interpreting information, making decisions, and justifying behavior. Tellingly, descriptions of this influence were recounted in moral and essential terms.

Dylan:

Loyalty is essentially being a soldier I guess…as soon as you join the Army your loyalty is to the Army.

Stephen:

Being who we were and what we were doing, you couldn’t not be loyal to your country.

Steve:

I think being in the military causes you to have that loyalty anyway…. So loyalty to the military would be just being in the military.…Just being in the military to me says that you’re loyal to it.

Barry:

You’re either loyal or you ain’t. And you treat everybody exactly the same.

Dean:

You always looked after your mates, no matter whether they were male or female; you always looked after your mates. And you know, there was no second-guessing. If something was going to happen, then you did your best to protect them before you try and protect yourself.

The idea that we have multiple, competing loyalties is well established. What the results indicate is that we prioritize these layers based on socialized cues and the strength of emotional ties. Our results echo very early work on the role of loyalty acting as a priority system for cohesion and decision-making with Little (1964) finding that loyalty to your battle buddy was prioritized over loyalty to the organization.

Discussion

The themes that emerged from our analysis accord with the wider literature on cohesion, reciprocity, and the ordering function of loyalty. Reciprocity emerged as a prominent theme, framed around “mateship,” as soldiers claimed that they knew their mates “had their backs” and would protect each other. This reciprocity was usually framed in terms of personal sacrifice or willingness to be exposed to harm and risk. Reciprocity, or the expectation of it, was also a glue within the social relationship, allowing soldiers to presume support and protection in the future. While reciprocity is a key element of emotions (Kemper, 1984) this is particularly the case with loyalty, as reciprocity seems to be a primary component of the subjects’ experience. At the intimate interactional level, these loyalty feelings make sense and have a strong interactional base to them. The complexity of loyalty to more abstract entities such as “army” or “nation” and the conflicted feelings that our subjects expressed challenges our thinking around loyalty.

First, it is apparent that we can be loyal to abstract entities and to social actors other than people (such as our pets, Connor, 2018). As long as the actor feels that there is a loyalty relationship, they will act upon that (perhaps imagined) relationship. However, bureaucratic entities like militaries and nation states take an instrumental view of emotion as motivator and can’t feel emotions as our subjects did. Thus, when organizational imperatives/activities overrode the desires of the individual, the subjects felt that they had been betrayed in a very emotional, loyalty-based sense. Conversely, some participants retained a high level of loyalty to the military, as they felt the organization had given them unique career opportunities and more than adequate financial recompense, and they had developed a strong sense of identity as exceptional, moral citizens. The complex nature of loyalty and reciprocity to the organization shows how conflicted the feeling is when deployed from abstract entities to the lived experience of the individual.

Our research findings replicated those of previous studies, in that loyalty was strongly associated with small-group cohesion (Andrews, Michele Kacmar, Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008; Bartone, et al., 2002; Charbonneau & Wood, 2018). Our data suggested that the distinction between social and task cohesion, drawn by both Kirke (2009) and Siebold (2006, 2007, 2011), is relevant for understanding loyalty and cohesion in small units. Subjects spoke of unit cohesion in terms of task competency and social cohesion. The cohesion appeared to be the stronger unifying process. Notably, unlike Kirke (2009), themes of leadership and its relationship with loyalty were not present in the data set. On this point, the understanding of loyalty and its function within military organizational structures would benefit from specific research regarding the relationships between loyalty, trust, leadership, and performance. Additionally, further work needs to draw on King (2006, 2013) and Kirke (2009) to explicate the complex interplay of task and/or social bonding—acknowledging, as Kirke rightly does—that interpersonal bonds are complex social interplays embedded with systems and structures that are always in flux.

We also found that loyalty to the smallest units such as platoon/section or to one’s mates would generally override other loyalties. While this would function to encourage soldiers to sacrifice for each other during deployment, in practice, it was also demonstrated that this strong loyalty could lead to cover-ups of unethical behavior. Furthermore, some servicemen saw these identities as exclusive, leading to the creation of strong in-groups and out-groups. This loyalty supported and enhanced development of strong group identities, but this could lead to enmities developing with groups considered to be outside, in order to strengthen in-group identity and cohesion.

Wolfe and Darley (2005) found that mechanisms such as cognitive dissonance and deindividuation came into play in situations where there was a protracted conflict and there was a need to distinguish civilians from combatants in situations where this distinction was not immediately clear. “Nation Partiality” (Roblyer, 2005) also meant that soldiers were more likely to see people in out-groups as all having the same views about the conflict and therefore all as potential enemies (Wolfe & Darley, 2005). In uncertain situations, minimizing losses from one’s own group became paramount, and soldiers may prioritize limiting these losses by, for example, harming enemy civilians (Hoge et al., 2004, Kooistra & Mahoney, 2016; Wolfe & Darley, 2005). It is a concern that strong in-group loyalties combined with ingrained and automatic responses could lead to a failure to make ethical decisions under pressure.

In 2015, Bericat appealed to scholars to make greater efforts to theorize and conduct empirical research that connects microlevel lived experiences with meso-level dynamics and macro-level structures, arguing that “any description, explanation or sociological understanding of a social phenomenon is incomplete…if it does not incorporate the feeling subject into its study of structures and social processes” (p. 5. original emphasis). Apropos loyalty, it is apparent that individual experiences of loyalty are important for meso-level dynamics, such as those observed in small unit cohesion. According to Bericat (2015), a robust sociological account of loyalty needs to link microlevel experiences of loyalty with meso-level group dynamics as well as contextual sociopolitical structures and movements in which the feeling subject(s) are embedded. This is relevant as we are able to observe the significance of loyalty to politico-cultural phenomena such as nationalism, militarism, and patriotism; movements that are strongly predicated upon the enculturation and narrativization of loyalty among members and supporters. What remains unclear here though are the means by which microlevel experiences of loyalty are implicated within and conditioned by macro-level social phenomena.

Loyalty serving as a prioritizing function was evident throughout interviewee’s accounts: guiding their decision-making, social heuristics, and behavior. Interviewees spoke to the ways in which their multiplicity of loyalty relationship were prioritized in moral terms such that the needs and interests of one group were elevated over and against the interests of others. The interviewee’s repeated and sustained interactions with fellow soldiers both fostered and degraded loyalty between specific members, with in-groups and out-groups, and the wider military institution. In symbolic interactionist terms, the data suggested that the subjects were highly discriminating between social relationships, task cohesion, and emotional bonds and that interactive experiences herein played significant roles in informing later interactions.

Assessed from a meso-level sociological perspective, the obvious functionalist extension of the interviewee’s responses can be articulated. Loyalty operates to morally and emotionally bind a group’s members to the group as a whole, such that they prioritize the in-group’s needs. Hereby, the in-group is sustained and reproduced. However, this can also be assessed from a macro-level political perspective to propose the following: if loyalty is a moral emotion that functions to prioritize the needs and interests of one or more groups over and against one or more other groups, then this prioritization invariably serves to sustain and reproduce the needs of some social structures over others.

As long as social structures are conceived as historically contextualized and politically intended structures, then loyalty provides an individual with moral and emotional reasons to pursue and achieve what are, effectively, political ends. This is why Ossewarde (2009) proposes that “loyalty is a political concept” (p. 133): sustaining and reproducing a social grouping requires members to commit themselves by furnishing their time and energy to procure resources, create outputs, and maintain in-group functionality. Ordinarily, contractual arrangements and instrumental incentives may be used to achieve such ends. However, the limited durability of contractual arrangements and the contingency of instrumental incentives mean that any grouping that is predominantly dependent upon these forms of social relationships will ultimately be fragile in the long term. Loyalty complements and enhances such instrumental arrangements by providing group members with moral and emotional reasons to achieve goals.

Conclusion

A core problem for militaries is how to train people to override moral codes forbidding extreme violence. Loyalty to one’s immediate peers, nested within wider loyalties to the organization and nation, coupled with a sense of duty to fulfill one’s mission, work to enable soldiers to kill. In situations where soldiers are immersed with others in their units and face high-conflict, high-pressure, unusual situations together, a robust bond develops. Reciprocated loyalty allows soldiers to face these situations with a strong sense that their fellow soldiers will do anything for their mates. These observations are not new. What we are adding to our understanding is the interactional emotionality of cohesion explored through the lens of loyalty. The insights on how our subjects prioritized their loyalties and the consequent effects on feeling and decisions is a novel finding that needs further research with current members and a diversity of militaries. The lived experiences of loyalty have significant implications for the management of loyalty, cohesion, and proper conduct within the military.

Loyalty is a fragile emotion, especially when felt toward actors or entities removed from the immediate interactional milieu of the person. If, as we’ve argued elsewhere, loyalty denotes an expectation of future conduct, based on past feelings/events to structure current activity (Connor, 2007, 2018), then loyalty can evaporate or become disloyalty when there is a perceived breach of the expected reciprocity. This theme came out strongly to explain how cohesion worked. It was the subjects’ very strong expectation that their “mates” would do anything for them, and vice versa. This is entirely functional in a life or death combat situation, but the feeling and expectation extended into everyday mundane soldiering, and later, life activities. The complexity of loyalty to wider entities, especially when breached indicates how hard it is for organizations to take advantage of loyalty at the abstract level, as breaches in reciprocity are inevitable as the needs of the organization outweigh the desires of the individual.

Loyalty and group identification can fuel cognitive dissonance and deindividuation, when protecting one’s own is seen as the most important goal or when decisions need to be undertaken in high risk, uncertain environments (Wolfe & Darley, 2005). As moral emotions are strongly tied to group identifications, and this can affect decision-making, training that incorporates “moral fitness” (Schut, Graaff, & Verweij, 2015) should also be supported in military contexts. While loyalty works to bond units together and can be a powerful motivator, the kind of loyalty that means cohesion overrides moral imperatives cannot be allowed to be the most prominent factor shaping decisions.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or Australian Research Council.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported (partially or fully) by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP180100114). This research was also supported (partially or fully) by a UNSW Canberra Special Research Grant Scheme.

ORCID iD

Dia Jade Andrews

Note

References

Andrews

M. C.

Michele Kacmar

Blakely

G. L.

Bucklew

N. S.

(2008). Group cohesion as an enhancement to the justice—Affective commitment relationship. Group & Organization Management, 33, 736–755. doi:10.1177/1059601108326797

Barbalet

J. M.

(1998). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A macrosociological approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bartone

P. T.

Johnsen

B. H.

Eid

Brun

Laberg

J. C.

(2002). Factors influencing small-unit cohesion in Norwegian navy officer cadets. Military Sociology, 14, 1–22.

Bericat

(2015). The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress. Current Sociology, 1–23. doi:10.1177/0011392115588355

Blumer

(1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Boer

P. C.

(2001). Small unit cohesion: The case of fighter squadron 3-V1.G.IV. Armed Forces & Society, 28, 33–54.

Bondi

(2014). Understanding feelings: Engaging with unconscious communication and embodied knowledge. Emotion, Space and Society, 10, 44–54.

Bury

King

(2015). A profession of love: Cohesion in a British platoon in Afghanistan. In King

(Ed.), Frontline: Combat and cohesion in the 21st century (pp. 200–215). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Butler

E. A.

Gross

J. J.

(2009). Emotion and emotion regulation: Integrating individual and social levels of analysis. Emotion Review, 1, 86–86.

10.

Charbonneau

Wood

V. M.

(2018). Antecedents and outcomes of unit cohesion and affective commitment to the army. Military Psychology, 30, 43–53.

11.

Coleman

(2009). The problems of duty and loyalty. Journal of Military Ethics, 8, 105–115. doi:10.1080/15027570903037892

12.

Collins

(1984). The role of emotion in social structure. In Scherer

Ekman

(Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 385–396). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Collins

(2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14.

Collins

(2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15.

Connor

(2007). The sociology of loyalty. New York, NY: Springer.

16.

Connor

(2010). Military loyalty: A functional vice? Criminal Justice Ethics, 29, 278–290. doi:10.1080/0731129X.2010.524040

17.

Connor

(2018). Loyalty—The emotion of future expectation, felt now, based on the past. In Jacobsen

(Ed.). Emotions, social theory and everyday life (pp. 27–41). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

18.

Davies

Dwyer

(2007). Qualitative methods: Are you enchanted or are you alienated? Progress in Human Geography, 31, 257–266. doi:10.1177/0309132507076417

19.

Fields

Copp

Kleinman

(2006). Symbolic interactionism, inequality, and emotions. In Stets

Turner

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 155–178). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

20.

Fletcher

G. P.

(1995). Loyalty: An essay on the morality of relationships. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

21.

Flick

(2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London, England: Sage.

22.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of patients and other inmates. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

23.

Grbich

(2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

24.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

25.

Hallett

(2003). Emotional feedback and amplification in social interaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 44, 705–726.

26.

Harber

K. D

. (2009). Can the Lone Ranger, Molly Bloom, and Emile Durkheim be friends? Emotion Review, 1, 90–91. doi:10.1177/1754073908099128

27.

Hendry

Seidl

(2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 175–196.

28.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

29.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1998). The sociology of emotion as a way of seeing. In Bendelow

Williams

S. J.

(Eds.), Emotions in social life: Critical themes and contemporary issues (pp. 3–15). London, England: Routledge.

30.

Hockey

(1986). Squaddies: Portrait of a subculture. Exeter, England: University of Exeter.

31.

Hoge

C. W.

Castro

C. A.

Messer

McGurk

Cotting

D. I.

Koffman

R. L.

(2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 13–22.

32.

Janowitz

(1959). Sociology and the military establishment. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

33.

Käihkö

(2018). Introduction to the Armed Forces & Society Forum on broadening the perspective on military cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 44, 563–570. doi:10.1177/0095327X18763154

34.

Katz

. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Keller

(2007). The limits of loyalty. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Kemper

T. D.

(1984). Power, status, and emotions: A sociological contribution to a psychophysiological domain. In Scherer

Ekman

(Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 369–384). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

Kier

(1998). Homosexuals in the military: Open integration and combat effectiveness. International Security, 23, 5–39.

38.

King

(2006). The word of command: Communication and cohesion in the military. Armed Forces & Society, 32, 493–512.

39.

King

(2013). The combat soldier. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

40.

King

(2016). The female combat soldier. European Journal of International Relations, 22, 122–143.

41.

Kirke

(2009). Group cohesion, culture, and practice. Armed Forces & Society, 35, 745–753.

42.

Klenig

(2014). On loyalty and loyalties: The contours of a problematic virtue. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

43.

Koeszegi

S. T.

Zedlacher

Hudribusch

(2013). The war against the female soldier: Effects of masculine culture on workplace aggression. Armed Forces & Society, 40, 226–251. doi:10.1177/0095327X12460019

44.

Kooistra

P. G.

Mahoney

J. S.

(2016). The road to hell: Neutralization of killing in war. Deviant Behavior, 37, 761–783. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1140993

45.

Law

(2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.

46.

Lieblich

Tuval-Mashiach

Zilber

(1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Little

R. W.

(1964). Buddy relations in combat motivation. In Janowitz

(Ed.), The new military: Changing patterns of organization. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

48.

Luhmann

. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

49.

Maccoun

R. J.

Kier

Belkin

(2006). Does social cohesion determine motivation in combat? An old question with an old answer. Armed Forces & Society, 32, 646–654.

50.

Moskos

C. C.

(1976). The military. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 55–77.

51.

Neuendorf

(2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

Noack-Lundberg

(2013). Queer women’s experiences in public spaces (PhD thesis). La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

53.

Ossewarde

(2009). A non-moral concept—Simon Keller: The limits of loyalty. The Review of Politics, 71, 131–133.

54.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Powell

J. L.

Gilbert

(2008). Social theory and emotion: Sociological excursions. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28, 394–407.

56.

Prinz

(2007). The emotional construction of morals. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

57.

Rielly

R. J.

(2000). Confronting the tiger: Small unit cohesion in battle. Military Review, 80, 61–65.

58.

Rimé

(2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review. Emotion Review, 1, 60–85.

59.

Roblyer

D. A.

(2005). Beyond precision: Morality, decision making and collateral casualties. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11, 17–39.

60.

Salo

Sinkko

(Eds.). (2012). The science of unit cohesion—Its characteristics and impacts (publication series 1, number 1/2012). Järvenpää, Finland: Department of Behavioural Sciences, National Defence University, and Military Sociological Society of Finland.

61.

Schut

Graaff

M. C. De.

Verweij

(2015). Moral emotions during military deployments of Dutch forces: A qualitative study on moral emotions in intercultural interactions. Armed Forces & Society, 41, 616–638. doi:10.1177/0095327X14549594

62.

Shils

E. A.

Janowitz

(1948). Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 12, 280–315.

63.

Siebold

G. L.

(2006). Military group cohesion. In Britt

T. W.

Castro

C. A.

Adler

A. B.

(Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat: Military performance, (Vol. 1, pp. 185–201). Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.

64.

Siebold

G. L.

(2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33, 286–295.

65.

Siebold

G. L.

(2011). Key questions and challenges to the standard model of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 37, 448–468.

66.

Siebold

G. L.

(2018). New body of cohesion research at a macrolevel. Armed Forces & Society, 1–7. doi:10.1177/0095327X18811380

67.

Srivastava

Hopwood

(2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 76–84. doi:10.1177/160940690900800107

68.

Stemler

(2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, 1–6.

69.

Turner

J. H.

(2009). The sociology of emotions: Basic theoretical arguments. Emotion Review, 1, 340–354. doi:10.1177/1754073909338305

70.

Verweijen

(2018). Soldiers without an army? Patronage networks and cohesion in the armed forces of the DR Congo. Armed Forces & Society, 44, 626–646. doi:10.1177/0095327X17740096

71.

Wadham

(2013). Brotherhood. Australian Feminist Studies, 28, 212–235. doi:10.1080/08164649.2013.792440

72.

Wadham

(2016). The minister, the commandant and the cadets: Scandal and the mediation of Australian civil–military relations. Journal of Sociology, 52, 551–568. doi:10.1177/1440783316655637

73.

Winslow

(1999). Rites of passage and group bonding in the Canadian airborne. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 429–457. doi:10.1177/0095327X9902500305

74.

Wolfe

R. J.

Darley

J. M.

(2005). Protracted asymmetrical conflict erodes standards for avoiding civilian casualties. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11, 55–61.