引言
Introduction

軍事社會學家以雙向來思考社會與軍隊之間的關係，那就是（一）社會在於軍隊角色、任務、結構和文化上的影響，包括它的作戰效能；（二）軍隊作為社會上的一武力性作戰組織，其行為在權力、聲望與正當性諸方面的結果。
Military sociologists are concerned with the two-way relationships between the armed services and society, viz., (1) The effects of society on the role, missions, structure and culture of the military, including its operational effectiveness (2) The consequences of the behaviour of armed services as coercive, war-fighting organisations for society in terms of their power, prestige and legitimacy.

對國防事務的分析者而言，過去十年是一個相當有趣的時間，而這使軍事社會學家致力於以其他途徑進行關於國防和安全事務的研究。對西方工業國家的軍隊而言，自一九八九年始，伴隨著國際安全和內部社會的同步變遷，變遷速度令人驚異。以英國的軍隊為例（而這是筆者在此主要關心的重點），雖然有著一段時期的穩定，在一系列的白皮書或報告之後，就像是《變遷的選項》、《貝特報告》、《戰略國防總檢報告》，以及《科索夫課題》，吾人可以確定的少數事情之一，就是更深一層的變革。1 就像美國、荷蘭、法國和瑞典一般，英國同樣要去經歷一段動盪的時期。2
The past decade has been a particularly interesting time for analysts of defence affairs and this applies as much to military sociologists as it does to other approaches to the study of defence and security affairs. For the armed forces of the western industrial world the pace of change since 1989 has been extraordinary, with simultaneous changes in both international security and domestic society. In the case of the British armed forces (my main concern here), despite calls for a period of stability, after a series of reviews and reports, such as Options for Change, the Bett Report, the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), and the Lessons of Kosovo, one of the few things they can be certain of is further change.1 The UK is by no means unique in experiencing such a turbulent period as the US, the Dutch or the French and Swedes would confirm.2

由於這個變遷的時期，人力資源或者是「與人事相關的政策」這個議題——軍事社會學者最核心的分內工作——在長久以來臣屬於科技和戰略問題之後，現在已經堅定地揚升為一項政治議題。在一九九八年七月的《戰略國防總檢報告》中可以明顯地看出證明，在人力資源這個議題，以逐漸持續地佔據政策制訂者以及一些公共部門的思考。3
As a result of this period of change, human resource or ‘policy for people’ issues –the core business of military sociologists - have risen steadily up the political agenda, which has for many decades been dominated by technological and strategic questions. This was clearly evident in the Strategic Defence Review in July 1998, and in the stream of human resource issues that have continued to pre-occupy policy makers and some sections of the public since then.3

同一時期，許多軍方人員（至少是那些筆者在個議題上曾晤談過的人），感到被那些期待他們去作修正的變遷步伐所圍攻，甚至是被圍困著了。他們也同時顧慮到一些變遷正在或者可能損害到那些他們所堅信為維持有效能的軍事組織所必須的軍事生活方式之基本特徵。更進一步地，他們也憂心到由那些並不那麼懂國防事務現實的人，或在一些案例上，由根本不瞭解軍隊生活方式的人，所發動政策變革而產生的直接或間接之影響。4
At the same time, many military personnel (at least a good many of those with whom I have conversed on the subject) have increasingly felt beleaguered - even besieged- by the pace of change to which they are expected to adjust. They have also been concerned that some changes are undermining, or might undermine, what they believe to be fundamental features of the military way of life that are essential for effective armed services. Furthermore, they have also been concerned that some of the direct or indirect influences on policy change are driven by people who do not know that much about the realities of defence affairs and, indeed, in some cases are out of sympathy with the military way of life.4

在這個主題上，一個具有重大意義的公共政策辯論，引發於即將離職的參謀首長查理斯•蓋瑞將軍於二○○○年十二月末期在倫敦對皇家三軍協會的演說。5 雖然，許多的焦點都關注在他論及殘障人士是否能在今天的軍隊扮演何種角色的問題；但在筆者的觀點，他實際上是在討論一個更為廣泛的議題，去探詢軍隊在面對新世紀的挑戰——而不只是進行高強度作戰——時，軍隊需要去保持哪些組織和文
化特徵的關鍵問題。筆者將在以下論述中論及他的部分觀點。
A significant public debate on this theme was triggered by the speech of the outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie to the Royal United Services Institution, London in late December 2000.5 Although, much attention was focused on his views regarding the circumstances in which disabled people have a role to play in today’s armed forces, in my opinion he was in fact painting on a rather larger canvas, asking key questions about the organisational and cultural features that the armed services needed to retain in order to face the challenges of the new century – not least the capacity to engage in high intensity warfare. I shall refer to some of his concerns in the course
of my argument.

「有所不同的需要」的議題：軍民關係中的潛在緊張
The ‘Need to Be Different’ Issue: The Potential for Tension in
Civil-Military Relations

討論到「與人事相關的政策」之議題所會出現的核心主題是：軍隊在軍隊與社會的關係中、或者是軍文關係中的社會面向，存在著一種與生俱來的緊張：這就是軍隊的生活方式需要和民間社會有哪些程度上的不同。
A central theme arising from any discussion of ‘policy for people’ issues in the armed services is the existence of an inherent tension in the relations between armed services and society or in the social dimension of civil-military relations: this is the extent to which the military way of life needs to be different from that of civilian society.

現在，「有所不同的權利」的理念（無論這個問題的表述方式為何，筆者認為最好還是描述為「需要」有所不同）在邁可•羅斯將軍擔任副指揮官時變得更突出。在過去的四年中，筆者偏好以「需要」、而不是「權利」來表示有所不同。這是因為在民主政體中，軍隊的特殊權利並非是先天的，而是由文人政治領導者讓渡給他們的。一般來說，一個專業的軍隊被賦予的權利，並不止於那些他們自己覺得所需要的工作事務而已。它因此也許有著一個有所不同的需要，而不以由文人決定授與之權利為前提。
Now, the idea of the ‘right to be different’ (and the question of whether the formulation is, as I contend, better put as a need to be different) came to prominence during the tenure of General Sir Michael Rose as Adjutant General. Over the past four years I have referred to need, not right, to be different. This is because, in democracies, the special rights of the armed services are not pre-given but devolved to them by the civilian political leadership. Normally, a professional military is given the right to be heard not least on such matters as what it feels it needs to do its job properly. It thus may have a need to be different but a right to be so presupposes a civilian decision to grant it.

有所不同的需要這個問題，已經成為學院研究軍民關係的核心。文獻的出發點在於軍隊是「兩面對比」的組織。一方面，他們以及他們的政治領導需要透過建構在軍事上有效力的組織，以回應戰略的脈絡。這承擔起建構有著關鍵獨特性的組織。
The problem of the need to be different has always been at the heart of the academic study of civil-military relations. The starting point in the literature is that armed forces are 'Janus-faced' organizations. On the one hand, they and their political masters have to respond to the strategic context by building militarily effective organizations. This entails building organizations that are in key respects unique.

為了戰爭與軍事行動的必要，軍隊需要獨立於民間社會之外。6 當然，在軍隊之中有一些重要的功能「是」相似於民間企業的，例如，團隊合作、領導統御、忠誠度等等對於組織與任務遂行的重要性，以及越來越重要的，特別是在資訊領域裡，需要運用先進的科技從事工作等等。更進一步地，部隊像是其他諸如教育、醫療和宗教等領域中的組織一般具有「體制上」的特質。在體制性的組織中，主要的驅動力量是「價值」而不是「市場」。人們完成他們在教育、照護疾病以及管理部隊的任務，乃在於成就可以組織作為一個整體的價值，而不是為了製造利益。相比之下，以市場為導向的組織，主要的驅動力是根據市場的需要進行調節，以期能在資本投資後積累利益。7
The functional imperatives of war and military operations require the armed services to stand apart from civilian society.6 Of course, there are important ways in which the armed services are similar to civilian enterprises. For example, one can point to the importance of teamwork, leadership, the idea of loyalty to the organisation and its mission and - of ever-increasing importance - the need to work with advanced technologies particularly in the information field. Furthermore, the Services share with other
organizations such as those in the field of education, health and religion an ‘institutional’ quality. In institutional organizations, the main drivers are values rather than the market. People carry out their tasks of educating, caring for the sick, of managing armed force primarily not to make a profit but in order to implement the values that provide the overall purpose of the organization. In contrast, for market-based organizations, the main driver is the need to monitor and adjust to the demands of the market in order generate a profit on the capital invested.7

作為體制性的組織，軍隊有著他們自己獨有的文化，並以此連結住他們的人員。以此確保軍事人員能在相當領導、管理和動機下備便於作戰。對軍隊而言，軍事文化的核心價值在於自己為群體一份子以及犧牲的理念：個體必須有意願讓他或她從屬於團體和共有任務的共同美德。更進一步地，必須要有意願在戰時或承平時期為團體犧牲自己的生命；一旦欠缺了這一點，軍隊將有被擊敗的風險。理想上來說，由於領導和訓練，這些價值將由於自覺而被自願地維護。然而，倘若必要的話，強制性是需要的。這就是軍隊為什麼與其他組織不同而特別講求軍事紀律——一個給予和接受命令的有效指揮結構——的原因。由於軍隊所要求的在本質上以及需求程度上的獨特：這些需求由一個無限的責任所組成，以及包含了去訓練殺戮和去犧牲自己的義務；去參與一個人在其中工作、生活、並與其他軍種人員交往互動的軍事社會，一個承諾在極短的通報下馬上與家庭全日分離的風險。最後，軍事人員需要冒著風險以達成目標，為達成此一目標，往往需要過人的體能和道德勇氣；這是在戰火下的勇氣，並且需要面對在惱人的侷限下做出重大選擇的困境。
As institutiona l organizations, the armed services also have their own unique culture and resulting contract with their personnel. Ensuring that service personnel are prepared to fight involves leadership, management and motivation. For the armed services, the core values of military culture are subordination of the self to the group and the idea of sacrifice: the individual must be willing to subordinate him or herself to the common good - the team and common task. Furthermore, there must be a willingness to sacrifice one's life for the team in peace and war - without this an armed force will risk defeat. Ideally, as result of leadership and training, these values will be upheld voluntarily as a result of conscience. However, if necessary, coercion may be required. This is what makes military discipline - an effective structure of command for the giving and receiving of orders - quite different
from other organisations. The military is unique in the nature and extent of the demands it places upon its people: these demands comprise of an unlimited liability and include the obligation to train to kill and to sacrifice self; to participate in a military community where one works, lives and socialises with other service personnel; and, when necessary, a 24 hour commitment with the risk of separation from family at short-notice. Finally, military personnel are required to take risks in pursuit of their objectives and in so doing to display physical and moral courage – that is courage under fire from weapons and in face of the dilemmas of making hard choices under trying conditions.

當然，我們必須記得個別的軍種也有著他們自己的特殊文化；舉例來說，在軍隊 中，尤其是陸軍的野戰部隊，和傾向「遠距接敵」的皇家海軍相比較，他們認為仍有近接和殺戮敵人的需要。其他我們所熟知的一些議題，像是女性在戰鬥中的角色，地面部隊和其他軍事生態相比較，有著一個不同的反應。
Of course, we must remember that individual services also have their own specific cultures: for example, in the army, and especially in the teeth arms, there is still a requirement to close with and kill the enemy in comparison with the greater ‘action at a distance’ characteristic of, say the Royal Navy. As is well known this is why some issues, such as the role of women in combat have a different resonance in ground forces compared with other military environments.

當軍隊的獨特文化除起源於他們應付戰爭的功能性需求外，他們也必須接觸社會的需求。這說明了，尤其是民主政體，他們必須保證他們回應了一個的處於變動中的社會，這是他們所捍衛的也是支付他們薪餉的社會。而欠缺了社會的支持，軍隊是無能為力的。而關鍵的議題是：該如何地被回應﹖8
While the armed forces’ unique culture stems from their meeting the functional imperatives of war, they also have to meet the societal imperative. That is to say - especially in democracies - they have to ensure that they are responsive to a changing society, which they defend, that pays for them, and without whose support they can do little. The key issue is how responsive?8

目前，保守主義者傾向質疑：為了適應社會的變遷而去調和軍事文化，甚至主張為了軍事的效能，需要一個有一個以強韌的保守主義價值所構成的民間社會。相對地，自由主義者傾向：期望軍隊符合公民社會的價值，並因此而低估軍事生活的需要和獨特性。晚近對此議題的研究顯示出，多數較合情理的研究途徑是在保守主義者和自由主義者間的實用主義途徑。尤其是反對軍隊一旦適應於民間社會的價值，就會犧牲其軍事效能這樣的說法。9
Now, conservatives tend to be suspicious of tempering military culture in order to accommodate changes in wider society, even to the extent of arguing that military effectiveness requires a supportive framework of robust conservative values in civilian society. In contrast, liberals tend to expect the armed services to conform to civilian values, and in so doing underestimate the unique character and demands of military life. Closer examination of the issues shows that the most sensible approach is a pragmatic one that lies somewhere between the conservative and liberal positions. In particular, it is misleading to assume that military accommodation to civilian social values must necessarily undermine
military effectiveness.9

讓筆者舉一個來自少數族裔社會的募兵例子（而筆者稍後將再回到這一點）。除為了更開拓就業機會公平性以及減少在社會中只佔百分之六到七且在軍隊整體比例只佔百分之一的少數族裔社群的鴻溝外，有一件事需要去做：為了要消除兵員不足的問題、講求有素質的人力與在社會中維繫軍隊正當性等等需求。對少數族裔在軍隊中的參與的關注，並非為了政治正確性而犧牲珍貴資源。10
Let me give one example from the area of recruitment of minority ethnic communities (to which I shall return later). Quite apart from the equity or citizenship case for widening employment opportunities and closing the gap between the 6-7 percent minority ethnic communities in wider society and the just over 1% in the armed services overall, there is a business case for doing this: that is as a means of making inroads in to the problem of undermanning, to meet the need for quality people as well as sustaining the legitimacy of the armed forces in the wider society. The focus on ethnic minority participation in the military is thus not a diversion of scarce resource to political correctness.10

對人事規劃者的挑戰是在這些看似相互競爭的功能性和社會性需求之間維持著可以接受的平衡。更進一步地，在調節社會和國際安全的變遷時，人事規劃者需要考慮到個別軍種的歷史和傳統，而那通常是維繫他們認同及共享目標和道德認知的關鍵因素。
The challenge for the personnel strategist is to ensure that a balance is struck between these, sometimes competing, demands of the functional and societal imperatives. Furthermore, in adjusting to changes in society and international security, the personnel strategist has to take into account the history and traditions of the individual Services, which are normally critical factors in sustaining their identity, sense of shared purpose and morale.

就像筆者稍早前所提出的，問題和軍隊的「有所不同的需要」有關：在實際上這些不同是如何顯現出來？並且如何從民間社會中獲得支持與正當性？近年來這些問題廣獲注意。為什麼？
As I mentioned earlier, the problems associated with the military’s ‘need to be different’- how such differences are to be drawn in practice and how to generate supportand legitimacy for them in civilian society - have moved centre-stage in recent years. Why?

這是因為對於軍事文化一連串相互關連的挑戰。新的戰略環境或多或少要求軍隊以更少的人力做更多的事，使得軍事行動中的戰士價值似乎越來越不相干。在心的戰略環境中，高科技的「按鈕」戰爭備受矚目，而傳統的戰爭也可能被許多不同的維和任務所取代。
This is because of a series of interconnected challenges to military culture. The new strategic context where the military is asked to do more with less has raised questions about the continuing relevance of warrior values in military operations where high technology, ‘push button’ warfare seems to have a higher profile, and where warfare itself may come to be displaced by a variety of peace-support operations.

此際，在社會中，社會的、文化的及法律的變遷，並未對軍事文化的核心價值提供了一個強韌的支撐架構。而且在多國部隊，人事政策必須認知到一些問題所帶來的變化，諸如本國部隊同其他較為自由主義觀點的部隊一起工作時所造成的，好比德國部隊與荷蘭部隊一起工作時所發現的，或者是英國部隊與澳洲部隊一起時所碰到的同性戀問題。除此之外，對於新世代人口的招募，他們較不能接受傳統軍事生活方式的某些需要。同時，採取民間化以降低成本的壓力，雇用了大量民間人士與契約商，他們對傳統軍種風氣不無影響。11 更進一步地，雖然媒體有大量對軍隊生活的報導（必須說的是它們在品質和正確性是因人而異的），軍隊和社會之間的虛擬連結由於軍隊在社會上「足跡」的減少業已造成真實連結上的衰退，造成有直接軍事經驗的平民人口降低，而不只是在菁英和意見領袖而已。
Meanwhile, in society, social, cultural and legal changes provide a less robust supporting framework for the core values of military culture. Also with multi-national forces, personnel policy has to recognise that some change will be caused by questions raised when forces work with others governed by more liberal views on, say gays as the Germans found when working with the Dutch or UK with the Australians. In addition, a new generation of prospective recruits is rather less accepting of some of the traditional demands of a military way of life. Meanwhile, there are cost-pressures at work that have
led to what some view as a civilianising influence on the ethos of the Services through the introduction of what are considered to be best business practices such as the wider employment of civilians and contractors.11 Furthermore, although media coverage (it must be said of variable quality and accuracy) of military life can be quite intense, this virtual link between armed forces and society has been accompanied by a decline in the real linkages due to the reduction in the ‘footprint’ of the armed forces in society, that is a diminution of direct military experience in the civilian population, not least amongst elites and opinion formers.

在人力資源的領域裡，被這些考量「一件接著一件」地包圍著，業已促使政策制訂者必須更具策略性地思考人事政策。為什麼一個策略式的途徑是如此的重要？軍隊有必要去發展出——而且的確也已經這樣做——一個克服任何有著被圍困之感覺的方式，並盡力把事務控制到一個可以合乎讓文人控制典範的程度之中——這是筆者認為查理斯•蓋瑞將軍其主張的意涵，是為了政治的影響，而非是一個為了政治黨派的軍人同業。一個策略性的途徑是一個適當地回應了筆者先前曾提過的多面向變遷的過程，並且提供了一個平台去處理筆者在當下將論及的在軍事中一個特殊社會議題的範疇。
All these considerations and the sense of being beleaguered by ‘one thing after another’ in the human resource area - have forced policy makers to think more strategically about personnel policy. Why is a strategic approach so important? The armed services need to develop - and indeed have been doing so - a way of overcoming any feelings of being beleaguered and to exert a degree of control over events consistent with the norms of civilian control – this is I think what General Sir Charles Guthrie meant by his argument for a politically influential but not a politically partisan military profession. A strategic approach is an appropriate response to the process of multifaceted change I referred to earlier and serves as a platform to deal with a range of specific social issues in the military to which I shall refer presently.