Abstract
Several established models exist to measure processes of change within the military. This article clarifies the terminology, suggests some definitions, and evaluates these models. The clarification of terminology is necessary for the subsequent critique of the theoretical bases of Charles Moskos's well-known Institution/Occupation (I/O) model. This critique is based on the real absence of a dialectical opposition between the concepts of institution and occupation, a comparison of the plural and I/O model, and the recognition that the I/O model does not represent a zero-sum system. Jean-Pierre Thomas's four strategies career model is then examined to demonstrate its inappropriateness for an empirical investigation of the professional military man-the officer. The proposal that emerges is that reference points from which to analyze the military profession be identified from within rather than from without. If the military is considered a professional bureaucracy, one example of this approach would be to adopt as a reference point the internal dialectical opposition between the hierarchical and professional poles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.