Understanding Army Advertising: Repairing the Divergence of American Liberalism and the
Realities of Army Culture since the All-Volunteer Force
Katrine Nielsen
December 16, 2011
Douglas Sackman
America’s Army exited the Vietnam War battered, brutalized, disillusioned and
disheartened, and I’m not talking about the soldiers. The Army’s public image suffered a
demoralizing blow in the rapidly changing social atmosphere of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.
The full injection of liberalism into American social ideology would usher in an era of
individualism which seemed to obliterate the validity of the citizen-soldier’s social position
which had been so effectively used in World War II. This ideology had been the main pillar of
the state’s legitimate right to draft civilians into the Army in times of need. By 1976 the Army
was producing recruiting manuals which specifically stated that “The Army Recruiter’s job is
essentially that of a sales representative—the Army’s sales man or woman on the local level—
“selling” career opportunities in today’s volunteer Army.”1 The manual produced material
which was designed to “assist the Army Recruiter in gaining maximum exposure for the Army in
the local community through the mediums of advertising, sales promotion, publicity and public
relations.”2 The transition from the draft to an all-volunteer system for America’s Army
forced the goliath organization not only to reevaluate its role within American society, but
reevaluate how well that society could fit within the Army. Military service shifted from an
inherent expression of citizenship to one of the many options in which American’s could
choose to express their citizenship. Advertising had become an integral structure to the
Army’s ability to entice new recruits, forcing them to focus on principles of liberal
consumerism in an effort to reduce the gap between America’s new views on citizenship
and the realities of military life.
I will take into account how, in a society where the burdens of nationally directed combat
are unevenly distributed, it is of the utmost importance to analyze the growing dichotomy
1
United
States
Army
Recruiting
Command,
Publicizing Army Recruiting in the Community,
(Washington:
U.S.
Dept.
of
Defense,
Dept.
of
Army,
1976).
2
Ibid.
between the life of a soldier and that of a citizen. I will look at why the Army attempts to bridge
that gap in an effort to share its burdens as it attempts to draw support and reassert its importance
in a nation so deeply changed by liberalism yet subject to the strains of war. In order to create a
full picture of the complexities the Army encounters in reconciling its culture with that of liberal
America, I will first dissect the identity of the consumer rewarded citizen-soldier which was
widely advertised during World War II. Although a symbiotic relationship at first, it could be
viewed as the initial breakdown in the citizen-state relationship as individual consumer needs
were not only prioritized, but emphasized by the state through the advent of the G.I. Bill. Next I
will look at how the Army dealt with the transition into the All-Volunteer Force (AVF). This
transition was massive; it revolutionized how the Army advertised itself to the nation. It also
raised issues about how well the reality of Army life actually met their claims, and how fully the
Army could adapt to the values of American society. I will conclude by asking why America’s
entrance into war since 2001 has changed the focus of its advertising and begun to reestablish a
place for the citizen-soldier within a liberal America.
There has been a large body of scholarly work done by both political scientists and
historians regarding the AVF and is split generally into two time periods. Up until the 90’s the
effects of the AVF on the ability of the Armed forces to field a large, effective and quality force
were examined, debated, and exploited.3 The success of early 90’s armed conflicts and the
relative peace which followed represented a period where interest in the subject tapered off. It
has been America’s involvement in a prolonged and hotly debated violent conflicts since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that has spurred a renewed interest in the study of the
AVF. The viability of an AVF force and its more solid national-political implications has again
become hot topic of study. Current research has broadened as it attempts to analyze the obstacles
3
Elliot
Cohen,
Citizens & Soldiers: the Dilemmas of Military Service,
(Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
1985),
171.
faced by the armed forces to continue to provide a marketable image which will convince
consumers to invest in it.4 It also has called into question the social implications of America’s
liberal citizenship which has disproportionately placed the responsibilities and pressures of
protecting those rights on such a small sector of the population. My research intends to support
this new scholarship by providing an analysis of how the Army, as the largest of the armed
service branches, has attempted to reconcile the inherent contradictions presented in the function
of Army culture and the inviolable rights of the individual citizen in its advertisements.
Liberalism: A concept for the Right and Left
Before I begin addressing advertisements I first need to briefly address the concept of
liberalism. Dominic Tierney, a prominent political scientist, states that liberalism is “a set of
principles rooted in the ideas of John Looke: democracy, limited government, republicanism,
self-determination, the rule of law, equal opportunity, free enterprise, and free expression,” a
creed which Americans had favored since their founding days.5 Political scientist Ronald Krebs
takes us one step further. He uses American critiques of Nazi and communist regimes’
suppression of their citizens and America’s portrayal of themselves as the antithesis of these
regimes, as the point where the American liberal identity would take on a much more pervasive
character.6
4
Beth
Bailey, America’s Army: Making the All‐Volunteer Force,
(Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
The
Belknap
Press
of
Harvard
University,
2009).; Stephen
L.
Carter,
The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama,
(New
York:
Beast
Books,
2011).;
Ryan
Kelly
,
Meredith
Kleykamp
and
David
R.
Segal,
“The
Military
and
the
Transition
to
Adulthood,”
The Future of Children.
Vol.
20,
No.
1
(Spring
2010),
181‐207.;
Ronald
Krebs,
“The
Citizen‐
Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States:
Has
its
Demise
been
Greatly
Exaggerated?,”
Armed Forces & Society, Vol.
36,
No.
1
(October
2009),
153‐174.;
Gene
Murray,
Covering Sex, Race, and Gender in the American Military Services,
(Lewiston,
New
York:
The
Edwin
Mellen
Press,
2003).;
Kathy
Roth‐Douquet,
and
Frank
Schaeffer,
AWOL: the Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from the Military‐‐and how it hurts our Country,
(New
York:
HarperCollins,
2006).;
Dominic
Tierney,
How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires, and the American Way of War,
(New
York:
Little,
Brown
and
Company,
2010).
5
Tierney,
How We Fight, 20.
6
Krebs,
“The
Citizen‐Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States,”
158.
The obvious contradiction of America’s profession of championing the rights of the
individual as inviolable against a backdrop of massive social stratification and segregation which
was experienced on their home soil is portrayed well in an article written by historian Lauren
Sklaroff.7 Her analysis of the contradiction points to the fact that the American government had
to start addressing their violations of the liberal principles they so vehemently claimed to uphold.
During this time, the American government had created the aura of a political-sociological
balance that not only favored the individual, but subordinated the government to its needs.
During the era of Vietnam, however, fronts of liberal equality were to be fought by the
individual. As Krebs explains of the 60’s and 70’s, there was “[a] cultural turn that cast society
as merely an aggregation of individuals that saw citizenship as guaranteeing individuals’ rights
against the state.”8 No longer was citizenship to be dictated by the state from the relation of an
individual’s use of state guaranteed rights in support of the state functions. Instead, the individual
and his or her rights would become the foundation of citizenship and the reason the state existed.
Consumerism as Liberalism: the Deconstruction of Obligation
In 1919 Woodrow Wilson referenced a statement made by a friend that demonstrated the
profoundly different way responsibilities and expectations within the citizen-state relationship
were expressed prior to the 60’s liberal movement. Military service and soldier alike were
articulated as idealized duties:
A friend of mine made a very poignant remark to me one day. He said: “Did you ever
see a family that hung his son’s yardstick or ledger or spade up over the mantel piece?”
But how many of you have seen the lad’s rifle, his musket, hung up! Well, why? … why
not hang them [yardstick, ledger or spade] up? Because they do not represent
self-sacrifice. They do not glorify you in the same sense that the musket does, because
when you took that musket at the call of your country you risked everything and knew
7
To
have
a
more
full
understanding
of
the
effects
of
these
contradictions
on
American
society
and
politics
at
this
time,
read:
Justin
Hart,
“Making
Democracy
Safe
for
the
World:
Race,
Propaganda,
and
the
Transformation
of
U.S.
Foreign
Policy
during
World
War
II,”
Pacific Historical Review,
Vol.73,
No.1
(February
2004)
49‐84.
8
Krebs,
“The
Citizen‐Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States,”
159.
you could not get anything. The most that you could do was come back alive, but after
you came back alive there was a halo about you.”9
In explaining some of the terminology in this statement, we can further reveal the deep
divergence which had developed by the time of the Vietnam War between the ideas of
citizenship and the requirements of belonging to the Army. First, it is important to note that
Wilson’s friend identifies tools of the citizen’s life as different from those of a soldier’s. In
doing so he identifies what a citizen does and what a soldier does as disparate functions of
society. Although it could be argued that we continue to see these roles being advertised as
disparate from each other as history continues, it is a fact that the role of the Army now includes
the provision of an individual with skills rather than an individual to selflessly provide for the
Army.
Wilson’s friend also does much to evoke the senses of glory, honor and duty which have
historically been associated with military service. He speaks of it as a higher calling, above
material reward, promulgating language which is commonly found throughout Christian
doctrines. The use of the term halo evokes a saint like quality for the returning soldier,
presenting them as equals to the iconic figures who for centuries have paid the ultimate price to
serve the good of mankind. To him, responding unabashedly to the call of military service
without thought of personal gain was the greatest attribute of a citizen. Those deeds were the
things of memory and reverence, the glory of the Christian faith and those people we remember
because of it.
During World War II, however, we see the American government connecting the pursuit
of individual needs with the function of the American Army. As many scholars have written
before, advertisements helped to construct social identities by visually confirming who the
9
Elliot
Cohen,
Citizens & Soldiers, 121.
message was intended for.10 The focus of World War II advertising, however, was not on who
could be a citizen but how to be a good citizen and what that citizenship offered you. This initial
connection was first directed towards the civilian community at home whereby they advertised
“good” consumer practices as the expression of “good” citizenship.11 As the war progressed
advertisements became much more blatant in linking participation in the Army with the
fulfillment of individual needs. This was reflected in World War II recruitment advertisements
like the Army’s “NOW you can choose your branch of the service”12 (1) or “Be a Cadet Nurse:
The Girl with a Future”13 (2). The former advertisement chose to link service for the nation as a
simultaneous consumption in the promotion of individuality by offering “choices” to their new
recruits. The freedom to choose also coincided with later, more developed liberal notions that
service to a state did not depend on self-sacrifice, as the speaker above suggested, but on the
state’s ability to return on that service in the form of personal gains.14 Language was used both
cleverly and explicitly in advertisements like that of the cadet nurse which uses terms like “a
future” and “a lifetime education” to describe the benefits a recruit would gain from service to
the state. This message was also explicitly stated in another advertisement directed at women
recruits. The poster is very plain with four overlapping bust portraits of women in various
military outfits which are framed by the slogan “For your country’s sake today- For your own
10
Lizabeth
Cohen,
A Consumers’ Republic: the Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America,
(New
York:
Vintage
Books,
2003).;
Roland
Marchand,
Advertising the American Dream: making way for Modernity1920‐1940,
(Berkley:
University
of
California
Press,
1985).
11
Cohen,
A Consumers’ Republic,
67.
12
“Men
18
and
19:
Now
You
can
Choose
your
Branch
of
the
Service,”
poster
(
,
10‐17‐1942)
from
University
of
North
Texas
Libraries
Government
Documents
Department,
World War Poster Collection,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc173/
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
13
“Be
a
Cadet
Nurse:
the
Girl
with
a
Future,”
poster(
,
1944)
from
UNT
Libraries
Government
Documents
Department,
World War Poster Collection,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc249/
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).
14
A
conclusion
I
came
to
from
an
influential
statement
made
by
Ronald
Krebs
that
“Americans
do
not
expect
their
national
government
to
call
on
them
to
sacrifice
for
the
nation,
and
they
do
not
believe
that
their
rights
as
citizens
do,
or
should,
hinge
on
their
willingness
to
die
for
the
nation.”
Krebs,
“The
Citizen‐Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States,”
15.
sake tomorrow”15 (3). A temporal dichotomy arises from this statement whereby the state
assures you’re future of personal gains and liberal citizenship by acting for the state in the
present. This highly contrasts against previous declarations where state service held nothing to
gain but pride and glory. These recruiting advertisements signified the start of a significant shift
in the social-political structure of America that would come to be known as liberalism.
Fighting for Your Future and Reimbursements for Civic Duty
It is not shocking that military service, something which required a citizen to subsume his
or her individual needs to the needs of the state, would become the focal point of divergence for
the development of the liberal identity since World War II. Placing an individual’s ability to
fulfill his or her needs as an integral part of national success set consumerism as the main forum
in which to serve the state. It is a pathway between the state and its returning fighting citizenry
which was exemplified in the design of the G.I. Bill. During the war citizens were encouraged to
think of their selective fulfillment of state approved individual consumer needs as a fulfillment of
their duty to uphold the state that they believed existed to protect them. Qualified, male citizens
within America were encouraged to fulfill this duty by stepping into the citizen-soldier role with
a consumerist twist.
This twist was most obviously reflected in soldier consumption of the pin-up girl.
Historian Robert B. Westbrook provides an excellent exploration of this form of consumption
and its effects on ideas regarding citizenship. As he explains, the state’s encouragement of the
consumption of pin-ups was a way for individuals to “defend private interests and discharge
15
“For
your
Country’s
Sake
Today:
For
your
own
Sake
Tomorrow,”
poster
(
,
1944)
from
the
Smithsonian
Museum
of
American
History,
The Price of Freedom: Americans at War,
http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=566&back=1
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
private obligations” while enforcing the amalgamation of personal needs as needs of the state.16
The fulfillment of this link was ever present in the plethora “what we are fighting for” themed
pin-up advertisements (though pictured more modestly than the Yank, Stars and Stripes, and
Esquire pin-ups). The pin-up was a fantastical evocation of the All-American girls at home they
needed to protect. At this time, we don’t see a huge amount of male recruitment advertisements
utilizing the pin-up directly as incentive, but its permeation within the ranks of soldiers and the
message it affirmed was extremely clear: this is what we’re fighting for. There were a few
instances, however, when the pin-up was used more directly. Take for example the blonde pinup saluting the Army Air Corps (4) for their service from the wing of an airplane which was
being used as a direct motivator for joining the Army Air Corps;17 or the “He Volunteered for
Submarine Service,” (5) which pictured the modest girl at home version swooning over her man
in order to glamorize the Navy.18 Then one has the “Fly! For her liberty and yours”19 (6)
recruitment poster for the Army Air Forces which is possibly one of the most explicit visual
displays for the discharge of private interest through service to the state. The similarities
between the personification “Lady Liberty” as a representative of the state along with the AllAmerican girl who is clinging to the soldier’s arm link them as one in the same interests.
Although the evocation of “what we are fighting for” was by no means a new trend, it would
have serious implications in a world driven by individual consumerist trends. Instead of citizens
16
Although
Westbrook’s
argument
and
exploration
into
this
area
is
much
more
complex
than
I
give
it
credit
for,
its
breadth
is
not
suitable
for
this
research.
His
development
of
the
intrinsically
oxymoronic
idea
that
a
state,
legitimized
by
its
citizenry
to
secure
their
safety,
needs
to
call
on
the
citizenry
to
protect
that
safety
and
must
find
a
way
to
legitimize
such
actions,
is,
however,
essential
to
the
development
of
my
argument.
Robert
B.
Westbrook,
“’I
Want
a
Girl,
Just
Like
the
Girl
That
Married
Harry
James’:
American
Women
and
the
Problem
of
Political
Obligation
in
World
War
II,”
American Quarterly,
Vol.42,
No.4,
(December
1990)
p588.
17
Earl
MacPherson,
“At
Your
Command”
poster,
(1942)
from
the
Army
Air
Corps
Library
&
Museum,
http://www.armyaircorpsmuseum.org/WWII_Posters.cfm
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
18
“He
Volunteered
for
Submarine
Service,”
from
National
Archives
and
Records
Administration,
World War II Photograph,
http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/photo/470/0
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).
19
“Fly!
For
Her
Liberty
and
Yours,”
poster
(
,
1941)
from
the
National
Archives
and
Records
Administration,
http://narademo.umiacs.umd.edu/cgi‐bin/isadg/viewitem.pl?item=30697
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).
fulfilling obligations to a state which provided for their needs, they were encouraged “to join the
war effort in order to defend the state that protected them.”20 This transition had a direct impact
on the change in the perception of the role of the Army within American society as liberalism
infiltrated the everyday role of citizenship.
The G.I. Bill of Rights was developed as a way “to avoid the severe economic disruption,
massive unemployment, and political unrest that had followed World War I” by encouraging
individual consumerism in all areas of life.21 In essence, the bill was the embodiment of the end
of the selfless civil service era. As Elliot Cohen assessed, the G.I. Bill in essence was the
creation of the individual within the group, which, by offering individual advancement, advanced
notions of liberal democracy into the world of military civic duty.22 Even though I do not feel
that the G.I. Bill was designed as an exchange incentive in the way we may view it today, it
created a system that no longer just expected civic service as an unquestioned role of citizenry to
one which required representation of one’s deeds through compensation for interrupting the
citizen’s life and in essence their personal rights. In a way, it was like the state was trying to
make up for the time these men lost to build their lives by expediting it with “gifts.”
As a profound statement about the new options soldiers were given on their return home
from war one could view advertisements depicting a contemplative soldier as he pondered “Shall
I go back to school?”23 (7) Equally as revealing was the “Information for Veterans of our Armed
Forces” booklet being distributed by the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company of
20
22
23
21
Westbrook,
“’I
Want
a
Girl,
Just
Like
the
Girl
That
Married
Harry
James’,”
588.
Cohen,
A Consumers’ Republic,
137.
Cohen,
Citizens & Soldiers,
137.
“Should
I
go
Back
to
School,”
poster
http://www.squidoo.com/gi‐bill
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
Boston24 (8). The advertisement boasts of all the possible options soldiers had at their disposal
to improve their life after their time at war. Unfortunately, this relationship would not only link
the state to consumer ideologies and practices but, in some ways, lead to a muddled
understanding of what the responsibilities of the state and citizen were to each other. Instead of
just returning home to the lives they had before the war started, as generations had done before
them, America’s soldiers were now being encouraged to invest in a new life through military
designed programs of consumption. For all their hard work they were being rewarded with
consumer goods like an education and low interest loans to improve their lives.
For the Good of You, If You are Good Enough
The real issue of the G.I. Bill, however, was that it rewarded only specific types of war
efforts even though all American citizens were subject to some form of war contribution. In this
regard the bill, designed to create a link between the spheres of civilian life and soldier life also
split them by designating soldiers as a beneficiary group and civilians as not.25 There were also
the more internal issues regarding the ability of soldiers from minority groups to utilize the bill to
its full potential.26 Although many people may think that these inequities undermine my use of
the G.I. Bill to analyze all sociological classes of American citizens regarding civic obligations, I
would state the contrary. I would argue that these discrepancies in fact emphasized and
polarized groups as they addressed issues of citizen obligations over the next thirty years in a
fight to equalize their status with that of the favored majority.
The government, by setting itself up as a provider of services in exchange for services, all
but removed the theory of civil obligation in favor of the more individualistic and consumer
24
“This
Free
Booklet
has
All
the
Answers,”
advertisement
(Saturday
Evening
Post,
October
6,
1945)
from
Gallery
of
Graphic
Design,
http://advertising.tjs‐labs.com/gallery‐view?advertiser=W%25D%25C
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
25
Lizabeth
Cohen, A Consumers’ Republic,
138.
26
Lizabeth
Cohen,
A Consumers’ Republic,
166.
based business. Further, by providing unequal compensation for services rendered, groups were
then able to mobilize around these ideas as unfair business practices, a hindrance of the free
market and, in turn, a suppression of the individual’s civil rights. As individual rights were
superimposed over the state’s, it changed the essential balance of what the state was supposed to
offer the citizen and the citizen’s obligation to respond to such “requests” which now depended
on the likelihood of their individual needs being met by such an endeavor. The world of the
consumer civilian would clash violently with that of the selfless soldier as the reaction of
liberalism sought to equalize the social inequities developed since World War II.
The G.I. Bill created an aided path of socio-economic mobility for soldiers.27 As
discussed above, the unequal distribution of goods spurred marginalized groups to call upon the
state to redress the issue it had created by favoring one group over another. Although the social
movement of liberalism was the main instigator for the transition into the AVF, there was also an
important alteration in the American military tradition during the thirty years that followed
World War II and helped to catalyze the creation of the AVF during Vietnam. Since the creation
of the AVF, many scholars have been quick to point out that American memory tends to be
flawed when it comes to the draft.28 They forget that up until World War II and the following
thirty years, which were dedicated to asserting our superpower status, the draft had only been
instituted in the event of war and not the semi-permanent status it had acquired during this
period. This pattern created an era where civilian lives were often disrupted as they were called
to perform civic duties owed to their country as previously agreed upon by their citizenship.
27
Lizabeth
Cohen
argues
that
the
G.I.
Bill
was
credited
for
much
more
mobility
than
reality
has
ever
shown.
Yet
it
is
precisely
the
fact
that
it
was
perceived
this
way
by
marginalized
groups
which
catalyzed
arguments
for
equality
of
citizenship
through
equality
of
civil
rights
to
individual
opportunities.
L.
Cohen
156‐165.
28
Beth
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace:
Recruiting
an
All‐Volunteer
Force,”
The Journal of American History,
Vol.
94,
no.
1,
(June
2007),
48.
We must remember, however, that the American military had always had a type of buyout clause, established since its inception, commonly known to contemporaries as Selective
Service registration, an option which was primarily only accessible to the elite classes. During
full mobilization like that seen in World War II, Selective Service functioned to “secure the
maximum number of soldiers while preserving the nation’s war economy”29 which created an
equalized war experience amongst the population. Korea was the first war America had been
involved in which did not require the entire nation to mobilize and commit in some manner or
another to the war effort; yet Korea, due its proximity to World War II and principles of civicmilitary obligation, escaped the social upheaval experienced in the “me” generation of Vietnam.
Vietnam’s call for only part of the nation to mobilize for war unevenly distributed the pressures
of the war amongst a population who either resented their individual pursuits being interrupted to
serve or didn’t have access to the tools needed to escape service. The increasingly individualistic
identity of liberalism, the perceived inequality caused by the G.I. Bill, and the ability for those
who had benefitted from the bill to escape military service came to a head during the unpopular
Vietnam War eventually resulting in the end of the draft.
The Great Divorce of Citizenship and Military Obligation
It wasn’t long before America’s entrance into Vietnam that John F. Kennedy had called
on Americans to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country,”30 in his inaugural address of 1961. Despite being supportive of the citizen-soldier
ideal, his evocation of it implicitly acknowledges the fact that citizens were requiring their state
to provide more for them at no cost. At a time when American’s were experiencing the uneven
distribution of pressures associated with the Vietnam War groups were mobilizing to assert their
29
Elliot
Cohen,
Citizens & Soldiers,
164.
John
F.
Kennedy,
“Transcript
of
John
F.
Kennedy’s
Inaugural
Address
(1961),” Our Documents,
http://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=91&page=transcript
(Accessed,
December
15,
2011).
30
rights as equals, especially as they felt the burdens of Selective Service disproportionately fell on
those who did not have access to the tools and routes necessary to avoid military service. This
was aided by the ideological shift created during World War II where the dispensation of civic
service was mingled with the dispensation of individual interests whereby that the draft and
military alike were now seen as violations of an individual rights as they violated individual
interests.
In the new liberal socio-political climate it was inevitable, barring some major
catastrophe, that the draft was nearing its end. By 1972 there was an acknowledgment that “[t]he
pressures towards liberalization within the armed forces in recent years have largely been a
response to the demand of civilians-in-uniform brought in by the draft,” emphasizing just how
different ideas of citizenship had become between the civilian and soldier sectors. In 1971 the
Army officially began to embrace the switch with some trepidation knowing that it was now
subject to the principles of the job market.31 The term “job market” should not be taken lightly;
in fact, it had serious implications for the Army. The use of “job” here implies employment
which meant that services rendered by the employee are subject to compensation by the
employer; “market” suggests that jobs must project themselves as competitive products which
convince individuals that they would find them beneficial to their needs and worth investing in.
Combining the two terms creates an arena in which the Army had to critically look at their image
in relation to their compensation and decide whether they had a winning combination that would
attract young Americans.
The specter of Vietnam and the perceived contradictions between military culture and
ideas of liberal citizenship would be a significant obstacle for the Army to overcome in its
31
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
49.
advertising image creation.32 Yet, even if the Army was able to smooth all of their image issues
out and change their internal system enough to create significant incentive for young Americans
to enlist, they still had to contend with the much greater issue that the Army was not a normal
consumer product that young men and women were deciding on. It was a product that required
them to risk their lives when the nation called them to duty.33 The question was what life they
were risking. A New York Times article put it bluntly when it stated that despite a three-hundredtwenty-six percent increase in pay since 1963 “it may still prove to be difficult for a modern
Army, Navy and Air Force to get enough bright, well-educated young men without the draft,
especially if the civilian economy returns to full employment.”34 The structure of the Army was
also uniquely designed in that your personal life is inherently tied to your service, a tie which
was exacerbated in the shift to an AVF. Prior to 1973 Army service was geared towards single
males and was often seen or used as a hiatus in the life-career path of an individual.35 The fact
that young Americans were now consciously choosing the Army as a life-career path meant that
there was increased pressure for the Army to provide for the greater development of these young
people’s lives as well.
The first slogan put out by America’s Army was “Today’s Army Wants to Join You.”36
The slogan focuses on the individual as the example setter and teacher. By placing the Army in
the tag along “join” role it produced a sense that the Army wanted to know what their young men
and women had to say. It was an admission of sorts that they were behind the times and wanted
to gain entrance into America’s youthful “in-group.” America’s youth, their needs and desires
32
34
35
207.
36
33
Bailey
,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
49
&
54.
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
63.
“An
All‐Volunteer
Army?,”
The New York Times,
May
29,
1972
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).
Kelly,
Ryan
,
Meredith
Kleykamp
and
David
R.
Segal.
“The
Military
and
the
Transition
to
Adulthood.”
181‐
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
61.
alike, were to be the example setters to update the Army’s new culture. Inevitably, the slogan
was joined by various other catch lines which focused on various areas of individual desires and
improvement. Lines like “We care more about how you think, than how you cut your hair”37 (9)
attempted to dismantle the stigma that they created cookie-cutter personnel who were required to
respect and respond to the hierarchical authority system that was the Army.38 The narrative of
the ad uses key statements like “We spend a lot of time and money helping you get exactly the
training and instruction that does the most for you” and “… you won’t be the first person to go
through college at Army expense. In fact, you can go as far as you like. In just about any
field.”39 There is a double focus emanating from these declarations: first, that employment in the
Army allowed the individual to pursue an avenue which would enhance their life; second, that
the Army was fully committed (ideologically and financially) to the individual’s pursuance of
personal self-fulfillment.
Education was not the only opportunity for personal enhancement, however. The tag line
“When was the last time you got promoted?” (10) uses a multifaceted narrative which presents
the Army as a great place to get the “skill and experience” needed to gain employment in “[j]obs
with a future,” but also as an institution which provided the same type of mobility found in the
civilian sector yet with greater security.40 The Army was keen to express the fact that “the salary
you earn in today’s Army goes a long way when you consider your meals, housing, medical and
dental care are all free,” articulating the Army’s attempts to help young American’s build their
adult lives. Following in this same vein was “Take the Army’s 16-month Tour of Europe” (11)
37
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
60.
Bailey
,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
60.
39
Italicized
areas
are
for
emphasis
and
not
a
part
of
the
original
text.
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
60.
40
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
67.
38
which gave the young enlistee “the chance of a lifetime.”41 Picturing him sitting across a table
from a beautiful young woman in a foreign country was suggestive of the life building and
worldly opportunities which had previously only been available to the elite classes. In offering
such a working option the Army was attempting to equalize the opportunities available to all
classes of American society. By focusing on the different drives and goals of enlisting young
men and women, the Army was redefining military service as something other than an unspoken
requirement of citizenship.
A Not-So Enticing Offer?
The actual transition into the AVF was accompanied with the slogan change “Join the
People Who’ve Joined the Army” and a continued hodgepodge of consumer promises.42
However, the idea was not necessarily an enticing one. A 1973 Harris Poll revealed “the
American public ranked the military only at about the level of sanitation workers in relative
order of respect”43 Although the concept, as quoted by N.W. Ayer’s executive vice president
and associate creative director Theodore M. Regan Jr., in a 1979 New York Times article was to
“attract the quality [recruits] we want through the quality we have,”44 in reference to the
campaign’s use of real recruits giving their reasons for joining the Army, despair over the quality
of recruits had been well voiced publicly for quite some time. The Army had actually been
making the majority of their annual quotas throughout the 70’s by accepting “lower-quality
41
Ibid,
68.
Mary
Kate
Chambers
and
David
Vergun,
“Army
recruiting
messages
help
keep
Army
rolling
along,”
Army News Service,
(October
9,
2006),
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/news/Top_Military_News/army‐recruiting‐messages‐.shtml
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).
43
America and the Vietnam War: Re‐Examining the Culture and History of a Generation,
ed.
by
Mary
Kathryn
Barbier,
Glenn
Robins
and
Andrew
Weist,
(New
York:
Routledge,
2010)
274.
44
Philip
H.
Dougherty,
“Advertising:
New
Army
Recruiting
Campaign,”
New York Times,
Mar
16,
1979
(Accessed
December
14,
2011)
42
recruits,”45 but in order for them to get the quality recruits they needed to combat this by not only
“enhance[ing] recruiting in the short run” but by also “establish[ing] a foundation for future
recruiting by cultivating positive images and perceptions about military service.”46
The Army had come to be seen as a “valuable social purpose in providing education and
job training for many young men and women,” but what seemed to be forgotten was that the
Army ultimately had to teach a recruit how to be a soldier.47 The Army’s needs were clashing
violently with civilian liberties and advertisements weren’t telling the whole story. As one
officer so eloquently put it:
How do you teach a guy to fight, to be a god-damn soldier, when the whole
emphasis now is on learning a specialized trade? … The Army advertisements claim ‘We
can teach you this, we can teach you that.’ But what we’ve really got to teach these guys
is how to kill somebody.48
By the 1979, facing bad press and recruiting scandals, the Army decided to add the tag line “This
is the Army” and allow its recruits to tell their experiences. The photos did most of the talking.
Pictured as civilians and soldiers alike, they rattled off a variety of ways the Army had helped
them lead a more fulfilled and individual life (12).49 Between the complaints and the hype, what
was realized out of the 70’s era of advertising was that there was a “fundamental tension between
45
A
1978
New York Times
article
reviewed
the
fact
that
“[b]oth
white
and
black
recruits
come
in
good
part
from
the
unemployed
17
percent
of
the
nation’s
youth
…
Crime,
disciplinary
cases,
hard‐drug
problems
and
desertion
rates
in
the
Army
have
fallen
since
the
Vietnam
War,
but
little
more
than
half
the
new
recruits
are
high
school
graduates,”
as
a
contributing
factor
to,
as
one
Army
captain
said,
“[t]he
toughest
problem
we
[the
Army]
come
across
is
making
winners
out
of
them.”
“Can
We
Afford
a
Volunteer
Army?,”
New York Times,
May
13,
1978
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).;
America and the Vietnam War, ed.
by
Mary
Kathryn
Barbier,
Glenn
Robins
and
Andrew
Weist,
274.
46
James
N.
Dertouzos
and
Steven
Garber,
Is Military Advertising Effective?: an Estimation Methodology and Application to Recruiting in the 1980s and 90s,
(Santa
Monica,
CA;
Arlington,
VA;
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Rand,
2003),
1.
47
“Can
We
Afford
a
Volunteer
Army?,”
New York Times,
May
13,
1978
(Accessed
December
14,
2011).;
48
Beth
Bailey,
America’s Army: Making the All‐Volunteer Force,
(Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
The
Belknap
Press
of
Harvard
University,
2009),
122.
49
“This
Is
the
Army,”
advertisement
(U.S.
Army,
1973),
from
PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldados/popup/special_then_join1.html
(Accessed
December
15,
2011)
notions of military service as opportunity and as exploitation.”50 It furthermore displayed that by
usurping the institutional goals and beliefs by focusing on the goals and beliefs of the individual,
the Army was, at the outset, attempting to bridge the divergence American liberalism had created
between the civilian and the soldier. As one New York Times article put it, by ignoring its
“uniqueness apart from society and a sense of ethics deeply rooted in its own experiences and
traditions,” in favor of business ethics “dictated by cost-effectiveness” the Army lost their
primary device for compelling individual behavior: a “sense of belonging, of sharing common
values and of being unique.”51
Exponential Potential in the Army
Although many may view 70’s advertising as a flop after looking at the internal strains
and external tensions the Army experienced with America’s new liberal culture I feel that it was
ultimately a very successful message even if not entirely realistic. As one study mentioned
“[r]egardless of the reasons why a person joins the Army, the decision to enlist is preceded by
mental impressions of what to expect from Army life.”52 The 1980’s was dedicated to a
retrofitting of the Army structure. Between 1981 and 1982 soldier’s salaries were raised by
twenty-five percent, the G.I. Bill was re-instated and the Army College Fund was initiated.53
50
Bailey,
America’s Army,
128.
Richard
A.
Gabriel,
“What
the
Army
Learned
From
Business,”
New York Times,
(April
15,
1979).
Charles
C.
Moskos
offers
a
persuasive
reconstruction
of
this
concept
Gabriel
asserts
has
been
lost
in
the
Army:
“people
in
an
occupation
tend
to
feel
a
sense
of
identity
with
others
who
do
the
same
sort
of
work
and
who
receive
about
the
same
pay.
In
an
institution
[like
the
Army],
on
the
other
hand,
it
is
the
organization
where
people
live
and
work
which
creates
the
sense
of
identity
that
binds
them
together.
Vertical
identification
[institution]
means
one
acquires
an
understanding
and
sense
of
responsibility
for
the
performance
of
the
whole.”
Charles
C.
Moskos,
“Social
Considerations
of
the
All‐Volunteer
Force,”
Military Service in the United States,
ed.
General
Brent
Scowcroft
(Englewood
Cliffs,
New
Jersey:
Prentice
Hall,
Inc.,
1982)
139.
52
William
H.
Harkley,
Karen
Whitehill
King,
and
Leonard
N.
Reid,
“Army
Advertising’s
Perceived
influence:
Some
Preliminary
Findings,”
Journalism Quarterly,
Vol.
65,
Issue
3
(Fall
1988)
719.
53
America and the Vietnam War, ed.
by
Mary
Kathryn
Barbier,
Glenn
Robins
and
Andrew
Weist,
278.
51
1981 signaled the start of the Army’s newest ad campaign. The “Be All that You Can Be”54 (13)
campaign lasted for two decades. The jingle, starting with the lines “I know this world is
changing, Changing every day, And you’ve got to know, your way around, If you’re going all
the way”55 displayed the Army as appreciative of the developing world around them. The
rhetoric suggested that the Army offered these young recruits opportunities that they otherwise
would never have had, allowing each of them to fulfill their full potential.
The focus on what the individual could gain out of their experience in the Army was
feasible in a generally stable era of peace.56 There was little military action to interfere with the
achievement of individual goals and allowed for the image of the Army to firmly shift from one
of constant obligations to the state one of individual achievement on all fronts. Even
characteristics of pre-AVF military service like discipline, teamwork, and sacrifice were
translated into functioning characteristics of leaders in the liberal world of civilians. As quoted
by Professor Andrew Bacevich: “Contributing to the country’s defense now became not a civic
duty but a matter of individual choice. The choice carried no political or moral connotations.”57
As a result of this disconnect the Army is rarely able to pull recruits from the upper classes of
America who feel the Army offers incomparable incentive for them to join, creating just as
unrepresentative a force as was seen during Vietnam.58 During times of peace these questions go
relatively unanswered, but after an American renewal of war-time affairs in 2001 questions of
what the Army really offers its recruits have again been raised. As scholar Beth Bailey observed
54
Army
Recruiting
Advertisements,"
American Decades Primary Sources,
Ed.
Cynthia
Rose.
Vol.
9:
1980‐
1989,
(Detroit:
Gale,
2004).
384‐388.
Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|CX3490201743&v=2.1&u=taco25438&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w,
(Accessed
Dec
15,
2011).
55
Bailey,
America’s Army,
193.
56
Bailey,
America’s Army,
196.
57
America and the Vietnam War, ed.
by
Mary
Kathryn
Barbier,
Glenn
Robins
and
Andrew
Weist,
296.
58
Kathy
Roth‐Douquet
and
Frank
Schaeffer,
AWOL: the Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from the Military‐‐and how it hurts our Country,
(New
York:
HarperCollins,
2006)
36.
the advertising of “money for college, marketable skills, achievement, adventure, personal
transformation … sounded inappropriate, if not absurd” as American soldiers were once again
risking life and limb for their country.59 Despite all the energy the Army had poured into
transforming itself into the closest thing possible to civilian life it has one hurdle it will never be
able to get over, the fact that when war occurs its risks cannot be equated by numbers and figures
like those of business, but by its ethics and morals.
Conclusion: The Unrepresentative Representative
Americans are proud of their freedom. We declare its potency in every act of injustice
we fight against. Our freedom is the basis of our citizenship, a concept which drastically
changed following World War II from one where we earned our freedoms by supporting the state
to one where the state exists only to secure our freedoms with no questions asked. Moving into
an AVF was a monumental task of internal and external reconstruction for the Army as they
attempted to match itself to notions of liberal individualism. Although it would be easy to say
that we have lost the citizen-soldier language as America moved towards consumer incentives
and personal gains in the work place, it purely would not be true, especially in times of conflict.60
Instead the language has found itself a strange bedfellow with the realities of liberal culture.61 In
all regards the two themes have coexisted in a contentious relationship which is often
manipulated to fit the needs of specific motivations (i.e. recruitment, public support, political,
etc.). These are realities, which our soldier class has become very aware of and our civilian
sector seems to have forgotten, are creating a noticeable trend of separation and isolation
between the groups.
59
Bailey,
“The
Army
in
the
Marketplace,”
47.
The
basis
of
Ronald
Krebs’
article
was
to
discount
the
myth
that
the
AVF,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
had
killed
citizen‐soldier
rhetoric.
Krebs,
“The
Citizen‐Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States,”
154.
61
Krebs
,
“The
Citizen‐Soldier
Tradition
in
the
United
States,”
166
60
This harkens back to pre-AVF fears that an AVF “may become more insulated from the
rest of this democratic and civilian society and constitute a disturbing authoritarian force in
American life.”62 Although most Americans don’t regard the military with fear, it has become
obvious to most of them that the business-like manner we treat our Army with has placed a
disproportionate amount of pressure on them to absorb the effects of our nation’s wars. This
brings up further questions of the Army’s representative quality. As an institution which has, for
the last three and a half decades, promoted the economic advantages of enlisting in the Army it
has pulled overwhelmingly from the disadvantaged classes of an American society which lacks
an overarching moralistic concept which could bind all sections of society.63 The Army attempts
to bridge the gap between liberal America and the realities of military culture in their advertising.
The pronounced nature of that gap in current times of war has caused the Army to view civilians
as under appreciative and capricious of the citizenship they have and the citizenship those of the
Army earn.
62
63
“An
All‐Volunteer
Army?,”
New York Times, (May
29,
1972).
Steven
A.
Holmes,
“For
Job
and
Country:
Is
This
Really
An
All‐Volunteer
Army?,”
New York Times,
(April
6,
2003).
Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.5
Fig.4
Fig.5
Fig.6
Fig.7
Fig.8
Fig.9
Fig.10
Fig.11
Fig.12
Fig.13
Sackman, Hist. 400
Katrine Nielsen
Bibliography
Secondary
Bailey, Beth. America’s Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2009.
Bailey, Beth. “The Army in the Marketplace: Recruiting an All-American Force.” The Journal of
American History (2007): 47-74.
Carter, Stephen L. The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama. New York:
Beast Books, 2011.
Chambers, Mary Kate and David Vergun. “Army recruiting messages help keep Army rolling
along.” Army News Service, (October 9, 2006),
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/news/Top_Military_News
/army-recruiting-messages-.shtml (Accessed December 14, 2011).
Cohen, Eliot A. Citizens and Soldiers: the Dilemmas of Military Service. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1985.
Cohen, Lizabeth. A Consumers’ Republic: the Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar
America. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.
Dertouzos, James N. and Steven Garber. Is Military Advertising Effective?: an Estimation
Methodology and Application to Recruiting in the 1980s and 90s. Santa Monica, CA;
Arlington, VA; Pittsburgh, PA: Rand, 2003.
Hart, Justin. “Making Democracy Safe for the World: Race, Propaganda, and the Transformation
of U.S. Foreign Policy during World War II.” Pacific Historical Review. Vol.73, No.1
(February 2004) 49-84.
Kelly, Ryan , Meredith Kleykamp and David R. Segal. “The Military and the Transition to
Adulthood.” The Future of Children. Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2010) pp 181-207.
Krebs, Ronald R. “The Citizen-Soldier Tradition in the United States: Has its Demise been
Greatly Exaggerated?” Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 36, No. 1 (October 2009) p153174.
Marchand, Roland. Advertising the American Dream: making way for Modernity1920-1940.
Berkley: University of California Press, 1985.
Murray, Gene. Covering Sex, Race, and Gender in the American Military Services. Lewiston,
New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003.
Moskos, Charles C. “Social Considerations of the All-Volunteer Force.” In Military Service in
the United States, ed. General Brent Scowcroft, 129-150. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982.
Roth-Douquet, Kathy and Frank Schaeffer, AWOL: the Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper
Classes from the Military--and how it hurts our Country. New York: HarperCollins,
2006.
Tierney, Dominic. How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires, and the American Way of War. New
York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010.
Westbrook, Robert B. “’I Want a Girl, Just Like the Girl That Married Harry James’: American
Women and the Problem of Political Obligation in World War II.” American Quarterly,
Vol.42, No.4, (December 1990).
America and the Vietnam War: Re-Examining the Culture and History of a Generation. Edited
by Mary Kathryn Barbier, Glenn Robins and Andrew Weist. New York: Routledge,
2010.
Primary
Dougherty, Philip H. “Advertising: New Army Campaign.” New York Times. March 16, 1979.
pp D12.
Elig, Timothy W. Targeting the Delivery of Army Advertisements on Television. U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences, 1988.
Gabriel, Richard A. “What the Army Learned from Business.” New York Times. April 15, 1979.
pp F14.
Harkey, William H.; Reid, Leonard N.; King, Karen Whitehill. “Army Advertising’s Perceived
Influence: Some Preliminary Findings.” Journalism Quarterly. Vol. 65 Issue 3. Fall
1988. 719-732.
Herbert, Bob. “The Army’s Hard Sell.” New York Times. June 27, 2005. pp A15.
Holmes, Steven A. “Is this Really an All-Volunteer Army?: the Demographics of Defense.” New
York Times. April 6, 2003.
Kennedy, John F. “Transcript of John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address (1961).” Our
Documents. http://ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=91&page=transcript
(Accessed, December 15, 2011).
MacPherson, Earl. “At Your Command.” Poster. 1942. from the Army Air Corps Library &
Museum. http://www.armyaircorpsmuseum.org/WWII_Posters.cfm (Accessed December
14, 2011).
United States Army Recruiting Command. Publicizing Army Recruiting in the Community.
Washington: U.S. Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Army, 1976.
Weinraub, Bernard. “’National Service’—An Old Idea gets New Life” New York Times.
February 4, 1979. E4.
“Army Recruiting Advertisements." American Decades Primary Sources. Ed. Cynthia Rose.
Vol. 9: 1980-1989. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 384-388. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.
15 Dec. 2011.
“An All –Volunteer Army?” New York Times. May 29, 1972. 16.
“Be a Cadet Nurse: the Girl with a Future.” poster( , 1944. from UNT Libraries Government
Documents Department. World War Poster Collection.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc249/ (Accessed December 14, 2011).
“Can We Afford a Volunteer Army?” New York Times. May 13, 1978. 22.
“Fly! For Her Liberty and Yours.” poster ( , 1941. from the National Archives and Records
Administration. http://narademo.umiacs.umd.edu/cgi-bin/isadg/viewitem.pl?item=30697
(Accessed December 14, 2011).
“For your Country’s Sake Today: For your own Sake Tomorrow.” Poster. 1944. from the
Smithsonian Museum of American History. The Price of Freedom: Americans at War.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=566&back=1
(Accessed December 14, 2011)
“He Volunteered for Submarine Service.” from National Archives and Records Administration.
World War II Photograph. http://wwiiarchives.net/servlet/photo/470/0 (Accessed
December 14, 2011).
“Men 18 and 19: Now You can Choose your Branch of the Service.” Poster. 10-17-1942. from
University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department. World War
Poster Collection. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc173/ (Accessed
December 14, 2011)
“Misgivings About the Volunteer Army.” New York Times. January 2, 1979. A14.
“Poll Says Most Americans Favor All-Volunteer Army.” New York Times. January 27, 1970. 40.
Recruiting in the United States Army: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth
Congress, First Session, November 19, 1979. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980.
“Should I go Back to School.” Poster. http://www.squidoo.com/gi-bill (Accessed December 14,
2011).
“This Free Booklet has All the Answers.” Advertisement. Saturday Evening Post, October 6,
1945. from Gallery of Graphic Design. http://advertising.tjs-labs.com/galleryview?advertiser=W%25D%25C (Accessed December 14, 2011).
“This Is the Army.” Advertisement. U.S. Army, 1973. from PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/soldados/popup/special_then_join1.html (Accessed December
15, 2011).