Military Covenants and Contracts in Motion: Reservists as Transmigrants 10 Years Later

• Author: Eyal Ben Ari,Edna Lomsky-Feder,Nir Gazit
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20924034
• Subject Matter: Special Forum: The Distinctive Characteristics and Expanding Role of Military Reserves

2021, Vol. 47(4) 616 –634

Military Covenants and

Contracts in Motion:

Reservists as Transmigrants

10 Years Later

Nir Gazit

1

, Edna Lomsky-Feder

2

, and Eyal Ben Ari

3

Abstract

This article reexamines and develops the analytical metaphor of “Reserve Soldiers as

Transmigrants” in three directions. First, we advance the notion of transmigration by

linking it to the explicit and implicit “contracts” or agreements struck between the

military and individuals and groups within and outside of it. Second, we show that the

“management” model of reserve forces is not just an administrative matter but that

“negotiating” with reservists involves wider issues that include managing identity,

commitment, and the meaning attached to military service. Third, we examine the

institutional and political meaning of the reserves at the macro sociological level. The

juxtaposition and interplay of two models—transmigration and multiple contracts—

allows us to introduce structural elements into the movement of soldiers between

the military and civilian society, and add a dynamic dimension to the contents of the

implicit contracts that organize reservists’ relations with the state and military.

Keywords

civil–military relations, reserve component, sociology, military organization, military

culture

1

Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ruppin Academic Center, Israel

2

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Israel

3

Dan Shomron Institute for Society, Security and Peace, Kinneret Academic College, Israel

Corresponding Author:

Nir Gazit, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer 40250, Israel.

Email: nirg@ruppin.ac.il

Armed Forces & Society

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20924034

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Article

Gazit et al. 617

Introduction

About a decade ago,we published a paper titled “Reserves Soldiers as Transmigrants:

Moving between the Civilian and Military Worlds” to suggest an analytical metaphor

to examine thespecial characteristics of reserve service and reserve forces(Ben-Ari &

Lomsky-Feder, 2011; Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008). At that time, relatively little had

been written about the social scientific study of reserves. Since then, while there has

been no outburst of studies, the situation has changed somewhat (although the major-

ity of scholarlywork continues to be about regularsand to an extent conscripts). These

new publications—and wider recognition of the importance of reserve forces—offera

welcome opportunity to revisit our contentions and to develop them further.

Accordingly, in this article, our aim is theoretical elaboration. Specifically, our

analytical move is threefold. First, we advance the notion of transmigration by

linking it to the explicit and implicit “contracts” or agreements struck between the

military and individuals and groups withi n and outside of it. It is these various

agreements that organize the use and deployment of reservists within the military.

We argue that the metaphor of transmigrants emphasizing the dual positioning and

movement of reservists between the military and civilian worlds still holds but needs

to be further developed in ways that bring out the multiple negotiations and trans-

formations that characterize individual and groups of reservists over time. Second,

and in a related vein, while much research on reserve duty and the reserves has had a

very strong emphasis on dealing with personnel according to the changing needs of

armed forces (Chun, 2005; Keene, 2015; Lording, 2013; Simon, 2011), we show that

this “management” or HR model is not just an administrative matter. Rather, we

develop the idea that “negotiating” with reservists (and related synonyms like bar-

gaining, parlaying, or consulting) involves much wider issues including managing

identity, citizenship, commitment, and the meaning attached to military service. This

kind of reading makes much of the scholarship on motivation, support, deployment,

or public expectations much clearer and comprehended in a dynamic manner. Third,

in our previous article, we placed our analysis primarily at the microlevel of the

experience of reservists and the mezzo-level of internal military dynamics centered

on the reserve force. In this article, we go on much more explicitly to examine the

macro-level where the political implications of the reserves as part of the military as

a social institution is most evident.

Our argument. The juxtaposition and interplay of the two models—transmigra-

tion and multiple contracts—allows us to do two things; first to introduce structural

elements into the movement of soldiers between the military and civilian society,

and second, to introduce a dynamic dimension to the contents of the implicit con-

tracts that organize their relation s with the state and military. In short, the link

between the two models “moves” the contracts and “structures” the transmigration

movement. Our contention is that the movement—one we develop through the

metaphor of transmigration—allows us to illuminate the ongoing formulation, and

tuning, of the implicit contracts over time. In other words, in striking bargains or

2Armed Forces & Society XX(X)