Racism Despite Integration: Diversity for the Sake of Mission Readiness in the U.S. Military

• Published date: 01 March 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231206377
• Author: Martin Armstrong
• Date: 01 March 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Political Research Quarterly

2024, Vol. 77(1) 270–282

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129231206377

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Racism Despite Integration: Diversity for

the Sake of Mission Readiness in the U.S.

Military

Martin Armstrong

1



Abstract

Is racial justice a feasible normative aim of integration for institutions of war? Proponents have long looked to the U.S.

military as an institution through which to pursue racial progress. However, its proponents have not given enough critical

attention to the logics of practice that connect militarism and race. Drawing on practice-based ideology theory, I

conceptualize racial militarism as an ideological formation which subsumes matters of racial difference to the principle of

mission readiness. I then analyze military policies and training procedures to show how racial militarism tolerates

diversity superf‌icially, while the militarization process effectively erases social difference and enforces a practical culture

of colorblindness. In the f‌inal section, I engage critiques of integration to argue that racial militarism blocks the potential

for the kind of radical transformation that would be required for racially just integration in the military. Integration as

racial justice is not feasible when violence and hierarchy def‌ine an institution’s practical logic.

Keywords

racial integration, U.S. military, militarism, racism, racial justice, ideology theory

Introduction

Advocates for racial justice have long been divided over

the question of service in the U.S. military. Proponents

argue that military service promotes economic mobility

(Greenberg et al. 2022), proves desert of social and po-

litical recognition (Du Bois 1998, 66), and that it improves

racial attitudes among service members (Anderson 2010,

125; Moskos and Butler 1996). As an institution with

strict hierarchical structure, disciplinary norms, and a

diverse community, the military is thought to be the state

institution most capable of promoting change (Bailey

2023). Viewed over the long-term, the U.S. military ap-

pears to promote incremental progress. However, critics

point to the history of racial exploitation, domination, and

discrimination in and by the military, including practices

of discriminatory draft selection, as reasons against ser-

vice (Marable 1981;Phillips 2012). For critics, the mil-

itary as an institution is only suited to reproducing the

racial status quo domestically and abroad.

Due to the appeal of military socialization and culture

to its proponents, I draw on theories of integration and

ideology to argue that racial justice is not possible when

violence and hierarchy constitute the structure and

practical logic of the site of integration. Specif‌ically,

I argue that integration in the military is framed by an

ideological formation I call racial militarism, which is

opposed to racial egalitarianism. Jasmine Gani argues that

racial militarism “operates both as a theory of civiliza-

tional supremacy and as a practice/policy of chauvinism,

exclusion, and dehumanization for the purpose of en-

acting violence”(2021, 547). Though racial militarism is

not isolated to one country, I focus racial militarism in the

U.S. context, paying particular attention to anti-black

racism.

1

As scholars of racial capitalism argue, from

early colonial expansion through the emergence of the

military-industrial-complex (MIC), the “mission”has

been to support U.S. domestic and international aims of

capitalist extraction through racial domination (Gilmore

2022, 186; Davis 2003, 86; Singh 2017;Seigel 2018;

Melamed 2015). Within the U.S. military, mission

1

Department of Political Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH,

USA

Corresponding Author:

Martin Armstrong, Department of Political Science, Ohio State

University, 154 N Oval Mall, 2130 Derby Hall, Columbus, OH 43210,

USA.

Email: armstrong.828@osu.edu