Eliminate or Calibrate? Reflecting and Recasting the Warrior Identity in the Canadian Military
H. Christian Breede and Karen D. Davis
Think about the word warrior. What images come to mind? If you try to picture a warrior, who do you see? Do you see a muscle-bound figure, clad in various forms of armour, brandishing some sort of weapon? Do you see a particular gender? More importantly, do you see yourself in this image of a warrior that you have created?
In a recent chapter which appeared in an edited volume entitled Why We Fight, we claimed that while there is a role for the warrior in Canadian military culture, it needs critical engagement and indeed reflection. In problematizing the concept, we called for a calibration of the warrior to ensure meaningful inclusion of professional attributes. We revisit this call to displace aspects of the warrior paradigm, and further suggest that at a time in which the ability of the Canadian military to steward its own profession and look after its members is being challenged, it is essential to engage in critical dialogue regarding the future role of the warrior and warrior identity in military culture.
History is replete with myths and stories of warriors — of various genders to be sure — however these images tend to be masculine, stoic, and passionate. Indeed, they are of a certain type and more importantly, they define and highlight a particular set of attributes that are revered and celebrated by an inclusive homogenous community, while at the same time excluding others who do not readily meet the criteria for admission. In short, an identity that brings forth an image that is exclusive. More often than not, most people do not see themselves in the popular image of the warrior.
Historically, the warrior has been rooted in dichotomous sex-based assumptions, represented by masculinity and masculine values that contrast with feminine roles and values — men are warriors, women are mothers; men protect, women are vulnerable and need protection. Physical prowess, will to kill, aggressive nature, and superior moral virtues allow the warrior to make claim to a unique status which is superior to outsiders, and in particular, civilians, women, and those representing other than male heterosexual identities. This warrior identity, which affords men exclusive access to war has been claimed as critical to male identity. Yet, it has also been claimed that the concept of the warrior is inherently unstable and therefore demands persistent testing.
This exclusionary conception of the warrior has been contested in the Canadian context since at least 1970 when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that women be permitted to serve in all roles in the Canadian military; it was further contested in 1989 when a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal directed that women would be integrated into all roles, including combat, and in 1992 when the CAF lifted its ban and related restrictions to the participation of LBGTQ+ members. In contemporary context, the persisting impacts of the warrior paradigm on equity and inclusion, and operational effectiveness have been revealed. The warrior paradigm and associated emphases on high power orientation, rigid sex roles, competition, tolerance of pain, mandatory heterosexuality, along with tight association with courage and endurance, physical and psychological strength, rationality, toughness, obedience, discipline and patriotism, are associated with enduring and exclusionary cultural processes. This includes association with increased risk for bullying, workplace aggression, devaluation, discrimination and harassment of marginalized members, and resistance to gender equity and gender bias.
In the early 2000s, as Canada found itself in Afghanistan and faced periods of sustained violence not seen since Korea, the term warrior was reinforced in the lexicon of the CAF. Members were told to be ‘warriors’ and the CAF let the subcultures figure it out; and figure it out they did.
Today, as the CAF faces a critical challenge related to sexual misconduct among its ranks, the warrior paradigm and its underlying values have particular significance. Even with the formal inclusion of previously excluded members, warrior values have persisted and created barriers to full participation of all qualified CAF members. The recent Survey of Sexual Misconduct in the CAF reinforces this claim, revealing that women and LGBTQ+ members of the CAF were much more likely than men and cisgender members to report experience of sexual assault, sexualized and discriminatory behaviours.
So what does this mean? What happens when our soldiers accept and reinforce their identity as warriors? The values and assumptions that have shaped the warrior paradigm are strongly associated with dominant masculine values. Just as they provide powerful motivation for the performance of soldiers, when they are accepted and practiced without critical reflection to effect response to contemporary values and shifting military challenges, there is powerful evidence claiming the damage to both member well-being and military performance.
The popular conception of the warrior identity, characterized by the Spartan iconography that appear as patches on body armour and referenced as a form of name dropping in the doctrinal notes of 2000s is problematic. It implies a personalization of conflict and acceptance of persistent testing and a never-ending seeking of validation that undermines cohesion and the well-being of individual soldiers. The Afghanistan: Experiences may vary memes circulating the internet are but one example of the deleterious impact of uncritical adoption. The pervasiveness of sexual misconduct, mental health challenges, and suicide within the CAF is another.
We need to return to the professional paradigm for our soldiers. Rather than relying on a concept that while at one level might appear to capture what we want our soldiers to be — that is resilient, dedicated, and disciplined — the warrior identity is both clumsy and loaded for the reasons we have outlined above. Instead, we need to return to the idea of the professional soldier while incorporating the elements of the warrior that are conducive to cohesion and well-being. We want our soldiers to be intrinsically motivated, embracing a culture of ethics rather than a single ethic, and able to apply judgement based upon this reflection.
This is at one level, impersonal, but also leaves no room for behaviour that would be otherwise deleterious to the cohesion and indeed task orientation of the organization. An inclusive professional framework can embrace aspects of the warrior culture that are constructive to the mission while recognizing the attributes that are problematic and — put bluntly — ignore them.
The word “warrior” itself is one of the most powerful words in the English lexicon, as it invokes powerful concepts, attributes, values and assumptions cloaked in gender-based images and identities. We are holding the warrior identity hostage, calling for a discussion on the implications of not only the concept of the warrior, but meaningful dialogue regarding the extent to which the contested warrior paradigm can be shifted to eliminate damaging and exclusionary warrior values and assumptions, to embrace fully inclusive professional attributes. In other words, in seeking an inclusive and effective professional culture for the CAF, is it necessary to abandon the language of the warrior completely or is it possible to create a transparent and redefined warrior identity that can claim inclusion, equity and professional standards that meet the challenges that the CAF faces today?
H. Christian Breede is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the Royal Military College of Canada and the Deputy Director of the Centre for International and Defence Policy. He has researched and published on the topics of military culture and security policy analysis.
Karen D. Davis is a defence scientist with Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis (DGMPRA) and the Chief of Military Personnel. She has researched and written extensively — for more than 25 years — on issues of gender, leadership, and culture within military organizations.
