yali@utcsrgv.UUCP (Yawar Ali) (08/15/83)
In his recent article discussing the role of women in the military Jon Mauney made the following, rather curious statement: >>> The military puts its personel through some >>> intense training, and could teach respect for the opposite sex if it >>> wanted to. He went on to say: >>> Such training would probably be good for society as a whole, as it >>> would promote equality, and diminish unrealistic attitudes about sex. Mr. Mauney is advocating a viewpoint and a program of training that to me is rather reminiscent of the doctrines and the experimental techniques of the Behaviorist school in Psychology, especially as formulated and popularized by B.F. Skinner. I think it would be fair to say that such views are generally discounted by contemporary Psychologists, and I find it unfortunate that they continue to persist in the community at large. The Behaviorists achieved a reasonable degree of success in conditioning animals to associate particular stimuli with desired responses, even small chains of responses. However, they were not able to make a good case for the hypothesis that all animal behaviour was governed by such stimulus-response patterns; in the case of conscious human behaviour, their arguments were even less convincing. Their theories were simply found to be of very little use, and of very little explanatory power, when applied to the analysis of any but the most trivial behaviour patterns exhibited by humans and the higher animals. It indeed seems that much military training conforms to the Behaviorist conditioning paradigm. Undoubtedly it is mildly successful in conditioning many trainees to exhibit what the brass would consider appropriate responses to certain kinds of stimuli. It could, for instance, "teach" Mr. Mauney's horny, young male recruit to ascertain the skill possessed by a woman in unarmed combat prior to commencing an assault on her person. It could *not* teach him respect for the opposite sex. Indeed the efficacy of military training, even in teaching so-called 'pure' military skills, tends to be rather over-rated by civilians. I happen to be acquainted with quite a few people who are, or have been in military service. From my own observations, as well as from my informants accounts, I have come to the conclusion that the more intelligent recruits learn very quickly to display outward conformity with the innumerable (usually stupid and meaningless) rituals that they are subjected to, all the while developing a keen sense of skepticism, indeed cynicism, as to their utility. Outside the view and hearing of their superiors and comrades they behave much as they used to before entering military life, and largely tend to exhibit the same degree of self-discipline (or lack of same). Coercion and blind obedience to orders from superiors are not very effective in teaching people anything, especially not skills that require them to think for themselves. They may learn fear, but they will not learn respect (the two are not synonymous, Reaganites and "old-fashioned" disciplinarians notwithstanding.). Yawar Ali utzoo!utcsrgv!yali P.S. I think that women who wish to take on combat roles in the military should be allowed to do so, however I would rather see our efforts directed towards getting people out of the military, rather than in!