Military Strength and Society
For much of military history the armed forces were considered to be for use by the heads of their societies, until recently, the crowned heads of states. In a democracy or other political system run in the public interest, it is a public force.
The relationship between the military and the society it serves is a complicated and ever-evolving one. Much depends on the nature of the society itself and whether it sees the military as important, as for example in time of threat or war, or a burdensome expense typified by defence cuts in time of peace.
These relationships are seen from the perspective of political-military relations, the military-industrial complex mentioned above, and the socio-military relationship. The last can be divided between those segments of society that offer support for the military, those who voice opposition to the military, the voluntary and involuntary civilians in the military forces, the populations of civilians in a combat zone, and of course the military's self-perception.
Militaries often function as societies within societies, by having their own military communities, economies, education, medicine and other aspects of a functioning civilian society. Although a "military" is not limited to nations in of itself as many private military companies (or PMC's) can be used or "hired" by organisations and figures as security, escort, or other means of protection where police, agencies, or militaries are absent or not trusted.
Read more about this topic: Military
Famous quotes containing the words military, strength and/or society:
“There are many examples of women that have excelled in learning, and even in war, but this is no reason we should bring ‘em all up to Latin and Greek or else military discipline, instead of needle-work and housewifry.”
—Bernard Mandeville (1670–1733)
“Sport in the sense of a mass-spectacle, with death to add to the underlying excitement, comes into existence when a population has been drilled and regimented and depressed to such an extent that it needs at least a vicarious participation in difficult feats of strength or skill or heroism in order to sustain its waning life-sense.”
—Lewis Mumford (1895–1990)
“The most remarkable aspect of the transition we are living through is not so much the passage from want to affluence as the passage from labor to leisure.... Leisure contains the future, it is the new horizon.... The prospect then is one of unremitting labor to bequeath to future generations a chance of founding a society of leisure that will overcome the demands and compulsions of productive labor so that time may be devoted to creative activities or simply to pleasure and happiness.”
—Henri Lefebvre (b. 1901)