The subject of this article is to explore how military personnel can cope with conflicting demands between their own sense of intimacy and closeness versus organizational goals that emphasize readiness for duty. Intimacy refers to the capacity to be close to others and share one's feelings without reservation, while closeness involves feeling comfortable and secure in one's relationship with another person. Institutional expectations require soldiers to maintain discipline, focus on task completion, and conform to strict rules about interactions with others outside their unit. These values are often challenged when it comes time for romance or sexual activity, especially if those activities could compromise mission accomplishment.
It has been argued that modern militaries have become increasingly professionalized, which means they prioritize mission effectiveness over personal lives. This trend has led to soldiers being sent on extended deployments away from family members who may otherwise fulfill emotional needs, putting them in an environment where emotional restraint is necessary but also unnatural. The result is that many troops feel isolated emotionally even as they work together closely physically. How do these two forces come into conflict? What strategies do soldiers employ to balance them?
One way that some military personnel deal with this tension is by compartmentalizing their lives into separate "boxes," such as a box for work/duty and a box for relationships. By keeping these boxes separate, they can avoid feeling guilty about devoting all their energy to their job while still fulfilling their desire for intimacy at home.
This approach does not always work since most people experience intimate moments spontaneously rather than in pre-determined timeslots. Another strategy is to redefine intimacy itself so that it encompasses only what can be expressed publicly without violating the chain of command; for example, physical affection but no words of love.
Some troops simply accept that the institution's expectations take precedence and find ways to cope with loneliness and isolation. They might rely on friendships within their unit or maintain contact with loved ones through technology like video chats or letters.
However, there is no easy solution to the dilemma between personal values and institutional demands when it comes to intimacy. Every person must make decisions based on their own circumstances and comfort level, which may involve compromise or sacrifice.
Balancing personal needs for closeness and emotional expression against professional requirements for restraint can be difficult for military personnel. There are various approaches that individuals may take, including setting aside time exclusively for romantic activities outside the workplace or limiting expressions of intimacy within it.
None of these solutions guarantees complete satisfaction or prevents feelings of alienation from one's peers. The struggle between individual desires and organizational goals remains a perennial issue faced by soldiers around the world.
How do soldiers reconcile personal values about intimacy and closeness with institutional expectations that prioritize mission readiness and emotional restraint?
Soldiers often experience difficulties when it comes to balancing their personal values of intimacy and closeness with the institutional expectations placed upon them by the military. This is because the military's primary focus is on mission readiness and emotional restraint, which can create tension between an individual soldier's desire for personal connection and the need to maintain professionalism within their unit.