After a long absence...

... here I am again. Things have been kind of crazy in my personal life lately, including a move of my home and family, as well as some minor brushes with the local bureaucracy. We're still getting settled in the new place, so updates will continue to be spotty for a bit longer, at least until I can get a stable Internet connection, and get some kind of rhythm down in my life.

That's all on the negative side of the ledger. On the positive side, I've set up some interesting partnerships, some of which will be appearing on these pages in the near future. I've been in contact with an amazing artist (currently unsigned), who has agreed to allow me to post some of his work here on the blog, so stay tuned for that. I've also been in touch with some military folks, and they've put together some pretty impressive footage from overseas, which I'll be featuring in a post in the near future.

For now though, I thought that I'd share some of my writings from a past life. This particular piece was written as a 'disciplinary measure', but what I said was as true then as it is now. Hope you enjoy!

15 December 2004
Respect
Respect is a word that is heard often in the United States Army, but the concept seems to have gotten a little vague over the years and countless repetitions. It is this concept that I will attempt to bring back into focus in this report. Specifically, I will show how respect relates up and down the chain of command.
Let us start at the beginning. The definition of respect boils down to a very simple concept, but the words are not so simple. Respect is, in essence, the actions taken by a person or group of people that prevents offense from being taken by another person or group of people. While that is not the traditional definition, the definition most accurately describes the concept. To illustrate, a man (or woman) can give ‘respect’ to his (or her) superior, even though he (or she) hates that superior. The ‘respect’ concept comes in because the subordinate wishes to retain their job, and so will not openly offend the superior. This is not to say that all respect given is given this way, quite the contrary. In most cases, respect is given as a sign of deference and trust. So, in the situation discussed earlier, if the subordinate trusts their superior, ‘respect’ can be given to prevent offense being taken so that a positive relationship can be maintained. While the situations may appear similar from the outside, it can in fact be quite different.
It is in this way that the concept of respect has been distorted. When this very simple concept is divorced from a few other concepts, then it loses the meaning that it started with. In today’s American society, respect has really lost meaning. Instead, it is a buzzword that simply means that certain people, either self-designated or designated by society, need to be appeased, or things will go hard for the rest. Respect, throughout history, was not a threat, nor an abasing of oneself, but a way of life. In the feudal culture of China and Japan, men would rather die, literally commit suicide, rather than commit an act of disrespect. This applied not only to the ruling family, but also to those who were their neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers. To these people groups, respect was a code of conduct; a way of interacting that encompassed everyone. It was a concept that everyone understood, and everyone lived by.
Obviously, this concept has never taken hold as deeply in any Western culture as it did in those peoples in the East. The same theory should still apply, though. Summed up in a few words, it means that respect is a two-way street. If one expects respect, one should give it, and if one gives respect, it is not an unreasonable expectation to receive respect in return. It is in this respect that the American culture has fallen away. People expect to be respected, without conversely giving respect, often to the very people that they expect respect from. Obviously, in some cases, respect must be given based on seniority (for instance, a junior enlisted giving a sergeant respect, even though they’re not sure quite why), but that respect, once given, should be returned, even if society doesn’t demand that it be returned.
Now, having said that, let’s look at our specific case. In a given chain of command, there are several elements. The first, and lowest (always) are the junior enlisted soldiers. They seem to be expected to give the majority of the respect in a chain of command, because there are so many people above them, but they receive the least respect. The lower enlisted, according to the society in which they live, are the grunts, people who have no real purpose, nor even existence outside of the task or mission that they have been given. The society states that these people, the workforce of the people-group, are ‘volunteers’, and so have asked for the position they are in, if for no other reason than that they hope to progress to the next stage.
Second on the ladder are those that we call ‘Noncommissioned Officers’. Specifically, we will divide them up, for the sake of argument, into ‘lower NCOs’ and ‘senior NCOs’. We’ll call lower NCOs from Corporal (an NCO in name only) to Staff Sergeant. This group is a bit of an anachronism in a ‘ladder’ scenario, because, while they have only one group under them, they demand the most respect of any enlisted group. This, I feel, is because they interact on a daily basis with the most junior of soldiers, most of whom either don’t know any better, or are afraid of these NCOs. The lower NCOs are the most likely to have a problem with any apparent slight to their dignity, or ‘disrespect’. Mostly, it seems to be caused by the fact that this group has just ‘graduated’ from the junior enlisted grades, and is eager to begin ‘giving back’ the lack of respect that they received from those lower NCOs that were above them. The soldier culture demands nothing from this group towards those below them, and expects that not only the enlisted soldiers, but even the officer corps must respect them based on their accomplishments, whether real or imagined. Thus, an officer might come to a lower NCO seeking that NCO’s technical expertise, when in fact that NCO might have no idea what is being asked, nor what the answer might be.
Now, lower NCOs are expected to give respect to those above them, but those above this group are not only less likely to take offense, they are more likely to greet this group as compatriots, since they have ‘proven themselves’, or ‘paid their dues’. In many ways, this society is run like a high-school, or college environment, where the freshmen are hazed until they become sophomores or upperclassmen, and then are greeted as equals, even though they may not be.
Third on this ‘ladder of success’ is the senior NCOs. I will class this as senior Staff Sergeants, Sergeants First Class, Master Sergeants, and First Sergeants. You might find this an odd delineation, but it really does make sense. Sergeants Major (the next group) are pretty much a law unto themselves, and are therefore a different breed entirely. So on with the ‘senior NCO’ step. Senior NCOs will usually have come to the conclusion, through experience or trial and error, that it is worthwhile to respect the junior enlisted soldiers on account of the fact that it is the junior enlisted that bear the brunt of the duty in a unit, and the senior NCOs have come to respect that. They are entitled, by the rules of the society to respect from the two junior-most rungs, as well as from junior officers (to be discussed later). The senior NCO group usually has dealt with all of the unpleasantries that the soldier society has to offer, and understands how unpleasant these things can be. In trying to reconnect with the junior enlisted, to keep a unit running smoothly, they will tolerate, to a small degree, breeches of etiquette from the juniormost soldiers. This would equate, in our school comparison, to seniors that take pity on the freshmen, for the sake of peace in the school. Thus, respect is a more laid-back concept for this group than it is for those struggling to prove that they deserve respect.
Lastly on the enlisted side is the Sergeants Major. This group includes both Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major, in that in both cases, there is a phenomenally low saturation level, namely one per unit of action. While the designation is delineated that a Command Sergeant Major is senior to a Sergeant Major, there will always be only one in a given unit. Sergeants Major are a tricky group to deal with, because they perform a very specific, and very important role. Their role as the senior NCO in a unit is to be the enforcer of regulations, both the general societal rules, as well as unit-specific rules. Because of this, the society that they run makes them almost mystical figures. The Sergeant Major is someone that is due respect from almost everyone in a given unit, and in fact, a Sergeant Major can make rulings on not only their own unit, but the units of others, if such is warranted. In such as this group is in charge of enforcing rules, they brook no departure from those rules. This is important so that those junior enlisted soldiers, as well as the lower NCOs, do not stray into an arena that they are not prepared to deal with.
Sandwiched between the enlisted soldiers and the officer corps is a group that often appears to exist outside the ‘natural order’. This group is known as Warrant Officers, and I will group them all together, for the sake of simplicity. The reason I can do this is because, from the lowest WOJG to the most senior CW5, every Warrant Officer is a professional first, and an officer second. There is, like in every other facet of this society, a demarcation of rank, in this case to provide a structure based on true seniority, as 95+% of warrant officers are promoted on their first look, the first time that they are eligible for promotion. This group is due respect in several different ways, and the Army society has done things to make that very clear to everyone involved by calling them Officers. Warrant Officers are professionals, as has been stated before, and so are subject matter experts in their chosen field. A senior Warrant Aviator can be reasonably expected to know nearly everything about the aircraft that they pilot, down to the make and model of components that they might be flying with on a given airframe, given only the aircraft’s tail number designation. It is for this technical aptitude that the Army society has elevated this group to ‘officer’ designation, enabling the Warrant Officer Corps to hold positions that were previously available only to commissioned officers. The Warrant Officer creates a bridge of sorts between the enlisted ranks and the commissioned officer corps. Thusly, they are to be respected throughout a unit. Conversely, it is a Warrant Officer’s job to maintain proficiency in their craft, and they are instructed that there is no reason to discount a source of information simply because of rank. In this way, a Warrant will respect someone who works with a system everyday for the simple fact that the maintainer does nothing else other than deal with a specific area all the time, whereas the Warrant must know not only the maintenance side, but also the operations side of a system.
Next, there are junior Commissioned Officers, which I will designate as Second Lieutenant and First Lieutenant. These ranks are the commissioned equivalent of the junior enlisted personnel on the other ‘side of the house’, and as such receive very little respect from above. As they are, in fact, commissioned, they are due (by the rules of the society) respect from all of the enlisted ranks, but often the senior enlisted soldiers will correct a junior officer with impunity, from the point of view that no amount of schooling or testing is a match for real-world experience. Even (and some would say especially) for graduates of the Army’s Academy at West Point (USMA), where the focus is on tactical and strategic proficiency, it is also made clear to students that experience is not to be scorned on any level. So if a junior officer finds a particularly proficient person, be they junior enlisted or senior NCO, they will respect the knowledge there.
Moving on, there are the mid-level Commissioned Officer Corps, which I will designate as Captain to newly promoted Lieutenant Colonel. In this group, respect is a very large deal, mostly because this group of officers is to be put in direct command of a unit of soldiers, sometimes in combat. The reasoning is that a unit does not respect their commander, they will not obey under fire, thus causing a situation in which people die that would not have to if they had followed orders. This is incumbent on not only the soldiers on the bottom though; it is also a responsibility of the officer in command to cultivate that positive relationship with their soldiers. So, in all actuality, this group finds that they need to relate to all ranks, both to their superiors, and their subordinates. Thus they create a conduit from the higher command to the junior soldiers that will act as buffer in both directions, keeping the enlisted from feeling the full effect of a commander’s anger, and keeping the commander from being bothered by trivialities. For this, the mid-level officers are to respected, both by edict of the culture, and by all common sense.
The last group that I am going to address is the Unit Command level, which is usually a senior Lieutenant Colonel, or a full Colonel. Like the Sergeant Major on the enlisted side, the Unit Commander has that uniqueness in the unit, as they are the only one in a given unit. The unit commander, according to this society, is the one responsible for making the decisions, and handing out the rules. According to the Army, the unit commander has a role somewhat akin to God, in that there is no other person within that unit that can override that unit commander. Respect for the unit commander is taken as a right, but that does not stop the commander from trying to earn the respect of their troops by keeping them in mind. Especially at this level, the rules of the society do not dictate that a commander must be liked by their troops, but many commanders take it as a mark of their prowess that not only do they accomplish their given mission, they do so with a high level of unit morale. There is a term for this kind of unit integrity, it is called espirit de corps, and it is taken as an indicator of the amount of respect at all levels.
There are higher levels of command, obviously, but they do not really pertain to this essay, as they do not occur on a daily basis. Needless to say, respect to those higher levels of command is another one of the automatic reflexes that is required by the society in question. The levels described herein will be more than adequate to discuss the next part of this essay, which is to application of these definitions to everyday life within this society.
The import of all these levels and chains and lines of respect is of great value to soldiers at every level, and it goes beyond the buzzword ‘respect’ that is chanted at the lower enlisted day in and day out. Like everything that is imparted by rote, it loses meaning over time. It becomes reflex, but especially in this case, a reflex action is worse than nothing at all. The interconnecting web of respect and dignity should provide a reference point, telling everyone who can see where, exactly, a particular person stands. This is the everyday application of respect for an NCO, at least in theory. This is the reason that NCOs make such a huge deal about respect, especially to the lower enlisted. That’s the way it would be in a perfect world, anyway.
While my views on this issue are skewed a bit, I am not so blind that I do not know what is expected of me, especially in light of the last few days. So, I will expound for a bit on the merits of this ‘respect system’ to provide a personal referent in this society. The purpose of this respect system is so that if someone walks in, it is immediately apparent where said person should be able to go for assistance, insight, or explanation, depending on said visitor’s needs. In a perfect world, a querent would be able to walk into, say, the Armament shop, and be able to explain a situation no more than twice before getting an answer. This is how it would work: the querent (let’s say that they’re a Warrant Officer with a maintenance issue) walks in and explains their situation to the first person that they see. This person, since they have respect for the Warrant Officer in question, as well as their NCO, will either answer the question, or direct the querent to the next level of this ‘respect ladder’ that should be able to answer the question. Now, obviously, this system breaks down in several ways, but it is a good illustration. Understanding that a subject matter expert is not always available, and understanding that certain questions require a third opinion, there remains the crux of this system. The crucial element is that the junior enlisted soldier has enough respect for everyone involved that they will recommend someone that should be able to solve the issue.
In another instance, say that there is a new soldier just arriving at a unit. While the unit, and the shop that they are going to, don’t know this new soldier, they should have the respect both for themselves and their shop to direct the soldier to the proper places. The NCO or officer that the new soldier is sent to is also indicative of a goodly amount of respect toward that NCO or officer, because it shows that the residents of the shop know that the superior in question can and will take care of the needs of the new soldier. This is another indicator of unit morale, in that if a soldier is not directed anywhere in particular, the unit’s soldiers have no respect for either the unit’s ability to meet needs, or that they don’t have respect enough for themselves to learn the answers, so that they might be able to better direct a new soldier in the things that they would have to do. I feel that a thorough working knowledge of a unit, even outside of one’s own job tasking, shows that you have a respect for the work being done around you, even if you can’t participate or assist. If you can point someone at the right answer, even if you don’t have the answer, you are showing respect for the person that you’re pointing, and the person that you’re pointing at.
In a third example, let’s say that an NCO is totally out of their depth on something, some item of paperwork that they have never come up against before. If they know who they need to see, or if they know that a resource is available in the form of a platoon leader or platoon sergeant, or whomever, they are respected enough to have been given that information, and they respect the resource enough to approach the superior in an appropriate manner.
So, now that the uses of the respect system have been discussed, let us look at what happens when the respect system breaks down. If, for instance, an NCO, intentionally or unintentionally, demonstrates a lack of respect for the abilities of a junior enlisted soldier, even though the soldier society does not mandate that an NCO acknowledge said abilities, the NCO will still lose the resource that the junior enlisted soldier may have provided, whether it have been on technical knowledge, or common sense solutions in a bewildering problem. If situations like that continue to occur, then the NCO has not only disrespected the soldier, but they have disrespected their coworkers, because that resource will be gradually denied the entire shop, as the soldier feels more and more like they are not being heard. This would manifest in the form of a poor attitude on the part of the soldier, as well as alienation of the soldier in question as word got around about the fact that the soldier was being ignored. This would create a downward spiral where the soldier would shut themselves off in greater and greater degrees, then the NCO would be more and more inclined to ignore the soldier, and the degree of alienation from the peer-group would increase. Eventually this pattern could result in violence, as the soldier would eventually reach their breaking point.
Conversely, if a soldier demonstrates a lack of respect for an NCO, either intentionally or unintentionally, then the NCO could easily take offense (as per the definition), and make life for the junior enlisted soldier quite unpleasant. Now, whether the lack of respect would be intentional or not, that would be unimportant, due to the concept that it is the impact, rather than the intent, that creates the most impression. This situation could also cause an unacceptable outcome, alienating the soldier in question, and starting the cycle described above.
Respect, once lost, is very hard to earn back. Especially if the person that a person is attempting to earn respect from has cultivated a level of apathy toward that someone, it becomes very difficult indeed to re-earn respect, and an order of magnitude more difficult to get issues addressed in the interim. There is no sure way to garner respect from a given person, as each person’s attitudes dictate the requirements for earning respect. The most difficult thing to do in most cases is to ask what is required to earn the renewed respect of especially a superior. And conversely, it is quite difficult for a superior who has lost the trust and respect of their subordinates to regain that respect.
Respect and dignity are two sides of the same coin, and both have to be considered in any interaction between to people, or people groups. When the dignity of a person or people group is considered, then that person or people group is truly respected. In the case of the Army society, personal dignity is something that sometimes must be set aside for the accomplishment of a mission, but it should always be in the minds of the chain of command, both from the top down, and the bottom up. Subject a subordinate to enough affronts to their dignity, either real or imagined, and they will begin to lose respect for the chain of command.
In the same way, if a subordinate creates enough embarrassing or undignified situations for their chain of command, then the subordinate will lose whatever respect that they had earned from that chain of command. Often this is a hard series of events to reverse, as neither side feels that they can do anything about it. The subordinate may try harder, but if the tasks become more and more trivial and demeaning, then there will come a point where that subordinate just gives up and either cannot or will not try any more. The chain of command will look at the situation and see that the subordinate is not attempting to excel, or ‘has a poor attitude’, and will put the subordinate in increasingly trivial and demeaning situations. The solution may not be that one side or the other has to give, but maybe that a kind of truce should be reached, allowing the soldier to regain some kind of standing on a probationary basis, allowing for a kind of clean slate. This would require respect on each side for the other. If some kind of agreement can not be reached then the level of performance from this subordinate will continue to deteriorate to the point where they will become either totally useless to the mission, or will become disgruntled and may start acting out against people or groups. This is obviously a totally unacceptable situation, and may result in a higher command stepping in and taking control of the situation.
Having taken a look at the causes and effects of respect on the daily lives of the Army soldier, I believe that this should demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the subject matter that a reoccurrence of the unfortunate incident that necessitated the creation of this essay.