Resocialisation in interstellar marines' basic training

[Agemegos]

One of the most important goals of introductory military training is what is called "resocialisation", which is a process aimed at creating a strong social bond between the recruit and his or her unit, and at giving the recruit a new sense of identity as "a Coldstreamer" or "a Marine" or whatever. It turns out that the most effective forces (well, in field combat terms, I don't know about navies and air forces) are those that succeed in imposing on most of their recruits a sense of identity as a member that is at least as prominent as their feeling of national or family identity. Spokesfolk who enjoy brutal frankness sometimes talk of "breaking down the recruit's sense of identity" (or even their "personality") "and building up a new one as a [soldier]". I think that that is usually an exaggeration and would be overkill (and rather dangerous) where it were literally true.

The basic procedure as currently developed is as follows. First, recruits are gathered together (a step often overlooked in descriptions: this works far better with groups between about 15 and 90 than with isolated individuals) and are stripped of marks of individuality and of previous group identification — their clothes and ornaments are taken away and replaced with uniform dress and kit; uniform grooming is imposed, and individually distinctive styling of hair is shorn off. The recruits are then put under stress together. After a while (it only takes days or weeks) the stress is relieved and (such is the nature of human psychology) new group bonds are found to have formed (though if it is done that crudely it will be a mere "primary group" bond between the people who went training together).

For finer-tuned results the recruits are conditioned to obey people with status in the unit while they are under stress; and to turn to their unit for all needs and rewards. Previous group identities may be disparaged by drill sergeants or not; either way identity as a unit member is held up as grand, and presented as something that the recruits are fit only to aspire to. The recruits are made to repeat and reiterate slogans, catechisms, chants, and songs that establish attitudes and glorify the unit. They are taught routines of behaviour distinctive to the group. And when the initial period of stress is relieved the recruits are told (and ideally shown) that they have qualified as unit members, and are put through a rite of passage in which symbols of unit membership are bestowed upon them, ideally by someone of higher status in the unit than those who have supervised their training. When this is done right it can produce bonds not only among the primary group of individuals who were in training together, but between all members of the unit who display membership symbols and display loyalty.


In my usual SF setting there is an outfit about half a million strong called "the Imperial Marines", which recruits to an astonishingly high standard from several hundred worlds, provides training that is both remarkably intense and remarkably long, and enjoys a high reputation. The planets and moons from which marines are recruited are astoundingly diverse in their culture and society. Transport being slow, marines will be far away from home for very long periods of time, living in marines, or at least Imperial, society and culture. Unlike servicemen and servicewomen in national armed forces, they will have to become loyal to the Empire and think of themselves as Imperial marines instead of, and not as well as and in support of their identity as natives of and loyalty to their homeworlds and native societies. That is, resocialisation in the Imperial Marines will have to be especially thorough.


In several of the thousand-odd societies in my setting tattoos and other body modifications are used as markers or components of status, group affiliation, individual identity, and even gender identity. For example there is one planet, Nahal, where there are two recognised gender roles, one of which is distinguished by wearing conspicuous tattoos (and, usually, a gun). If you erase or suppress a Nahalese "reb"s tattoos (especially when you take away his side-arm) he is not merely anonymised, but emasculated. On the other hand, if you don't erase or suppress an Aotearoan's tattoos you can't suppress his family identity.

What ought the Imperial Marines to adopt as policy towards tattoos on recruits in basic training?

[jeff_wilson]

This sounds a lot like the programming and conditioning used by cults and splinter militant groups, probably due to their similar requirements.

If it's necessary to recruit from body-modifying societies, despite the thousands of other worlds, perhaps the marines can fall back on additional religious recruitment memes, like rebirth. Emasculation rather becomes pre-masculation, a new boyhood and the training a new coming of age.

[Flyndaran]

Sounds like what I assume a "proper" Basic Training is for American military.
Individuality is for warriors, not soldiers.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This sounds a lot like the programming and conditioning used by cults and splinter militant groups, probably due to their similar requirements.

Yep. You see similar things in initiations, too. And even in fraternity pledging rituals and other forms of hazing. It's an exploit for a basic human reaction, perhaps one wider than human, and its use (in assorted degrees of sophisticate) is widespread and ranges the spectrum from benign to malicious.

If it's necessary to recruit from body-modifying societies, despite the thousands of other worlds

Hmm. You make an interesting point.

perhaps the marines can fall back on additional religious recruitment memes, like rebirth.

I have said before to players saddled with Imperial Marines PCs that it is helpful to think of them as more like Shao-lin* monks† than like stereotypal grunts. You suggest in effect the possibility of playing that up, and I'm going to have to think about it.


* Or any other kind of warrior-monk, I suspect, though Templars and Hospitallers are too unfamiliar now for it to be an useful analogy.

† Not that their way of life is closely analogous to monastic asceticism: for example they aren't stabile, cloistered, or necessarily chaste.

[Anaraxes]

A Nahalese may think he's badass with with tats and gat. But the Imperial Marines are even more badass. They could wipe the floor with everyone in Nahal if they wanted to. And they don't have tats, but I wouldn't call one emasculated, not to his face. (The last Nahal to say that is still in the hospital.)

If you want to be part of the baddest gang, you lose the tats.

Certainly, there are some cultural inhibitions there. But then, lots of teenagers like to rebel against Dad's rules, too.

[jason taylor]

I did a similar thing for my Traveller society. When they needed to reorganize a national army the first units paraded simply in a rather dull field grey to make them distinctive from the custom of a clan tartan. Later it became common for militia to wear field grey over a tartan. The national forces in the meantime became started to wear unit-distinctive units. But the first units raised always paraded in grey and were called the "iron legions". It was never considered to be a replacement for their clan identity as such though; when the tour of duty was over they rejoined their clan. It was simply considered a necessary measure to shake up internal jealousies. The idea was that making the national army appear faceless highlights it's nature by the contrast.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Brett

One of the most important goals of introductory military training is what is called "resocialisation", which is a process aimed at creating a strong social bond between the recruit and his or her unit, and at giving the recruit a new sense of identity as "a Coldstreamer" or "a Marine" or whatever. It turns out that the most effective forces (well, in field combat terms, I don't know about navies and air forces) are those that succeed in imposing on most of their recruits a sense of identity as a member that is at least as prominent as their feeling of national or family identity. Spokesfolk who enjoy brutal frankness sometimes talk of "breaking down the recruit's sense of identity" (or even their "personality") "and building up a new one as a [soldier]". I think that that is usually an exaggeration and would be overkill (and rather dangerous) where it were literally true.

The basic procedure as currently developed is as follows. First, recruits are gathered together (a step often overlooked in descriptions: this works far better with groups between about 15 and 90 than with isolated individuals) and are stripped of marks of individuality and of previous group identification — their clothes and ornaments are taken away and replaced with uniform dress and kit; uniform grooming is imposed, and individually distinctive styling of hair is shorn off. The recruits are then put under stress together. After a while (it only takes days or weeks) the stress is relieved and (such is the nature of human psychology) new group bonds are found to have formed (though if it is done that crudely it will be a mere "primary group" bond between the people who went training together).

For finer-tuned results the recruits are conditioned to obey people with status in the unit while they are under stress; and to turn to their unit for all needs and rewards. Previous group identities may be disparaged by drill sergeants or not; either way identity as a unit member is held up as grand, and presented as something that the recruits are fit only to aspire to. The recruits are made to repeat and reiterate slogans, catechisms, chants, and songs that establish attitudes and glorify the unit. They are taught routines of behaviour distinctive to the group. And when the initial period of stress is relieved the recruits are told (and ideally shown) that they have qualified as unit members, and are put through a rite of passage in which symbols of unit membership are bestowed upon them, ideally by someone of higher status in the unit than those who have supervised their training. When this is done right it can produce bonds not only among the primary group of individuals who were in training together, but between all members of the unit who display membership symbols and display loyalty.


In my usual SF setting there is an outfit about half a million strong called "the Imperial Marines", which recruits to an astonishingly high standard from several hundred worlds, provides training that is both remarkably intense and remarkably long, and enjoys a high reputation. The planets and moons from which marines are recruited are astoundingly diverse in their culture and society. Transport being slow, marines will be far away from home for very long periods of time, living in marines, or at least Imperial, society and culture. Unlike servicemen and servicewomen in national armed forces, they will have to become loyal to the Empire and think of themselves as Imperial marines instead of, and not as well as and in support of their identity as natives of and loyalty to their homeworlds and native societies. That is, resocialisation in the Imperial Marines will have to be especially thorough.


In several of the thousand-odd societies in my setting tattoos and other body modifications are used as markers or components of status, group affiliation, individual identity, and even gender identity. For example there is one planet, Nahal, where there are two recognised gender roles, one of which is distinguished by wearing conspicuous tattoos (and, usually, a gun). If you erase or suppress a Nahalese "reb"s tattoos (especially when you take away his side-arm) he is not merely anonymised, but emasculated. On the other hand, if you don't erase or suppress an Aotearoan's tattoos you can't suppress his family identity.

What ought the Imperial Marines to adopt as policy towards tattoos on recruits in basic training?

Order every tatoo removed with a field knife and have the dead skin ceremonially burned. Each recruit will drop blood and have it mixed with the blood of other marines in a chalice and mixed. Then have a ceremonial meal of hardtack mixed with the blood. No miserable recruit will have any tatoo after that until after the course. Then he will be tatooed with the Imperial heraldric symbol and his unit number right below. The knifes used will be made at the Imperial palace. If the unit distinguishes itself more tatoos will be made.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Brett

What ought the Imperial Marines to adopt as policy towards tattoos on recruits in basic training?

This is a tough one, since the decision would be the result of a rare set of skills at a high level (you could PM Kyle Aaron who used to train recruits for the Australian Army). Real militaries have diverse policies about tattoos and other body modifications, so anthropological parallels are no help.

That said, I wonder if simply making sure to mix up recruits, so that no two from the same world are in the same platoon during training, would be enough? If nobody recognizes or cares about your family identity, that should be effective.

[Whitestreak]

Another way you can handle the tattoos is to require them to be covered during training, perhaps by a patch of plas-skin that cannot be removed by the recruit.

After training, the trooper is sent to his first unit, which decides when the cover(s) can be removed. Some may require a field test while they're at base. Others may require the cover stays on until after X number of combat missions.

At this point, the marine can be given the option to remove the cover, or remove the tattoo.

Brett, you haven't said (or I may have missed it), but what is the Imperial Marine's policy on individual body art? Allowed freely, allowed but not visible while in uniform or forbidden? Is body art allowed on a unit basis?

Forex, are the Force Recon folks all inked with a small eye on the back of the skull? Do the Orbital Insertion folks have a comet on their chest? Who guards embassy/consular grounds - if they're Marines, perhaps they cannot have any ink at all.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Whitestreak

Brett, you haven't said (or I may have missed it), but what is the Imperial Marine's policy on individual body art? Allowed freely, allowed but not visible while in uniform or forbidden? Is body art allowed on a unit basis?

Normally anything is allowed that doesn't interfere with the fit of a battlesuit. In practice this means that all hair, fur, feathers, scales etc. have to fit inside the helmet; nothing of that sort can be worn "south of the ears". But colouring bare skin over normal anatomy is not restricted. Where circumstances require it the CO or theatre commander may order the temporary addition, removal, or revision of body art; high tech makes this more practical and less onerous than it would seem at first thought.

In practice unit custom is sometimes a little more restrictive, as some units have customs mandating traditional body art, such as camouflage-pattern skintone, elaborate unit insignia tattoos, marks or colours of rank or billet, etc. Even in units that have no such customs there are a few recurring themes or running gags: nearly every platoon has at least one marine who has had his or her service uniform tattooed on complete with medal ribbons, at least in regiments where this is consistent with traditional body art.

The aesthetics of the Imperial Service favour a somewhat idealised version of natural human appearance, with skintone in naturalistic colours and shading. (There is a slight tendency for women to favour lighter tones than men, though of course the overlap is enormous.) This being the case few Imperial servants (including Marines) wear overt body-art on the hands, face, or neck. Marines and navy (who have to deal with pressure suits, free-fall, and helmets) wear short scalp hair or none. This fashion is widely copied.