This paper is an exploration of the ways in which the idea of professionalism has been analysed in the sociology of professional groups and its application in the development and transformation of the armed forces. It appears to be a concept employed in a variety of countries to capture both a necessary and a desirable modernization of the armed forces. However there is little published on this process in any detail, in comparison either to a wider and more general analysis of change in the armed forces (for example the major review by Caforio, 2003), or to the casual use of the term “professional” divorced from scholarly study in this area (for example Forster et al., 2000).

The paper begins by reviewing the development of concepts and theories within the sociology of professional groups and the relevance of these different interpretations and explanations to the military. It will argue that the earlier structural models of professions, as institutions with special characteristics, were not of interest to researchers of the military. Similarly the subsequent characterization of professionalism as an occupational project of market closure and occupational enhancement has never been of relevance to the military since the armed forces have always been a relatively closed sector of the occupational market, and a sector of the labour market made up of commissioned officers and conscripts fulfilling military service requirements. The latest interpretation, of professionalism as a discourse, is of much more interest and relevance to the military, however. It will be demonstrated that the military provides a clear example of the use of the discourse of professionalism as a mechanism of occupational change, and in particular its power as a form of self-discipline (Foucault, 1979) or control “at a distance” (Miller and Rose, 1990; Burchell et al., 1991; Fournier, 1999). It will also be argued that in the military the discourse is constructed and utilized more by military advisers and “managers” rather than by military practitioners themselves. In this sense, the discourse of professionalism becomes a mechanism of institutional or organizational control of a military workforce rather than a means of occupational control of work by professional (military) practitioners (Freidson, 1994,2001).

Durkheim (1992) assessed professionalism as a form of moral community based on occupational membership. Tawney (1921) perceived professionalism as a force capable of subjecting rampant individualism to the needs of the community. Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933) saw professionalism as a force for stability and freedom against the threat of encroaching industrial and governmental bureaucracies. Marshall (1950) emphasized altruism or the “service” orientation of professionalism and how professionalism might form a bulwark against threats to stable democratic processes.

The best-known, though perhaps the most frequently mis-quoted, attempt to clarify the special characteristics of professionalism and its central normative values was that of Parsons (1951). Indeed Dingwall has claimed (Dingwall and Lewis, 1983) that research in the sociology of the professions is largely founded on the contributions of Parsons as well as the work of Hughes. Parsons tried to clarify the importance of professionalism through “a theoretical base in the sociology of knowledge, in terms of a sociallygrounded normative order” (ibid., p. 2). Parsons recognized and was one of the first theorists to show how the capitalist economy, the rational-legal social order (of Weber), and the modern professions were all interrelated and mutually balancing in the maintenance and stability of a fragile normative social order. He demonstrated how the authority of the professions and of bureaucratic organizations both rested on the same principles (for example, of functional specificity, restriction of the power domain, application of universalistic, impersonal standards). The professions, however, by means of their collegial organization and shared identity demonstrated an alternative approach (to the hierarchy of bureaucratic organizations) towards the shared normative end. This interpretation has been revisited in a recent analysis by Freidson (2001) who analyses professionalism as a third logic in contrast to the logics of the market and the organization.

Unlike Parsons, Hughes regarded the differences between professions and occupations as differences of degree rather than kind. For Hughes (1958), not only do professions and occupations presume to tell the rest of their society what is good and right for it, but also they determine the ways of thinking about problems which fall in their domain (Dingwall and Lewis, 1983, p. 5). Professionalism in occupations and professions implies the importance of trust in economic relations in modern societies with an advanced division of labour. In other words, lay people must place their trust in professional workers (electricians and plumbers as well as lawyers and doctors) and some professionals must acquire guilty knowledge. Professionalism requires professionals to be worthy of that trust, to maintain confidentiality and conceal such guilty knowledge by not exploiting it for evil purposes. In return for professionalism in client relations, professionals are rewarded with authority, privileged rewards and higher status. Subsequent analysis has interpreted higher rewards to be the result of occupational powers rather than professionalism but this was one result of the rather peculiar focus on medicine and law as the archetypal professions in Anglo-American analysis, rather than a more realistic assessment of the large differences in power resources of most occupational groups including the military.

The work of Hughes also constituted the starting point for many micro level ethnographic studies of professional socialization in work places (eg hospitals and schools) and the development (in new) and maintenance (in existing) workers of shared professional identities. This shared professional identity is associated with a sense of common experiences, understandings and expertise, shared ways of perceiving problems and their possible solutions. This common identity is produced and reproduced through occupational and professional socialization by means of shared and common educational backgrounds, professional training and vocational experiences, and by membership of professional associations (local, regional, national and international) and societies where practitioners develop and maintain a shared work culture. One result is similarities in work practices and procedures, common ways of perceiving problems and their possible solutions and shared ways of perceiving and interacting with customers and clients. In these ways the normative value system of professionalism in work, and how to behave, respond and advise, is reproduced at the micro level in individual practitioners and in the work places in which they work. Clearly the military could have constituted a clear example of professional/occupational socialization within a relatively closed occupational community and with distinct differences in the socialization of the officer and conscription categories but the military did not feature in empirical studies of occupational or professional socialization.

The work of Parsons, in particular on the core aspects of professionalism and the special characteristics of professional work, has subsequently been subject to heavy criticism. Parsons’ work has been over-zealously criticized because of its links with functionalism (Dingwall and Lewis, 1983). Sometimes, although mistakenly, Parson’s work has been interpreted as leading to the trait approach (for example, Johnson, 1972, pp. 25-32) which absorbed sociologists of professions for a period.

In the 1950s and 1960s, researchers shifted the focus of analysis on to the concept of profession as a particular kind of occupation, or an institution with special characteristics. The difficulties of defining these special characteristics, and clarifying the differences between professions and occupations, have long troubled analysts and researchers. For a period the “trait” approach occupied sociologists who struggled to define the special characteristics of professional (compared with other occupational) work. For example, Greenwood (1957) and Wilensky (1964) argued that professional work required a long and expensive education and training in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and expertise; professionals were autonomous and performed a public service; were guided in their decision-making by a professional ethic or code of conduct; they were in special relations of trust with clients, were altruistic and motivated by universalistic values. In the absence of such characteristics, the label “occupation” was deemed to be more appropriate and for occupations having some but not all of the characteristics the term “semi-profession” was suggested (Etzioni, 1969).

The “trait” approach is now largely assessed as being a time-wasting diversion in that it did nothing to assist our understanding of the power of particular occupations (such as law and medicine, historically) or of the appeal of “being a professional” in all occupational groups. It no longer seems important to draw a hard line between professions and occupations but, instead, to regard both as similar social forms or institutions which share many common characteristics, particularly in respect of occupational socialization and identity reinforcement.

The sociology of professions is a field in which international comparisons have been particularly fruitful. This is illustrated by the productive contrast between Anglo-American approaches, which have tended to concentrate on occupational closure and the creation of what Freidson (1982) called “market shelters”, and the approach developed in France and elsewhere in continental Europe, where professions are defined somewhat more broadly and where the focus shifts to questions of occupation more generally including occupational identity, career trajectories, professional training and expertise, and employment in public sector organizations. Collins expressed the contrast in a different way claiming that the Anglo-American ideal-type “stresses the freedom of self-employed practitioners to control working conditions” whereas the Continental ideal-type emphasizes “elite administrators possessing their offices by virtue of academic credentials” (Collins, 1990, p. 15). This is also reflected in different types of professionalization where the former focuses on “private government” within an occupation and the latter on the political struggle for control within an elite bureaucratic hierarchy (ibid., p. 17). Also McClelland (1990, p. 107) distinguished between “professionalization ‘from within’ (successful manipulation of the market by the group) and ‘from above’ (domination of forces external to the group)”. Although this categorization by McClelland was intended to differentiate Anglo-American and (in this case) German forms of professionalization, it will be returned to later in this paper as a way of indicating different occupational usages of, and benefits from, the discourse of professionalism, in different occupational groups. Svensson (2001) has also reminded researchers that in Europe generally professionals have been and are mainly employed in the public sector and closely connected to and controlled by state authorities; only a small minority have been self-employed (see also Burrage and Torstendahl, 1990).

In this period the concept of professionalism as value system was cynically discredited and attempts to define the special characteristics of professions were abandoned. This resulted in a general scepticism about professions which were seen instead to be elite conspiracies of powerful occupational workers.

Critical attacks on professions in general, as powerful, privileged, self-interested monopolies, were prominent in the neo-Weberian research literature of the 1970s and 1980s, and resulted in a general scepticism about the whole idea of professionalism as a normative value. Johnson, for example, dismissed professionalism as a successful ideology which had entered the political vocabulary of a wide range of occupational groups in their claims and competition for status and income (Johnson, 1972, p. 32). More recently Davies (1996) has urged researchers to abandon claims to professionalism and instead to recognize the links between such claims and a specific historical and cultural construction of masculinity which fits uneasily with newer and more feminized professions.

During the 1970s and 1980s, when sociological analysis of professions was dominated by various forms of professionalism as ideology theorizing, one concept that became prominent was the “professional project”. The concept was developed by Larson (1977) and included a detailed and scholarly historical account of the processes and developments whereby a distinct occupational group sought a monopoly in the market for its service, and status and upward mobility (collective as well as individual) in the social order. The idea of a professional project was developed in a different way by Abbott (1988) who examined the carving out and maintenance of a jurisdiction through competition and the requisite cultural and other work that was necessary to establish the legitimacy of the monopoly practice.

Magali S. Larson’s work is still frequently cited and MacDonald’s textbook on professions (1995) continued to use and to support her analysis in his examination of the professional field of accountancy. The outcome of the successful professional project was a “monopoly of competence legitimised by officially sanctioned ‘expertise’, and a monopoly of credibility with the public” (Larson, 1997, p. 38). Larson’s interpretation has not gone unchallenged. Freidson (1982) preferred market “shelters” to complete monopolies in professional service provision, which indicated the incomplete nature of most market closure projects. It is also the case that Larson’s careful analysis has been oversimplified by enthusiastic supporters such that some researchers talk about the professional project, as if professions and professional associations do nothing else apart from protecting the market monopoly for their expertise. One aspect of Larson’s work is of particular interest, however. Larson asked why and how a set of work practices and relations that characterized medicine and law came to become a rallying call for a whole set of knowledge-based occupations in very different employment conditions. This question points to the importance of the appeal and attraction of the concept of professionalism to employed occupational workers in work organizations in all types of society in the modern world.

Another version of the professionalization as market closure interpretation has been the notion of professions as powerful occupational groups who not only closed markets and dominated and controlled other occupations in the field but also could “capture” states and negotiate “regulative bargains” (Cooper et al., 1988) with states in the interests of their own practitioners. Again this was an aspect of theorizing about professions in Anglo-American societies which began in the 1970s (eg Johnson, 1972) and which focused on medicine and law. It has been a particular feature of analyses of the medical profession (eg Larkin, 1983) where researchers have interpreted relations between health professionals as an aspect of medical dominance as well as gender relations (eg Davies, 1995).

These explanations proved to be of little interest or relevance to sociologists of the military as the armed forces market of military personnel had always been relatively closed. Also the division between the two internal military markets, the officer and the conscription categories, were beginning to break down as modernization of the armed forces, particularly in Europe and North America, was requiring an all volunteer force. This has entailed a discussion of the military as a work organization including the need to recruit and retain staff, offer career and promotion opportunities, and meet equal opportunities requirements in terms of gender and ethnicity representations. It is also difficult to interpret the military in market terms since this occupational group can have little control over the demand for or supply of its personnel or its work. In the case of the military, it is political control (national and increasingly international) which is paramount in terms of market demand for and supply of its service.

There is now extensive use of the concept of professionalism in an increasingly wide range of occupations and work places. The concept of professionalism is increasingly used in a variety of work, occupational, organizational and institutional contexts. It is used as a marketing slogan in advertising to appeal to customers (Fournier, 1999) and in campaigns to attract prospective recruits (eg in the UK armed forces). It is used in company mission statements and organizational aims and objectives to motivate employees and in policy procedures and manuals. It is an appealing prospect for an occupation to be identified as a profession and for occupational workers and employees to be labelled as professionals. The concept of professionalism has entered the managerial literature and been embodied in training manuals and CPD (Continuing Professional Development) procedures. The concept of professionalism is increasingly used (or misused ?) in organizational, commercial, service, financial security and military work places and locations. The discourse of professionalism is also claimed by both sides in disputes and political and policy arguments and disagreements between professional workers and governments–particularly in respect of proposed changes in funding, organizational and administrative arrangements in health and in education (Crompton, 1990).

In trying to account for the appeal and attraction of the discourse of professionalism in the military as well as in a wide variety of occupational groups with very different working conditions and employment relations, a different interpretation is required. It is suggested that professionalism is being used as a discourse to promote and facilitate particular occupational changes in this case in military institutions and in general service work organizations. The interpretation includes the analysis of how the discourse operates at both occupational/organizational (macro), and individual worker/personnel (micro) levels.

The occupational, organizational and worker changes required have been summarized by Hanlon (1999, p. 121) who stated that “in short the state is engaged in trying to redefine professionalism so that it becomes more commercially aware, budget-focused, managerial, entrepreneurial and so forth”. Hanlon’s emphasis on the state here is because he was discussing the legal profession. When this analysis is applied to the use of the discourse of professionalism in other occupational groups then the state might be less directly involved and the service company, firm and organization (via its managers and supervisors) would probably be the constructors, promoters and users of the discourse. In the case of the military, the discourse of professionalism is also being used both by politicians (national and international) and military advisers. Certainly the nature of recent pressures on the UK military have resulted in calls for more professionalism.

Since 1945 the UK has constantly been forced to reconsider both the role and effectiveness of its armed services. Large-scale conventional confrontation with Soviet forces and small special force operations in Yemen or Borneo has required flexibility. This has continued to be the case. The UK has been in the vanguard in the post-1989 re-evaluation of strategic and military policy (Cohen, 2000; Wenger, 2002). Armed force strength was reduced from 306,000 to 226,000 and re-oriented towards a more mobile reaction force, although still largely within a NATO and European theatre of operations : the “British Way in Warfare” (Strachan, 1994).

The more fundamental 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) envisaged strategically mobile armed forces able to deploy quickly to areas under threat and to sustain themselves for relatively long periods of operation. Conventional force changes were intended to provide a greater capability to sustain one major or two minor operations in addition to the need to continue with anti-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland. The creation of an extra mechanised brigade and the 16^th Air Assault Brigade together with leadership of NATO’s Rapid Reaction Corps have been designed to provide for either warfighting or peace keeping operations.

The events of 11^th September, 2001 led the Secretary of State to announce, in December 2001, the need for a “New Chapter” to the SDR to take account of the new strategic realities posed by the threat of terrorist activity worldwide. This New Chapter published on 18^th July, 2002 (MoD, 2002) considers such questions as : where the balance should be struck between protecting the UK homeland and contributing to overseas operations; in what ways can military support for civil authorities be improved; what balance should be struck between addressing the symptoms of terrorism and addressing the causes of terrorism. The New Chapter has involved wide-scale consultations with military, political, diplomatic, academic and other bodies to ensure the widest possible measures have been taken to address the threat from international terrorism.

A key element within the SDR has been the need to ensure that training and education in the armed services meets the need for having properly qualified and experienced personnel capable of carrying out defence policy requirements. Central to this has been the Defence Training Review (DTR), established by Lord Robertson on July 1999 to examine all the individual training and education needs of the defence establishment, both military and civil. The DTR was driven by : the requirements of the SDR; shifting social trends within the UK population; the challenge of technology and the wider government agenda to ensure modernisation within the UK (including post-Service careers). Looking forward to 2015 the new policy intends to promote : more integration between the Services; greater alignment of operational and personnel training requirements; greater responsiveness to rapidly changing requirements; and greater cost-effectiveness (MoD, 2001).

A central feature of defence policy since the 1950s has been the formation of a small, highly trained and “professional” armed force. It is considered that only an “all volunteer force” (AVF) is capable of carrying out all the very complex and difficult tasks required of a modern defence policy (Millen, 2002). In the UK recognition of this need for highly skilled and highly trained personnel has come in such forms as the recruitment slogan “Join the professionals” and indeed for much of the past 50 years professionalism has been strongly associated with the notion of an all volunteer force. However, in recent years a debate has opened up in UK defence and academic fora about the nature of professionalism in the armed forces (Forster et al., 2000). Up till now much of this debate has revolved around predominantely strategic issues such as the role of armed forces, their expertise and responsibilities. However, it is also true to say that there still remains considerable confusion over the terms and concepts associated with professionalism and recent attempts to provide a typology of models of armed forces are still couched in strategic terms (ibid.). Until now no attempt has been made to assess professionalism from a more institutional, organizational or occupational perspective.

It is necessary to clarify and operationalize the concept of discourse. In this paper discourse refers to the ways in which occupational and professional workers themselves are accepting, incorporating and accommodating to the concepts of “profession” and particularly “professionalism” in their work. It will also become apparent that in the case of many, if not most, occupational groups the discourse of professionalism is in fact being constructed and used by the managers, supervisors and employers of workers (including Government Ministries), and it is being utilized in order to bring about occupational change and rationalization as well as to (self-) discipline workers in the conduct of their work. It will be argued that this use of the discourse is very different from the earlier (historical) constructions and uses of “professionalism” by the practitioners and professional associations in medicine and law –from where the discourse originated. This analysis of the use of the discourse of professionalism in work and organizations is based on Foucauldian concepts of legitimacy (Foucault, 1979) and of the control of autonomous subjects exercising appropriate conduct (Foucault, 1973,1980). Using these ideas in her interpretation of professionalism as a disciplinary mechanism, Fournier (1999), following Miller and Rose (1990), has explored professionalism as the government of professional practice “at a distance”. These interpretations can also assist in understanding the appeal of professionalism as a mechanism of occupational change in the modern world in the military as well as in other places of work.

Analysis of legitimacy, as a property of both systems and actors, has been developed most fully in the work of Foucault and his followers on the nature of governmentality and the constitution of citizen-subjects within modern societies. In respect of professions as systems Foucault (1979) argued, following Weber (see Bendix, 1966, pp. 417-430), that the development of particular forms of expertise was a crucial element in the formation of governmentality from the 16^th century onwards. Summarizing Foucault’s argument Johnson (1992) showed how the extension of the capacity to govern depended on expertise in its professionalized form and the development of expert jurisdictions and systems of notation, documentation, evaluation, calculation and assessment. This extension of the capacity to govern necessitated a shift in the basis of legitimacy. Acceptance of the divine right of the sovereign declined and was replaced by a discourse that held “popular obedience to the law” to be the sole source of legitimate rule (Foucault, 1979, p. 12). This was not expressed by Foucault as overt domination but rather as the probability that the “normalized” subject will obey (Johnson, 1992).

The professions were intimately involved in these processes of normalization which were crucial to the reproduction of legitimate power in the liberaldemocratic state (Johnson, 1992). Normalization also included the reproduction of the authority of the expert. Acceptance of the authority of professional experts went together with the consolidation of the authority of states. Acceptance of the authority of governments and of professionals have been interrelated and have been part of the process of normalization of the citizen-subject. Perkin (1988) also highlights the close and interconnected role played by both the nation-state and professionals in the creation of a legitimate capitalist order in the UK in the 1880-1920 period. In some respects, the organizing principles of the professions can be seen to model the process of normalization : the professional’s training is, in theory, supposed to cultivate a proper balance between self–and collectivity interest which is sustained by interaction with the occupational community of his or her peers and by the desire not to lose their good opinion by excessive greed or abuse of power. Such a model may be deeply problematic as numerous critical writers have observed but symbolically it remains very powerful and continues to explain the appeal of professionalism at the system or occupational level.

At the level of individual actors the concept of normalization of the citizen-subject was also a central requirement in Foucault’s argument since legitimate political power depended on the obedience of subjects. This highlights the way in which outright coercion has given way to normalization, to the way in which the discipline of selves has become self-discipline, where the key controls are internalised and proactive rather than external and reactive.

Using Foucault’s interpretation of normalization, and interpreting this as legitimation through competence and autonomously “choosing” to act in appropriate ways, Fournier (1999) considers the appeal to “professionalism” as a disciplinary mechanism in new occupational contexts. She suggests how the use of the discourse of professionalism in a large privatised service company of managerial labour serves to inculcate “appropriate” work identities, conducts and practices. She considers this as “a disciplinary logic which inscribes ‘autonomous’ professional practice within a network of accountability and governs professional conduct at a distance” (1999, p. 280).

At the level of individual actors the appeal to professionalism can be seen as a powerful motivating force of control “at a distance” (Miller and Rose, 1990; Burchell et al., 1991). At the level of systems, such as occupations, the appeal to professionalism can also be seen as a mechanism for promoting social change. In these cases, however, the appeal of the discourse is to a myth or an ideology of professionalism which includes aspects such as exclusive ownership of an area of expertise, autonomy and discretion in work practices and occupational control of work. In fact the reality of the professionalism that is actually envisaged is very different. The appeal to professionalism most often includes the substitution of organizational for professional values; bureaucratic, hierarchical and managerial controls rather than collegial relations; budgetary restrictions and rationalizations; performance targets, accountability and increased political control. In this sense, then, it can be argued that the appeal to professionalism is an “effective” mechanism of social control at micro, meso and macro levels.

The discourse of professionalism that is so appealing to the armed forces (as well as to other occupational groups and their practitioners) includes aspects such as exclusive ownership of an area of expertise and knowledge, and the power to define the nature of problems in that area as well as the control of access to potential solutions. It also includes an image of collegial work relations of mutual assistance and support rather than organizational, hierarchical, competitive or managerialist control. Additional aspects of the discourse of professionalism and its appeal are autonomy in decision-making and discretion in work practices, decision-making in the public interest unfettered only marginally by financial constraints, and in some cases (for example the medical profession historically) even self-regulation or the occupational control of the work (Freidson, 1994).

Exclusive ownership of military expertise is an aspect of professionalism in the military, though control of access to solutions is not. General military policies, targets and objectives are determined by political decisions at both state and increasingly international levels. Exclusive control of military knowledge (the theory and the practice) does belong with the armed forces who can clarify the operational alternatives and make recommendations to governments. Collegial (rather than hierarchical) work relations could never be an aspect of armed forces professionalism–though a form of comradeship and mutual support within units is often portrayed (for example in films and documentaries) as a feature of armed forces culture and working life. Autonomous and discretionary decision-making in military operations is an aspect of armed forces professionalism and this is no longer confined or limited to the officer rank, particularly in peace-keeping or in special forces operations. Self-regulation and the occupational control of work have constituted features of the military although political and increasingly economic control of military objectives make it difficult to conceive of the military promoting a public interest that could be different to that of the state-defined interest. Arguably this aspect of professionalism might perhaps be applied in instances where the armed forces have ousted a government or national leader allegedly in the public interest.

It seems that the reality of the discourse of professionalism in the armed forces includes budgetary constraints and financial cut-backs; strict control of armaments and equipment costs; a decrease in numbers of personnel which at the same time is a more highly trained and disciplined work force; an increase in organizational features in the military which include an increase in bureaucracy, managerialism, accountability and audit; an enlarged and expanded role which includes global policeman alongside defensive and offensive combatant functions; and an international, as well as a national, identity to make more efficient organizational use of scarce defence resources. The discourse of professionalism is being used, therefore, to promote occupational rationalization and organizational efficiency rather than the occupational control of the work by professional military practitioners.

It is also important to consider the appeal of the discourse of professionalism as a disciplinary mechanism at the micro level in the armed forces. Fournier (1999, p. 290) has demonstrated how the reconstitution of employees as professionals involves more than just a process of re-labelling, “it also involves the delineation of ‘appropriate work identities’ and potentially allows for control at a distance by inscribing the disciplinary logic of professionalism within the person of the employee so labelled”. In the military (as well as in new and existing occupational and organizational contexts) officers and other ranks are having to, and indeed choosing to, reconstitute themselves in organizational and occupational forms which incorporate career development alongside the self-managing and self-motivated employee (Grey, 1994; Fournier, 1998). In other words, those who act like “professionals”, and are self-controlled and self-motivated to perform in ways the military defines as appropriate, will at the same time be inner-directed and controlled from a distance. In return, for some of those who perform according to expectations, they will be rewarded with career development and promotion progress.

The discourse of professionalism, as a mechanism of occupational rationalization and change, and of individualized control, is played out differently in occupational groups in different employment situations. In trying to understand these differences it can be argued that the Anglo-American overemphasis on medicine and law as the archetypal professional groups has been largely unhelpful. One consequence has been that Anglo-American social scientists have developed a distorted view of the power of a limited number of occupational groups to influence states, demand and retain regulatory powers from those states, and control (through monopoly practices) the markets for their knowledge and services. For the military and other occupational groups, however, the discourse has worked, and has been worked in other ways. In general, then, a focus on (previously) powerful occupational groups has deflected attention away from analysis of occupations who have generally been less successful in using the discourse in their own interests (such as engineers and teachers) and now also the military.

In trying to understand the differential effects of the discourse of professionalism in occupational groups in very different employment situations, it might be useful to return to McClelland’s categorization (1990, p. 170) of “professionalization ‘from within’ (successful manipulation of the market by the group) and ‘from above’ (domination of forces external to the group)”. This categorization was intended to differentiate Anglo-American and German forms of professionalization and there are clearly some problems with it. In particular it tends both to oversimplify and overemphasize the power of some Anglo-American professional groups to demand regulatory responsibilities from states. Dingwall (1996) has argued that the supply side is equally important and that it is necessary to consider why in certain historical and political contexts some states permitted professions to flourish–and in terms of the arguments in this paper– were able to construct the discourse of professionalism “from within” the occupational group.

This categorization might also be used to indicate and explain the various constructions and indeed consequences and effects of the discourse of professionalism in different occupational groups. Where the appeal to professionalism is made and used by the occupational group itself, “from within”, then the returns to the group can be substantial. In these cases, historically the group has been able to construct and to use the discourse in the development of its occupational identity, promoting its image with clients and customers, and in bargaining with states to secure and maintain its (sometimes self) regulatory responsibilities. In these instances the occupation is using the discourse partly in its own occupational and practitioner interests but sometimes also, and arguably, as a way of promoting and protecting the public interest.

In the case of the military and indeed most contemporary service occupations, however, professionalism is being constructed and imposed “from above”. For the armed forces this means by politicians and military advisers while for other occupations this means the employers and managers of the service organizations in which these “professionals” work. The ideals of dedicated service, autonomous decision-making and occupational control of work are part of the appeal of the discourse of professionalism. These values are inserted or imposed and a false or selective discourse is used to promote and facilitate occupational change and rationalization, and as a disciplinary mechanism of autonomous subjects exercising appropriate conduct. This discourse of professionalism is grasped by armed forces personnel (and by other occupational groups) since it is perceived to be a way of improving the occupations’ prestige, status and rewards collectively and individually. However, the realities of professionalism “from above” are very different.

If this differentiation is relevant then, in respect of the construction of professionalism in the armed forces, it becomes crucially important to ask and assess who is constructing and operationalizing the discourse in the context of the military and in whose interests. The discourse of professionalism is appealing and very persuasive both as a mechanism of occupational change and rationalization, and of individualized control. Clearly this is an area of analysis where sociologists of the military and of professional/occupational groups need to work together in order to develop theory and to construct empirical projects to examine the construction and use of the discourse of professionalism in the armed forces nationally and internationally.

It also needs to be emphasized that the discourse of professionalism operates and needs to be examined on (at least) two different levels : institutional as well as practitioner professionalism. In the analysis of institutional professionalism, it is important to examine the organizational arrangements, procedures and policies of the armed forces in respect of military careers, progression and advancement, training and credentialism; career routes in military management and/or operations specialisms; the recruitment and retention of services personnel including issues of gender and ethnicity; and the provision of organizational support services in the armed forces such as accommodation, health and safety matters and pensions-building. This is closely related to and might even constitute a condition for practitioner professionalism since armed forced personnel can best operate professionally within military institutions and organizations which have professional structures and frameworks of support. Sociologists of the military and of professional/occupational groups could work together to clarify the meanings of professionalism in the armed forces, as a discourse of occupation change, as a set of institutional and organizational arrangements, and as a disciplinary mechanism of individualized and self control. In that way the discourse might remain contested rather than controlling.