For a sociologist (which is way more impersonal to say ‘for me’) there are two features that should prove to be interesting on the military organizations:
- First, they are the only organizations designed, conceived and structured to survive -and to continue to operate without problems – with continuous ‘reductions’ and ‘rotations’ of staff (The use of these phrases eufemísticas has a reason for being, is reduced and rotation what other organizations are equivalent to the low). A good day for a drive any you may receive, say, 15% of casualties and still be considered to be in conditions to perform their tasks. And this not as something exceptional but as part of the daily operation of the organization.
- Second, the way in which it is divided internally. All the organisations are divided internally. What difference to the military organizations is the degree of standardization of the division. In other words, each division in a large corporation will have a different number of staff, different departments (in number and in function). In an army of great size, all the divisions of the same type (say, infantry) have the same structure. And so down (all battalions have the same number of companies, all the companies the same number of stacks, all stacks the same number of squares and the squares are made up of X soldiers). This character standardized and homogeneous of the sub-divisions (*) ,let’s say the character segmented from its sub-divisions to use the old term, makes a clear difference to the military organizations. In a bank, so to speak, not all the branches have the same number of staff (and even the same functions, there will be some with more features than others), or the same number of boxes or etc
Now, both of these features are ancient. The armies are designed to withstand low and continue to work with them is part of what defines them. The standardization of the sub-units is also business old. In the end, we know quite well the organization of the roman army that was along the same lines (a legion are so many cohorts, a cohort is organized this way, etc), Although the degree of standardisation has varied greatly, the trend to standardize the sub-units (i.and an army is composed of sub-units identical to each other).
One could say, if one is an evolutionist to Durkheim, that the character segmented is due to the fact that the military organizations are in fact ancient, of the first parts of the social life that is organized, and therefore maintains features archaic organization. But that would require that one were an evolutionist to Durkheim.
I prefer to think that the two features that I have mentioned -the segmentation and the design ‘safe low’- are related and explain each other. Now, how do they do specifically? I still have not thought of the argument, but there will be.
(*) By the way, in all armies there is a level at which the sub-division stops to be standardized.