Reading your GFs letters to humiliate you?

[Alfred001]

I was listening to an interview, I can't even remember whom it was with any more, but he was talking about how much rougher the army used to be and he said the drill instructor would read your GFs letters to everyone to humiliate you and build your chracter up, and I thought, that's quite rough in terms of privacy, but why would it be humiliating?

Was this really a common practice? What is the point, how is it humiliating?

[imatfaal]

The revelation of intimate conversations - and more importantly the power to do this unilaterally - is designed to show that one party has control and the other is subject to this control. This is the very act of humbling someone - the subjectification of the individual; "we are not equal - I exercise authority without bounds and you accept everything I do without question" remember that humbling and humiliation come from the same root.

 

The baring (both literally via removal of clothes and metaphorically by removal of the personal sphere) of the humbled is commonplace; look at any ancient texts concerning the treatment of prisoners or the accused - they are stripped, they must answer questions without limit, their every action is watched and noted, they must obey without hesitation, and they can hold nothing physical private to themselves. Sound similar to most armed forces?

[StringJunky]

I think, also, that the idea is to reduce the personal barriers within the group because these guys are going to possibly die together and they need to trust each other absolutely and act precisely and instantly according to given instructions in the field of battle to increase the chances of getting the job done and getting them back in one piece. An efficient troop needs to act as one and. therefore, any individuality must be stamped out, hence, the practice of showing everybody's weaknesses to each other; it's all about getting the guys to piss in the same pot and work together as a team. There is no 'I' in team. There is good method in the apparent humiliation. The more a commander can get his soldiers to act as a responsive, cohesive machine the better fighting capability they have. You don't want people spittiing their dummy out with each other in the midst of potential death. I think it makes them more self-contained and unflappable in the face extreme adversity; when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

Edited July 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[Carrock]

I think, also, that the idea is to reduce the personal barriers within the group because these guys are going to possibly die together and they need to trust each other absolutely and act precisely and instantly according to given instructions in the field of battle to increase the chances of getting the job done and getting them back in one piece. An efficient troop needs to act as one and. therefore, any individuality must be stamped out, hence, the practice of showing everybody's weaknesses to each other; it's all about getting the guys to piss in the same pot and work together as a team. There is no 'I' in team. There is good method in the apparent humiliation. The more a commander can get his soldiers to act as a responsive, cohesive machine the better fighting capability they have. You don't want people spittiing their dummy out with each other in the midst of potential death. I think it makes them more self-contained and unflappable in the face extreme adversity; when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

When the commander gets killed by friendly fire, all his troop will demonstrate team spirit by agreeing his death was an accident.

[imatfaal]

I think, also, that the idea is to reduce the personal barriers within the group because these guys are going to possibly die together and they need to trust each other absolutely and act precisely and instantly according to given instructions in the field of battle to increase the chances of getting the job done and getting them back in one piece. An efficient troop needs to act as one and. therefore, any individuality must be stamped out, hence, the practice of showing everybody's weaknesses to each other; it's all about getting the guys to piss in the same pot and work together as a team. There is no 'I' in team. There is good method in the apparent humiliation. The more a commander can get his soldiers to act as a responsive, cohesive machine the better fighting capability they have. You don't want people spittiing their dummy out with each other in the midst of potential death. I think it makes them more self-contained and unflappable in the face extreme adversity; when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

 

 

I disagree with that - I have no direct knowledge - but surprisingly (or maybe not) for a pacifist from a family of pacifists the generation of my parents was highly involved in the military; of the seven people (my parents and their siblings) only my mother was not in active service overseas (3 army 1 Raf 2 Nurses) during wartime. Thus when I was growing up there was often discussion / debate / rows about the services. But one thing everyone agreed upon (from my uncle who ended up a Brigadier to the Nurse who was also a Nun) was that the sort of NCO who humiliated, debased, and dehumanized lasted a lot less time, was markedly worse at his/her job, and was a throw back to between the wars when National Service was predominant. The good NCOs were described as hard as nails, tough and unbending, but super-protective and patriarchal - the bad NCOs as little hitlers, compensating bullies, uncaring and dangerous to be around.

[StringJunky]

I disagree with that - I have no direct knowledge - but surprisingly (or maybe not) for a pacifist from a family of pacifists the generation of my parents was highly involved in the military; of the seven people (my parents and their siblings) only my mother was not in active service overseas (3 army 1 Raf 2 Nurses) during wartime. Thus when I was growing up there was often discussion / debate / rows about the services. But one thing everyone agreed upon (from my uncle who ended up a Brigadier to the Nurse who was also a Nun) was that the sort of NCO who humiliated, debased, and dehumanized lasted a lot less time, was markedly worse at his/her job, and was a throw back to between the wars when National Service was predominant. The good NCOs were described as hard as nails, tough and unbending, but super-protective and patriarchal - the bad NCOs as little hitlers, compensating bullies, uncaring and dangerous to be around.

Don't bad apples exist in every walk of life? The thrust of what I said I learned from a high commanding officer of the army many years ago in some TV program; that's what all the repetitive drills are about as well: breaking a person to act automatically to orders. Think of a chain of command: if a person only executes part of a command each time, the errors accumulate detrimentally by the time it's passed all the way down and around; a parallel would be like the result from a game of Chinese Whispers.

 

It's about starting with precision and hoping to end with the desired, predicted outcome.

Edited July 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

Don't bad apples exist in every walk of life? The thrust of what I said I learned from a high commanding officer of the army many years ago in some TV program; that's what all the repetitive drills are about as well: breaking a person to act automatically to orders. Think of a chain of command: if a person only executes part of a command each time, the errors accumulate detrimentally by the time it's passed all the way down and around; a parallel would be like the result from a game of Chinese Whispers.

 

It's about starting with precision and hoping to end with the desired, predicted outcome.

 

But getting people to act according to orders without hesitation, deviation, or repetition is achievable through discipline - but not through humiliation. I work in the office side of an industry which ship-side still relies on complete compliance with orders for the safety of lives, integrity of our ships, and protection of the environment. In an emergency (and we have them as terrifying as anything - engine room fire when you are in a north atlantic storm sitting on top of 30000 tonnes of gasoline) our officers and crew react exactly as they should because they have been well and continuously trained, they understand and recognize their duties, and the chain of command is firm.

 

The debasement and dehumanizing is anathema to a good group performance - you end up with thoughtless grudging half-responses not the mindful and active reaction of a real team

[StringJunky]

But getting people to act according to orders without hesitation, deviation, or repetition is achievable through discipline - but not through humiliation. I work in the office side of an industry which ship-side still relies on complete compliance with orders for the safety of lives, integrity of our ships, and protection of the environment. In an emergency (and we have them as terrifying as anything - engine room fire when you are in a north atlantic storm sitting on top of 30000 tonnes of gasoline) our officers and crew react exactly as they should because they have been well and continuously trained, they understand and recognize their duties, and the chain of command is firm.

 

The debasement and dehumanizing is anathema to a good group performance - you end up with thoughtless grudging half-responses not the mindful and active reaction of a real team

In the absence of personal experience in both scenarios I can't really comment other than: imagine your scenario with an engine room fire sitting on hundreds of tonnes of high explosive armaments and the ship is being attacked by incoming missiles and general enemy fire - just a bit more stressful don't you think? In war, one is killing and being killed. I don't really wish to diminish the dangers of some in your area of work for some but there is a different level of stress going on in a military situation.

Edited July 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

May have been setting himself up as a common enemy. Instructors can do that reasonabley safely. See Full Metal Jacket for a counter example...

 

May have been for pure shits and giggles though.

 

I think they did something like that for a case of recruits sending mail to each other, but besides extra duties, the couple were otherwise let off.

 

Actually had cell phone priveleges last time around. Ran out of stuff to talk about. Definitely no need for letter writing :¥

Edited July 19, 2016 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

In the unlikely event that I met this situation, I'd get my girlfriend to write letter with long words and tongue twisters,

[Dlouro]

When I was in the army ( in Portugal was enforced conscription until the early eighties) a drill Sergeant in another platoon used to do that and worse things . One day appeared with a face like smashed potato. A few guys picked him with a sack from behind in a alley at night and gave him a treatment. After that he was the nicest drill sergeant. True story

Edited July 21, 2016 by Dlouro

[Alfred001]

I imagined it was more along the lines of guys writing sugary things to their girls and them responding in kind and the officer reading that to everyone to embarrass the guy. Stuff like "I miss you," or something about how pretty she is or how much he loves her or stuff like that.

[uncool]

I'd imagine that part of it is to break the embarrassment people have around each other's feelings - when everyone knows everyone's secrets, there's no reason to be hiding any more. You do get a bond of a type that way.