How we think about ourselves, and others are represented by the concept of identity. ‘It identifies those with whom we see ourselves as similar as well as those with whom we see ourselves as different (Brenner et al., 2021). People derive their identity or sense of self largely from the social categories to which they belong. (Stets & Burke, 2000). Brenner et al. (2021) maintain that people have many identities that exist in an ecology of identities within the self, and those identities can be enacted, altered, or abandoned in different situations. Our identities are learned through what Turino (2008) calls socialisation where we model ourselves on others that we encounter. Quinn (2021) explains, that the likelihood of playing out an identity across different situations is referred to as salience and the importance of that identity to an individual is known as prominence. An abrupt identity change may change the prominence and salience of other identities in the individual (Quinn 2021).
McKinlay and McVittie (2011) explain identity refers to the person's central being, which persists through their biological history. Personal identity is a sense of self, built up over time, it is experienced by the individual core or unique to themselves and emphasises a sense of individual autonomy (Hitlin, 2003). Stets and Burke (2000) and Quinn (2021) describe three bases of identity, (1) person identity, the unique way people see themselves, (2) role identities, the meanings associated with roles that are attached to a position in society, and (3), group or social identities, the perception of uniformity among members of a group. In identity theory, role identities are defined in part by their relationship to counter-role identities such as the father's role identity in contrast to that of the mother or child (Quinn 2021) The cognitive process of seeing oneself as a representation of a role and the norms associated with the role is termed, self – verification. This process of classifying oneself has been termed identification (Stets and Burke, 2000). In social identity theory, people see themselves as being like other group members, feel a strong attraction to the group as a whole and their perceptions and actions are at one with the group. The cognitive process of seeing themselves as a representation of the norms of the group is termed depersonalisation and the term ‘self-categorisation’ is used to describe the processes in which group identity is formed (Stets and Burke, 2000). In these group contexts, friction between insiders and outsiders of the group can occur, Hogg and Rinella (2018) describe how there can be a positive emotional bias and behavioural tendencies toward the in-group and a negative emotional bias and behavioural tendencies toward the out-group.
Woodward and Jenkings (2011) describe how the military recruiting process points to a military identity as a matter of individual determination with the possibilities of a variety of military occupations and activities. The prospect of an exciting, adventurous life may be a pull factor for a younger person and the feeling of the boredom of living with parents and a job with few prospects may be a push factor in deciding to join the military.
To be successful the recruit must undergo a transformation process that begins during initial entry as recruits learn the customs, habits, practices, norms and policies that will dictate their time of service, the initial entry process strips the recruit of their civilian life (Lancaster et al., 2018). Cooper et al. (2017) explain that transition to the military culture during basic training is nonoptional. Those that cannot accept this new military identity either leave before completion through their own discharge or will be discharged for breaches of discipline. This transformation process starts with socialisation to the military culture, and recruits are subjected to forced separation from civilian life, civilian clothes, hairstyles etc. to make way for a strong identification with military culture. (Godfrey et al., 2012). The uncertainty that the recruits experience during this phase of training causes the formation of bonds with other service members, feelings of unit cohesion and the development of a unique military identity, (Lancaster et al., 2018). Cooper et al. (2017) cite Hockey (1986) that the lack of any offstage available to recruits ensures that any sense of individuality or prior identity is removed.
As service goes on the military identity is then reinforced and in a study by (Lancaster et al., 2018) it was found that most dimensions of identity increase as the number of years and number of deployments increase. In the Binks and Cambridge (2018) study, it was found that respondents acknowledged that their military identity became their primary and dominant identity, (most salient and prominent). The possession and performance of professional military skills were fundamental to claims of military identities, such as their trained and skilled ability to use weapons and although some skills were potentially comparable to civilian skills, military attributes were emphasised such as the hostile environments in which they were performed (Woodward and Jenkings 2011). Woodward and Jenkings (2011) also explain that enactment of the skills was understood essentially as a collective group endeavour and the strong emotional bonds were noted in the study with terms such as family being used in describing their comrades. This strong sense of identity and social bonds become stronger, more salient, and prominent the longer a person serves (Woodward and Jenkings 2011). Stets and Burke (2000) observe that as this depersonalisation takes place it enhances perceptions of the stereotypes of the in-group and out-group. The in-group being members of the military and the out-group being civilians. This reinforces Balfour's (2018) statement, ‘there is an inbuilt resistance between military personnel and civilians, civilians are different. You only trust each other. The military is your family’ (p 556).
The service member does not however lose all of their civilian identity, only that the military identity becomes the most prominent and salient of the individual's many identities and they do not live wholly in a military society. Cooper et al. (2017) describe the temporary transitions that take place whilst on leave and the civilian life events such as getting married and having children and that a complex cultural transition must be navigated when moving between military and civilian environments.
Eventually, military service must come to an end. Some service members may have served a full military career and retire having completed the maximum time they are allowed to serve. Some service personnel may need to leave the forces due to injury, health, or mental health issues and for some, the greedy institution described by Cooper et al. (2017) and its demands on the individual that put service over family may come to create a push factor for the freedom from a structured lifestyle and the pull factor of family life may make civilian life more appealing. At some point, all service personnel must leave the military and negotiate the transition back to civilian society.