Cohesion is widely seen as crucial to the success of military missions (Oliver et al., 1999; Salo & Siebold, 2005; Griffith, 2006; Brandebo et al., 2022). Camaraderie, indeed, is considered to be a core value for armed forces (vom Hagen & Tomforde, 2012). There exists a substantial body of empirical and theoretical literature exploring the means by which cohesion is formed within military units. The focus is typically on the importance of good leadership, trust, military training, similarity among the members of a unit, or shared experiences (Schilling, 2022; Siebold, 2011; Bartone & Adler, 1999; Henderson, 1985). The role of food, however, has received comparatively little attention – remarkably so, given that eating is a highly recurrent activity in which every soldier is equally involved.
This case study aims to highlight the significance of food in fostering social bonds in military units. It argues that mealtime gatherings serve a purpose far exceeding the provision of nutrition in their capacity to foster social connection and promote a sense of community. Unlike many studies on military cohesion, this study offers a ground-level view of the emergence of interpersonal bonds among new recruits, in which food and meals play a central role. From a practical perspective, given the quotidian nature of the meal, the findings suggest a number of ways the military organization can strategically use routine eating occasions to strengthen unit cohesion.
The guiding question in this analysis is whether food does indeed contribute to cohesion in the military unit. The results are based on 41 interviews with recruits in the Swiss Armed Forces (SAF). The first section explores established theories and empirical evidence detailing how cohesion can be developed among military personnel. In the second section, the concept of cohesion in military units employed in this article is outlined. In the Results section, the soldiers’ accounts related to food and cohesion are systematized. Finally, the Discussion section puts the findings into the larger context of current theories on cohesion in military units.
Previous Research
Armed forces are organizations founded on the cohesion of their members. Military culture promotes the feeling of unity through uniforms, symbols, and traditions aiming at a high level of identification among the soldiers. Camaraderie is a core value in military units (Biehl & Leonhard, 2012; Griffith, 2012; Johns, 1984, p. 32). The soldier is expected to behave in a way that accords with this value.
Professionalism and commitment to common goals are also held to be essential. Soldiers base their cooperation on military skills and knowledge. They recognize themselves as professionals and are willing to stick together as long as they trust in each other’s abilities and competence. Unprofessional behavior leads to diminished acceptance or exclusion (King, 2015; King, 2006). Professional soldiers assess the skills, abilities, experience, and knowledge of newly arrived peers through an immediate process of informal exchange that appears to be essential to the building of interpersonal trust. They rapidly test each other’s experience and knowledge until they consider themselves to be sufficiently acquainted with the newly arrived. Studies on cohesion among rapidly composed military units confirm this process (Ben-Ari, 2015; Ben-Shalom et al., 2005). Of at least equal importance for cohesion is the commitment to a common goal or “meaningful activity” (King, 2013; Siebold, 2011, p. 454). Hence, commanders play a crucial role in aligning soldiers for the effective performance of the collective task (Bartone et al., 2002).
Explanations of military cohesion that emphasize professionalism and commitment to shared goals often assume members of a military group to be largely interchangeable without loss of cohesion. Other accounts focus on the importance of shared experiences. Enduring stressful and challenging situations together has a particularly significant impact on the development of bonds between soldiers (Connor et al., 2019, pp. 9–10; Bartone et al., 2002). Such experiences can see the formation of instrumental cohesion; soldiers in stressful situations are especially dependent on each other (King, 2015, p. 34; Salo, 2011, pp. 60–61; Moskos, 1970, p. 145). However, sharing the same (difficult) experiences also creates common perceptions and a shared reality (Salo, 2011, pp. 77–78; Carron et al, 2004; Henderson, 1985). Thus, these experiences prepare the ground for further interactions, facilitating cohesion among the soldiers who endured the same circumstances.
Further, a foundation of common values, ideas, and expectations about what matters improves the chances of successful cooperation (Holtz, 2004; Salas et al., 1995). Groups act according to specific norms, and cohesion is the result of how well group members embrace and internalize these norms. The principal norms in a specific group are negotiated and implemented in formal and informal daily activities; having a number of things in common helps the process of group self-categorization in that everyone is considered to be part of the same group (Salo, 2011, pp. 77–84). Cohesion can, however, be founded on even simpler grounds.
It has repeatedly been shown that straightforward physical proximity plays a role in group attachments (Festinger et al., 1950). The military environment is especially material in this regard as soldiers routinely live close to each other. Indeed, evidence shows how soldiers who share the same room or generally spend more time together tend to have comparatively closer relationships (Salo, 2011, pp. 64–66; Holz, 1986). In a certain way, cohesion may be seen as a self-reinforcing process. Groups enjoying positive interactions show a stable level of cohesion over time; every successful interaction is experienced as positive feedback capable of improving and deepening the (implicit) knowledge of the group’s dynamics (Salo, 2011, pp. 71–72). Importantly, this mechanism of self-reinforcement implies the transferability of knowledge concerning the “hidden” dynamics of a group from informal to formal situations, and vice versa.
One frequently cited threat to group cohesion is the perception of unjustified inequality. When a group of soldiers perceives the imposition of unequal treatment or unfair practices, mistrust tends to emerge between its member (Helkama, 2012). Thus, cohesion is predicated on a shared sense of equity among the members of a military body (Johns, 1984, p. 33).
It is important to observe that there is no single recipe for enhancing cooperation in the military unit; critical factors vary, rather, according to the specific group and the point in time cohesion is assessed. When asked about the relationships between group members, for example, British soldiers highlight distinct characteristics depending on their specific type of unit: general duty servicemen tend to focus more often on non-performative actions like the fact of living together and on aspects of informal similarity and emotional congruence, while members of a highly specialized marine troop place most emphasis on their competence, professional background, and commitment to the same standards of conduct (Schilling, 2022). The timing of cohesion assessment, meanwhile, is as significant as the type of group being studied. Indeed, trying to form cohesion is one thing; working to maintain a good level of cohesion over time is another (Salo, 2011, pp. 200–202; Siebold, 2011, pp. 453–454).
Military professionals recognize that “feeding becomes a type of refuge which builds both morale and camaraderie” (Moody, 2020, p. 1057). Similarly, soldiers drinking together has been reported to be “one of the most salient markers of unit cohesion” in a study that analyzes the relationship between cohesion and alcohol misuse (Breslau et al., 2016, p. 105). Johns (1984), in his report on cohesion in the U.S. armed forces, presents the importance of mess halls for cohesion but fails to describe the precise links. Gosling (2022) also focuses on mess halls in his mainly historical analysis about the cohesion of officers in the British armed forces, describing how officers’ mess halls help to create a simultaneous sense of exclusivity and inclusivity (Gosling, 2022, p. 40). Henderson (1985), for his part, describes how sharing food is perceived to be a sign of strong mutual relationship by the cadres and fighters of the North Vietnamese Army. He also describes how an inadequate supply of food may destroy the cohesion of a unit, particularly between the cadre and the soldiers. This is especially true if the soldiers share the expectation that their superiors should be responsible for providing sufficient food of good quality.
Analysis of soldiers’ correspondence in the World Wars has also proven useful. According to letters written in World War I, the sharing of food was conspicuously important in the formation of cohesion, as Benbow (2019) and Duffett (2011) reveal in their studies of German and British soldiers. In a particularly hostile and threatening environment, food was a very straightforward way to manifest care and benevolence. The soldiers’ letters clearly show how meaningful it was for them to share food with their comrades. This extended to their relationship with officers, too; the distribution of equal rations to everyone in a unit served as a gesture of goodwill and fairness on their part. When food became scarce, sharing became an expression of solidarity while unequal distribution led to conflict and resentment. Receiving a parcel with food from home, a soldier would be presented with a difficult decision – should he keep it all for himself and risk losing the respect of his comrades, or should he share it? The provision of more elegant rations for officers, meanwhile, reportedly caused poor cohesion between the soldiers and their commanders.
At this point, we must also consider the strength of meals as social institution. A group of commensals is defined by the social relations and various dependencies within it. Sitting around a table manifests and reinforces these. Table manners are used to maintain the integrity of a group’s hierarchical social order. Meals may express intimacy or social distance; they may be formal or informal, sending different messages to the participants. Eating together is also a means of socialization. The values and norms of a group can be passed to the commensals in the course of a meal. And food is a form of non-verbal communication: refusing someone’s food, for instance, can be a delicate issue, while serving an inappropriate dish for a certain event may trigger irritation. The circumstances of a meal, then, are as significant as the nutritional value of what is served (Simmel, 1910; Fischler, 2011; Fox, 2014; Barlösius, 2016).
While it is reasonable to assume that the cultural value of the meal comes into play in groups in a military context, there remains no systematic study of cohesion with a specific focus on either food or on the meal itself.
Cohesion
The Standard Model of Cohesion in military units specifies affective (social) and instrumental (task-oriented) aspects (Siebold, 2007, p. 287). Cohesion may be based on the expression of mutual positive emotions (showing personal appreciation, for example) or on positive interactions in connection with the work to be accomplished (say, being reliable to comrades).
A different approach to cohesion emphasizes the importance of task-related cooperation among soldiers (Zaccaro et al., 1995; King, 2015). According to this understanding of cohesion, members of a military group do not necessarily need an intense social (or affective) mutual bond to behave cohesively in a military mission. Here, cohesion is a matter of the joint action of skilled soldiers effectively performing their roles; according to this understanding, it is sufficient for the members of a group to recognize each other as being adequately professional and trained to reach their common goal (MacCoun et. al., 2006; King, 2013).
Whether military cohesion is best understood narrowly as task cohesion or as the interplay between its affective and instrumental forms is a question yet to be answered. Some important observations should be taken into account when analyzing it, however. Armed forces are largely defined by a comparatively high degree of isolation from other social groups, with military units commonly spending long periods of time without much contact with others (Segal, 1986; Coser, 1974; Goffman, 1961). As a consequence, soldiers have to deal with their close peers in nearly every daily situation.
This leads to a second observation: Military life is filled with many activities apparently unrelated to combat. Throughout the time spent in a military unit, group members experience both formal and informal situations and activities (Kirke, 2010, pp. 150–153; Johns, 1984, p. 37). In both circumstances, we may reasonably assume that cohesion might play a pertinent role. It thus makes sense to perceive cohesion as an ongoing process in a military unit, with both its strength and nature (that is, its affective or task-related aspects) continuously evolving in its particular context (Siebold, 2011, p. 161; Siebold, 2007, p. 288; Jones, 1984, p. 8). For this reason, both affective and task-related elements are taken into account here.
Method
Research Setting
Data collection took place among recruits of the SAF, a force which conscripts men and admits female volunteers. Each year, some 20,000 young Swiss adults leave their civil occupations to enter military service for 18 weeks. The share of women in the enlisted ranks is 1.4% (Personelles der Armee, 2022).
Conscripts usually spend their time in service from Sunday evening to Saturday morning, returning home at the weekends, with an evening off each week when they are permitted to leave barracks (commonly for dinner). COVID-19 restrictions saw many units repeatedly banned from leaving barracks, however; recruits were required to spend their free time in the compound on weekends and “free” evenings alike. Switzerland had then implemented a range of measures to contain the pandemic, varying in intensity over time. Initially liberal, they became more restrictive in the course of the training. This may also have impacted community life and unit cohesion. Recruits usually eat their meals with their platoon, with no predefined seating order.
Data collection and analysis
The data used to provide answers to the research question were compiled from semi-structured personal interviews with recruits of the SAF. 41 interviews were conducted at 9 different barracks in the summer and fall of 2020. 15 recruits were interviewed twice, at the beginning and at the end of recruit school. The sample consists of male recruits; a specific analysis of the few women in the SAF is not possible within this framework. The age of the recruits was between 18 and 24, with a mean of 19. All interviews were conducted individually; the average duration was 48 minutes.
Before the interviews, participants were told that they would be asked about their general experience of service. This prior information did not specifically address the topics of “food” or “cohesion”. The scientific purpose of the research was explained by the civilian interviewer and the consent of the participants was requested. In order to have a comparable content of the interviews, a semi-structured guide was used. The guide began with a general question about the respondent’s experience in the recruit school before continuing to a second theme concerning their perception of their relationships with the other recruits; it was important here to avoid the expression “comrades” because of its positive connotation. The next themes concerned both their experiences with food in the military and its importance in the recruit school. The interviewees were regularly asked to give more details about their experiences.
All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded with the help of the software MAXQDA. Coding was conducted in two parts. In the first, all segments that addressed the topic of either “cohesion” or “food” were marked using the deductive content structuring method described by Mayring (2003, pp. 82–89). In the second part, all passages addressing both “cohesion” and “food” were selected. These interview segments were then inductively coded and analyzed (Mayring 2003, pp. 74–77). All relevant expressions and descriptions of the participants were thus paraphrased to first-level codes, like “saying ‘enjoy your meal’,” “use someone’s taste to have a better understanding of this person” or “have the possibility to talk without stress”. These codes were then generalized based on the similarity of the contexts and meanings they had for the recruits. This resulted in a list of seven different situations showing how the recruits’ experiences shaped links between food and meals and cohesion. It is important to note that a similar action with food (sharing a food item, for example) may have different meanings in different situations. The following categorization describes this situational purpose of food in relation to cohesion. A higher level of abstraction of the analysis, set out according to the theoretical framework on cohesion, is outlined in the discussion of the results.
Results
Food as a way to become acquainted with other service members
Entering training, recruits are placed amidst a number of strangers with few opportunities for conversation, in the first weeks at least; basic military training consists, in the main, of following orders and concentrating on different tasks. What, then, initially brings these strangers together? Even if the first exchanges are only “very quick” (as stated by Recruit W), “there is a certain attachment between all of us. This means that if there is something to eat, we will share it with everyone.” This description is very illustrative in that it shows how, even before names are learned, food helps to bridge the gap between recruits. In this sense, food serves as a very powerful social ice-breaker.
During the challenging and sometimes hectic start of recruit schools, mealtimes offer a rare moment to converse. Recruits explained how their first real contact with their peers happens during meals:
In the beginning, everyone was still quite shy, so I was also quite reserved, but … half the day went by, and then we actually started talking, so at lunch, we got into conversation, and in the meantime, we actually have to say that we are all quite close colleagues. (Recruit A)
Especially notable is the fact that not having to expect any commands or instructions during lunch or dinner facilitates discussion. Meals are – in contrast to training sessions – an informal time of the day where everyone can be a little more like themselves. Thus, in a setting where every person is required to behave in the same manner most of the time, eating together opens a window to the personalities of peer recruits.
And what else do you do during a meal?
Eating or chatting with colleagues, digesting the day. Or right now in the first week, ‘Where are you from?’, ‘What do you do?’, getting to know the other person. ‘What kind of guy is he?’, ‘What makes the others tick?’, maybe then you also notice what they can’t stand and so on. (Recruit D)
One not only gets to know such elementary things as the origin or the job of one’s peers, but their ideas, likes and dislikes, and moods. As some mention during the interviews, in a military setting one cannot rely on clothes to help form an opinion of others. What a person eats (or refuses to eat), then, gives a first hint of their identity. These are all necessary details to better relate to new people. Military training is based on very close cooperation among the recruits, and often personal boundaries are touched. Thus, recruits feel the importance of knowing each other (“This morning we had self-defense. I mean, going after a complete stranger is stupid, isn’t it?” as Recruit D explained).
Of course, meals and food are not the only way familiarity is created between recruits. Living in the same room and helping one another in difficult situations or sports activities also offer the chance for bonding. But food is a widely appreciated option.
Meals are considered a convivial experience
Meals in the recruit school are important not only in their allowing service members to get acquainted with each other; they materialize a sense of togetherness throughout the time spent in service. Eating with comrades reminds one of the meals enjoyed with friends and relatives in civil life. Asked what he likes about the meals, Recruit D explained: “And also somehow sitting there with each other for a short time and chatting with each other, eating with each other. It’s like dinner at home, simply with the second family. Yes, you can say that.”
Recruit V brings up another association: “That’s a bit of a youth camp feeling for me. So yes, you sit outside in the woods on the ground with the other colleagues. Talking to each other and eating your food. Something nice to me personally.” The people sitting next to them at dinner are not just other recruits; they are individuals who mean almost as much to them as family members or club mates.
For the most part, service members describe lunch and dinner as a social event where recruits discuss all sorts of things – private affairs and thoughts about service. Thus, opinions are shared and (most importantly) formed during meals. The common opinions and attitudes of a platoon or company are built and shaped in these breaks (“Actually, I enjoy spending the time I have with my comrades, because they all have often a similar attitude as I do towards the whole thing here,” says Recruit J). Not surprisingly, recruits are interested in participating in the chats, and they avoid being too much on their phones. Moreover, conversations during mealtimes help them better understand their own feelings and perceptions. By exchanging opinions with fellows, recruits check whether they share the same opinion or emotions. As Recruit S explains: “You also talk a lot about the military. ‘Yeah, did you find that exercise cool?’ – ‘Yes, it was actually quite good. I found that really good’.”
An often-debated topic during meals is the food itself. Commenting on, and making jokes about, the food is a common activity. Some dishes enter into the collective memory: “But the food I had could have been served in a restaurant. It was delicious. I think everyone will remember that. We talked about this meal for the whole week” (Recruit H); “And … the vegetable lasagna is still a joke among us, like a running gag” (Recruit C).
Even at the end of recruit school, the moments of eating and drinking together continue to symbolize camaraderie. Asked what he will miss about the recruit school back in civil life, Recruit K says: “I don’t think there is anything I would miss. No, I don’t think so. … Maybe everyone sitting in the mess with their comrades, that’s one thing I’m going to miss.” Recruit X formed unforgettable bonds with his comrades during a week of survival training (a week of mentally and physically challenging exercises with only little sleep and food). While suffering restricted access to food in the course of the exercise, a sergeant major gave them half a bread roll. They shared it between the three of them. This created a moment of real, communal, happiness. “And that [sharing half a bun] has been the greatest moment for the three of us in the whole week.”
But meals are not always associated with conviviality. Instead, recruits often appreciate them for the opportunity they afford one to be on their own for some instants and to calm down:
And you have a little time for yourself, that’s very important, and you also notice that. That after the meal, you just need a little time for yourself. What I also like … I also prefer to have a little bit, when I eat, to be a little bit alone. (Recruit C)
This seems to be especially important early in the morning, at breakfast. It is unusual to enjoy great conversation or to be cheerful at the start of the day. Thus, meals give everyone the opportunity to settle down and to follow their own thoughts. This other side of the atmosphere during meals, however, emphasizes the convivial aspect of eating and drinking in recruit school. As meals are one of the rare moments when recruits can deliberately choose to sit apart or enter into conversations, the frequent gatherings and relaxed discussions become all the more meaningful.
Interestingly, there are certain cultural limits to the feeling of conviviality during meals. For instance, a recruit with cultural origins from a country in the Middle East describes the atmosphere at the meals in recruit school as much less pleasant than at home. In contrast to the familiar ambiance, eating together in the new environment is perceived by him to be more rigid and less amusing: “That’s why I say it’s different. So, for me at home it’s more enjoyable. ‘Pass me these, give me that,’ it’s more… a little bit more animated” (Recruit K).
Food items are treated as a common good
Meals evidence the familiarity of the recruits through the very materiality of the food they eat. Sharing one’s food with others symbolizes the bonds recruits form during basic military training. This occurs immediately after the first parcels of food from friends and relatives arrive; it is very common for recruits to receive all sort of snacks from family members, friends or colleagues.
The appreciation evoked by these parcels goes beyond individual pleasure. Rather, the value of these goods is reflected in their collective use. When the recruit to whom it is addressed opens a parcel, all comrades will come together to see what is inside. Recruit Q recalls: “And yes, then I took it upstairs to the room. And then I opened it with much happiness. And then, yes, everyone came to have a look: ‘What have you received? What have you received?’.” Next, the coveted items are shared almost naturally among everyone. It is part of good manners for one to ask one’s comrades if they want something from the package. The received food is made accessible to all without much discussion.
Yes, well, we’ve all received quite a few parcels now. And everything has been mixed, shared and all that. Everyone can take what they want. We all have our parcels in a row with us near the boxes. And if someone wants something sweet, they pick up something sweet. (Recruit Z)
Ultimately, everyone receives a share of the whole. Preferences are often accounted for, too, with food shared according to the taste of individuals in a process described as an equal form of giving and receiving. Thus, food parcels are components of a wholly informal but weighty ritual which every recruit observes.
Food is treated collectively in other situations, too. For instance, when recruits dislike some of the food served in the mess, they will begin to exchange it with one another. “At lunchtime, for example, when we had lunch, someone didn’t like bananas, so he gave them to the others. And I did not like my bar, so I also distributed it,” describes Recruit G. Often, recruits who were still hungry received bread or other leftovers from their comrades. Those who had too much to eat watched out for those who still needed something. To quote a very insightful interviewee: “And I think that’s how we created our social bonds and our contacts with each other. It’s by sharing food together” (Recruit W).
That said, it should be noted that shared food is not the only way bonds are created and nurtured. Recruits who smoke or use other tobacco products describe similar experiences. To take snuff or to offer a comrade a cigarette is also a daily collective experience bringing people closer together. The advantage of food, however, is that everyone needs to eat and can thus take part in sharing what they have.
Food is used to foster shared values and norms
One special function of meals appears at the beginning of basic military training, especially. Meals are a way to foster shared values and norms among those in service. Asked in the first two weeks about what they appreciate about their relationship with comrades, many interviewees mention that everyone says “Enjoy your meal” at lunch or dinner. There is an expectation that “when someone approaches the table, you say ‘Enjoy your meal.’ And the other person returns it. That is, yes, how it should be” (Recruit X). This either marks the start of other conversations (“Then you just sit down with someone and say: ‘Enjoy your meal.’ Then you start talking: ‘Where are you from? How are you?’,” as Recruit H explained), or the shortest small talk shared with one’s peers when there is little time to eat (“But we are usually so much under time pressure that we rather say: ‘Enjoy your meal’, and then we quickly eat and leave” – Recruit L).
It is very uncommon for strangers to wish one another some variation of bon appétit in everyday life, beyond family members, friends or colleagues at work. So, it may come unexpectedly when at the beginning of recruit school, many complete strangers suddenly say ‘Enjoy your meal’ to each other. This simple sentence at the start of a meal engenders affinity. The recruits hear and feel that they and their companions belong to the same community, sharing values and norms; common ground is achieved through the use of a simple locution belonging to and denoting a context of familiarity.
This example shows how meals can be used to reinforce appropriate behavior among recruits and to foster the acceptance of shared norms – a very simple vehicle for the activation of reciprocity, exemplified by helping one another to clear the tables, or giving something to drink or eat to a comrade if necessary. Recruit D takes a very clear position on this matter:
When you do something for someone, let me say now… yes, you say “Thank you”. You say “Please”. When you share something. When you look for each other and when you clear the cutlery or something. So, for sure. I think that’s friendliness. And especially here it’s more important than in any other place. (Recruit D)
Of course, meals are not the only context in which recruits are expected to address others with respect and to show friendliness to each other. But they encourage the performance of such behavior at least three times a day. At the start of training, amid dozens of unknown others, communal eating is a notably straightforward way to show that everyone shares the same values and behaves according to the same norms.
Food can lead to perceived inequality among service members
Food may also facilitate a sense of equality among recruits. In the SAF, everyone gets the same dish at a meal, except for a few alternatives like vegetarian food or dishes without pork. In a military setting, this aspect contributes to unifying the behavior of the recruits. Having to eat the same dishes is part of a process of de-individualization. Recruit K describes this strange feeling:
All of us wake up, get ready. All of us have to get down in the same way. Everybody in the same position. Everybody in line we go to breakfast. We all stand in line, we all eat the same thing, we go out, we stand in the same position. We all do the same exercises, and it’s very particular, because you don’t choose what you want to do. You are simply part of this whole. (Recruit K)
One advantage of every recruit eating the same dish is an absence of individual privilege – albeit there are, however, occasions when recruits are served differently. Since the sense of equity among the recruits is very pronounced, these differences become particularly noticeable – when, say, portions are not equally sized. This is accompanied by a feeling of injustice and disappointment, as can be understood in the words of Recruit S:
And yes, in the beginning, they thought … it’s not just me now, it’s also others. They thought, “Yeah, really unfair.” The one who had received more thought, “Ah, super cool, I’ve got a lot now.” The others felt a bit screwed and thought, “Yeah, great, thanks for that. I just got less than you now.” (Recruit S)
For Recruit S, there is no justification for why he got less food than his companions. He expresses this feeling of injustice by noting that his fellow recruit got more food “even though he didn’t actually do more for it, so to speak” (Recruit S). This clearly puts food into a perceived system of rewards. Everyone deserves the same food, as long as everyone shows the same performance.
This is why it complicates matters whenever individuals receive different food items. Recruit U recalls the moment when, at breakfast, only 40 yogurts were served for 350 service members. Without hiding the anger in his voice, he reflects on that situation: “Everybody got a bag, everybody got a gun, everybody got clothes, and when it comes to food, it should be equal one to one” (Recruit U).
This reasoning shows very well that fellowship in this context is not only a matter of walking in file, wearing the same clothes and having the same rank; it is about eating the same food too.
Food makes it easier to engage with superiors
The above-mentioned aspects are also important when it comes to interacting with superiors. Symbolic communication through food is a very effective and simple way to establish a good relationship between superiors and recruits. One of the interviewees observed that recruits and their superiors relate differently when it comes to having a meal:
Yes, at the meals the superiors and the recruits, yeah, they are all a bit the same, you come down to the same level. … So, if you want something from a sergeant, you always have to address him correctly. But there at the meal/Normally, outside, you always have to make a military salute. When we are all eating and someone in a higher rank passes by, to the dining room for the officers, then you simply say, “Enjoy your meal.” Then you don’t have to get up and make a military salute and all that stuff. Then you just say, “Enjoy your meal.” And then they say back, “Enjoy your meal.” And then it’s, yeah, everything is a little more relaxed. (Recruit V)
For a brief moment at mealtimes, hierarchical behavior makes room for a more civilian informality in encounters with superiors.
Moreover, recruits get a hint of their superiors intentions, when, for example, the platoon leader offers a drink to everyone. Recruit X recalls an evening in the first week of basic military training when he and his comrades got a free drink: “And there we noticed that the platoon leaders and our staff stand fully behind us and that they want to have everything well with us.” By spending some time together during meals, superiors can show their personal interest in the recruits:
It’s also nice when a sergeant sits with you. They are allowed to sit with the other sergeants, but they are also allowed to sit with us. They want to spend time with us and get to know us a little better. You can do that especially well at the meals when everyone is a little more relaxed and not so stressed. (Recruit P)
Recruits also notice if staff officers eat the same food as them. If, for instance, a major eats in the same mess, recruits get a sense of being cared for.
It is easier for the recruits to accept and follow orders if they know the person to whom they are subordinate. According to the interviewees, motivation is higher if they have spoken to the sergeants or lieutenants in a more relaxed moment. It is precisely during the meals, at an informal barbecue with the platoon, or in the evenings off with a beer, that such informal talks among the different ranks are more frequent.
Meal-time stress is a hindrance to cohesion
The interviews show that the benefits of meals as facilitators and drivers of cohesion can only operate under certain conditions. In particular, being stressed during meals is a major hindrance to the development of cohesion. When meals are hurried, recruits are preoccupied with basic refueling and can barely engage with other recruits. Conversation and interaction remain at a minimum. The lack of opportunity to interact at mealtimes is dissatisfying. At the beginning of recruit school, especially, there are moments when recruits are not able to estimate how much time they have to eat their meals. They find themselves experiencing a constant feeling of tension and alertness, impeding real conversation. Even if they had time for more convivial relations, the sense of anxiety at being called to perform the next duty would curtail interaction:
And it can be a little weird. Because we don’t know if we should eat in a hurry and then be ready to leave or if we can take our time and talk to each other at mealtime, that kind of thing. … The first few days it’s quite stressful. Because we don’t know when they will tell us to go. So we eat quickly. But last night we knew there was more time, and we were calmer. So, we could eat slowly. We could talk, discuss between us. (Recruit I)
The lack of time during meals can even be detrimental to relations between recruits. Recruit K explains the difference between having only a short break for meals and the possibility of sitting together with more of a sense of ease:
So in fact, that’s why I say, if you get to know people in a stressful environment, you will most likely end up disliking them. On the other hand, if you have the time to get to know them in a calmer environment, surely the relationship will be a little better. In my opinion, this should be somewhat changed. (Recruit K)
This last example shows how meals and food, in general, can be very conducive for a sense of togetherness and camaraderie. But recruits do not always find suitably favorable conditions.
Discussion
This research asks whether food in the military contributes to cohesion. Table 1 provides an overview of the results and their link to what is known about the different ways cohesion is formed.
Table 1
Overview of the relationship between food-related aspects and the dimensions associated with cohesion.
| NO. | Precondition of cohesion | Measure to ensure this precondition in the armed forces | Contribution of food and of having meals together |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Feeling of being part of the same group | Military culture | Meals are considered a convivial experience: manifestation of togetherness, sense of community |
| 2 | Pursuit of a common goal | Good leadership | Food makes it easier to engage with superiors |
| Factor influencing cohesion | Measure to enable this factor in the armed forces | Contribution of food and of having meals together | |
| 3 | Professional skills | Mutual recognition of professional skills | Food as a way to get acquainted with other service members: learning others’ backgrounds, skills and limits during meals |
| 4 | Mutual trust | Knowing peers/showing mutual support | Food as a way to get acquainted with other service members: learning others’ backgrounds, skills and limits during meals Food items are treated as a common good: sharing food as a form of mutual caring |
| 5 | Sharing the same view of a situation | Shared experiences/going through stressful and challenging situations together | Meals are considered a convivial experience: recalling and discussing activities during meals;. experiencing harsh conditions during meals together |
| 6 | Sharing values and norms | Showing conformity to these norms in daily activities | Food is used to foster shared values and norms |
| 7 | Physical closeness | Military isolation | Sitting in the same mess hall several times a day |
| 8 | Feeling of equality | Experience fair treatment | Food can lead to perceived inequality among service members, but usually everyone has the chance to get the same food |
[i] Note. The factors and the corresponding measures are explained in the section “Previous Research” above. The column on the right provides an explanation of the results with regards to the theoretical frame.
According to theory (Carron & Brawley, 2000, pp. 93–94), the sense of belonging to the same group is a precondition of cohesion. In the armed forces, military culture contributes to this sense of community (Biehl & Leonhard, 2012). The experience of conviviality described by the recruits is evidence of how meals significantly contribute to the feeling of togetherness. Recruits recall other situations when they were eating with others belonging to the same group, people such as family or friends. In the military, meals give recruits an opportunity to feel this community. Smaller units stop their activities to go to the mess hall and sit together for a while. This leads to a process of self-categorization in which each recruit has the opportunity to be part of the larger military unit. Hence, meals contribute to forming and maintaining a sense of membership in the same group of people (see Table 1, line 1).
Next, it is important that members of the unit should pursue a common goal. On this note, the literature points to the crucial role of leadership (Bartone et al., 2002); service members in the SAF report food and drink to offer clear benefits in easing the relationship between recruits and leaders. Having a meal or a drink together is an informal and highly valued way for recruits to engage with their commanders. If officers show that they care about the food of their subordinates, it is easier to gather everyone behind them (see Table 1, line 2).
Theory on the formation of cohesion places major importance on professional skills and training (King, 2020). While conscripts in the recruit schools of the SAF are only at the beginning of their military instruction they are, nevertheless, very interested in both the professional backgrounds and the personal skills and limits of their fellow recruits. Thus, since the beginning of their training, they seek to learn many details about the other members of their unit. Since there is very little time to talk to each other during basic military training, it is precisely during meals that they have the chance to get to know their colleagues. Also, meals are useful for recruits to understand differences in personality. Recruits check others’ personal limits; they hear and see what other recruits like or dislike (see Table 1, line 3). This is important knowledge when it comes to living together for several weeks. The setting of a meal is a much safer place to test those limits than in actual training. This mechanism is quite similar to that described in rapidly formed units in the Israel Defense Forces, in which the members quickly test the skills and attitudes of their newly arrived comrades (Ben-Ari, 2015; Ben-Shalom et al., 2005).
The presence of trust in comrades is also conducive to cohesion (Connor et al., 2019; Siebold, 2007; Bartone et al., 2002). In this respect, eating together seems to be a strong facilitator for two reasons (see Table 1, line 4). First, soldiers acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the other service members during the meals, which helps them to judge the trustworthiness of a group of strangers. Second, as reports relate that it is very common for recruits in the SAF to share their food with comrades, eating together is fundamentally an act of selfless behavior. If someone offers you something to eat – maybe even your favorite kind of food – you can likely assume that this person will help you in other situations, too.
Two forms of similarity are considered beneficial for the development of cohesion (Salo, 2011, pp. 77–84): a common understanding of the situation in which a group finds itself (Carron et al, 2004; Henderson, 1985), and the sharing of a similar set of values and norms (Holtz, 2004; Salas et al., 1995). In regard to the first, succeeding in challenging situations and forming shared experiences disposes a group to similar views. Meals provide an opportunity to share the experiences of military service in more detail. Similarities and differences in perceptions are vividly discussed. Recruits hear how others feel about their experience of service. This exchange helps to build a common perception of the recruit school among the members of a unit (see Table 1, line 5). There is consensus on the most important problems, on the things that work well, and on the intentions of the group. Unit members will act according to these understandings to the possible benefit of group cohesion. Meals in the military are in themselves moments of shared reality – something evident when we consider how access to food is limited during survival training exercises and the way this shared restriction becomes a focus in collective memory. These situations are very often collectively recalled to overcome further difficult moments later in training.
Congruent values and norms have also been identified as serving unit cohesion. Eating together gives commensals the opportunity to experience common norms several times a day (see Table 1, line 6). Thus, especially at the beginning of basic military training, recruits very much appreciate polite behavior at the table. They use it as an early indicator of conformity to the same values and norms.
Proximity and fair treatment are further factors playing an important role in cohesion (Salo, 2011, pp. 64–66; Helkama, 2012). Meals cater to both in that recruits interrupt their activities to eat together while leaders have the chance to provide sustenance for everyone alike (see Table 1, lines 7 and 8). Recruits report feelings of serious injustice if they don’t get the same food as the others. Perceiving this to be an inexcusable expression of inequality, mistrust develops, directed especially towards their leaders.
To conclude the discussion of the results, we have to recall the multidimensionality of cohesion. It is important to take into consideration both the precise type of group and the moment when the group is analyzed. First, the findings are based on interviews conducted with conscripts of the Swiss Armed Forces. The group is thus very heterogenous, with recruits having very different backgrounds, motivations, and intentions. As recent research shows, general duty units are more prone to highlight the importance of daily life activities – eating, for example – for cohesion (Schilling, 2022). Second, the interviews took place in the first and last two weeks of basic military training. Meals are reported to be especially critical for cohesion at the very beginning of recruit school. Thus, food seems particularly well suited for the formation of group cohesion. Eating together is a very natural way to overcome initial differences and to become used to one another. When initial positive interactions lead to others in different contexts, meals may serve as a latent trigger for the self-reinforcement of cohesion.
The results presented here show in detail how different forms of cohesion emerge through quotidian interactions, strengthening the understanding of the phenomenon as an ongoing process. Military leaders might act on these findings in pursuit of the benefits this phenomenon confers.
The principal shortcoming of this study is that it does not directly measure cohesion. Instead of analyzing the quantity and quality of interactions, it evaluates the reported experience of recruits in the SAF. While this can only offer an approximate measurement of cohesion, it helps to better understand the underlying mechanisms linking this phenomenon to food. Further, being limited by its exclusive focus on military training, the study is only able to estimate the impact of food in real missions. The recruits interviewed did, however, report this impact to be significant in the course of a week of survival training.
Future studies should specifically consider the role of food in the formation of military cohesion along with other established modes of its development. This allows for different influences to be distinguished and better understanding of how they are interconnected. It should also be verified if the mechanisms found in this study are applicable to different military contexts and participants – specific types of troops, professional soldiers, other mission types, and so on.
Conclusion
This paper expands on the ways in which cohesion is formed in military units by highlighting the relevance of shared meals and commensality. Through the everyday interactions in the course of their meals, it finds that recruits become acquainted with each other, acquire a sense of togetherness, foster shared values and norms and nurture their sense of community. The study also points to the potential of food to lead to perceived inequality and for affording opportunities for service members to engage with superiors. Furthermore, stress during meals is identified as hindering cohesion. Overall, the results of this study emphasize the importance of informal activities like eating together for cohesion in their capacity to provide opportunities for open and self-determined interaction. This is beneficial to both task and social cohesion as soldiers take multiple roles during a meal: in one moment, they speak about the day’s many tasks as soldiers; in another, they address their commensals as close comrades with an affective sentiment similar to that of the family meal.
Recommendations
It is important to understand cohesion as a process appertaining to all the various activities demanded in the military. But unlike other actions, communal eating occurs multiple times a day. As such, shared meals represent a highly effective and comparatively uncomplicated means of fostering cohesion. While most of the mechanisms discussed here arise through an organic process, military leaders can actively create conditions that support and enhance this dynamic. Leaders would be advised, for example, to minimize stress during mealtimes whenever possible. Every soldier should have the chance to eat with their comrades and receive the same food as everyone else. To promote vertical cohesion, leaders might join their subordinates for meals or offer them snacks and drinks. They may also permit soldiers to bring food from home to share within their unit. More broadly, it is essential to recognize that, in the relative isolation of military life, commensality helps meet the basic need for belonging.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.