Introduction
Finnish society is becoming increasingly diverse in culture, religion, and language, and the number of women in voluntary military service has been growing in recent years (Army, 2022). While the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) do not publish statistics on the number of immigrants attending military service, military service is mandatory for all men on receipt of Finnish nationality.
The subject of gender and the military, specifically, has been well examined; studies show issues of equality arising in armed forces around the world (see, for example, Davis & McKee, 2004; Haaland, 2012; Sasson-Levy, 2003; Via, 2010; Woodward & Duncanson, 2017). Previous studies concerning equality in the FDF have shown there to be certainly room for improvement (Leinonen et al, 2012; 2017; 2018; 2020). Women face more gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment than men, and men from ethnic minority backgrounds report more experiences of discrimination than other men during their military service – but all in all, more information is needed about military personnel’s perceptions of equality training and the development needs that may be identified (Leinonen et al., 2018).
This study aims to find out the ways in which students at the Finnish National Defence University (FNDU) make sense of equality training in terms of their future work as trainers and leaders of conscripts. The concept of resistance in its manifold types and forms (see for example Johansson & Lilja, 2013; Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013) is employed to understand the complexity of the issue. The military is often understood as an organization characterized by a culture of obedience, which might lead to neglect of the existing practices of resistance. Alvinius and her colleagues (2019) argue that resistance can be found in the military and among managers more often than usually assumed. Recent studies on resistance within the military have examined, for example, institutional resistance against veganism (Holmberg, 2023), organizational resistance preventing the full implementation of gender equality (Holmberg & Alvinius, 2023), micro-political resistance at the level of military officer identities (Kouri, 2023), individual resistance towards gender equality work (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2021), the #MeToo movement resisting violence and sexual harassment within the military (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019), and the response of military leaders to organizational challenges (Alvinius et al., 2019). This study aims to contribute to the understanding of different types and forms of resistance occurring within rigid military organizations and displayed among their leaders, and future leaders, when facing social change and normative pressure for equality.
The data for this study are derived from questionnaires containing both open and closed questions gathered from 168 students of the FNDU. The data were analyzed within the conceptual framework of resistance. The results show that three forms of resistance can be identified.
The students discussed organizational resistance – here structural opposition towards social change and normative pressure such as demands for equality. Two forms of individual resistance were also detected – one opposing societal pressure and aiming to maintain the status quo and other challenging the prevailing organizational culture and striving for change. Equality training was resisted at an individual level based on its perception as an artefact of societal and cultural “trends” and “isms” which do not serve the core task of the military; the other form of individual resistance, conversely, opposed the dominant masculine and heteronormative organizational culture of the military in which certain groups of people were still perceived to be in an unequal position based on their gender, religious conviction, ethnic background, or sexual orientation.
The article is constructed as follows. First, postmodern militaries and the question of diversity are defined and discussed. Second, the theme of gender and the military is presented, specifically within the Finnish context. Third, the concept of resistance and its manifold forms are introduced, followed by the data and methods of this study. Finally, the results are presented and discussed.
Previous Research: Postmodern Militaries and the Question of Diversity
Moskos, Williams, and Segal (2000) state that the armed forces of Western developed democracies are becoming what they call “postmodern” military organizations. The conceptual interpretation as set out in their study seems to apply to the perception of the current culture of the military organization – pluralistic, fragmented, heterogenous, deconstructed, permeable, and ambiguous. Postmodern militaries have various role expectations for professional soldiers. Soldiers are not only required to master the realities of war and combat but also to be able to cooperate and interact with civilian actors in the homeland and abroad (Kümmel, 2018; Moskos et al., 2000). This means that along with the traits traditionally perceived as masculine, such as being physically capable and strong, rational, controlled, and determined (see, for example, Davis & McKee, 2004; Goldstein, 2001; Via, 2010), there is a need for a more versatile professional with so-called soft skills of caring, compassion, and empathy (Sløk-Andersen, 2018).
The notion of the ideal soldier has traditionally been derived from the warrior ethos and the classical model of heroic masculinity (Davis & McKee, 2004; Pendlebury, 2020). The prevalent mold based on these ideals and norms has served to marginalize those who do not fit the frame; gender is a common example. The technologization and virtualization of warfare have changed what it means to be a soldier and have contributed to a blurring of traditional gender boundaries (Mellström, 2012). According to King (2013), group cohesion used to be based on social “likeness”, especially in citizen armies. A shared social, ethnic, and gender background fostered solidarity and comradeship among soldiers. However, as King points out, for professional militaries, cohesion is a more complex concept and seems to be based more on performance, professional competence, and expertise. At some point in history, certain groups of people have been excluded from the military based on their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or gender. Although most official and legal obstacles may now be removed in many Western armed forces, the process of inclusion of these groups has been slow – and it is still very much an ongoing process, although some militaries are further along with this development than others.
The postmodern military seems to be marked by constant change (Norheim-Martinsen, 2016). However, Holmberg and Alvinius (2019) suggest that the military organization’s bureaucratic, hierarchical, narcissistic, and greedy traits may in some cases inhibit or resist change. According to them, the organization may lose its social and political legitimacy if it refuses to adapt to societal developments. Further, to maintain its legitimacy among the citizens, the military needs to preserve a broad representation of all segments of society (Heinecken & Soeters, 2018). According to Harries-Jenkins (2004), the postmodern military is defined by its capacity to recognize diversity and accept difference.
When a military system is based on conscription, the armed forces serve as a national institution. Conscripts usually constitute a somewhat equal representation of the general (male) population in terms of socio-economic class, political affiliation, religion, and region (Heinecken & Soeters, 2018). Membership of the armed forces may not, however, always reflect the demographics of the civilian population; on the contrary, social characteristics such as age, gender, education, ethnicity, race, geographic origin, and religion, may differ significantly (Segal & Segal, 2004). Representativity is not an adequate measure of an efficient military force as such. Diversity needs to be managed. The aim should be the functioning of a genuinely inclusive organization where “different” individuals are accepted as insiders with a true sense of belonging. A successful diversity-building process must necessarily be linked to other organizational processes (Sherrer, 2012). This study seeks to contribute to the understanding of postmodern armed forces as transforming organizations where change takes place both as a result of societal pressure for an inclusive military, and through resistance from within when shortcomings concerning equality are detected.
According to Connell (2005), organizations are not gender-neutral; indeed, being naturally gendered, they contribute to the construction of gendered cultures and hierarchies. Military organizations are usually considered to be gendered organizations dominated by a masculine culture despite some cultural changes mentioned above (see, for example, Kümmel, 2002; Nuciari, 2018). Women’s integration into the military has been dealt with in various ways in different militaries. As mentioned in the previous section, it has been more successful in some militaries than others. The process varies from the principle of full integration – followed, for example, in Canada, the Netherlands, and South Africa – to partial or minimal integration, adopted in Italy and Germany. Although formal barriers may be removed, some militaries or societies may lack support for women’s participation in combat (Williams, 2000).
Canada offers a successful example of the integration of female soldiers. This could be, King (2013) suggests, because cohesion is now founded on professionalism rather than masculinity. While female soldiers in postmodern militaries still meet some resistance, they are more often judged for their individual professional competence rather than their gender. They are, however, likely to find themselves subject to the pressure of demonstrating their competence and their leadership skills in an effort to foreclose stereotypical and gendered expectations of their capabilities. The question of physical strength perhaps remains a significant hurdle for their being fully accepted (King, 2013); physical fitness, similarly, is the most common reason for discrimination experienced by female conscripts during their service in the FDF (Leinonen et al., 2018).
While there have been efforts to improve female soldiers’ recruitment and retention, women have remained underrepresented in armed forces everywhere (Nuciari, 2018). In most Western and NATO countries, women serve in the military on a volunteer basis, as is the case in Finland. Statistics show that the number of women is higher in all-volunteer forces than in militaries based on conscription (Nuciari, 2018).
This study aims to contribute to the discussion of individual resistance arising from within the military organization when formal barriers for women have been removed but everyday practices are still perceived to put soldiers in an unequal position on account of their gender.
Gender and Equality: A Finnish Case Study
In Finland, all men are legally obliged to attend military service for a period of 165, 255, or 347 days; there is, however, the option of attending non-military service instead, and various grounds to apply for exemption. The Finnish military system has traditionally been strongly supported by the citizens. Support has only increased following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (ABDI, 2024). Maintaining the military system in its current form is supported by 81% of those who replied to an inquiry conducted by the Advisory Board for Defence Information (ABDI) and it is perceived as the most cost-efficient way of organizing national defense (ABDI, 2024).
The number of women attending voluntary military service in the FDF in 2023 was around 5% of all conscripts; the number among professional soldiers was approximately 5% (Defence Command, 2023). While conscription was applicable only to men, every role in the military was open for female soldiers from their first admission into the FDF in 1995. When women have served in the military as volunteers for 30 days, they attain the same legal position and duties as male conscripts. Within the FDF, both men and women who serve are commonly referred to as conscripts. This study follows the established definition.
In an increasingly diverse society, it is essential that the armed forces are representative and acknowledge questions concerning diversity and equality to preserve their legitimacy for the nation’s citizens (see also Heinecken, 2009). Given their authority, professional soldiers who train conscripts are required to have adequate knowledge and understanding of legal questions concerning equality. They should be able to recognize discrimination, sexual harassment, and racism and intervene when the need arises; further, FDF personnel are also obligated by the law-based rules and instructions of the military organization.
The equal treatment for all who attend military service is based on the Act on Equality between Men and Women (609/1986) and the Non-Discrimination Act (21/2004). According to the law, it is forbidden to place anyone in an unequal position based on their sex, gender identity, gender expression, age, ethnic or national origin, nationality, language, religion, conviction, opinion, state of health, disability, sexual orientation, or other reasons touching on their personhood. The objectives of the FDF concerning equality have been articulated in several official documents of the military, too. But examining the frequency of experiences related to bullying and discrimination among conscripts, Leinonen and her colleagues (2012) found that there is work to be done if the objectives of equal treatment and equal opportunities for all are to be achieved; discrimination is often subconscious, they argue, and some established practices, stereotypes and prejudices may easily go unnoticed – even if there are no ill intentions.
The latest equality report from the FDF (Leinonen et al., 2020) shows that men perceive the status quo in terms of equality much more positively than women. For example, 59% of male personnel and 74% of male officers felt that equality has been advanced in their own unit fairly well or excellently, whereas only 34% of female personnel agreed with this claim. More than half of the male officers held the opinion that expectations for men and women were the same, whereas two-thirds of all female respondents stated expectations to be different. Women also felt that men are valued more, and that they have better opportunities to advance in their careers than women.
Theoretical Approach: Manifold Forms of Resistance
According to Lilja (2008, p. 6), resistance “is always ‘messy’, multiple, sliding, and contradictory”. In this study, the concept of resistance – the intention to challenge, negotiate, and undermine power in response to the expression of that power – is understood as something expressed by both organizations and individuals (Johansson & Lilja, p. 2013; Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013). Resistance may be aimed at maintaining the status quo and opposing change, or it can refer to questioning and challenging a particular social order. The understanding of the concept in this study includes both types of resistance.
Johansson and Lilja (2013, p. 1) argue that “different forms of power become entangled with different forms of resistance, thus creating manifold and messy forms of resistance”. Subjects, they find, may respond to power relations in different ways, from obedience to different forms of resistance and even subversion. Resistance can be seen either as radical rebellion or in the form of subtle everyday practices such as micro-resistance at the level of discourses and identities (Kouri, 2023; Thomas et al., 2004). One of this study’s goals is to make visible the complexity of resistance by pointing out its multiple and conflicting types and forms when the necessity of equality training in the military is discussed.
Organizational resistance may take passive and discursive forms that can be difficult to detect. According to Holmberg and Alvinius (2023), organizational resistance is often subtly produced through discursive strategies which may go unnoticed and unchallenged. Resistance in this case often arises when organizational culture and the values it entails are challenged or questioned, threatening certain members of the organization with a consequent loss of their position of power. As organizations of obedience-logic, militaries have contributed to increased resistance among their employees who call for dignity and autonomy (Alvinius et al., 2019). Instead of increasing employee commitment and loyalty, organizational control may catalyze resistance (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). Fast-paced social change, such as demands for equality and inclusivity, poses a challenge to the FDF, characterized by male-dominant and heteronormative culture with predominantly white personnel, and pervaded with Christian traditions imbedded in Finnish society.
The understanding and actions of military leadership are caught between the competing forces of continuity and change (Brown & Okros 2018). Military leaders hold accountability in multiple directions: to their superiors and subordinates; to their profession; to society and civil authorities. The profession of arms, with its strong customs, traditions, symbols, and rites of passage can be considered quite resistant to change (Brown & Okros, 2018; Do & Samuels, 2020; Holmberg & Alvinius, 2019; Pendlebury, 2020). However, individuals also shape the organizations they inhabit and may work as agents of change (Collinson, 2003). Resistance at the individual level should therefore not be disregarded.
Military organization is an interesting context to study individual resistance as the personnel is socialized to strongly identify themselves with the organization and expected to share its values and traditions. However, even committed employees may face contradictions and conflict between their personal values and the expectations and doctrines of the organizational culture, which may engender individual-level resistance (e.g., Kouri, 2023). In this case, resistance may be expressed by voicing the injustices perceived or experienced by the individual (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019). Individual resistance can either align with organizational resistance towards outside pressure and aim to maintain the status quo, or it can mean going against the prevailing culture, discourses, and everyday practices of the organization, striving for change.
Data and Methodology
The data for this study are derived from responses to a questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and open questions given to 168 students of the FNDU. The data were gathered as part of the research project “Gender and Conscription in Finland: Public Opinion, Diversity, and Soldiers of the Future”, carried out at the Department of Leadership and Military Pedagogy at the Finnish National Defence University in 2022; as property of the FNDU, they are not made openly available. The research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the research council of the FNDU. The respondents gave their informed consent to participate in the study.
When the data were gathered, the first group of respondents was attending their first year of cadet school to complete their bachelor’s degree in military sciences. The second group of respondents were in their second year of a two-year-long course to complete their master’s degree; this course is for officers who have first completed their bachelor’s degree in the FNDU and then worked for at least four years in the FDF. The bachelors usually work as platoon leaders after graduation, and most of the master’s degree-holders become company commanders after completing the course. Both groups usually work with conscripts.
The data afforded an examination of how those who had not yet worked as military officers and those who had a minimum of four years of work experience perceive both the need for equality training and equality training itself in the military. Participation in the study was voluntary. There were 175 cadets in their first year of studies, 75 of whom submitted the questionnaire, and 106 master’s students in their second year of study (border guards and pilots excluded), 93 of whom participated. Both courses were visited, and the students were informed about the study and the use of the data. The cadets were advised to complete the form in the afternoon during their scheduled time for independent study. The master’s students were given 30 minutes to answer the questionnaire right after the introduction, which most likely positively affected the percentage of participants. It is worth acknowledging that as participation in the study was voluntary, it might have attracted more of those who are generally interested in the questions of equality and diversity, holding a more positive outlook on these themes.
Personal information asked from the respondents was minimized to ensure anonymity. For the same reason, age was not specified. Except for two respondents, all the first-year cadets were between 18 and 25 years old. Most of the master’s students were between 30 and 33 years old; a few were a little older or younger. Among the cadets, there were 9 women and 66 men. The master’s students were all men. None of the respondents chose the option “I do not want to answer” when asked for their gender.
The questionnaire included five multiple-choice questions and six open questions. Equality was defined at the beginning of the form following the official documents of the FDF, according to which “everyone is treated the same regardless of the individual’s ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.” In the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to evaluate their personal knowledge and competence concerning equality, what kind of equality training they had received in the FDF or elsewhere, what kind of equality training they want, and how important they consider having competence concerning equality in their future work. This study focuses on the analysis of students’ answers to the open questions to achieve a deeper understanding of how FNDU students make sense of equality training within the Finnish military. While figures are provided to illustrate the extent of certain phenomena within the data, the analysis as such is qualitative and follows thematic principles.
In analyzing the data, an abductive approach was used to enable interaction between the data and the study’s theoretical and conceptual framework in every step of the research (Graneheim et al., 2017; Silvasti, 2014; Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018). After the questionnaires were read a few times to understand the outline, both reoccurring themes and exceptions from the themes were identified. The data were then deconstructed into codes and combined into themes that illustrated the phenomena identified within. The respondents’ arguments – either supporting or resisting equality training as essential in the military – were divided thematically. In the final stage of the analysis, the themes were construed according to the concept of resistance and different forms of resistance were identified. The results are presented in the following section.
To contextualize the findings, it is important to point out that the responses concerning the kind of equality training the respondents had received in the military varied considerably. Some of the students reported having attended lessons during their military service, others in cadet school, and some when they participated in training before leaving for crisis management operations. There were also respondents who reported to have attended no equality training organized by the FDF. The type and the amount of training received may have affected the attitudes of the students. While thorough investigation into the nature of the equality training received by the FDF offers would require a study of its own, it is important to acknowledge that inconsistency in training, and in some cases its lack, affect the results. This issue is discussed below.
The different forms of resistance are divided according the level where the opposition takes place and the object of resistance. Some respondents posed critique of organizational resistance to the societal change and demands for equality discussed in the questionnaires. Along with organizational resistance, there were two forms of individual resistance identified. Some students opposed equality training as it was not perceived to be a core task of the military; others, in contrast, resisted the masculine and heteronormative culture of the military and expressed the need for more training to tackle the existing issues.
Results
Organizational Resistance to Social Change and Normative Pressure
For 21 master’s students, high professional competence regarding questions of equality was important, albeit with some conditions. Of the full 93 of the master’s student respondents, a majority of 51 students explicitly stated the issue to be important or essential for them. The importance of a high degree of knowledge of matters concerning equality was justified in various ways among the respondents. One theme that arose from the data was that the values and actions of the military need to align with the values of the surrounding society. While the respondents expressed the need for the organization to reflect societal values, they often simultaneously brought up a concern that the military was slow to react to social change and that there were some issues related to equality. These expressions have, therefore, been interpreted as organizational resistance identified and discussed by the students – resistance at a structural level.
“For me, they are very important. Equality and freedom are the most important values in our society, and they are to be cherished”, said a male cadet. Some of the respondents pointed out that the military organization needs to be aware of the changes in society and its current values. On one hand, the military derives its legitimacy from the citizenry, and must be able to adapt to societal developments as well (see Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019; Heinecken & Soeters, 2018). On the other hand, the task of the FDF is to defend the shared values of the Finnish people in an extreme situation if the country were to be attacked. According to Alvinius and Holmberg (2021), the military has a complex relationship with the civilian sphere and the values it is expected to protect. It would be questionable, they write, for the military to express resistance towards human rights or issues such as gender equality.
It was also discussed in the data that as young people are today more aware of their rights, it is necessary to act appropriately when leading and training conscripts – to treat people equally and to intervene in bullying, for example. Besides acting in an ethical and commonly accepted way, the respondents mentioned that an official of the state is bound by legislation and codes of conduct concerning equality.
“A big organization such as the FDF reacts slowly to societal change. Change can be seen, but its pace is slow in relation to societal expectations”, a male master’s student wrote. Besides being a big organization, as the previous respondent describes the military, certain characteristics in the organizational culture could make it more resistant to change than some other (civilian) organizations. As Alvinius and Holmberg (2019) state, the bureaucratic, hierarchical, narcissistic, and greedy traits of the military organization may work to hinder normative pressures such as a change of values. This may delay the adoption of some societal developments, affecting social acceptance and legitimacy on the part of a nation’s citizens.
I consider it to be important without a doubt. Research on this theme reveals that, for example, women still have a notable number of experiences of discrimination. We can’t afford this, the values of the FDF must be seen in practice at all levels of action and among all personnel groups. The work is long-term and requires that these things be considered important from the trainer level upwards. (Male master’s student)
Equality and the prevention of discrimination are frequently stated as important priorities in official FDF documents. For many of the respondents, however, a number of problems reveal the contradiction between organizational values and everyday practices. One of the female respondents also brought up the organizational resistance when she evaluated her own expertise in questions of equality: “I manage them and intervene actively (but the environment is not receptive).” While she expressed her engagement in individual resistance towards military norms, her critique indicates that she is not being heard and seen due to organizational resistance; power relations are highly asymmetrical and pose high demands for individual agency (see Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019).
Individual Resistance to Equality Training
Individual-level resistance among the students was identified. While this form of resistance aligns somewhat with organizational resistance, it is not necessarily in opposition to social change as such but questions, rather, the need for equality training in the military. The different reasons for this are discussed below in more detail.
All the cadets who answered the question about the importance of understanding matters related to equality reported that they found it essential, even more so in the future as the cohort of conscripts becomes increasingly diverse in gender, ethnicity, language, and religion. Three respondents supported the value of expertise in these matters, with certain conditions. Among the master’s students, however, 11 explicitly stated that they did not perceive expertise in questions concerning equality to be important, and 23 of the master’s students set conditions to its significance in the military setting. This is considered individual resistance to the need for equality training and expertise as a military professional.
“I think this is an irrelevant topic”, wrote a male master’s student. The differences between the cadets and master’s students could be explained by the cadets’ status: still struggling to find their place in the military community, they could thus be less vocal about their personal opinions and more adaptive to the commonly accepted and official discourses; master’s students with more experience in the FDF and working life, on the other hand, are more likely to express their opinions more freely and be openly critical.
However, the difference between the cadets and the master’s students can also be interpreted as a sign of organizational socialization, on account of which the master’s students may perceive these questions to be less relevant to the military and outside of their core tasks. Individual resistance, in this case, reflects organizational resistance towards societal pressure and value changes. Although the age gap between the students may not be huge, the students in their first year might be more affected by the rapid societal changes in terms of how equality is perceived and how much it is valued.
As mentioned before, some respondents wanted to state that they find the themes to be important, but with conditions. Some even expressed irritation concerning these themes. While feminism was not mentioned in the questionnaire, and did not explicitly arise in the responses, it can be interpreted to be found between the lines when the respondents referred to “isms” and cultural trends.
“For me, they are essential, but one needs to remember that it is not a task of the Defence Forces to worship current cultural trends”, responded a male cadet; “Somewhat important, as long as it is not too much pushed or colored by the extreme leftists”, responded a male master’s student. Some of the respondents even found the concepts and questions used in the study to be politically loaded, rejecting their status as observational tools or objective words used in legislation and military guidelines. Two of the master’s students argued that one of the questions was “unscientific” and “loaded”, criticizing thing the question “How do you perceive your competence in terms of specific questions concerning equality in the context of the FDF? These specific questions could be, for example, the inappropriate use of language, sexual harassment, bullying, exclusion and discrimination, and religious and cultural differences.” One of these students, a male, responded: “There are no specific questions concerning equality. The question is loaded in an unpleasant way – not as neutral & objective as scientific research is supposed to be.”
The choice of words in the questionnaire was picked from the Finnish equality and non-discrimination legislation and official documents of the FDF concerning questions of equality. In this light, the reaction is even more interesting as the critique of the respondents seems to be aimed toward the researcher and toward increasing societal demand for equality. Alvinius and Holmberg (2021, p. 2) argue that this type of individual resistance towards gender equality should be taken into account “as it may signal the presence of larger social conflict over the values that constitute the foundation of our society, and organizations will inevitably have to deal also with this resistance.” Resistance towards the need for expertise in equality may stem from considering the origin to be based on ideological and emotional arguments instead of perceiving them as rational, scientific, or legal (Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013). The background of this discussion can be found in the political field – especially the use of the concept of intersectional feminism in public debate in Finland; these concepts are constantly criticized, especially by those who represent right wing parties (see also Alvinius & Holmberg, 2021). Finnish society and politics are deeply divided – which is also shown in the data.
Based on their study of the causes for unequal treatment among conscripts, Leinonen and her colleagues (2018) suggest that military professionals’ training should include questions concerning diverse groups as well as factors that motivate conscripts’ participation during their service. Conversely, the respondents who either did not consider equality training important, or agreed but with conditions, usually argued that addressing matters of equality, in practice, was just a part of “normal social skills“ that did not require any special expertise: “In my opinion, it does not require any specific competence. It is a part of normal social skills“, wrote a male master’s student. For another male master’s student, “trends and isms drive people to become unnecessarily nervous about interacting with other people. A normal person-to-person encounter is enough.”
According to previous studies, those in a more privileged position may find it hard to identify and acknowledge the problems that minorities face (e.g., Acker, 2000; Leinonen et al., 2020). In discussions about equality, especially concerning military duties, annoyance is frequently expressed when women are brought up. Military men are often worried about women being favored in the military (Leinonen et al., 2020). A male cadet responded: “Naturally, it is important, and that is why it is essential that future trainers are socially skillful. However, the military is not a youth club where young people who are searching for themselves come and get support. There are different professionals for this.” A male master’s student, meanwhile, wrote: “Awareness and understanding are important, but I do not think we (soldiers) need to be experts on the topic.”
Some of the respondents found the theme of equality and command of matters concerning it to be important, but felt that equality was not a priority: its achievement, they felt, was not the FDF’s core task. Alvinius and Holmberg (2021) found similar criticism among Swedish soldiers, for whom gender equality work and “feminization” were perceived to be threats to the traditional role of the military. The commitment of management was found to be pivotal in previous reports on equality in the FDF, however, with the transferable skills of the superiors improved to tackle problems concerning equality (Leinonen et al., 2020). The respondents who perceived questions of equality to be essential often found them an integral part of their professional skills as military leaders. Those who saw them as part of professional expertise were also interested in developing their know-how and skills in managing diversity.
Individual Resistance to Organizational Culture and Norms
The final part of the results concerns individual-level resistance, a form which differs significantly to the two previously presented forms of resistance. The extracts from the data show that some of the respondents supported the need for equality expertise and training while resisting the organizational culture and norms contributing to the exclusion of those who do not fit the frame. This form of resistance can therefore be viewed as “resistance to resistance”.
It is often repeated in the military, and specifically in the cadet school, that there are no men and women, only soldiers or cadets. The phrase was mentioned twice in the data. One of the female cadets referred to it, posing her criticism when evaluating the importance of expertise concerning equality: “Extremely essential, because unfortunately the phrase ‘only soldiers’ does not apply in practice.”
Previous studies concerning equality in the FDF show that gender is the most significant factor explaining negative treatment among conscripts (Leinonen et al., 2012; 2018; Leinonen et al., 2017). Women experience gender-based harassment and lack of support from their peer group. In the latest research report concerning the equality situation among the personnel of the FDF, the female professional soldiers’ critique of questions of equality had increased compared to the previous reports (Leinonen et al., 2020). The differences between female and male soldiers were significant. For example, more than half of the female officers felt that men were appreciated more than women and that men had better possibilities to move forward in their careers.
Another female cadet (quoted below) also presented her critique towards the common values of the cadet school. On one hand, it is said that gender does not matter. But on the other, “manhood” is explicitly mentioned in the values expressed in the cadet vow that cadets take in their first year of studies.1 The cadet vow has not been updated, whereas the military oath taken by conscripts was made gender-neutral after some years of women participating in voluntary military service; the word “manly” was replaced by the word “uprightly” for the sake of inclusion. “The organization should be reformed”, wrote the female cadet. “It is ridiculous to say that it is an equal organization when one of the four values of the cadet school is manhood and Christianity is present at important events.”
The respondent, we see, further offered criticism of the presence of Christianity as part of the military culture and its traditions in the FDF. In an ever-more religiously diverse society, it becomes increasingly problematic to maintain the traditional link between military traditions and Christianity. Furthermore, as Finnish society is very much based on Christian traditions that have become unacknowledged norms, some people may not immediately recognize that others with different religious backgrounds might find themselves in an unfavorable position.
Cadets made responses that can be interpreted as individual resistance towards current military norms (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019) – a female cadet, for example, responded “Highly essential. Minorities are still in an unequal position and this needs to change” and a male master’s student wrote that “it becomes even more important when diversity increases. Education is important because the culture in the FDF is still highly heteronormative.” Respondents voiced their concerns in terms of injustices they had identified within the military; the male respondent here clearly considered training to be a solution for the need to address the problems.
Although problems were detected, some of the students also indicated that it is not always easy to intervene. “I am a couple of years older than an average cadet, and I have the courage to speak out and intervene, for example, in inappropriate jokes and language” (cadet, male). In a culture where group membership is usually desirable, it might not be easy to stand out and be considered an advocate of a certain issue. The norms of silence and obedience may often outweigh other values within the military context (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2019). The previous extract shows that for someone who has some seniority, it could be easier to intervene.
Discussion
The military is an influential institution in Finnish society, especially due to conscription. It is not indifferent to the kinds of values supported or resisted among its ranks. This study seeks to examine how students of the FNDU make sense of equality training in terms of their future work among conscripts. The results show that although the majority of students at FNDU considered equality an essential military value, discussing the need for professional competence in this field generated irritation and resistance among some of the respondents.
Given the wider social context that this phenomenon reflects, it is important to consider different forms of resistance, being possible indications of a greater conflict yet to be faced (Alvinius & Holmberg, 2021). Following Alvinius and her colleagues (2019), it is necessary to examine resistance among military leaders and future leaders to better understand armed forces as organizations in both their stagnancy and capacity for transformation.
Three forms of resistance were either discussed or expressed in the data. The students offered observations concerning organizational resistance to social change and normative pressure. The two forms of individual resistance included opposition to the need for professional competence in matters concerning equality, and another resisting the dominant masculine and heteronormative organizational culture of the military, hindering the achievement of equality.
Using the concept of resistance in this study revealed the complexity of the situation. Military leadership and the military organization have the task of reconciling the contradictory pressures of, first, preserving their traditions and emphasizing their specialness as a profession, and second, of changes in social values and legal demands for the furtherance of equality. The forms of resistance found in this study, however, also reflect a larger societal and political conflict that arises when equality and diversity are discussed regardless of the context.
The students at FNDU felt that their professional command of questions of equality to be good. The biggest contradiction seemed to be between official instructions and discourses, and reality and everyday practices (see Leinonen et al., 2018). Many respondents used this contradiction as an argument to support the need for equality training. Those who resisted the need for specific training felt that current instructions and simple conduct according with the obligations of law and behavioral norms were sufficient.
One pivotal question that arose from the analysis was the influence of organizational socialization on the students’ attitudes towards equality and diversity. According to the findings, there were some interesting differences between first-year cadets and students in their final year. If the process of socialization is a factor in this case, it should be acknowledged that cultural norms and values have an impact on attitudes (Coronges et al., 2013). Many of the official instructions of the FDF concerning questions of equality use the expression “normal good behavior” to describe the way individuals should comport themselves. If the expression is adopted from the official discourse, it might be necessary to change the discourse so that prejudice, stereotypes, and privilege may be acknowledged and to deepen the understanding of the issues that marginalized groups of people may face in the military.
The study data here showed that the students had varied experiences of equality training in the military. The inconsistency in, or in some cases the lack of, training concerning equality and diversity might affect both the attitudes and the professional competence of the military officers when facing a diverse group of conscripts or issues related to these themes in their work. It would be important, as expressed by some respondents, for both the military organization and its staff to keep in mind that promoting equality is their legal obligation, and that this might require advanced professional competence rather than the relaxed notion of it as something that “comes naturally” along with good behavior. A thorough account of the kind of equality training offered by the FDF requires further research with a more quantitative approach.
Previous studies (e.g., Holmberg & Alvinius, 2019) have shown that normative transformation processes are the biggest challenge for military organizations. In the case of societal demands for equality, the norms and practices, beliefs, attitudes, and values of the military organizations and their culture are affected and challenged: the FDF may intentionally or unintentionally reframe legal and societal demands as a demand for “normal good behavior” and gender neutrality, which is less threatening to the gendered status quo and individual identities (see Lombardo & Mergaert 2013). If societal change, with its attendant demands for equality, is however transformed to a very subjective understanding of “normal good behavior” within in the organizational discourse, it can downplay the existing issues.
Aligning with Alvinius, Holmberg, and Johansson (2019), this study argues that resistance is more common in the military and among managers than is often assumed. The existing practices of resistance at individual level should be neglected by neither the military organization nor research on the military: they are both expressions of a larger phenomenon and the necessity of change, arising internally rather than resulting from external pressure alone.
Data Accessibility Statement
The collected data for this study are property of the FNDU and are, therefore, not openly available.
Notes
Ethics and Consent
The research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the research council of the FNDU. The respondents gave their informed consent to participate in the study.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Linda Hart, Military Professor, lt. col Antti-Tuomas Pulkka, and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and encouraging feedback which greatly helped to improve the manuscript.
Funding Information
This study was funded by the Support Foundation for National Defence (Maanpuolustuksen kannatussäätiö).
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.