How do We Train to Match our Actions to Our Narrative?

[Germ]

Hi Rob,

That's the question, isn't it? Okay, let's take a swipe at it. First of all, let's split up the term "narrative" since it covers too much ground to be immediately useful.

Grand Narrative: a grand narrative (GN) is a general symbol system that defines and outlines basic components of life and has come to have the power to interpret all aspects of life for a group. Think religion, philosophy, scientific theories / paradigms, etc. In general you can effectively ignore grand narratives if your opponents use the same ones with the exception of providing alternate interpretations from the GN.

Core Narratives: generally applicable only to a culture or a society, these tend to be historical stories that answer the question "how did we get here?". The FM 3-24 example of the Boston Tea Party is an example of a part of a core narrative. In a few cases, e.g. civil wars inside a monocultural state (e.g. the US, England, etc.) or wars in a culture area (e.g. China), the core narratives will be the same or similar - again it's a case of providing interpretation rather than a new narrative.

Cultural Narratives: aka Folklore, Atrocity Tales, Wonder Tales, myths, etc. often deal with day to day ways of living in "reality", and this is where you have the hardest time in communicating different ones since the lived environment is radically different.

Marc

If the Boston Tea Party excerpt of FM 3-24 is a part of a core narrative, how would you characterize FM 6-22 or MCWP 6-11 -- grand, core or cultural narrative?

[marct]

Hi Germ,

If the Boston Tea Party excerpt of FM 3-24 is a part of a core narrative, how would you characterize FM 6-22 or MCWP 6-11 -- grand, core or cultural narrative?

First off, I'd have to know if you had a particular story in mind. Second, I'd have to read them with that type of analysis in mind (no time for that right now, I'm afraid).

Marc

[Ken White]

If the Boston Tea Party excerpt of FM 3-24 is a part of a core narrative, how would you characterize FM 6-22 or MCWP 6-11 -- grand, core or cultural narrative?

Mythology? Cultural narrative?

[Germ]

The two differ somewhat -- "Army Leadership" mixes narrative and theory, where "Leading Marines" is almost pure narrative. I didn't want to rush to a classification of my own, as I prefer an outside point of view. Is the narrative in either of these manuals clear and consistent? Would they be better documents if they strove to conform to one of the narrative models you described earlier?

[Ken White]

both places, I'll simply say that in my view there's virtually no difference in practice with, if any difference, that of the Corps being slightly less tolerant of minor transgressions.

I'll leave the narrative construct definition to the scientific types...

[Germ]

Since you were a professional in both services, this is a unique opportunity. Army leadership doctrine and Marine Corps leadership doctrine are night and day. You would have referred to FM 6-22's predecessor, FM 22-100. And you would probably have known MCWP 6-11 as FMFM 1-0. What do you think about the differences between the two? What did you do to employ either of them during your period of service?

[Ken White]

FM 22-100 and FMFM 1-0. I retired in 1977 with 27 years -- did I mention that I was old?

Basically, I thought both were over done as in excessively lengthy and loaded with redundancy; the Army FM being the worst offender of the two on that score. The 1973 edition of 22-100 was one of the better editions, still 300 plus pages is, IMO, vast overkill. It ain't that hard...

My FMFM 1-0 days were back in the early 50s, so my recollection of it is beyond hazy but I do recall it as far more succinct and less redundant...

Sorry, guess I'm not much help. My perception is not that the leadership doctrine was vastly different in my day but that the leadership attitudes were slightly to vastly different and that was very much Command influenced and varied from time to time and place to place. The Corps took a slightly more distant / harsh / lofty / uncompromising view. I left the Corps in '53 but did work with them time and time again here and there from LeJeune to Dom Rep to Viet Nam and my belief is that there had been little change change from my time in until I retired from the Army in '77. Can't speak to the last 30 years about the Corps. There are advantages and disadvantages to the approaches of both organizations IMO. All in all, seems to me they pretty much balanced out.

Leadership is simply three things; know your job; do your job; and, very importantly, be fair.

Take care of the troops and they'll take care of the mission -- and taking care doesn't mean babying, it means making sure they have the tools, know how and do their jobs.

[marct]

Hi Germ,

The two differ somewhat -- "Army Leadership" mixes narrative and theory, where "Leading Marines" is almost pure narrative. I didn't want to rush to a classification of my own, as I prefer an outside point of view. Is the narrative in either of these manuals clear and consistent? Would they be better documents if they strove to conform to one of the narrative models you described earlier?

Well, understand that I haven't read through them with that type of analysis in mind (that would take a week or so ). There seems to be a bit of confusion about what "narrative" means. Unfortunately, how it is dealt with in FM 3-24 doesn't help at all. First off, "theory" is a special type or genre of "narrative". It uses what Dilthey called erkennen, i.e. it provides an "explanation" that is comprehensible to a particular audience via a particular logic.

The concept of "narrative", as it is used in FM 3-24, is much more limited and is used only to refer to what Dilthey called verstehen or "empathic understanding". Anthropologists, at least symbolic Anthropologists like me, tend to use the term "narrative" to include both of those types of understanding and then sub-categorize based on audience, logics, genre, etc.

Looking at the genre of Field Manuals in general, the first thing to do would be to analyze exactly what they are covering, which is pretty simple: they tend to codify idealized visions of some part of the occupational culture; they are "doctrine" in both the military and religious sense. As such, they may certainly be viewed as formalized Grand narratives of the occupation. But their formal status is often at odds with the informal narratives that have an often much more influential position in shaping how a group perceives reality.

For example, Clausewitz isn't part of the formal doctrine, but Vom Krieg is definitely a Grand Narrative at least in the US Army. The clues to look for in identifying it as such are in the generalized use of terminology associated with it - e.g. friction, centre of gravity, fog of war, etc. - and in the joking references made to "Saint Carl". If Field manuals are "doctrine" in the religious sense, then Vom Krieg is Holy Writ (along with Sun Tsu, Jomini and, maybe, a few others); doctrine changes, writ tends not to change.

Marc

[Ron Humphrey]

but I'd like to throw something out there and see what comes of it. As Ken noted too often much of military writing is really overdone. By this I mean the same thing stated sixteen different ways with a few differences in vocabulary but in general presenting the same things. This may be effective in that it allows the reader several different ways of looking at the same thing and thus they are more likely to find something which reflects that which the themselves already believe to be the case. I think it may als be one of our greatest issues to overcome in trying to really address change in our perspective organizations. If you look at it on the outside it seems like what it really does is say what it wants to say without really requiring one to change their overall direction. Many of those here could probably bring out examples of how often revolutionary or even simply evolutionary ideas about how things should work have been sidetracked if not completely averted though a simple pick what you like approach at how to address doctrine.

(Here's where I really go out on a limb )

Narrative to me has always been about a general direction not really about any specific actions or guidelines. A common understanding if you would of Command Intent. Some of the other discussions have dealt with strategic policy or guidance and where it comes from and it is here where I think we really begin to work our way back to narrative and guidance through doctrine and /or manuals. What do you (the entities in question) believe your overall mission is. Then there must be a mutually accepted version of that what throughout all levels of the organization. Then such things as the hows and how much are determined and shared through release of materials such as manuals, directives, doctrine in general. Finally there is the perception and reception or rejection of said materials by those charged with it's implementation. How and if they receive it will determine what the end actions are in any given operation.

As long as a general direction that all parties can accept is found then it would seem that materials created along that vein will be more effective in sharing the overall vision and thus be more effective in the long run.

Of any organization out there one should probably accept the fact that defense is one area where the most undeniable need for being able to serve a purpose greater than oneself is not only recommended but in the end necessary to truly achieve the purpose for its existance.

I'll stop for now and give others a chance to straighten me out

[Germ]

Can you give an example of overdone doctrine/narrative?
I think commander's intent is not the focus here. Commander's intent is about visualizing the execution and end state of a plan. It's explicit. The cultural narrative I'm referring to should form the basis for guiding principal when commander's intent doesn't fill the bill. It's about common beliefs, guiding values, what makes us tick. If we were computers, commander's intent would be a computer program. Cultural narrative would be a big chunk of the operating system that allows the computer program to run.

[marct]

Hi Guys,

Well, Ron, I'm not going to jump on you - the term has been overused in my opinion .

Germ, let me toss out another distinction that may help with this oh so fuzzy term: formal and informal narratives. Formal narratives are projected by a culture into material/perceptual reality; think books, doctrine, public rituals, commercials, rules and regulations, etc. This is the type of "guidance" Ron is talking about. Informal narratives, which are often much "darker" and more powerful, are the stories and interpretations that are spread about, usually via oral culture.

Marc

[Sledge142]

1. we can control a narrative...
2. that it is received in the manner we intend it (even if our actions match)
3. that the narrative is somehow important to achieving success
4. some of the same principles used when selling soap apply here

I hear military officers say quite often that "..if we could only get the press to stop writing about the bad things..." My response to that is - if they stop, will that change what is happening?

The root of the problem is that a narrative is developed over time by actions, and the form it takes may not be the form we intend (sometimes it may even be better)...in our culture of instant gratification (or "I only have 15 months to make myself look like an innovative, adaptable, and successful commander"), we are not giving it time to develop... matching actions to a narrative will most likely accelerate acceptance (perhaps), but (and it is a big BUT)...we have no control (no matter how much we perceive we do) over how an individual will interpret our narrative...

What we need to do is rethink information...its uses...its interpretation...etc...this thread has sparked my interest enough to start to conduct some research on the narrative theme...I wonder what hard research exists on the topic?

[marct]

Hi Sledge,

1. we can control a narrative...
2. that it is received in the manner we intend it (even if our actions match)
3. that the narrative is somehow important to achieving success
4. some of the same principles used when selling soap apply here

I wouldn't say that they are held by everyone in the discussion . Also, and as a note, our list of assumptions contains assumptions - e.g. what do you mean by "control"? From the examples you list later on, I suspect hat we have very different understandings of what it means in this context.

I hear military officers say quite often that "..if we could only get the press to stop writing about the bad things..." My response to that is - if they stop, will that change what is happening?

Agreed, I've heard that as well, and it is a very naive assumption that just doesn't hold up - mainly for the reason you list as assumption #2.

The root of the problem is that a narrative is developed over time by actions, and the form it takes may not be the form we intend (sometimes it may even be better)...in our culture of instant gratification (or "I only have 15 months to make myself look like an innovative, adaptable, and successful commander"), we are not giving it time to develop... matching actions to a narrative will most likely accelerate acceptance (perhaps), but (and it is a big BUT)...we have no control (no matter how much we perceive we do) over how an individual will interpret our narrative...

I would agree with that somewhat, but only "somewhat".

What we need to do is rethink information...its uses...its interpretation...etc...this thread has sparked my interest enough to start to conduct some research on the narrative theme...I wonder what hard research exists on the topic?

A fair bit, although the terminology is somewhat different (I listed some of the sources in my last post).

[Rank amateur]

.we have no control (no matter how much we perceive we do) over how an individual will interpret our narrative...

If that were true, I'd have to find something else to do for a living. The more important issue, however, is how we do fit into their narrative. Are we liberators or occupiers?

[Ron Humphrey]

If that were true, I'd have to find something else to do for a living. The more important issue, however, is how we do fit into their narrative. Are we liberators or occupiers?

We rarely know where we're going unless we know where we've been, so in that sense it might require a bit of time and some fruition of end states before the narrative of the CI and that perceived by the populous begin to actually align. Till then they pretty much see it however they choose at any given moment based on current conditions/expectations. And that goes for both internal and external

Still doesn't take away the importance of at least attempting to get your team on the same page

[Abu Buckwheat]

Rob, et al ... this thread is SO important. I have been writing a new book on defeating AQ's narrative and destroying its IW campaign. I was asked ysterday to write an Oped for the NY Daily news on it. I'll give you guys some love and a shout out in it!

[marct]

One of the interesting things about "narratives" (broadly construed) is that they are highly flexible and polysemic (a nice academic bafflegab word that mean "carry or imply multiple meanings"). Not only that, but they can shift "levels" of meaning easily and, often, invert specific meanings at "higher" levels. This is certainly one of the things that AQ does quite well - change levels and adapt the story to meet current needs.


Cracking the AQ narrative, in the sense of blowing up the acceptability of its symbolic linkages, is an interesting "exercise", although most of the attempts I've seen so far are totally pathetic (sorry, but that's the only word for them). "Logic" is a useless way to go about it since most of the logic used is not the logic that structures the narrative (actually, acts as its "ground of being"). You have to crack it using that "ground of being" logic and then "gel" the new "understanding" based on a logic and interpretation that emerges from the narratives "ground of being". This is what the de-radicalization programs are doing in many places.

Abu, I really want to see your book ! You, I expect to get it right !

Marc

[Rank amateur]

If we don't start the war, then the narrative already exists. For example, Kosovo. Most of the world thought that the Albanians were being ethnically cleansed. When we intervened on their side, we had the support of everyone who agreed with the existing narrative. (The Serbs of course had a different perspective but that wasn't the military's problem: let the military kick their ass and let the State Department worry about patching things up with a defeated enemy seems like a good division of responsibilities to me.)

The North Vietnamese had a narrative before we intervened too: foreigners keep trying to occupy us, but through continuous guerrilla we''ll inevitably be liberated. No matter what we did militarily we couldn't change their narrative.

RE: Al Qaeda. I think the most effective counter narrative is a sound bite. Al Qaeda blows up more Muslims than they do "Zionists and Crusaders." It's true and effective with the target market: potential AQ recruits.