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

**Ken White** · 03-23-2008

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** · 03-23-2008

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** · 03-23-2008

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** · 03-23-2008

Hi Germ,

Originally Posted by 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** · 03-23-2008

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** · 03-23-2008

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** · 03-23-2008

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

**Ron Humphrey** · 03-23-2008

Originally Posted by 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.

This is one thing which I think constantly eludes the process of developing written guidance for operations. First yes as a soldier if I describe commanders intent it is as you say, however I would propose that when seeking to define the how too's and thus the basis for manuals, etc we need to go much deeper and actually think much more broadly about the who's and whats we are working with. Lets take religion for an example. Would you say that the narratives drive a given body of believers or the texts, or would it be easier to say that the texts more explicitly define the narratives.
We can go into example's if you would like but I would guess you know what I mean. Or in politics is there a greater following to an outcome or to a given set of talking points which are there to maintain a common (narrative) and what if anything defines what that narrative is.

I say all this to lead into where Marc speaks about informal narratives

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Guys,
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

Informal narratives such as those which reflect a direction for one's life or how to approach relationship's, what not to do in finance, literally stories which describe without detailing the ways forward carry much more weight in the real world than many would like to abmit. Tis may in large par be due to human nature in seeking the "easier" way to do things but personally I think it relates largely to our history and culture's. What if anything is language but a tool which offers more long lasting and definitive ways to express opinions, requirements, lessons, lifes mysteries to future generations. This doesn't change the necessity of having a guiding premise or standard (a narrative if you will).

If we try to separate the hows too's from the why's then it will constantly be a re-learning process. And when directions or instructions are provided without the context of why they are and what they represent (books withut pictures

) then we have done exactly that.

This is a very round about way of saying you can't train to good narratives because you must live them. Orders and directives can be taught because they are developed. IMHO real narratives with the power to change simply exist naturally and the only thing we can do is teach ourselves how to see them and thus work with them.

I know that probably made less sense than before but at least I try

**Germ** · 03-24-2008

Thanks gents. I saw the references at small wars journal don't include "Leading Marines." I'll leave off of the discussion for now, with the hope that while I'm furiously searching for a text that discusses narratives in the terms marc used earlier, the two of you will have a chance to browse "Leading Marines." I think you'll like it. (Ron, it's a mid 90's pub so you may not have encountered it before.)
Marc, if you have a single text in mind that discusses grand, core and cultural narratives, help me out!

**Ron Humphrey** · 03-24-2008

Originally Posted by Germ

Thanks gents. I saw the references at small wars journal don't include "Leading Marines." I'll leave off of the discussion for now, with the hope that while I'm furiously searching for a text that discusses narratives in the terms marc used earlier, the two of you will have a chance to browse "Leading Marines." I think you'll like it. (Ron, it's a mid 90's pub so you may not have encountered it before.)
Marc, if you have a single text in mind that discusses grand, core and cultural narratives, help me out!

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/g...ng_marines.pdf

I'll be reading it this week , but right off hand the Forward seems to identify it as a core narrative, meat to express expectations and consideration but without implicit directives.

I'll check back when I'm done with it.

**Spud** · 03-24-2008

Originally Posted by Eden

2. Is it possible to approach a place like Afghanistan with a single narrative? Can we develop a common narrative that is acceptable both to the Afghans, to our international partners, and the Great American Public? And our soldiers, by the way? Can we even develop a single narrative that is acceptable to the layered, nuanced, complex culture of Afghanistan? Again, my experience is that the indigenous peoples are not stupid. They understand our agenda; it's just that many segments reject while others are suspicious of our ability to sustain it.

NATO/ISAF has one (and it’s not bad either if excessively wordy). The real issue in a place like Afghanistan is getting a fractured (in the nicest possible sense) coalition to use that narrative from the political-strategic through to the tactical.

The current strat-political game of one upmanship over who's pulling more weight and which countries are truly fighting is completely drowning out the narrative and significantly impacting on the information battlespace. There is no single report in AFG media or the worldwide media that doesn't highlight the differences (perceived or otherwise) in national approaches to the op.

Call me a simple former section commander but if we all signed up to ISAF and ISAF wants to promote a certain narrative shouldn't every contributing nation align to it? We're in no way different to anyone else ... in fact our new Government has been leading the drive down this route just to highlight its differences with the previous administration (and score a few points along the way).

Of course if we can't get that strat narrative sorted, all of the real information issues then fall out. Case in point what do we call our adversary in AFG? "OMF" (mum and dad have no idea what that means), "ACM", "Taliban" (several countries including the AFG Government want to open political negotiations with the people representing the Taliban movement so by putting everyone in the same boat we're potentially impacting on this LOO) "Taliban extremists", "Insurgents" "Nutbugs in a Pakhul with an RPG"... it goes on ... if you check the media releases for the current 32-odd nations in ISAF there's about 15 different descriptors for who we're actually fighting. In reality that should be simple to fix but then what to do with the counter-narc problem?

**marct** · 03-24-2008

Hi Germ,

Originally Posted by Germ

Thanks gents. I saw the references at small wars journal don't include "Leading Marines." I'll leave off of the discussion for now, with the hope that while I'm furiously searching for a text that discusses narratives in the terms marc used earlier, the two of you will have a chance to browse "Leading Marines." I think you'll like it. (Ron, it's a mid 90's pub so you may not have encountered it before.)
Marc, if you have a single text in mind that discusses grand, core and cultural narratives, help me out!

I'm afraid there isn't a single text that really gets at it, at least the way I view and use the concept. Then again, I like complex theoretical models

. One book that does have some good examples of analysis is The Myths We Live By edited by Raphael Samuel and Paul Thompson (Routledge, 1990). It's an edited volume with a air range of topics.

As I mentioned, part of the problem with the term "narrative" is that it is very broad.Most symbolic Anthropologists would probably use the term "myth" instead of "narrative", although that would depend on the situation. A lot of the early work in the area that established most of the concepts I use came out of a debate between Vladimir Propp and Claude Levi-Strauss on how to analyze myths. They were (sort of) obsessed with breaking myths down into elementary particles (mythemes, etc.) and using those to build up laws on how the mind constructed and used myths. Pierre Miranda put that together into a Markov Chain analysis in the early 1970's (unpublished ms of a conference paper) and found that you could predict group reactions fairly accurately based on their myths.

Things sort of languished for a while as most of us concentrated on rituals (i.e. cultural technologies for inculcating myths in groups) and, in the mid to late 1970's you started to see the development of a debate grounding all of this in neural structures. This proved rather unpopular on the whole for a variety of reasons, but a few people kept at it - mainly Charlie Laughlin and his students in Anthropology. I've been lucky enough to have had Charlie as both a teacher and colleague for a number of years now, and some of his ideas have definitely rubbed off on me

.

Marc

**Sledge142** · 05-07-2008

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** · 05-07-2008

Hi Sledge,