The "Cultural Turn" in the U.S. Army's strategy for engaging with social sciences

Relevance. For many centuries, humanity has been drawn into an endless number of wars and conflicts. The conduct of military operations always creates an objective need to study the future theater of war by integrating cultural understanding into the planning, preparation, and execution of military operations. The experience of the United States can be particularly useful, as American sociology was at the forefront of military sociology. The conflictual reality of the present is forcing the Russian scientific community to consolidate and turn to foreign experience, in which social sciences are given a special place, and their sociocultural potential opens up new horizons for cognitive and research activities.
The purpose s to present the possibilities of interaction between social sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense in the implementation of research projects such as Camelot, Human Landscape Systems, and Minerva.
Objectives: to characterize the significance of the cultural factor in warfare; to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the "cultural turn" in the strategy and tactics of the U.S. Army's warfare; and to illustrate the measures of social support for combat veterans.
The methodology is based on a sociocultural approach, which allowed us to present the practices of interaction between social sciences and the U.S. Army's management bodies.
Results. The article describes the main social projects that identified the causes of failures in military conflicts involving the U.S. Army and formed the basis for the "cultural turn" in the relationship between social sciences and the military. It shows that combat veterans play a special role in conducting sociological research.
Conclusions. The use of an interdisciplinary approach based on sociocultural methodology allows for the integration of social sciences into military research and the development of effective solutions tailored to the specific characteristics of each military conflict.

1. Iacobucci A., Downey L. The Minerva Research Initiative: Social Scientific Knowledge Production as Organizational Strategy. Journal of Political and Military Sociology. 2023;50(2):121–145.

2. Smirnov A.I. In Search of New Paradigms in Military Sociology Research // Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskiye i sotsial'nyye peremeny = Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2021;(6):610–616. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.2134

3. Horowitz I.L. 1966. The Life and Death of Project Camelot. American Psychologist. 1966;21(5):445–454.

4. Price D.H. Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State. Petrolia and Oakland, CA: CounterPunch and AK Press; 2011. 180 р.

5. Kaplan F. The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2013. 418 р.

6. Gonzalez R.J. Human Terrain: Past, Present and Future Applications. Anthropology Today. 2008;24(1):21–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2008.00561.x

7. Gilmore J.A Kinder, Gentler Counter-Terrorism: Counter-Insurgency, Human Security, and the War on Terror. Security Dialogue. 2011;42(1):25–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610393390

8. Burbach D.T. Partisan Dimensions of Confidence in the U.S. Military, 1973–2016. Armed Forces & Society. 2019;45(2):211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x17747205

9. Baranovsky M. V. Public trust in the armed forces (foreign experience of sociological research). Obshchestvo: Sotsiologiya, psikhologiya, pedagogika = Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy. 2019;6(62):26–31 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/spp.2019.6.3

10. Simon C.A., Lovrich N.P., Liu B., Wei Y.D. Citizen Support for Military Expenditure Post–9/11: Exploring the Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Place of Birth. Armed Forces & Society. 2018;44(4): 688–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x17741462

11. Talmaţchi M-L., Ispas L., Pînzariu A. The Development of Perspectives on Cultural Anthropology with Applicability in the Military Operational Environment. In: International conference Knowledge – based organization. Vol. 30(2). Romania: Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy of Sibiu; 2024. P. 188–197. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2024-0074

12. Sysolyatin A.A. Search for an Image of Peacetime in the American Culture of the 1970s–1980s. Izvestiya Ural'skogo federal'nogo universiteta. Seriya 2: Gumanitarnyye nauki = Ural Federal University Bulletin. Series 2: Humanities. 2024;26(4):232–246. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2024.26.4.071

13. McSorley K. Doing military fitness: Physical culture, civilian leisure, and militarism. Critical Military Studies. 2016;2(1-2):103–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2016.1148292

14. Kandabarov N.A. Systems of social protection of veterans in the USA and European countries. Strakhovoye delo = Insurance Business. 2024;9(378):19–25. (In Russ.)

15. Zelentsov S.Yu., Zhukov D.V., Zelenenkiy I.A. Problems of adaptation of veterans of the armed forces when finding employment in the civilian sphere. Nauchnaya mysl = Scientific Thought. 2022;19(43):104–113. (In Russ.)