A Question of Value
The ability to endure pain is culturally shaped. In western culture, this ability is often defined in terms of a cognitive state of being in control of one's mind. That control is in turn exerted over one's emotional, spiritual, and physical realities.
Because of the cultural expectations for enduring pain in this organization, the Marine Corps embodies a shifting sense of history and a transformation of the self which occurs at the levels of thoughts, bodies and emotions. Male Marines in particular are defined in part by their relationship to pain.In the context of being a Marine, and an infantryman in particular, embracing and enduring pain supposedly makes one stronger, a better “man,” a better member or team player. Bearing pain is a given, in regards to the mission, and the definition of both the organizational and individual self as a Marine. Echoing Connell (1990), masculinity is not inherent in the male body. In fact, if the body is very much at odds with the social definition, there is trouble (Connell 1990: 89). In the USMC, the experience of being in the Marines is to some degree a controlled reality, in a total institution, mediated by an organizational culture, which is at odds with persistent physical injury. And the ability to endure is one exceptionally important parameter of how reality and masculinity are culturally constructed in the USMC.
The value placed on bearing pain is dependent on any number of cultural variables. The construction of pain is shaped by: (1) a willingness to risk and to endure; (2) the pursuit of excellence and the motivation to improve performance; (3) the desire to distinguish oneself, and finally; (4) the individual's ability to endure pain and to value a particular activity for the sheer fun of it. In my research on the USMC, I found that Marines show that they value the organization by expressing an absence of conflict over the giving of the self, a driving commitment and loyalty to the Corps, and the ability to bear and sustain injury, discomfort, and trauma for their peers and for the mission. Leckie has argued that it is the ability to sacrifice the self for the mission:
It is sacrifice that answers the interminable argument about peace and war.
But sacrifice says: “not the blood of your brother, my friend—your blood.” That is why women weep when their men go off to war. They do not weep for their victims, they weep for them as victim. That is why, with the immortal insight of mankind, there are gay songs and colorful bands to send them off—to fortify their failing hearts, not to quicken their lust for blood. That is why there are no glorious living, but only glorious dead. Heroes turn traitor, warriors age and grow soft—but a victim is changeless, sacrifice is eternal (Leckie 1992: 294).Marines are judged not only in terms of their ability to sacrifice the self for the mission. They are also judged by an absence of conflict over this sacrifice of the self. Here, I define value in terms of the conflicts over one's personal values versus the values of the organization.
This culture of pain has different facets in the sense that belonging and acceptance are based on one's ability to sacrifice oneself for the organizational mission. This is fine if one remains uninjured. But what happens to those individuals who fail? I found that another reality co-existed in the USMC. This identity was opposed to the image of the marine who could endure the pain. Here, the construction of an identity based on “being broken” became one of the main vehicles used by Marines (who were uninjured) to describe the status, physical (bodily), and mental capacities of those individuals who occupied a somewhat complex liminal state of being, yet not being, and not belonging in the USMC.