Image: Campaigning material. Sourced from the Library at the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum, Oslo 

Public narratives typically portray soldiering as a sacrifice. Soldiers are represented as diligent and heroic figures who leave their daily lives behind to prepare for war (typically through long-lasting, strenuous, and monotonous drills and exercises) or risk their lives in battle. However, is this how soldiering is experienced by those who train and fight on behalf of the nation? A quite different view of the soldierly profession emerged from my interviews with Norwegian soldiers and Afghanistan veterans. In their accounts, soldiering was typically depicted as a privileged and exciting profession they were grateful to have or to have had before transitioning into civilian careers. Special forces soldiers particularly described being a soldier in the Norwegian Army as an opportunity to invest in themselves and develop their skills and talents. As one interlocutor said: “being a soldier in the special forces is a chance to maximise self-realisation: physical, psychological and technical”. Others described being a soldier at war as an opportunity to challenge themselves and grow as human beings.  
 
There are different ways to interpret these positive representations of war and soldiering. One way is to read them in contemporary terms as expressions of the disciplinary power of neoliberalism. Indeed, the notion of Norwegian soldiers seeking personal development and growth in war resembles what Ilana Gershon describes as neoliberal agency: “a self that is a flexible bundle of skills that reflexively manages oneself as through the self was a business.” A few decades earlier, Michel Foucault identified a new type of individual under neoliberal capitalism: the neoliberal self. This neoliberal self is an autonomous and entrepreneurial individual always searching for ways to improve or “invest” in their human capital. Significantly, the Norwegian Army appeals to this neoliberal self in their recruitment campaigns and stories of soldiers published on the Army’s website. The message of these published stories and campaigns is that the Norwegian Army offers young men and women a unique opportunity to learn, challenge, grow and invest in themselves and their futures.  

Another –but not incompatible– interpretation would emphasise the political context of soldiers’ lifeworlds. The Norwegian soldiers I interviewed were able to focus on personal growth and self-realisation because their country, friends, and family were not under immediate threat or attack. Moreover, they did not experience the war in Afghanistan as an existential or life-threatening war. For them, Afghanistan was an expeditionary war in a distant country, often without any personal or emotional stakes.  
 
Soldiers’ subjectivities are clearly shaped by the time and place they live in, including contemporary and hegemonic discourses and ideals. However, ideas of soldiering as enriching and transformative are not new. For instance, according to historian George Mosse, male soldiers, who served in World War I, sacrificed themselves to fulfil a masculine desire for national glory. However, Mosse argues that many of these soldiers also believed the war would “energise” or “regenerate” their personal lives.  

When I visited the Armed Forces’ library in Oslo, I was also struck by how these ideas and representations of soldiering persist through time. I looked at different Norwegian military recruitment campaigns from the 1950s to the present. Throughout these years, military campaigns mixed appeals to patriotism and heroism with promises of adventure, self-investment, and growth. As illustrated by the two posters featured in the image below, a noticeable difference between recruitment campaigns from the 1950s and today is the gendered language and depiction of soldiering as a masculine profession. For instance, the air defence artillery portrayed soldiering as an “interesting profession (..) suitable for young men with ambitions” (poster to the left). Likewise, the navy represented soldiering as a “manndomsyrke” (masculine profession) and promised selected candidates a “good education, an interesting profession, and an enriching life” (poster to the right). However, apart from this gendered language, the message of the 1950s recruitment campaigns strongly resembles contemporary campaigns and narratives.   

Like the early 2000s, the 1950s marked a period of peace and growth in Norway. However, Norwegian politics and worldviews were shaped by the Cold War and Norway’s fraught relationship with neighbouring Russia in the North. Nevertheless, recruitment campaigns at that time presented soldiering as an arena for growth and self-realisation. Comparing recruitment campaigns over time thus shows the continuity of this idea despite geopolitical shifts and changes in social and gendered norms and practices.  
 
 
References 
 
Gershon, I. 2011. Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology 52(4): 537–55. 
And 
 
Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics; Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-79, translated by Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 252-3.