Description
It is widely recognised that medals are important not only to service-personnel and the armed forces but to civil society. Yet, there has limited sociological interest in this important topic. This article uses the literature on professional militaries in general and social interaction theory in particular to examine the system of military decoration in the United Kingdom. Using quantitative and qualitative data from the British Army, it makes three original arguments. First, that a new, professionalised awards system has emerged, based on standardised, transparent and fair bureaucratic regulations and with the standardised citation at its core. Consequently, this professionalised system favours units whose commanding officers are well-organised in assessing and editing their citations. Second, we argue that central to the assessment of each citation is the concept of ‘risk and rigour’ which is used objectively by awards committees. This professionalised system has created a new awarding regime, with some mild medal inflation. Moreover, in stark contrast to the nineteenth and twentieth century when officers were over-represented, this new regime is more democratic and egalitarian. Third, we provide evidence of the specific pathology associated with this professionalised awards system. Overall, therefore, we argue the contemporary British medallic system has evolved to reflect an increasingly professionalised military.
