عنوان مقاله [English]
Development of defense capabilities is indubitably one of the main concerns of government officials in most countries. It should be done in such a way that will increase the defense coefficient of the country in order to lead to preemption, or in the case of war, the defense structure will have the best performance. The research method in this paper is a case study with a quantitative and a descriptive-analytical approach which seeks to answer this question: What factors are influential upon defense process from a sociological perspective? In order to answer this question, the researcher studied the authentic Persian and English sources using the library method and extracted the necessary information. In order to validate the findings, researcher-made questionnaires were distributed among 50 experts, as a statistical sample, who were familiar with defense-security and sociological issues of the country. The general finding of the study shows that politics, economics, geography and history are influential upon the defense sociology. As a result, consolidation of the defense base is not only in capitalizing on defense hardware and software, but also its complement, paying attention to the status of forces and social conditions. The application of the results of sociological studies of defense also strengthens the foundation and fundamentals of the country's defense. The findings indicate that the favorable or at least acceptable state of defense economy, high national loyalty, interaction based on caution and avoidance of optimism, high threshold of national tolerance and cohesion along with self-healing capacity, existence of a desirable sociability, society's view of defense as a national obligation are among the features that puts the society in promising defense conditions. The characteristics of defense forces such as the internalization of values like fighting and defending until reaching victory (material or spiritual), obedience, consolidation of forces and defense structure, the presence of appropriate ambitions and morale, can guarantee the success of the country in the realm of defense.
الف. منابع فارسی
ب. منابع انگلیسی
1. Bayenes, J. (1967). Morale. New York: Praeger.
2. Boucaret, Greert & Dewalle, Sterman. (2003). Comparing Measures of Citizen Trust & Good Governance. International Review of Administrate Science. vol 69.
3. Chillaud, Matthieu. (2012). Strategic Studies in France. Res Militaris. vol 3. No 1.
4. Combat in the 21st Century. (1999). Military Review.
5. Crabb, Tyler and Segal, David. (2015). Military Sociology in: Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. Third Edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.
6. Duffield, John. (1999). Political Culture and State Behavior; why Germany Confounds Neorealism. International Organization. vol 53. No 4.
7. Evonic, I. (1980). Motivation and Morale in Military non-Combat Organization. Brussels: Belgium.
8. Grinker, R. (1945). Men under Stress. Philadelphia: Blakiston.
9. Jablonsky, David. (1997). National Power Parameters. available at: www.scribd.com
10. Johnston, Alastair Lain. (1995). Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security. vol 19. No 4.
11. Lewis, Adrian. (2007). The American Culture of War. New York: Routledge.
12. Lombardi, Ben. (2003). Strategic Culture. available at: www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/eng/doc/strat 2003
13. Mangelsdorff, A. (1994). Morale: A New Perspective. Journal of Military Studies. vol 11.
14. Martin, Brian. (1993). Science, Technology and Nonviolent action: the case for a Utopian Dimension in the Social Analysis of Science and Technology. Social Studies of Science. vol 27.
15. Paparone, Chris. (2013). The Sociology of Military Science. NY: Bloomsbury.
16. Paparone, Chris. (2014). The Sociology of the Military: A Multi-Paradigmatic Review. Contemporary Sociology. Vol 43. Issue 3.
17. Parsons, Wayne. (1995). Public Policy. UK: Edward Elgar.
18. Plumpter, Tim & Graham, John. (1999). Governance & Good Governance. Paris: Institute on Governance.
19. Ripsman, Norrin. (2000). The Political Economy of Security: A Research and Teaching Agenda. Available at: www.startnet.ucalgary.ca/journal/article.html.
20. Siebold, G. L. (2007). The Essence of Military Group Cohesion. Armed Forces & Society. 33 (2).
21. Siebold, Guy. (2001). Core Issues and Theory in Military Sociology. Journal of Political and Military Sociology.
22. Sommer, Mark. (1989). Step toward Ecology of Peace. in: Peace & Conflict Studies Program. California: University of California.
23. Stone, Wendy. (25-27 Sep 2000). Social Capital, Social Cohesion and Social Security. Presented at: The International Research Conference on Social Security.
24. Waever, Ole & David, Carlton (1993). Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
25. Weiss, Friedl & Silke Steiner. (2006). Transparency as an Element of Good Governance in the Practice of the EU and the WTO: Overview and Comparison. Fordham International Law Journal. vol 30. Issue 5.