Alternative Views on the Nature of the Profession
AUTHOR: Phillip Hoglin
The term ‘profession of arms’ is relatively common throughout military discourse. However, while it appears frequently in doctrine, speeches,[1] articles and essays, until late 2021 the term was undefined by the Australian Defence Force (ADF). While it is now articulated in doctrine, the ADF’s definition has not yet been distilled for the Australian Army but left instead to notions of abstract intuition developed by individuals through years of training and exposure to the Army institution. Despite this lack of a simple and clear definition, the language around the profession of arms is readily adopted by Army members, particularly officers, who unquestionably conform to what they perceive to be its norms, requirements and purpose. Overall, it is taken as given, by both the institution itself and much of society, that there is a literal ‘profession of arms’ in Australia, embodied in part by the Army (alongside Navy and Air Force), whose existence is unique, tangible and unequivocal and exhibits all the characteristics of a contemporary profession.
In this article, a more inquisitive, perhaps sceptical, approach is taken, to explore whether the Army can really be described as a profession. First, an important distinction should be made between ‘professionalism’ and ‘profession’. Despite the occasional transgression from some individuals, the overwhelming majority of Army members are professional in the conduct of their roles and responsibilities. However, a person behaving professionally in their conduct does not necessarily make for the existence of a profession, nor does it imply membership in one.
To establish the case for the profession of arms as a bona fide profession, this article compares the Army against the most commonly accepted general characteristics of a profession. A contemporary Australian definition for a profession will be considered alongside some of the classical definitions of the profession of arms. Additionally, the characteristics of the Australian Army will be compared against the characteristics of professions outlined in general literature. Following this, a deeper examination will be undertaken to identify any areas where the ‘profession of arms’ embodied by the Army might deviate from the boundaries and thresholds of a profession and instead reside primarily in the ordinary definitions of an organisation.[2] The objective is to identify whether, on balance, the Australian Army can be defined as a profession and a member of the profession of arms, or whether the term is closer to an abstract description of the Army that serves a particular purpose to segregate the Army from the rest of society.
The Profession of Arms—Deficiency of Definition
Before considering the characteristics of professions, it is useful to outline where the concept of the profession of arms originated. During a series of lectures in 1962, Lieutenant General Sir John Winthrop Hackett, who is frequently cited as defining or articulating the profession of arms, provided the following description of the military:
… a profession, not only in the wider sense of what is professed, but in the narrower sense of an occupation with distinguishable corpus of specific technical knowledge and doctrine, a more or less exclusive group coherence, a complex of institutions peculiar to itself, an educational pattern adapted to its own needs, a career structure of its own and a distinct place in the society which has brought it forth.[3]
He, along with other pre-eminent authors of the era, further outlined that the ‘function of the profession of arms is the ordered application of force’, or similar phrasing.[4] The Hackett lectures remain the enduring reference for defining the profession of arms in Australia, and the broad concepts have not been substantially advanced since the 1960s,[5] despite significant changes in the Australian military, including the introduction of the all-volunteer military in Australia in 1973. This is not to say that the definition of the profession of arms hasn’t subtly evolved. The 2024 edition of the ADF’s capstone doctrine, Australian Military Power (the first edition was only released in 2021 and did not define the profession of arms) proclaims the profession as comprising ‘people practised in the ethical application and exercise of lethal force to defend the rights and interests of the nation’.[6] A definition is mentioned in one other subordinate ADF doctrine dealing with ethics, albeit it is somewhat inconsistent with the capstone doctrine and more aligned to the US Army[7] definition: ‘people practised in the ethical application of combat power, serving under government authority, entrusted to defend the rights and interests of the nation’.[8]
Although the ADF now defines the term ‘profession of arms’ in its doctrine, conceptual gaps remain. Specifically, there exists no adequate description or definition of the characteristics of the profession of arms, any further than superficially outlining the ‘unique nature of service’, concepts of ‘unlimited liability’ and the requirement of a military to use lethal force. While these characteristics are unique and specific to the military, they don’t offer a general framework or basis on which to compare its congruence with the broader characteristics of professions or even provide an explicit explanation of why the military is a profession. ADF doctrines dealing with character, command or culture provide no additional insights for describing the profession of arms in Australia.
While commentators rarely remark on deficiencies in the definition of the profession of arms in Australia, it is not a new observation. In a 2011 major review of personal conduct, Major General Craig Orme reported that the nuances of the profession were not deeply understood and that the topic was only addressed at an introductory level on some courses.[9] Further, in his 2016 contribution to Army’s Land Power Forum, Mark Gilchrist observed that in ‘the Australian context … a coherent, unified view is missing of what the profession of arms actually is’, offering that there is only an ‘implied understanding’.[10] Federal legislation also provides little insight, with the profession of arms undefined in the Defence Act or any regulation.[11] Recently, the Chief of Army provided some insight into a contemporary definition of the characteristics of the profession of arms as being of jurisdiction, expertise and an ability to self-regulate, but his concepts currently remain undeveloped in Army doctrine (although there are initiatives to address this).[12]
Overall, despite the frequency of mention, a clear definition of the profession of arms that is interpretable by and applicable to all Army members and the general public remains elusive. It is still largely entrusted to a person’s intuition as to what they perceive the profession of arms to be. This presents a conundrum: in all likelihood there will be a discrepancy, or even inconsistency, in the way that different Army members describe the profession. Furthermore, if this is true, civilians will almost certainly struggle to define the profession in any meaningful and consistent way, perhaps defaulting to historical notions of the nation at war.[13] If the term ‘profession of arms’ is to have meaning for the average soldier or officer then it ought to have definition and substance. At the very least, if Army claims to be part of the profession then there is an intuitive requirement that it should know what the profession is without relying on the abstract views of individuals and risking inconsistencies. The Chief of Army appeared to acknowledge this deficiency with his recent initiatives to review the state of the army profession,[14] which might go some way to providing clarity around the definitions of the profession itself and its applicability to the Australian Army.
Fortunately, deficiencies in a definition of the profession of arms do not prohibit a comparison of some of its organisational characteristics against commonly accepted general characteristics of professions. Before examining the nuances of the profession of arms and where its characteristics might deviate from those of other professions, it is useful to first outline a definition of ‘profession’, including some of its broad and commonly accepted characteristics.
The Profession of Arms and Characteristics of Professions
Professions have existed in concept for centuries, becoming increasingly codified as the need to better define and distinguish professions from occupations emerged. While the original professions were considered to be medicine, law and divinity, by the middle of last century definitional frameworks were developed, and the resulting taxonomy introduced other occupations as professions.[15] In their seminal work The Professions, Carr-Saunders and Wilson concluded that the ‘application of an intellectual technique to the ordinary business of life [emphasis added], acquired as a result of prolonged and specialized training, is the chief distinguishing characteristic of the professions’.[16] They introduced, through analysis against these characteristics, many further professions, including dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, engineers, chemists, physicists, architects, engineers, teachers and others. The army, or military, was deliberately not analysed because the public service that an army provides is ‘one which it is hoped they will never be called upon to perform’ and not ‘ordinary business of life’. However, it seems that the authors may have indirectly considered the army among the professions simply through mention of its omission.[17] Perhaps unhelpfully, a definition for a profession was purposely avoided by the authors.[18]
Regardless, there is no shortage of definitions for a profession, lists of professions, or consideration of the characteristics of professions.[19] Of contextual relevance, the Australian Council of Professions (ACP) defines a profession as:
a disciplined group of individuals who adhere to ethical standards and who hold themselves out as, and are accepted by the public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education and training at a high level, and who are prepared to apply this knowledge and exercise these skills in the interest of others.[20]
ACP membership includes medical practitioners, architects, veterinarians, dentists, geoscientists, midwives, pharmacists, engineers, psychologists and speech pathologists.[21] For the most part, while it is not explicitly listed, the Australian Army would seem to sit within this broad definition of a profession, although thresholds of criteria such as research, education and training are not clear.[22] However, it is notable that most of the pre-eminent authors on professions do not recognise the militaries in their lists of professions in the civilian scholarly literature.[23]
Australia’s Professional Standards Council (PSC) explains that professions are a ‘part of civil society and stand between the market and the state’, acknowledging that tensions between society, the market and the state exist.[24] This gives rise to subtle incongruence between this explanation of a profession and the nature of the profession of arms: the Army does not operate in the market and therefore cannot stand between the market and the state. Further, while many contemporary military sociologists posit that an army is part of civil society and closely integrated with it,[25] others maintain views more aligned with those of the classical theorists[26] and suggest that it remains distinct (and separate). Regardless, the Australian Army rests uncomfortably against the PSC explanation of professions given its lack of involvement in the market and oft-debated status in society.
For the purpose of this article, the APC definition of a profession has been adopted, supported by the six characteristics common in literature, identified by Tapper and Millet[27]—that is, professions have the characteristics of specialised expertise and an ethics framework, exercise self-regulation, provide a service to society for the public good, possess strategic responsibilities, and possess unique membership and identity.
Against this definition and these characteristics, those with knowledge of the Army will make strong prima facie observations that the Army appears to be a genuine profession, as follows:
- Specialised expertise and training. Officers and soldiers will commence their career with rigorous initial military training, followed by relevant trade-related training. In some instances, this training is lengthy, lasting several years, particularly for officers and those enlisting into technical trades. Education and training continue throughout a member’s career, reinforcing professional mastery.[28] These attributes of expertise and ongoing education are similar to other professions such as medicine, law, engineering and teaching, although the duration differs substantially.
- Ethical framework. The Army adheres to the ADF’s prescribed ethical standard. As is currently articulated in doctrine as it relates to operations,[29] organisationally represented by values and behaviours statements,[30] and supported by international law, disciplinary processes, complaints and resolutions processes, and other policies and frameworks, the Army is subject to a rigorous ethical framework that has been subject to many evolutions over its history.
- Self-regulation and discipline. The Army is characterised by a detailed, and at times complex, system of regulations incorporating matters such as discipline, personnel management, equipment maintenance and tactics. Directives, policy, processes and orders are governed by formal and accountable documents and manuals, which are, in turn, subordinate to legislation or issued through command authority. This provides a system of self-governed autonomy that is characteristic of professions such as medicine, engineering and aviation, among others.
- Service to society. The purpose of the ADF is to ‘defend Australia and its national interests in order to advance Australia’s security and prosperity’.[31] This purpose implies a commitment to protecting the Australian population. The Army’s purpose is subordinate to this ‘to prepare land power in order to enable the integrated force in competition and conflict’.[32] However, unlike with other professions, there is no individual transaction in the provision of professional services—that is, the nation at large receives the services of the Army, but individual citizens do not routinely derive personal benefit in the same manner they might from a visit to the doctor, psychiatrist or dentist or from instruction by an educator.
- Strategic responsibilities. The Army organisation itself maintains strategic responsibilities described in its mission and the National Defence Strategy.[33] The ADF, and Army as one of its services, have unambiguous national strategic security responsibilities.
- Membership and identity. Perhaps the most obvious and visible alignment between Army and the characteristics of professions is the observation of membership and identity among Army’s members, at least while they continue to serve, and well beyond transition for some veterans. Shared training, culture and tradition all contribute to an exclusive environment that is only familiar to those who have served in the Army, reinforcing notions of membership and identity.
While these six characteristics are most often cited when describing professions, there are alternatives in the specific context of the profession of arms that require mention. For example, Huntington defines the characteristics of the profession of arms as expertise, responsibility and corporateness,[34] with Swain adding ‘ethics and ethos’ to these.[35] In the Australian context, Orme suggested expertise, stewardship, representativeness and service to the state.[36] Similarly, Ryan suggested the characteristics of expertise, stewardship, corporateness and service to the state.[37] Recently, Stuart settled on the ‘three pillars of the modern Army profession’ as jurisdiction, expertise and self-regulation, describing jurisdiction as ‘the unique service we provide to society as its army’, expertise as ‘the distinctive professional body of knowledge we maintain’, augmented by a capacity to self-regulate.[38] These characteristics all overlap heavily with each other and the six general characteristics listed earlier, particularly those of expertise and self-regulation. While army-focused taxonomies, with their distinctly military emphasis, are useful in their description of the profession of arms—and help to position the Army as a profession alongside other professions—they do not provide any deeper insight into a comparative description of the Army as a profession beyond the six characteristics offered above.
On the basis of a strong alignment with the six general characteristics, and even without the specific descriptions of Huntington, Orme, Ryan or Stuart, it would seem that the Army could be defined as a profession. However, these characteristics are largely superficial, designed or manufactured, and sometimes created (or better refined) for an occupation to be identified as a profession or distinguished from other occupations.[39] They are not especially insightful, and almost any occupation can lay claim to several of these characteristics, or manufacture a pathway to observance of all of them, even if they are not a profession by common understanding[40] (a common criticism of the taxonomical approach to defining professions).[41] Beyond these six characteristics and the three or four Army-specific characteristics, there are certain attributes of Army, discussed in the next section, that deviate from regular professions in a manner that gives rise to questions concerning the extent to which Army can lay claim to being a profession.[42]
The view that armies might not be professions is outlined by several overseas authors and commentators, predominantly in relation to the US military. While some claim that the nature of military service as a profession is ‘widely accepted’ and requires no further proof, and that the ‘concern now is not to prove that the military is a profession, but rather to inspire men and women in uniform to reflect the expected characteristics of professionals in their day-to-day activities’,[43] there are others who are not as convinced. In an essay that courted much online feedback at the time (2015), one author opined that in applying ‘the correct understanding and application of a term’ the US Army is not a profession, but added that there was no need to torture the term in order to recognise the quality of the military institution and its people.[44] The catalyst for this article was a 2015 article, published by The Strategy Bridge, about whether the military was a profession. In this piece, Pauline Shanks Kaurin conceded that the military would not satisfy an empirical (taxonomical) description of a profession, before outlining her views that the military ‘probably’ was a profession on the basis of the requirement for self-regulation.[45] In stark contrast to those arguing that the military is a profession, Donald Travis, in his 2020 book on democracy and security, provocatively declared that military service ‘is no more exceptional in its value to society than any other vocation that offers a service to the well-being of the nation-state’, offering a different framework to describe armies.[46] Similarly, in his study of the military profession published in the same year, Libel also concluded that armies ‘never fully met the characteristics of a profession’.[47] In sum, despite the common view that the army is a profession, there are sufficient contrary opinions to conclude that such a categorisation is not settled and the concept remains contestable.
Army’s Deviation from a Profession
Army is an apparatus of government, with its purpose subject to the requirements and demands of the government of the day. In this regard, it is indistinguishable from other federal government departments that are not characterised as professions. Government defines the parameters of the Army’s mission, including its funding, acquisitions, structures and strength. Significantly, government defines what is, and what is not, in ‘the national interest’ and specifies any associated rules of engagement or operational parameters during its deployments. At the most fundamental level, whether to even use or deploy the Army is not a decision of Army but a decision, made within a democratic bureaucracy, that typically requires the tacit support of the nation.[48] Army’s jurisdiction (as it has been described by Snider and Watkins, and by Stuart), is not defined by Army but in negotiation with ‘government and people’.[49] This lack of independence and autonomy from government bureaucracy is not a characteristic exhibited by any profession. The Army might not exist if it were not for the requirements of the state, and it is speculative as to whether the citizenry would demand its existence otherwise (a complex philosophical question that cannot be easily tested without an existential national security threat). Indeed, some sovereign states, with or without land borders, have opted not to maintain a standing permanent army.[50]
The fact that Army is wholly responsive to the federal government also means that its societal benefit (when not deployed directly in defence of the nation) is largely unquantifiable. Specifically, the benefit is based on notions of a national insurance policy against adversarial action, deterrence, and as a Clausewitzian extension of government international diplomacy policy to the greater benefit of the nation.[51] An intangible and unmeasurable societal benefit such as this is problematic in defining Army as a profession, because for many (including pacifists[52] at one end of the spectrum but also a questioning moderate public) there is no perceived benefit of a military, let alone one with expeditionary capabilities.[53] There will therefore be societal perceptions that the resources allocated to maintaining a standing military could be better used elsewhere. Indeed, unless the nation is under threat of invasion, and the lives and wellbeing of the population are immediately at risk, Army’s service to society will inevitably be hard to define and harder to measure. This situation differs substantially from the daily beneficial interactions one might experience with a doctor, teacher or other professional.[54]
The ambiguity that exists around an army’s societal benefit is in marked contrast to other professions where the nexus between the profession’s purpose and its public good or service to society is more direct, immediate and clear. Societies struggle to thrive without professions associated with education, medicine and the rule of law, but the same cannot easily be said of an army. It remains unknown to the average Australian citizen what might prevail if Australia had one less officer, battalion or brigade or even ceased to maintain a standing army; nor is it known what societal benefits might be derived if the army were doubled or tripled in size. In contrast, the benefit arising from structural changes and increases (or decreases) in the size of other professions is unambiguous. Increases in the number of doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers and other professionals are likely to have an easily identifiable (usually immediate) and measurable societal benefit.
Perhaps the profession of arms’ most significant deviation from a regular profession is that, in achieving its purpose, the Army is required to use lethal violence.[55] All other professions are oriented towards serving a peaceful public good, or at least one that does not inherently involve death and destruction. While Army maintains a tenuous link to serving the public good through deterring invasion and participating in government-defined ‘just wars’, this remains an indirect, and even vague, notion of a public good where it is not immediately evident what transactional benefit the public derive (e.g. what benefit did ‘Joe Citizen’ derive from Australia’s involvement in any of the wars of the volunteer army era?). The very execution of Army’s mission involves casualties (friendly, adversary and civilian), the destruction of infrastructure and the consumption of resources, and it leaves a legacy of physical and emotional harm with all those involved for generations. The fact that the use of lethal violence is a fundamental purpose of armies raises an ethical concern about whether the profession of arms can be considered alongside other professions, or whether it would benefit more from its own categorisation.
Further definitional conflicts arise when the government’s contemporary use of the Army for non-warfighting tasks operates to obstruct Army’s formal purpose. Use of the Army for tasks such as disaster relief and recovery expands its jurisdiction beyond its expertise and blurs the boundaries of its claim for membership of the profession of arms, whose purpose is tied implicitly to the conduct of war through the National Defence Strategy.[56] Professions do not have the wide variation of purpose that is seen in the types of tasks entrusted to the Army, many of which are well beyond its specified mission and could be ably conducted by other well-resourced civil agencies or even contractors (such as disaster relief and recovery). Arguably, while the ADF has made appeals for reduced use in non-warfighting roles,[57] it is ultimately the choice of government to deploy Army in capacities outside of its mission, and it is a reality that this occurs far more frequently than deployment on warlike operations. While not necessarily the fault of Army, this suggests a substantial deviation from the characteristics of regular professions, whose purposes are stable and whose members are not employed in roles beyond their professional mandate and jurisdiction.
Beyond its bureaucratic characteristics and questions around its public good, the nature of military service is unique among professions in many other regards. For one, Army personnel choose or are allocated to employment categories, job roles, many of which are functionally quite similar to non-military employment outside the profession of arms. Further, unlike civilian employees, members of the Army can supposedly be members of several professions concurrently, such as the profession of arms alongside the professions of law, medicine, clergy, engineering and so on. Significantly, too, many Army personnel remain members of the profession of arms for a remarkably short period and lose their membership as soon as they separate from employment in the Army, voluntarily or involuntarily. This differs from other professions, where membership may extend for the entirety of an individual’s career and transcend their organisational employer of the day. Arguably, these peculiarities of military service, explained further below, are at odds with common perceptions of the characteristics of professions and individuals’ membership of them.
With the exception of warfighting roles, most job roles within Army are not uniquely specialised. These roles now account for around 58 per cent of Army’s strength.[58] For example, health, maintenance, logistics and administration employment categories are largely subject to civilian credentialling, with external civilian education providers responsible for initial employment training and some career courses. Aside from some routine and common military training, these roles are not unique to the Army, which challenges the notion that the profession of arms comprises people with unique skills employable only within the profession of arms.[59] Furthermore, the Army invests considerable effort in ensuring civilian equivalency in many of the qualifications and much of the training undertaken throughout a career. While the intent is partially to assist with transition to post-Army life and to recognise the training and skills obtained, an outcome is that it diminishes the exclusivity and uniqueness of a person’s training, education and role in the Army, which are inherent in the six aforementioned characteristics of a profession. Some authors have even noted an emerging ability and potential for roles associated with warfighting, such as security and defence, to be outsourced and contracted, thereby removing notions of a unique purpose, mission and training.[60] Regular professions do not have an equivalency outside of the profession itself, and roles cannot be performed by others, as they maintain an exclusive credentialing and employment monopoly on those who are part of the profession. That is not always the case for Army employment categories, where civilian equivalencies often exist.
The observation that many roles are not necessarily unique to Army leads to a further confounding attribute of Army’s employment model. It is possible to belong to both a regular profession and the profession of arms simultaneously. A person can be a doctor, lawyer, chaplain, teacher, dentist, engineer et cetera within the Army. This requires that a person adheres simultaneously to the membership, credentialing, legislation and values of two professions, which can potentially lead to contradiction and conflict.[61] It also creates an unusual non-reciprocal interdependence. A person can depart membership of one profession, the Army, while remaining in the other indefinitely. But the opposite is not true; if an Army doctor were to leave the medical profession, they could not remain in the Army.[62] Outside of the military, a person cannot, in practice, genuinely belong to two professions at the same time.[63]
Reserve service sits at a particularly uncomfortable junction of the profession of arms because part-time service implies that a person is not always a member of the profession of arms. When they are in other employment (including an alternative profession), in education or even unemployed, the member is not always active in the profession of arms. Indeed, defence legislation details that a person is only a defence member when they are on duty. The rest of the time they are not technically, or even functionally, a member of the profession of arms and undertake their non-Army daily activities without many of the constraints of membership.[64] This temporal nature of service that exists through reserve service does not seem congruent with the characteristics of a regular profession, whereby members are a part of the profession all the time, even when not at work or on duty. Indeed, while times, roles and perceptions have changed regarding reservists, Huntington argued that reservists are not members of the profession of arms.[65] This introduces an issue likely to be uncomfortable for defence leadership: perhaps membership in the profession of arms is applicable only to permanent force members. This is a concept that would be both unpopular and incongruent with the total workforce system.
Occasionally, reserve service, membership of a regular profession, and membership of the profession of arms are awkwardly juxtaposed. For example, an Army reserve medical doctor may be a civilian general practitioner in one instance, an officer in another, and occasionally both when on duty. Such individuals must sometimes adhere to the values and obligations of each profession simultaneously, while at other times they are obliged to observe the requirements of just one (i.e. when not on duty).[66] In such circumstances there is no ADF policy governing which profession takes precedence, which values and ethics are more enforceable over the other (where there is contradiction), or which training and career system has priority. Since most professions are subject to their own legislation, and breaches may result in revocation of membership, it may be an uncomfortable reality that, for an individual who is a member of a regular profession, legislation governing that profession will always take precedence over conflicting defence obligations.[67] The concept that a person could feasibly be in two professions simultaneously, subject to different legislation, values, ethics, credentialing and standards—particularly where membership of one of those professions might only be part-time—would seem to be a counter-thesis to the exclusivity of membership maintained by professions.
Finally, turnover—separation or transition—in the Army suggests that even its members do not necessarily consider themselves part of a lifelong profession. A third of Army members will leave the permanent force shortly after their fourth year of service, a majority will leave before they’ve completed eight years of service, very few will reach Army’s retirement age, and many will not reference their military service after they leave or continue in employment related to their prior military service.[68] An Army career will often represent just a small proportion of a member’s working life, typically less than 10 per cent for those transitioning after four years. Today’s Army places much emphasis on transition out of a military career and towards the pursuit of non-Army employment, a characteristic that would be unique among professions that favour lifelong membership. In contrast, members of regular professions tend to be trained, then employed in that profession in some capacity for their entire adult working life.
Addressing the Deficiency
As service in the Army transitions ever closer towards an occupation, and slowly sheds its institutional characteristics,[69] describing it as part of the profession of arms seems to unintentionally and unnecessarily overstate its actual status. If Army insists on describing itself as a profession, there are several deficiencies that need to be addressed. The most obvious and pressing is to doctrinally define the profession of arms, rather than relying on neo-Hackett historical and vague notions of uniqueness, tradition and belonging. Its characteristics as a profession, vice characteristics of an army, should be detailed and unambiguously explained such that every soldier and officer, past and present, is able to recognise their service in the profession and understand the attributes that differentiate it from other employment, occupations or vocations.[70] In defining the profession of arms, it is necessary that reasons for its deviation from regular professions are explained. It is also necessary to justify why it can still be defined as a profession. Ultimately, every soldier and officer should understand that they are in the profession of arms, what that entails, the reasons for their membership, and the societal obligations on them that arise from being members of the profession.
Secondly, having defined the profession of arms for itself, Army needs to resolve ‘the point of the concept of a profession’ and what it aims to achieve through this designation.[71] It needs to discuss and address questions such as: Why does the description of Army belonging to a profession of arms need to exist? Why is Army not comfortable with simply describing itself as an Army? What does Army gain or achieve in defining itself in the profession of arms? Overall, Army needs to develop an understanding of what is achieved when it describes itself as a profession, what might be lost when it does so, and whether the trade-off will be worth it in the long run.
Finally, Army needs to grapple with part-time membership of the profession of arms, the cessation of membership when Army members transition to civilian life, and the identity conflict in members who belong to multiple professions. It should also be recognised that the profession of arms is unique as the only profession in which many people have only a short-term membership and lose this membership simply by leaving the Army, losing all Army credentials in the process. Reconciling the differences between the profession of arms and regular professions is not trivial and will require deeper thought around the nature and characteristics of the profession of arms.
Conclusion
The Australian Army comprises people whose conduct is professional. The organisation is regulated, and structures and processes are organised. Its members are trained, motivated and disciplined. Yet, while the Army might exhibit some of the prima facie general characteristics of a profession, such as specialised expertise and training, an ethical framework, discipline, strategic responsibilities and identity, there is much nuance that suggests the profession of arms deviates from regular professions in some important criteria. These deviations make the categorisation of the ‘profession of arms’—as an actual profession—less robust than popular rhetoric would suggest.
Of those characteristics that are not aligned to regular professions, the most substantial is the ambiguity around the regular daily public good provided by a standing army, which is even less clear during periods of sustained peace. Australia’s citizens will rarely derive any immediate direct benefit from a standing army most of the time, or at all in their lifetime. This characteristic stands Army apart from any other profession. The requirement of Army to use lethal and violent force, resulting in casualties and destruction of property (including collateral damage), along with its lack of autonomy from government, represents additional substantial and near-irreconcilable differences when compared against traditional and contemporary professions. There are other differences too: the recent use of Army in non-profession-related roles, such as a labour workforce during times of disaster relief and recovery; the lack of uniqueness of many of Army’s employment categories; the non-enduring nature of membership; the concurrency of other professional memberships for some Army members; and the ambiguity around the nature of reserve service. In all of these areas, either the profession of arms would appear unique among professions or its classification as a profession requires further consideration.
Currently, the term ‘profession of arms’ suits a narrative, one that positions the Army as separate from society and implies professionalism in the conduct of its purpose and mission. The concept that Army is its own distinct profession appeals to a sentimental and traditional notion of service that provides those who have passed through its ranks with a unique point of difference from others in society. However, the differences between the Army and other professions are substantial and may challenge Army’s licence to call itself a profession. It is not obvious that the term is meaningful or necessary, in lieu of simply belonging to the Army, with its own unique customs and traditions.
The idea that there may not be a literal ‘profession of arms’ should not be seen as diminishing the service of current members or veterans. For the most part, it makes no difference to the average soldier or officer whether they define themselves as a member of the profession of arms or simply as a member of Army. However, if the term is to endure it requires effort from Army to define its meaning and boundaries along with addressing the points of difference with other professions. This may result in Army developing its own professional criteria that are distinct and different from other professions, requiring their own definitional framework. As it stands, the lack of definition, and the many points of difference from other professions, may lead to a conclusion that the term ‘profession of arms’ is simply an artefact that is useful to set the Army aside from society but might not accurately reflect the realities of service in the Army. It is plausible that for the Australian Army ‘a firm definition of profession is both unnecessary and dangerous’.[72]
Endnotes
[1] For example: Simon Stuart, ‘Chief of Army Symposium Keynote Speech: The Human Face of Battle and the State of the Army Profession’, 12 September 2024, at: https://www.army.gov.au/news-and-events/speeches-and-transcripts/2024-09-12/chief-army-symposium-keynote-speech-human-face-battle-and-state-army-profession.
[2] In Don M Snider and Gayle L Watkins, ‘The Future of Army Professionalism: A Need for Renewal and Redefinition’, Parameters 30, no. 3 (2000): 6, the authors discuss the transition of the US Army towards organisational concepts. In Samuel English , Phillip Hoglin and Alice Paton, ‘Is the ADF an Institution or Organisation?’, The Forge, 14 May 2024, at: https://theforge.defence.gov.au/article/adf-institution-or-organisation, the authors outline that the ADF increasingly exhibits the traits of an occupation rather than an institution.
[3] John W Hackett, The Profession of Arms (London: Sidgwick & Jackson 1983 [1962]), p. 3.
[4] For example, Samuel P Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil–Military Relations (Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (New York: The Free Press, 1960).
[5] The works of Huntington and Janowitz feature regularly in debate and discussion about the profession of arms.
[6] Australian Defence Force, ADF Capstone Doctrine—Australian Military Power (ADF-C-0), Edition 2 (Canberra, 2024), p. 69, at: https://www.acmc.gov.au/defence-doctrine-documents/adf-capstone-doctrine-australian-military-power.
[7] United States Army, The Army Profession (ADRP1) (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2015), at: https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/adrp1.pdf, defined the army profession as ‘a unique vocation of experts certified in the ethical design, generation, support, and application of landpower, serving under civilian authority and entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people’.
[8] Australian Defence Force, ADF Philosophical Doctrine—Military Ethics (ADF-P-0), Edition 1 (Canberra, 2021), p. 3, at: https://theforge.defence.gov.au/military-ethics/adf-philosophical-doctrine-military-ethics.
[9] Craig Orme, Beyond Compliance: Professionalism, Trust and Capability in the Australian Profession of Arms: Report of the Australian Defence Force Personal Conduct Review (Canberra: ADF, 2011), para 57.
[10] Mark Gilchrist, ‘What Defines the Profession of Arms?’, Land Power Forum, 8 August 2016.
[11] Commonwealth of Australia, Defence Act 1903, version C2025C00176 (C82), 21 February 2025; Commonwealth of Australia, Defence Regulation 2016, version F2024C01048 (C07) 14 October 2024.
[12] Simon Stuart, ‘The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession’, address to the Australian National University National Security College, 25 November 2024, at: https://www.army.gov.au/news-and-events/speeches-and-transcripts/2024-11-25/challenges-australian-army-profession.
[13] Ibid. Stuart also makes this observation: ‘How evident is the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Australian Army today? I believe we would elicit a remarkably wide range of answers if we asked a thousand of our fellow Australian citizens this question.’
[14] For example, the Australian Army Journal call for submissions on the state of the army profession, and commitments outlined in Marcus Schultz, ‘Australian Army Chief Prioritises Trust, the Study of War and Military professionalism’, The Strategist, 20 September 2024, at: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australian-army-chief-prioritises-trust-the-study-of-war-and-military-professionalism/; along with speeches such as Stuart’s ‘The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession’.
[15] AM Carr-Saunders and PA Wilson, The Professions, 2nd Edition (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1964).
[16] Ibid., p. 490.
[17] The Professions briefly mentions that the army claims professional status, but the army has been purposely omitted from its study. Ibid., p. 3.
[18] Ibid., p. 4.
[19] Some of these are summarised in Alan Tapper and Stephan Millett, ‘Revisiting the Concept of a Profession’, Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations 13 (2015): 1–18.
[20] Justine Rogers and Dimity Kingsford Smith, Professions (Professional Standards Council, n.d.), at: https://www.psc.gov.au/research-library/professions/what-profession.
[21] But it will be missing many professions due to the voluntary nature of membership.
[22] George Beaton summarises the proliferation of professions, including admission to the category of a profession. George Beaton, Why professionalism Is Still Relevant (Australian Council of Professions, 2010), at” https://www.professions.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Why_Professionalism_is_still_Relevant_Beaton_WIP.pdf.
[23] These include Andrew Abbott, The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988); Eliot Freidson, Professionalism: The Third Logic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Margali Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977); Harold L Wilensky, ‘The Professionalization of Everyone?’ American Journal of Sociology 70, no. 2 (1964): 137–158.
[24] Rogers and Kingsford Smith, Professions.
[25] Brad West and Cate Carter, The New Australian Military Sociology: Antipodean Perspectives, Vol. 2 (Berghahn Books, 2024), pp. 11–40, at: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.11930988.
[26] For example, Risa Brooks, ‘Beyond Huntington: US Military Professionalism Today’, Parameters 51, no. 1 (2021): 55–77, reflecting the theories of Huntington, Janowitz and Segal.
[27] For a good synopsis, see table 1 in Tapper and Millett, ‘Revisiting the Concept of a Profession’.
[28] However, there is substantial debate about the extent of professional mastery, as examined in detail by Michael Evans, Vincible Ignorance: Reforming Australian Professional Military Education for the Demands of the Twenty-First Century (Department of Defence, 2023).
[29] ADF, Military Ethics (ADF-P-0).
[30] ‘Values and Behaviours’, Department of Defence (website), at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/who-we-are/values-behaviours (accessed 20 March 2025).
[31] ‘Defence Mission’, Department of Defence (website), at: https://www.defence.gov.au/about/who-we-are/defence-mission (accessed 20 March 2025).
[32] ‘Our Mission’, Australian Army (website), at: https://www.army.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-mission (accessed 20 March 2025).
[33] Department of Defence, National Defence Strategy 2024 (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2024); Department of Defence, National Defence: Defence Strategic Review (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2023), p. 42, recommendation 2.
[34] Huntington, The Soldier and the State, pp. 8–10.
[35] Richard Swain and Albert Pierce, The Armed Forces Officer (Washington DC: National Defense University Press, 2017), p. 18, at: https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Books/Armed-Forces-Officer/Article/1153508/chapter-2-the-profession-of-arms/.
[36] Orme, Beyond Compliance, para 72.
[37] Mick Ryan, ‘Mastering the Profession of Arms, Part I: The Enduring Nature’, War on the Rocks, 8 February 2017,
[38] Stuart, ‘The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession’.
[39] Categorisation such as this is described by Mike Saks, ‘Defining a Profession: The Role of Knowledge and Expertise’, Professions and Professionalism 2, no. 1 (2012), as the ‘taxonomic approach’ to defining professions. Arguably, the taxonomies suggested by various authors for the Australian Army are retrofitted and self-fulfilling in their applicability to the army-in-being.
[40] In his seminal work, Harold L. Wilensky, ‘The Professionalization of Everyone?’ American Journal of Sociology 70, no. 2 (1964): 137–58, suggests that common criteria are less important in the definition of profession than ‘autonomous expertise and the service ideal’.
[41] Saks, ‘Defining a Profession’, pp. 2–3.
[42] In this context, ‘regular’ professions is taken to mean all professions other than the profession of arms.
[43] Swain and Pierce, The Armed Forces Officer, p. 18.
[44] Jill Sargent Russell, ‘Why You’re Not #Professionals’, The Strategy Bridge, 12 January 2015, at: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2015/1/12/why-youre-not-professionals.
[45] Pauline Shanks Kaurin, ‘Questioning Military #Professionalism’, The Strategy Bridge, 22 January 2015, at: https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2016/2/1/questioning-military-professionalism .
[46] Donald S Travis , ‘Democracy, Security, and the Problems with Labelling the Military as a Profession’, presentation, 2018 IUS Canada Conference Ottawa, Ontario, 20 October 2018.
[47] Tamir Libel, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Study of the Military Profession: From the Sociology of the Military Profession to the Sociology of Security Expertise’, in Rethinking Military Professionalism for the Changing Armed Forces (Springer International Publishing, 2020).
[48] Brendan Nelson, The Role of Government and Parliament in the Decision to Go to War, Papers on Parliament No. 63 (Parliament of Australia, 2015), at: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Publications_and_resources/Papers_and_research/Papers_on_Parliament_and_other_resources/Papers_on_Parliament/63. Currently, committing Australia to war is considered by the National Security Council before providing advice and recommendations to Cabinet.
[49] Snider and Watkins, ‘The Future of Army Professionalism’.
[50] There are several sovereign states without a standing army, including Andorra, Grenada, Solomon Islands, Costa Rica, Iceland and Panama. ‘Countries Without a Military 2025’, World Population Review, at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-a-military.
[51] For example, Carl von Clausewitz, On War, translated by JJ Graham (Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions, 1997), ‘War is merely the continuation of policy by other means’ (p. 24) and ‘The consequences for theory’ (p. 28).
[52] Richard Davis, ‘The Art of Pacifism in the Conduct of War,’ The Forge, 21 December 2021.
[53] Using opinions on defence spending as a (weak) proxy for public scepticism about the military, a recent survey indicated that while half of the respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, 7 per cent thought it too big. The same survey indicated that only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending. Richard Dunley, Miranda Booth and Tristan Moss, ‘Only a Third of Australians Support Increasing Defence Spending: New Research’, University of New South Wales (website), 23 April 2025), at: https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/04/-third-of-australians-support-increasing-defence-spend. In the lead-up to the 2025 federal election, VoteCompass found that ‘52.9 per cent of respondents believe Australia should spend much or somewhat more on its military’, but over 12 per cent believed less should be spent. Claudia Williams and Isabella Higgins, ‘Data Shows Shift in Views Towards Australia’s Relationship with the United States and China’, ABC News, 29 April 2025, at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-30/relationship-with-china-united-states-vote-compass-election/105211854.
[54] Even in considering more recent tangible contributions of the Army towards disaster relief, roles for which the Army is not necessarily structured, resourced or trained, it is notable that the Army was not used in its mission capacity but more as a federally funded labour-hire service. The Defence Strategic Review appears to resent this type of role for the military.
[55] Described variously as the ‘management of violence’ by authors such as Huntington (in The Soldier and the State) and the ‘ordered application of force’ by Hackett (in The Profession of Arms).
[56] National Defence Strategy, p. 25. In reflecting the views of Evans (in Vincible Ignorance), Stuart notes the erosion of Army’s jurisdiction and the diffusion of the roles of soldiers.
[57] Defence Strategic Review, p. 41, 5.5.
[58] Australian Defence Force, Directorate of Workforce Analysis, Australian Defence Organisation Dashboard (1 May 2025) [official], internal document. Around 42 per cent of current Army strength are defined as employed in roles that are largely unique to Army with limited non-military equivalency, such as combat and intelligence roles. A further 12 per cent are in roles where there is substantial overlap with non-military employment in aviation and communications, and the remaining 46 per cent are employed in roles where there is direct non-military equivalence and likely civilian credentialling such as logistics, health, engineering, maintenance and administration.
[59] That they use their skills in a uniquely army environment does not override or negate the observation that these members are credentialled and employable in these skills outside the Army and that, if their credentials are revoked, they cannot be employed in that skill within the Army.
[60] Described as ‘security expertise’ in Evans, Vincible Ignorance, p. 25.
[61] For example, Defence chaplains may face conflict when the values and doctrines of their church are not congruent with those of Defence or when legislated requirements of certified/accredited professions conflict with the delivery of combat capability (such as health and safety), requiring legislated exemptions.
[62] In appointing some members to the ADF, the Chief of the Defence Force establishes a condition, under section 12(4) of the Defence Regulation 2016, that a person must maintain the appropriate professional credentials for the employment category into which they have been recruited. Failure to do can result in termination under section 24(3)(b)(i).
[63] Huntington, ‘The Soldier and the State’, p. 12, argues that members of these ‘auxiliary’ professions do not belong to the profession of arms in its capacity as a professional body.
[64] Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth), version C2024C00861 (C37), 11 December 2024, definition of ‘defence member’.
[65] Huntington, ‘The Soldier and the State’, p. 17.
[66] For example, see Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (2020), at: https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Policies/Code-of-conduct.aspx (accessed 9 June 2025).
[67] For example, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), section 178—‘National Board may take action’, at: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2009-045 (accessed 9 June 2025).
[68] Australian Defence Force, ‘Defence Monthly Workforce Report as at 1 April 2025’, 20, ADF Retention Profiles [Official: Sensitive] internal document.
[69] English, Hoglin and Paton, ‘Is the ADF an Institution or Organisation?’.
[70] A sound starting point would be to consider the ‘four unique features that set military professionalism apart from civil society’ described in Evans, Vincible Ignorance, Part III.
[71] This concept is discussed in Tapper and Millett, ‘Revisiting the Concept of a Profession’.
[72] Echoing the sentiment of Abbott, The System of Professions, p. 318.