Semioclast

According to LTC Bob Bateman, even in the “Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell” culture of the U.S. military (a culture that still struggles with social conventions that have emerged since the 1950’s), the man-hug is gaining popularity:

The realization of a definite shift in behavior did not really hit me until late October this year. But in hindsight, as is normal with an epiphany, I could look into my mental rear-view mirror and see the outlines. What precipitated my thoughts was that inside of the space of a single week I received (and I must admit, somewhat awkwardly returned) three hugs from brother officers. One of them was a full colonel.

The other two were generals.

What’s interesting, however, isn’t simply the spontaneous eruption of paralinguistic homosociality, it is the message implicit in the procedural rhetoric behind the gesture:

So why the sudden change in the Pentagon? Why has our culture made this leap? As I said, it took me a little while to puzzle this one out. I think I have it now. There are certain rules that seem to apply, and I should note that I am speaking only of what I have seen, and that is only within the Army.

Rule #1: A hug is only appropriate between two men who have not seen each other in at least a year. It only occurs on the first meeting of those two after such a gap.

Rule #2: During that period, one or both of them have been to combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither has died or was crippled beyond repair. Both now know too many who have been so.

Rule #3: The hug occurs in conjunction with a forearm gripped handshake. It is brief. Right arm in shake, left arm over the other man’s shoulder, two or three hearty slaps or punches to the back. No more. Release. The sentiment is as direct as the action: “I am glad you are not dead.”

In other words, what changed us was war.

That seems to make sense.

via Danger Room.