Professional Journals: Then and Now

Behind "John Wayne at his Writing Desk"

I have been working with historical professional journals for nearly two decades, but one of the great things about writing is that each new project causes you to look at even familiar subjects in new ways. Such was the case with the recent Modern War Institute article, “John Wayne at His Writing Desk: Lessons from the Origins of the Army’s Professional Journals.” Drafting that article caused me to think deeply about all of the requirements for vibrant professional discourse. What can the army as an institution do to foster writing? What are the general conditions outside of the army’s control that help or harm writing? And to what extent has technology changed these factors today?

As the article describes, the early professional journals were more than just publications. They were founded as part of larger associations that addressed both supply and demand; a group of like-minded individuals came together to form an organization that stimulated conversation, allowed members to share their ideas by correspondence or in-person meetings, and supported research, as well as publishing the results. These associations, thus, provided both a “hot spot” of creators feeding off of each other’s efforts and a “watering hole” to which everyone in the community could go for quality content.

Insights from the late-nineteenth century

How did the nineteenth-century army achieve this? It was not through direct efforts by senior leaders to “make” the army write. The article examines several developments in professional writing over the course of four decades. By far the least successful of these initiatives was when in the 1890s the army’s senior general mandated that all but the most senior officers write an essay each year. The results were not good. “A constipation of ideas in a flux of words,” as one participant put it.

This is not to say that senior leaders have no role in fostering professional dialog. Indeed, they were integral to the success in the first two decades discussed in the article—the 1870s and 1880s. In those cases, senior leaders provided support to self-organizing groups of motivated junior and mid-career individuals through means ranging from leading by example through writing their own articles. In short, “big army” did best when it empowered rather than dictated.

This insight, however, raises the question of what conditions were conducive to the formation of these “hot spots”? The early journals grew out of a combination of geographic and functional concentration; groups of individuals contending with common problems seems to have been a necessary, though not sufficient, condition. The most reliable hot spots were branch schools with several key ingredients:

• faculty creating content for courses,

• students with the time to reflect and write,

• everyone engaged in thinking about common problems, and

• libraries to support research.

Clearly, personal connections and physical proximity can still be enormously beneficial. Beyond the army’s schools, the example of 1-8 Cavalry demonstrates the power of unit-based hot spots that not only encourage critical thought and writing, but who also set up the support structures to enable aspiring authors to enter the game. Standing in formation next to someone who is publishing is a powerful motivator and provides easy access to encouragement and practical advice about the process. Physical communities, whether units or schools, will continue to be important.

Applied today

Yet as a Gen Xer who is somewhat ambivalent about social media, even I can appreciate the ability of on-line groups to form professional bonds deeper than just sharing memes. “MilTwitter” has exposed me to the work of some outstanding authors, allowed thoughtful exchanges, and even led to some writing projects. (Indeed, this article began with a direct message on X.) I am personally undecided about how much the virtual will supplant the actual in creating hot spots but happily it is not a zero-sum game. The two are additive and reinforcing. Almost certainly, there a number of rising leaders who are watching and learning from examples like LTC Jay Ireland in 1-8 Cavalry. Moreover, through social media, he is likely inspiring someone to write who does not happen to be in such a unit.

I do worry, however, that virtual hot spots will stimulate content supply, but crowd out common watering holes on the demand side. If all our professional discourse takes place on X or the comments of a LinkedIn post, then small communities benefit at the expense of the larger whole. Such exchanges are fun and instantly gratifying, but without the enduring benefits of sustained contemplation. Although few people enjoy the long hours that go into a published article, you do get what you pay for. For the author, painstaking revision produces better thought than a moment’s “hot take.” For the reader, truly important ideas are worth revisiting. Threads and comments are ephemeral, even for those lucky enough to see them at the time, which is inevitably only a fraction of the many who would benefit.

This is why I am so hopeful for the Harding Project’s work to improve the accessibility, utility, and quality of the branch journals and bulletins. Whatever your military community, it is important that we all have some place to go that we know everyone else in our “herd” will also frequent at some point.

J.P. Clark is a retired army officer and associate professor at the U.S. Army War College.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.