“Hungry, Weary and Horny”:

Joking and Jesting Among Israel’s Combat Reserves

Liora Sion and Eyal Ben-Ari

Israel affairs 2005: 11(4) 656-72

Abstract

While most sociological and anthropological work carried out in regard to the Israel Defence

Forces has focused on regulars, this article provides an inside look into Israel’s combat

reserves. The analysis is carried out through an examination of the place of humor and

joking in the social and organizational life of two different infantry units: a high-grade unit

deemed equivalent to the army’s regulars and a unit of older troops who carry out less

dangerous missions. We argue that reserve duty involves entering a special behavioural

frame that is governed by rules different from those of everyday (civilian) life and that these

are also special times that offer opportunities for exploring many of the problematic issues

that the men face. Humor, in turn, provides fruitful entry points to an analysis of the taboo

themes and the muted conflicts of such frameworks. Thus we show how various kinds of

humor are related to core issue of socialization, cohesion, motivation, the danger of military

work, and images of masculinity.

Introduction

The aphorism used as the title of this article -- "weary, hungry and horny" -- is frequently

employed by Israeli soldiers to characterize their experience upon entering reserve duty. In

its comic tone it encapsulates the main features of this military experience: reserve duty as a

special time/space separated from civilian life; the different norms of behavior and

expression allowed while on duty; and the various hardships and difficulties associated with

army life. In its bawdy emphasis on descent into basic physiological "essentials" -- hunger,

fatigue and sexual needs -- it also hints at the masculine aspect of soldiering in all-male

groups. Finally, it underscores the self-reflective commentary that is an ever-present part of

military life, the commonality of this experience for many (Jewish) Israelis, and humor itself

as a major "definer" of the reserve experience. In this paper we examine the place of humor

in the social and organizational life of Israeli soldiers serving as combat reserves. By humor

we refer both to joking relations comprising the ongoing witticisms, banter and pranks that

form part of the soldiers’ informal social life and joke telling that entails those more

constructed events in which series of jokes are told. We carry out our analysis through a

focus on two battalions of infantry reservists that represent different kinds of combat soldiers

in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF): high quality troops that are considered equivalent to the

detachments of the permanent forces (the standing army); and older soldiers of lower

fighting quality who are given lighter tasks and missions.

In both popular imaginings and academic treatises, the main images of the IDF

center on young men during the compulsory term of service in combat roles or on senior

commanders who stand at the head of large formations of forces. In reality, however, a good

part of the IDF's soldiers are reservists, troops either mobilized for routine assignments or

activated in times of crisis. Although undergoing changes, reservists still comprise the bulk

of Israel's forces1 and their use is aimed at solving the manpower problems of a relatively

small population facing a situation of protracted conflict2. Yet despite its centrality, reserve

service and reserve units have, apart from scattered sources, received scant scholarly

attention. Thus, for example, while Lieblich3 interviewed men who were reservists it was their

term of compulsory enlistment that interested her. Ben-Ari4 investigated a unit of reservists

but wrote about models of soldiering common to all parts of the IDF. Lomsky-Feder5 who

also interviewed soldiers who were already reservists, was interested primarily in how the

1973 war that they had experienced in their compulsory term of duty had an effect on their

lives. Helman6 for her part shows how what has been created in Israel are not only a

plethora of face-to-face communities of men who have served together, but perhaps more

importantly, an imagined community of men who have as such served in IDF. The

implication of this situation is that the community of strangers while based on face-to-face

groups tends to subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) radiate outward to wider social issues

such as the exclusion of women from full social participation.

Our contribution aims to provide an inside view of the social life of reserve units by

stressing the special character of reserve duty. Our argument is that going on reserve duty

involves entering a special behavioural frame that is governed by rules different from those

of everyday life. These circumstances allow many reservists to display "irregular" public

behaviours like cursing and swearing, belching and farting, urinating and spitting and talking

dirty all in public. But these are also special times that offer special oopportunities for

exploring many of the problematic issues – related to military service and their civilian lives –

that the men face.

Why humor? Scholars of the armed forces have long noted the importance of

studying the informal side of military units in order to understand such issues as leadership,

small group behavior or performance in combat. Along these lines a sequence of studies of

the military have focused on such interrelated phenomena as primary groups7, buddy

relations8 and friendship9. This is also true of the Israeli army where such issues as the

effectiveness of small groups10 or leadership11 have been examined. At the same time,

however, with few exceptions12, relatively little scholarly attention has been directed to the

role of expressive behaviors in the workings of military organizations. Humor, as we have

come to understand, is an integral part of the life of any group or organization13. Moreover,

drollery and amusement often provide fruitful entry points to analyses of taboo themes and

the muted conflicts of such frameworks. Thus our reasoning is that because of the centrality

of the army for many Jewish-Israelis and because of the importance of expressive behavior

and humor within this experience then it should be studied for the insights it may provide.

The Two Units

Like all such reserve units in the IDF, so the battalions we studied are composed

exclusively of men. The battalions are frameworks characterized by permanent membership

and structure of roles, and upon mobilization they are usually recruited as whole units.

Socially, they are characterized by relatively high cohesion, primary groups and a certain

sense of a shared past. Like many reserve units the general atmosphere in the battalions

tends towards the informal. While there is a clear divide between officers and the rest of the

troops, rank is relatively de-emphasized. For example, everyone is called by his or her first

name or nicknames. All of the soldiers and officers serve under similar conditions: the same

bunks and barracks, the same provisions and canteen services, similar clothes and

equipment, and approximately the same kind of furloughs. This relative egalitarianism is

notable since the battalions are quite heterogeneous in terms of (Jewish) ethnic groupings

(for example, more than half the soldiers and officers are from Middle-Eastern backgrounds)

and religious affiliation (they have sizeable groups of observant Jews). Occupationally, the

men come from a variety of walks of life: students and garage mechanics, managers and

store owners, farmers and lawyers, government clerks and salesmen, shopkeepers and

electricians, and (house) painters and technicians.

The higher quality unit was studied by Ben-Ari14. According to official designations

and to the self-perception of the men, the unit belongs to one of the army's select infantry

brigades implying that it is allocated serious combat and operational missions, and that it is

interchangeable with units from the regular force. The soldiers and officers who comprise

this unit volunteered for one of the 'crack' infantry forces during their compulsory term of

service and upon completion of that term were assigned to this reserve unit. The fact that so

many of the missions of the unit require intense physical activity, means that by their thirties

most of the soldiers are shifted out either to the headquarters company of the battalion or to

units populated by older soldiers. The second unit, studied by Sion, comprises older infantry

troops and soldiers who served in the engineering, armored and (even) quartermaster’s

corps during their compulsory term of service. Upon completion of that term these soldiers

received short training as infantrymen. As a consequence, this unit is usually allocated

missions involving guard duty or patrols along what are considered to be less dangerous

borders.

As in all of the IDF's reserve units, a variety of informal activities form the social glue

linking the unit's soldiers together. Stories, anecdotes, and "tall" tales are told and retold in a

variety of groupings. In the higher quality unit, favorite subjects include combat experiences

in Lebanon, episodes from the men's compulsory term of service, stints of training

throughout the country, and periods of reserve duty in the Intifada or facing Syria and

Lebanon. In the other battalion, favorite subjects are a few stories about the first Intifada,

and accounts about "Mammy" a prostitute that purportedly joined them and was "available"

during one of tours in a fortified emplacement.

Entertainment and Stress Release

For all of the romantization and glorification of the military in popular culture, army life

is often boring and strenuous. In particular, some of the tasks carried out by infantry soldiers

are like jobs carried out by blue-collar workers. Our first proposal is thus that humor, and

more generally expressive behaviors, allows troops a release from the boredom and

tediousness that mark their daily lives. Lyman15 suggests that jokes emerge around people's

dependence on organizations because they allow the expression of dissatisfaction.

Consequently, it is not surprising that soldiers constantly comment about such themes as

living together in crowded circumstances, the quality of military food, and being dirty. Take

the following rather recurrent examples. In one of the units, a soldier opens a can of corn

taken from the field rations. Upon noticing that the corn has dried up for lack of liquids, he

quips that the can "must be from [the war in] 1973". During a battalion exercise in Israel's

southern desert, an officer from the higher quality unit observes: "On the radio they said that

it's 40 degrees [centigrade] in the shade; the problem is that there is no shade". In the same

unit a standard joke went along the following lines: "How do you know which is the correct

side of underwear in the army? According to the colors: yellow in the front and brown at the

back".

The combination of the close proximity and special "allowances" of reserve duty leads to

constant celebration of farts, burps and pissing in public. For instance, when a soldier

urinated and farted next to a group of his friends, someone asked: "What? Has the live-fire

exercise already started?" Once in the flow of things, soldiers often enjoy mischief for its own

sake. This activity – in which the center of interest is process rather than goal – is what

Mulkay16 describes as a continual and pleasurable activity in which participants often

become increasingly animated when prolonged. The process is not designed to achieve

some end but is voluntarily elaborated in patterned ways. Indeed, it difficult to get across the

ubiquity of such activities in military life. Very often, lively impromptu sessions are initiated,

and a sentence is never completed; the conversation may jump from one topic to another

with no apparent linking theme; topics will be taken up at the whim of each speaker and in

such rapid succession that an outsider may well be unable to catch even the general drift.

The game is played in a succession of quick timely reactions, interspersed with jokes which

prompt immediate boisterous laughter. Mulkay17 suggests that such humor helps us to

recuperate from tensions because it is a source of enjoyment from which we emerge

refreshed.

But how does this humor work? From an organizational point of view, soldiers carve

out for themselves a "senseless" enclave for their sheer enjoyment of the activity. But

because the activity is labeled by commanders as "senseless," the soldiers are free to carry

it out without much interference and it is perceived as not threatening the every-day order of

the unit. Such humor also allows soldiers a measure of control over their lives by permitting

them to complain and criticize the conditions of their service. Finally, the sheer physicality

involved in laughter -- involving changes in breathing patterns, explosive exhalations, and

vigorous thigh slapping -- enables the bodily discharge of strains and stresses18. In our case,

the release afforded by specific jokes fuses with the release from the more general drudgery

of army life.

Socialization

But such an interpretation is not enough. As Coser19 suggests, humor is also a

means of socialization. It is in this respect that the special conditions of reserve duty are

important. While formally speaking, reserve units have the same organizational structure as

comparable standing units, they differ in their informal dynamics. Upon entry into reserve

units troops need to be subtly re-socialized because in such units command relations tend to

be based more on trust than on authority; the internal cadence of action tends to be slower:

there a greater stress on operational (rather than formal) discipline; and there is greater

freedom for personal expression.

In the lower-grade unit, for instance, one finds a subtle pressure not to "raise" the

professional expectations of commanders (like self-inflicted quotas in blue-collar jobs). For

example, as soldiers are not expected to carry their rifles with them all of the time, incoming

soldiers who do so (as is required in units of the standing army) are made fun of. Because

they do not want officers to demand such conduct from them, seasoned soldiers phrase their

comments in humorous terms so that they always have the excuse that they "were only

joking." In contrast, in the combat-oriented unit soldiers are expected to constantly have their

rifles with them, and when they do not, they are mocked. On one occasion, when a beginner

(thinking that reserve units are easy on discipline) arrived in the mess hall without his rifle,

the immediate reaction was "Are you a Tzadalnik [a member of the Southern Lebanese

militia supported until 2000 by Israel and considered lower grade]? Where is your rifle?" In

this manner he was informed in clear terms about his peers' professional expectations.

Along similar lines, humor is often used as a mechanism of social control. When the

lower-grade battalion held a party to mark the end of their operational deployment, soldiers

were asked to pay a small sum. Later, when an officer did not pay, no one confronted him

directly. Rather, at the height of the party another officer shouted playfully at one of the

drivers for not paying up "as if" he was the one to be censured. This driver was a good

choice because it was obvious that he had organized the party and collected funds. This

playful interaction was actually directed at the individual who had not paid up. An instance in

the younger battalion involved poking fun at the deputy commander of a company who had

"microphonetis": an illness that strikes people using the signals net and compelling them to

speak ceaselessly. By relating "information" about this "illness" in public forums in which he

was present, the professional ideal of giving orders in short crisp messages was made clear

to him and reinforced among other members of the unit.

Frequently it is soldiers who socialize new officers who have just graduated from the

regular army and need to learn what is demanded of reserve soldiers. When a new

commander in the older unit did not get along with the troops, he was designated "Mr.

pressure". In this manner the infantrymen signaled his lack of professionalism (via his lack of

self-control) and the fact that he was too ardent with them. In the same vein, obeying orders

"just" a bit too slowly, making funny faces during briefings, or answering commanders in

exaggerated tones contest the goal-oriented activities of the military and signifies the power

of troops over their commanders. Joking is ideally suited for such covert communications

because normally a person is not held responsible for what he does in jest to the same

degree that he would be for a serious gesture20. To reiterate, because humor is understood

to be "non-serious," jokers can be critical without being held accountable for their

expressions.

There is often an unstated tension between officers in regard to promotion since for

many of them, advancement up the ranks is a primary motivating factor. But because

officers are dependent upon each other's cooperation, they stand in relations that involve

both conjunction and disjunction. In the combat-oriented battalion wisecracks about deputies

"breathing down" their superiors' necks were a constant feature of jokes between officers. To

provide a concrete example, the Deputy Battalion Commander was kidded by one company

commander about the white sweat marks that the former always had on his shirt under his

arms. The company commander suggested that the deputy actually prepares these shirts at

home so as to create an impression of working hard.

Cohesion

Scholars have long noted that cohesion is important for the accomplishment of

military missions21. Accordingly, commanders in both units commented about the importance

of creating an ambience of fellowship in order to induce soldiers to serve willingly and to

assure the performance of assignments. Humor, in this respect, is one of the most important

factors assuring the cohesiveness of military units. A good example is a song composed by

some soldiers and NCOs a company in the higher-grade unit. Sung to the melody of the

Beatles' "Yellow Submarine" the tune they sang was called "We all sit in a fucking batashit

[armed patrol vehicle]". In this simple ditty they expressed the difficulty and drudgery of

patrolling, made fun of themselves, and did so together as "one voice".

Shared aggression towards outsiders or atypical group members through humor is a

primary way by the group may overcome internal tensions and assert its solidarity and

boundaries22. A good example involves the practice that Shalit23 translates as the

"supplementation of equipment" (hashlamat tsiyud). "Supplementation" implies that it is

acceptable for members of a unit to steal – food, ammunition or clothes – from other units as

long as the theft is seen to contribute to the group. Because such "supplementation" is

defined as "not-serious" it is often designated as "merely pranks." Aggression towards

"internal others" is often directed at weaker individuals. Thus for example, while watching

pornographic movies in the higher-grade unit, one man was used as an object for the

displacement of the men's uncomfortableness. He was constantly badgered for his "opinion"

about such things as the techniques used by the actors or the size of male and female

genitals appearing on the screen. By diverting their embarrassment the men could watch

pornographic films together as a group of males.

Building cohesion, however, is not only carried out through aggression directed at

weak individuals. Many (if not most) jokes involving aggression "rotate" between the group's

members. In other words, part of the process by which a good atmosphere is created

involves a constant give and take. Typical examples entailed good-natured comments about

the cultivation of paunches: "Yes, you seem to be growing well; growing sideways." In the

younger force, a soldier was kidded about the little potbelly he has been acquiring between

stints of duty. In the older outfit, a soldier poked fun at himself: "My wife takes out my dark

hairs so that I will look older; my lover takes out my white hair so that I will look younger. No

wonder I am bald." In the other unit, much fun was made of the communications' officer's

new earring and the intelligence officer suggested that he be careful, "At night the earring

might damage the night-sight equipment."

Jokes about the young age of incoming troops formed a means to initiate them into

groups. When the mother of the twenty-five year personnel officer who was well liked in the

older force phoned and inquired about the floods in Israel's southern desert, the unit's

deputy commander reassured her that everything was fine and that he even ate his lunch

very well. The phone call initiated a series of age related quips such as whether he is

allowed to drink alcohol or suggestions that they feed him like a baby by "flying" a fork to his

mouth like an airplane. Pranks are patterned in a similar way. A common gag found in both

units involved approaching the driver of a vehicle and telling him that you had a problem with

a spare tire. When the driver would inquire as to why you were telling him about this

problem, the answer would be that you had taken the spare tire from his vehicle. Not only

were such pranks invariably formulated and taken in a light-hearted manner, but the fact that

the "target" alternated between all of the group's members assured the continued

maintenance of comradeship.

Along similar lines, in both units we found numerous quips about people being anti-

social. For example, as one man noisily consumed halva during a live-fire exercise in the

higher grade unit, nearby soldiers said "if you eat alone, you die alone; you are a social

loner.” Similarly, fun was made of archetypal IDF values such the "after-me” ethos of

leadership24. A joke we found in both battalions went along the following line: when waiting

to sign up for equipment, to eat, or to enter a room one individual would turn to a person

standing next to him and inquire: "Do you know what "after-me" (akharai) means in the

army? It means you sign up/eat/enter "after me"."

Motivation

Humor was expressly linked by our informants to motivation. For example, in the

older battalion several soldiers noted that once they had entered reserve duty, humor was a

way to "flow" with things: one does not necessarily want to come to do "one's duty" but once

there you enjoy yourself. Commanders seemed to allow great leeway for humor along with

some alcohol, pornographic movies, parties and short trips around areas of deployment.

They often observed that humor was extremely important for motivating their men to serve.

Time and again we were told that if they succeeded in bringing the men to one or two stints

of duty, soldiers would "integrate" and continue serving in the future. This preoccupation with

motivation reflects a problematic aspect of reserve service that has recently emerged in

Israel. Given the social climate in the country, it is no longer taken for granted that men will

serve in reserve duty: some populations (like the ultra-orthodox) are seen to be shirking their

responsibility, and even committed men may feel that they have "done their duty" during

their compulsory term of service or after a few years in the reserves25.

A closely related element involves something that we witnessed in the older unit.

Here there were soldiers who publicly celebrated stealing watermelons from fields, or fish

from fish pools near their areas of deployment and consuming them with members of their

units. The fact that it is these soldiers who carried out their reserve duty every year tells us

about the importance of such duty not only in terms of ideology but about its attractions as a

site for constructing solidarity and social cohesion and as time away from home when it is

legitimate to celebrate masculinity and male grouping.

There are a number of features of reserve units that exacerbate this situation. One,

the fact that the men meet only once or twice a year, means that cohesion is not a "given"

but has to be worked hard at to be achieved. Two, compared to units of the regular army,

the relative heterogeneity of the forces (in terms of age, occupation, and military

background) further suggests a need to create bases of commonality. Three, at different

stages of their lives, soldiers are pulled away from duty by different civilian concerns (such

as study, work or the birth of children). Finally, the high personnel turnover found in infantry

units brought about by the physical demands of missions, implies that there is constant

inflow of people that have to be socialized into the formal and informal rules of the unit.

These features thus underscore the importance of creating a "good atmosphere" as a major

factor motivating men to serve.

Black Humor and Failing Bodies

The analysis up to this point could suit many organizations. The distinguishing

property of military organizations is the kind of environments they are trained to perform in:

combat. At the risk of stating the obvious, let us emphasize that what "interests" soldiers

most of all is the localized, violent encounter of two armed organizations26. Accordingly,

because humor allows an exploration of troubling and worrying issues, one often finds that it

is a prime site in and around which apprehensions about death and danger appear.

Moreover, it is not surprising that black humor appears much more often in the higher-grade

unit because it is normally assigned more dangerous missions. Take a few examples, during

a briefing in an exercise, the battalion's deputy commander explains that because heavy

losses are expected at during the first stage, a large medical team will be sent with the

forces. When he finishes, a number of the officers joke about the relative chances of coming

out alive from such a battle. One wit suggests that the battalion's commander should place

all of the troops he does not like in the breaching force and in that way get rid of them.

Another man suggests, "Do you realize that our chances -- officers of the rank of captain or

major -- of getting killed are excellent? They are much better than the chances of other

soldiers; we have only a 15 per cent chance of coming out alive. Now you understand what

they mean when they talk about excellence in organizations". Yet another officer continues,

"Now you see how these conditions give you even greater motivation to be promoted. If you

get promoted you can get out of this unit". During a briefing before a patrol along the Syrian

border, a commander observed, "Don't worry if I go, there are plenty of other spare parts

around to take my place." During the Intifada, some soldiers quipped about one of their

mates, an irresponsible person who had brought them into a few difficult situations: "Yes,

whoever goes out with him needs to take out a special brand of life insurance". Similarly,

when a company commander instructs his men before a patrol in a Palestinian town he

notes in very cynical terms: "I see a new phenomenon lately. Itzik has begun to play with the

children. He throws apples at them and they kindly return his gesture, throw stones at him."

Such comments are related to the body practices to which soldiers are subjected to

in the military. From an organizational point of view, a prime concern for the armed forces is

assuring the control and predictability of the body. Given the stressful conditions of combat

the aim is mastery of their bodies-in-use. Consequently, because it is the source of much

concern, a host of jokes emerge around the theme of betrayal of the body. When a few

newcomers (in their early twenties) arrived in the higher-grade battalion one of the older

soldiers (in his early thirties) noted: "See. Today everyone is young. They are all erect

[zekufim], active, full of life". One infantryman was named "the taxi driver" because of his

potbelly and lack of stamina. In addition, a favorite label that veterans in both units used to

refer to themselves for doing things slowly is "the elderly". In this manner, the humor

directed at the conditions of the military is closely intertwined with the fact that in reserve

units, older soldiers are constantly faced with the bodies of troops who have just completed

their compulsory term of service and may be up to twenty or twenty five years younger than

them.

Masculinities

We now turn to the distinctively male character of the humor found in the two units.

Brandes27 suggests that expressive culture is a prime site for handling apprehensions

related to manhood and reserve duty is thus a prime location for exploring such facets of

male identity. Arkin and Dobrofsky28 argue that values related to ideals of sexual potency are

intensified in the masculine environment of the army. In the IDF as well, one finds a rhetoric

of sexual performance and genital size emerges. Thus for example, genital size is often

used to communicate about the personal qualities of men. Soldiers in the IDF talk about an

individual "having balls" meaning that he has nerve and pluck. One of the commonest graffiti

found above urinals is the following: "Step closer, it is much shorter than you think. Thank

you." Sometimes, someone adds, "And much shorter than you would like". Set jokes in the

units further punctuate these themes. One example draws upon wider Western stereotype

about the size and power of "blacks":

In Harlem one company put up a condom machine that no one used. The supplier

decided that he would find out why. He asked the men there and got the answer:

"Why should we use a condom? Aren't the plastic covers we use for the loaves of

bread good enough?"

This story thus expresses what many men may find to be disturbing about (their own) genital

size. Yet, sexual metaphors are often used to explain differing domains of meaning. A

related source of anxiety among involved women's infidelity. Women are often portrayed in

expressive culture as irresponsible, bearing a potential for betrayal, and when

unaccompanied by their partners as easily be seduced by other men29. When overhearing

someone phoning home and discovering that his wife is not there, a familiar refrain voiced in

both units is "She's in the neighbor's bed!" In the same vein, when soldiers phone their

partners on the way home their companions would sometimes cry out "Why alert her that

you are on the way home?". A common graffiti is inscription reads: "The cock being rammed

into you here is nothing like the cock that is being rammed into your wife at home". When

one of the soldiers from the older force announced that he had a new baby daughter, his

friend retorted, "She's not yours for sure. You were on military duty nine months before she

was born". Brandes30 suggests that by telling and listening to jokes about cuckolds, men

obtain two sources of pleasure: a cathartic release from an ever present concern about the

wife's possible deceit; and the public appearance of bravado, through participation in the

joke-telling group.

Commonly, joking is not carried out in regard to soldiers' wives or girlfriends, but

rather directed at women as abstract sexual beings. In most dirty jokes the portrayal of

women is closely akin to their depiction in pornography as objects offering men sexual

gratification31. A joke that appeared in both units has a universal form: "What is the best kind

of woman? One who has no teeth and a flat head. No teeth so that it won't hurt [when she

gives oral sex] and a flat head so that you can place a beer mug there." Bordo32 suggests

that heterosexual pornography supplies a world in which women are in a state of permanent

readiness and sexual desire and cannot emasculate men by judging, rejecting or dominating

them. In pornography women are lustful but at the same time always fully satisfied with what

men can give them. The following joke underscores these themes and stresses women's

culpability and men's superiority:

A woman comes to her friend and says: listen, I have no one and don't know what to

do. Her friend answers: listen, I know someone, he'll fix you up with something great.

Phones him and the first woman goes to meet him. He says to her: listen, I've got a

turtle, and it will give you great pleasure. Go there, lie on your back, place the turtle

there and put 1,000$ on the side. She does that and waits and nothing happens. She

is starting to get frustrated and tells the guy. He says: wait a minute, don't move. He

takes off his clothes, jumps on her and fucks her. He says to the turtle: I'm warning

you, this is the last time I will show you how it’s done.

The woman in this joke not is only so lascivious that she does not care who or what will

satisfy her, but is also gullible. Although she tries to use the man as an object to satisfy her,

it is she who ends up an object to satisfy his sexual and economic needs.

Upon closer inspection we find that some sexual jokes are more complex for they

often underscore how men are dependent on women for gratification. Take the following

joke:

A man goes to the doctor to ask about how he can have sex with his during her

pregnancy. The doctor answers that there are three periods. During the first you

have sex regularly. During the second you have sex like dogs, and during the final

period you do it like a fox. "What do you mean?" asks the man. You sit next to the

hole and wail.

That the sexuality referred to is explicitly heterosexual is evident in constant

comments about homosexuals. According to Messner's33, erotic links between men become

natural through open homophobia. Thus during a lull in a live-fire exercise carried out by the

younger unit, someone asks if there is any Vaseline left (for his parched lips) and another

soldier, eliciting much laughter, answers "sorry I used it all last night". Humor allows the

men, at one and the same time, to explore a taboo subject and to assert their

heterosexuality. While the homosexual is often made fun of in order to create group

solidarity, he is potentially more dangerous than women because as part of the group he can

threaten (hetero-sexual) men. Indeed, we would posit that in the all male groups of reserve

duty, individuals "need" the figure of the homosexual in order to stress boundaries and

acceptable (heterosexual) norms. Themes related to "mock" homosexuality -- calling

soldiers "homos", "girls" or "women" -- are sometimes used as affectionate appellations. For

example, during a live-fire exercise in the younger unit, a few men laughed that the battalion

has to show its combat professionalism to the series of high-ranking generals and

commanders who had come to see the maneuver. One of the younger officers quipped:

"Maybe we should go and shave our legs a little, put on nail polish and come back so that

they can see how beautiful we are."

Jokes about women and homosexuals, however, often involve saying things about

relationships between heterosexual men in military organizations34. In these cases male

sexual prowess (vis-à-vis females), women's inferior social positions, and homosexual traits

are used as means to discuss the relative standing and relations between men. Despite the

stress on soldiers' camaraderie, underlying much of the dynamics of the two units is a strong

undercurrent of constant competition over dominance and submission. What is of

significance here is that humor may serve as a means for the relatively safe release of these

hostile, competitive attitudes. Drawing symbolic equivalences with women and homosexuals

provides ready images for portraying activity and passivity and power and hierarchical

position. Indeed, many of the men we studied tended to conceptualize weakness in daily

affairs in terms of potential anal penetration, and one of the most common expressions of

dominance is "to fuck [someone] in the ass". A frequent form of horseplay is called "checking

oil". In it one man comes up behind another and pulls the tip of his rifle along the inside of

the latter's legs and up to his anus. This is usually done gently and the attacked person is

required to react with good humor. As Mulkay35 observes, the obscenity of dirty jokes may

conceal non-sexual information about the group and its internal relations -- solidarity,

boundaries, or hierarchy -- that is being conveyed. Our point is not that dirty jokes do not

carry images of gender or homosexuality, but that they also serve as means to construct and

reconstruct the groups and organizations where they are told.

Contemporary Israeliness

We now move on to the last substantive area in and around which much humor is

generated. Israel is a highly political society that is marked by various schisms and conflict.

Being an immigrant society, it is not surprising that ethnicity and ethnic stereotypes are

among the most common Israeli themes that cropped up both in set jokes and in running

commentary. Out of the wide array of jokes we gathered, take the following:

What does a Polish man give his wife on their wedding day that is long and hard? A

family name.

Soviet Georgians -- stereotypically the "primitive" ethnics lacking any education -- are the

butt of many jokes having to do with stupidity:

What is long and hard for a [Soviet] Georgian? Second grade.

Moroccans and Kurds are often also portrayed as simple, stupid and violent:

Who has an I.Q. of 200? 200 Moroccans.

Why don't they take Kurds to the paratroopers? Because it's not nice to throw shit

from the sky".

And a link to sex:

Why do Moroccan women have large nipples and small cunts? Because Moroccan

men have big mouths and small cocks.

Persians (Iranians) are objects of jokes about stinginess:

While all of these groups are Jewish, it is interesting that we found almost no humor directed

at Ethiopians or Russians. It may well be that these groups who have immigrated only

recently represent issues that are too sensitive to comment about. In this manner ethnic

jokes are almost exclusively directed at the older waves of immigrants to Israel. This

interpretation well fits the link between ethnic jokes and the cohesion and camaraderie of

military units. Zijderveld36 reminds us that ethnic jokes, told within their own environment,

strengthen the morale of the group members and bolsters their sense of identity, "but the

very same joke may acquire a derisive and even insulting quality when told by an outsider".

Indeed, many of the jokes told about Jewish ethnics were told either by their members or in

the presence (and acknowledgment) of their members. To put this point by way of example,

in these situations Moroccan jokes are not acts of denigration but rather of pride and

solidarity.

Politics is probably the second most common area of Israeli life about which jokes

are made. An officer in the older unit related the following joke: "Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu,

the former prime minister], [Arieh] Der'i [a controversial leader of a orthodox party], Sharon

[the Israeli prime minister and then an ex-general] and [Yasser] Arafat [president of the

Palestinian Authority] fly in a plane and it crashes. Who is saved? The country." These

passages underscore the kinds of cynicism and disenchantment with politics that are found

in contemporary Israel. The following graffito, which builds on words attributed to the Zionist

hero Trumpeldor, underscores this theme further: "It's good to die for our country [artseinu]

but she is not for us [lo bishvileinu]". These saying hints at one and the same time about the

changes that Israel is undergoing, the price people pay for contributing to the state's

collective endeavors and to the fate of soldiers as "suckers" for participating in military

service37.

Power and Humor

While in functional terms humor dramatizes the violation of norms and at the same

time reaffirm these norms38, it is also related to power. Norms are not just standards of

behavior but also predicate power relations and hegemonic assumptions about the order of

society. To paraphrase Lyman39, witticisms, pranks and gags should be analyzed not only as

a means of maintaining social order, but also as mechanisms by which patterns of

domination are sustained in everyday life. Why is humor used as a signifier of the unity of

the unit despite persistent inequalities and difference between the soldiers? We suggest that

its role is to incorporate and to create a shared universe of meaning because of the actual

disparities among troops (in terms of such factors as occupation, rank, and informal

standing). The salience of humor is not one of equality, but rather of shared vocabulary and

shared experiences. Along these lines, humor as an element in the creation of a "solidarity

of warriors" (akhvat lochamim) both produces a language common to soldiers in general and

to combat troops in particular; and blurs the differences between them while underscoring

the boundaries between them and other groups. Thus humor in military service radiates

disparate but simultaneous messages of likeness and difference. While participating in "fun"

is a way of saying, "we all belong together as a face-to-face group", it is also a way of

transmitting a wider message: "we are all army men, as we all enjoy army jokes". While the

actual group being created is the face-to-face one (the squad or platoon), by partaking in

joke telling men are also actualizing their membership in a larger "community of strangers"

of combat units40. The implication of this situation is that the community of strangers while

based on face-to-face groups tends to subtly radiate and reinforce wider hegemonic

attitudes: the importance of military duty, the centrality of male heterosexual identity and the

exclusion of women.

Yet to overstress power and control is to miss the essentially subversive quality of

jocularity. Such behavior may be threatening to the everyday order because jest and

mischief are by their nature 'free-flowing' and can emerge in any situation. Indeed, as we

mentioned before, there is always a lack of clarity in humor, an essential obtuseness to

jokes because one never "really knows" whether the criticism voiced through them is

laughable or serious. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the extent and of the

mechanisms by which soldiers are controlled. Soldiers may question, they may criticize, but

ultimately they are unable to fundamentally change the conditions that concretely affect their

lives. Their criticisms are politically impotent41 for a variety of reasons such as their lack of

organization, commitment to the IDF and their peers, the tight controls commanders have

over them, and the rewards constantly offered to those who conform. Soldiers' mischief

includes little episodes of resistance through which the power of those in authority is both

undermined and consolidated.

Conclusion

In this article we have proposed a complex model of humor in Israeli combat units.

Using the case of two reserve battalions we have argued that there are three crucial

dimensions to understanding the place of humor in such forces. The first involves military

work that is boring, physical and dangerous and an organizational context marked by a good

deal diversity and problematic motivation. Here humor forms a major means for mediating

structural tensions, socializing newcomers and creating cohesion. The second dimension is

related to masculinity and the apprehensions of manhood. Here humor is a means for

exploring taboo subjects, objectifying women, and struggling for dominance. The third

dimension involves the wider national-cultural context of Israeli themes such as ethnicity or

politics. This kind of humor allows reservists to comment about the reality of contemporary

Israel.

While similar to service during the compulsory term of service, and to units of the

standing army, reserve duty and reserve units are marked by their own peculiar

characteristics: a sudden and intensive switch from men's "civilian" concerns to the intense

demands of army life; a yearly move into a period during which men are allowed, even

required, to behave differently; tendency towards commitment to the organization which is

based on voluntarism, trust and influence rather than on coercion and authority; and an

accent on the blurring of military hierarchy and the existence of what sociologists call status

inconsistency between age, formal rank, civilian status, income and role. These features

imply that socialization to reserve duty implies internalizing a new set of expectations and

norms. Humor is important since it allows men to deal with organizational tensions, to create

a good climate for motivation, and to construct relatively close, cohesive groups of men. But

humour in the military also reproduces macro-level inequalities and allows soldiers (on the

micro level) a modicum of control over their lives.

To be sure, the distinctions we have made are analytical. In reality, the different

dimensions of humor are interrelated. The great strength of humor lies in the fact that it

works simultaneously on a number of levels. To put this by way of example, a joke about the

sexual prowess or weakness of Moroccans at one and the same time, comments about

ethnic stereotypes, titillates sexual topics, is performed by and within an all-male group of

soldiers and may comment about the specific ties between the teller of the joke and his

listeners.

NOTES

1 Ariel Levite, Offense and Defense in Israeli Military Doctrine. Boulder:

Westview. 1989, p. 34; Stuart Cohen, “The Israel Defence Froces (IDF): From a

‘People's Army’ to a ‘Professional Military’ -- Causes and Implications“. Armed

Forces and Society 1995, 21(2): 237-54; Gabriel Ben-Dor, Ami Pedahzur and

Badi Hasisi, “Israel’s National Security Doctrine Under Strain: The Crisis of the

Reserve Army“. Armed Forces and Society 2002, 28(2): 233-55. 2 Reuven Gal, A Portrait of the Israeli Soldier. New York: Greenwood Press,

1986. 3 Amia Lieblich, Transition to Adulthood Military Service: The Israeli Case. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1989. 4 Eyal Ben-Ari, “Masks and Soldiering: The Israeli Army and the Palestinian

Uprising” Cultural Anthropology 1989, 4(4): 372-89. 5 Edna Lomsky-Feder, As if There Was No War: The Life Stories of Israeli Men. Jerusalem:

Magnes, 1998. 6 Sarit Helman, “Militarism in the Construction of the Life-World of Israeli Males: The Case

of the Reserves System“. In Edna Lomsky-Feder and Eyal Ben-Ari (eds.): The Military and

Militarism in Israeli Society. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999, Pp. 191-

221. 7 Edward E. Shils and Morris M. Janowitz, “Cohesion and Disintegration in the

Wehrmacht in World War II“. Public Opinion Quarterly , 1948, 12: 280-315. 8 Charles Jr. Moskos, “The American Combat Soldier in Vietnam“. Journal of

Social Issues, 1975, 31(4): 25-38. 9 F.M. Richardson, Fighting Spirit: A Study of Psychological Factors in War.

London: Leo Cooper, 1978. 10 Charles W. Greenbaum, “The Small Group Under the Gun: Uses of Small

Groups in Battle Conditions“. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1979, 15:

392-405; Michael Gal, “The Scouting Unit as a Social Group“. Shdemot, 1973,

40: 34-50. (Hebrew). 11 Reuven Gal, ibid, 1986. 12 Fredrick Elkin, “The Soldier's Language“. American Journal of Sociology,

1945/1946, 51: 414-22; Michael Feige and Eyal Ben-Ari, “Card Games and and

Israeli Army Unit: An Interpretive Case Study“. Armed Forces and Society, 1991,

17(3): 429-48; John H. Faris, “The Impact of Basic Combat Training: The Role

of the Drill Sergeant in the All-Volunteer Army“. Armed Forces and Society,

1975, 2(1): 115-27. 13 Rose Laub Coser, “Laughter among Colleagues: A Study of the Social

Function of Humor Among the Staff of a Mental Hospital“. Psychiatry, 1960, 23:

81-95; Mary Douglas, “The Social Control of Cognition: Some Factors in Joke

Perception“. Man, 1968, 3: 361-76; Gary A. Fine, “Humorous Interaction and

the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein“. Studies in

Symbolic Interaction, 1984, 5: 83-101. 14 , Eyal Ben-Ari, “Masks and Soldiering: The Israeli Army and the Palestinian

Uprising”, Cultural Anthropology, 1989, 4(4): 372-89. 15 Peter Lyman, “The Fraternal Bond as a Joking Relationship: A Case Study of

the Role of Sexist Jokes in Male Group Bonding“. In Michael S. Kimmel (ed.):

Changing Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity, Newbury

Park: Sage, 1987, Pp. 148-63. 16 Michael Mulkay, On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society.

London: Polity, 1988. 17 ibid, p. 215 18 Stanley Brandes, Metaphors of Masculinity: Sex and Status in Andalusian

Folklore. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1980: 114; Anton C. Zijderveld, “The Sociology of Humor and Laughter“.

Current Sociology 1983, 31(3): 1-110, p. 28. 19 Rose Laub Coser, ibid: 83. 20 Anton C. Zijderveld, ibid: 35. 21 Larry L. Ingraham and Frederick J. Manning, “Cohesion: Who Needs It, What

Is it and How Do We Get It to Them?” Military Review, 1981, 61(6): 2-12;

Richard A. Gabriel, No More Heroes: Madness & Psychiatry in War. New York:

Hill and Wang, 1987: 120; Charles W. Greenbaum, “The Small Group Under the

Gun: Uses of Small Groups in Battle Conditions“. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science 1979, 15: 392-405. 22 Peter Lyman, ibid: 150. 23 Ben Shalit, The Psychology of Conflict and Combat. New York: Praeger,

1988: 134 24 Reuven Gal, Ibid. 25 Areilla Ringel-Hoffman, “From 11 Reserve Soldiers, 9 Evade Duty“. Yediot

Aharonot (Weekend Supplement) 17.10. 1997.

26 Bernard Boene, “How Unique Should the Military Be? A Review of

Representative Literature and Outline of Synthetic Formulation“. European

Journal of Sociology 1990, 31(1): 3-59. 27 Stanley Brandes, ibid: 9. 28 William Arkin and Lynne R. Dobrofsky, “Military Socialization and

Masculinity“. Journal of Social Issues 1978, 34(1): 151-68. 29 Liora Sion, Images of Manhood Among Combat Soldiers: Military Service in

Israel's Infantry Brigades as a Rite of Passage. MA Thesis. The Department of

Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997. 30 Stanley Brandes, ibid: 113. 31 Michael Mulkay, ibid: 134. 32 Susan Bordo, “Reading the Male Body“. In L. Goldstein (ed.): The Male Body. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994: 276-7 33 Michael Messner, “ Like Family - Power, Intimacy and Sexuality in Male Athletes'

Friendships”. In D.M. Nardi (ed.): Male Friendships. New York: Sage.1992: 215-38 34 Liora Sion, ibid. 35 Michael Mulkay, ibid: 129; Peter Lyman, ibid: 158. 36 Anton C. Zijderveld, “The Sociology of Humor and Laughter”. Current Sociology, 1983,

31(3): 1-110. 37 Luis Roniger and Michael Feige, “From Pioneer to Freier: The Changing Models of

Generalized Exchange”. ARchives Europeans de Sociologie 1992, 33: 280-307. 38 Rose Laub Coser, ibid: 88

39 Peter Lyman, ibid: 150 40 Sarit Helman, ibid. 41 Gary A Fine, ibid: 51