A Hairy Situation - Should The British Army Allow Beards?

 

Sir Humphrey is currently on holiday, enjoying a very late summer leave and enjoying the delights of the west coast of the USA. The world it is clear remains in a complex and challenging place, with a range of problems that need to be carefully thought about in due course. Of particular note is the recent Foreign Policy article on the Royal Navy, which ostensibly focuses on the capability of the QUEEN ELIZABETH class, but in reality seems to be another tired attack on the UK and its reach and capabilities. An article on why so many media pieces seem to default to tired cliches of the UK as a power uniquely struggling needs to be written on another day, when time and bandwidth permit.

In the short term though, one issue which may seem lighthearted but is worth thinking about is the near visceral reaction to recent twitter debates on the concept of beards in the Army. After a tweet went up by an RM, illustrating a bearded soldier, the response from both the pro and anti-Army beards perspective was fascinating to behold. It is worth asking why does such a simple issue generate such strong views and why does it seem to be a ditch or hill others will gladly die in, and what does it say about the wider culture and ethos of the armed forces?

The British Army does not permit beards for serving personnel, while the Royal Navy has long permitted it, and the RAF is a more recent convert. The reasons for not permitting beards seem lost in a mixture of time and the assumptions of traditions and standards. It is hard to work out the specific reason why the Army does not allow beards – there is no operational reason as such, the usual line that ‘you can’t get a perfect respirator seal with a beard’ may be accurate, but also ignores that in the RN, it has been a standing requirement for decades to shave when going into areas where respirators may need to be worn. This seems to have fixed that particular problem with the minimum of hassle.

Why does allowing a beard generate such strength of feeling among the serving and the retired? On the one hand it speaks to standards and traditions – the view being that one cannot be a soldier if one looks scruffy in some circumstances and beards are seen as being ‘scrufffy’. By not permitting beards, it is possible to enable standards to be maintained – which in turn speaks to wider standards of soldiering – if you can find time to sort your personal admin each morning and shave, then you’re probably doing the other bits too. There is something too of the appearance of a professional soldier – being clean shaven and fit for duty speaks to an image of professionalism and motivation that soldiers are keen to maintain.

There is also something too that comes of conformity and bringing people together in a shared set of values and standards -service life is about being identical in appearance, and in forgoing aspects of civilian life in a way that outsiders do not get. In an organization where identity matters, beards speak to an element of individualism that perhaps does not fit with the wider goal of bringing people together – not permitting them may be a way of bonding people in the shared sense of ‘we’re in this together’ by ensuring people meet shared dress and appearance standards.

On the counter side it is increasingly common for NATO armies to allow beards – many different nations allow it, and are equally relaxed about other forms of hair regulations too – for example the Canadian military has permitted a ‘just about anything goes’ policy when it comes to hair.  On operations in Afghanistan, the image of British troops on the front line wearing long beards and having to shave on return to Bastion helped in a way define the difference between the front line ‘band of brothers’ and those who didn’t experience the same war. The presence of beards in a conflict zone can create bonding in a way that their absence can in peacetime – it unites people as a shared tribe together.

The argument is fascinating to look at because it is, on the face of it, so utterly nonsensical. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that beards make for a less capable soldier. There is no evidence to suggest that a soldier with a beard cannot do their job when required. This argument is based purely on emotion and differing perspectives on what it means to be a soldier to different people. Why this matters is because it gives an insight into how the Army defines itself as an organization in the 21^st Century – if its individual members perceive that they can only do their job clean shaven, then what does this say about organizational mindset, flexibility of thinking and the ability to be agile when needed?

We hear a great deal of discussion about how future soldiers need to be able to respond quickly, take on complex problems and find innovative solutions to them, but in the same breath we hear people saying “and if you have a beard you are unable to be a good soldier” for ‘reasons’. Are the two mutually incompatible views – arguably yes they are. Is an organization that collectively feels It defines its professional standards by an absence of facial hair able to adapt quickly to new challenges when complex change is required – what does it say about an institutional ability to implement meaningful change when it is so unable to change on this issue?

The counter view of course is that actually the beards debate is a useful lightning conductor, providing an easy area to focus debate and emotional energy on something that, frankly, really doesn’t matter, in order to enable thinking on the big issues that do. Much like Parish Councils in the UK will devote 95% of their meetings to debating the tiniest most trivial thing, while happily signing off on bigger changes without an issue, are beards a way to prevent wider change being bogged down? The British Army is an organization for whom change is a constant way of life, from unit moves, to new equipment and to new operating concepts – all of this matters in a way that beards do not. By enabling the beard debate to rumble on, it frees up mental and emotional space in the manner of a parish council meeting to get on with the stuff that does matter.

It is a similar debate to the issue of hair for female personnel – when the Royal Navy relaxed dress regulations recently to permit women to wear their hair in a way that didn’t involve in being tied in a constricting bun, seemingly intended to cut off bloodflow to the head, and instead be worn in a pony tail, the number of long retired (and usually very bald) men who had apoplectic fits was something to behold. You’d think the world had ended, with all manner of instant internet experts waffling on about ‘safety near machines with a pony tail’ (because clearly no one in the history of work has ever previously been near a machine while wearing a pony tail and considered how to handle it) and bemoaning standards dropping more widely (this comment usually comes from retired sailors of a generation who like to brag about how ‘back in my day’ just how pissed they got each night and their drunken antics usually involved letting the side down badly – arguably a far worse failure of standards).

Hair seems to be the visible means by which people oppose change. Denying its ability to grow, be worn differently or be present in ways other than those strictly regulated is a way of preventing people from changing an organization in a way that people don’t like. The usual argument is that its something about standards and tradition – but as a wise person said, these are usually things set by long dead people and intended to hold us back from moving on.

In a 21^st century military, does it really matter how people do or don’t wear their hair or beards? The simple question is perhaps ‘what is it about beards that demonstrably and measurably lower someone’s ability to be a professional soldier’? The answer is that they don’t – armies around the world are showing that  they can soldier on with beards, and it makes not one jot of difference to their ability to do their job.

The counter line is always that military life is about sacrifice and being willing to deny yourself somethings to keep others safe. In this case, sacrificing an ability to grow a beard means a wider commitment to accepting that service life brings tough decisions. This though seems an odd argument to make – it is one thing to sacrifice when there is a clear and understandable need to do so, for example reduced time off, not going home each night or working longer hours as required is all part of the sacrifice made by service personnel and accepted as such. But what is the operational need to sacrifice when it comes to beards -why deny people a simple choice that makes no difference to their ability to do their job if the answer is simply ‘but we’ve always done it this way’.

What is the gain to the British Army of staying clean shaven when other equally, if not more, capable national Army’s (such as Ukraine) are enjoying operational success against peer rivals and still enabling beards? Citing standards makes sense if you are the reference army others aspire to be, but if other armies are showing they can have the best of both worlds, what is the operational benefit of not permitting beards?

Perhaps the time has come to ask if a more pragmatic approach to beards is needed, and if not, be able to clearly define why they are incompatible with Army life. If you look at the literature surrounding the justification for the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces, all manner of language around standards was used to justify the MOD’s position. Arguably much of this language is being mirrored in the beard debate, yet if the ban was lifted and it became clear that the MOD position was largely highly emotive and not rationally based on evidence in reality, then perhaps the same may be true of the impact of beards on military standard as well.

In the 21^st century, and in a UK where there is a surplus of jobs and a shortage of workers, insisting on rules to maintain standards may end up reducing the labour pool you can draw on. If people who like the idea of a military career, but also like the idea of having a beard realise they can’t have one in the Army, then all they will do is move to the RN or RAF instead – why deny yourself recruits for the sake of appearance, when the talent pool you want to draw on has the ability to have the best of both worlds in another service?