Abstract
Existing research on convertibility often focuses on the objective aspect of convertibility, while its subjective side remains under-theorized. This study highlights the contribution of subjective interpretation to a deeper understanding of convertibility. The research is based on in-depth interviews with former conscripts in the Israel Defense Forces, who served in the Intelligence Corps and various combat units. Based on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, the findings disclose that the former conscripts perceive the potential for convertibility based on their interpretation of the capital they acquired during their military service. Their interpretation unveiled a distinction between the “private self” and the “occupational self.” I argue that while the field dictates the objective value of the capital, and there is structural alignment between the military and civilian fields, convertibility is not an automatic process, but a mediated process in which habitus functions as an interpretive lens through which individuals evaluate convertibility.
Keywords
Introduction
Convertibility is the idea that in exchange for the citizens’ military service they will gain benefits and status from the state. Research on convertibility has focused on the various social, financial, and political mechanisms that influence the conversion of military service into social rights, citizenship, and an improvement of social standing (Burk, 1995; Card & Cardoso, 2012; Krebs, 2006; Levy, 2007, 2013; Moskos, 1977). While previous studies tend to adopt a more etic perspective of convertibility, emphasizing rewards such as rights, financial benefits, and priority for employment (Soysal, 1994; Burk, 1995; Levy, 1998, 2007; Levy et al., 2007; Levy & Sasson-Levy, 2008), present studies take a more emic perspective by focusing on soldiers’ subjective perception and interpretation of convertibility (Grosswirth Kachtan & Binks, 2021; Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021; Lillemäe et al., 2024).
In recent years, more researchers have recognized the importance of the subjective perception in understanding the military and civil–military relations. These researchers examined soldiers’ experience, performance, interpretation, and perception of their military service (Eager, 2014; Higate, 2003; Lomsky-Feder & Sasson-Levy, 2018; Grosswirth Kachtan, 2019; Grosswirth Kachtan & Binks, 2021; Sasson-Levy, 2003a, 2003b). Following this line of research, this article examines soldiers’ subjective perception of the capital they acquired during their military service and their expectations for convertibility.
Drawing upon Bourdieu’s theory of practice and his conceptualization of field, capital, and habitus (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990), I will examine how soldiers perceive the capital they acquired during their military service. Military service equips soldiers with capital such as skills, professions, behavior norms, and networks, alongside shaping soldiers’ identities, self-perceptions, and experiences (Cooper et al., 2018; Maringira et al., 2015; Roth, 2025; Swed & Butler, 2015). Bourdieu’s concepts enable us to understand how soldiers learn and internalize new dispositions within the military field and sub-fields, and how these dispositions influence their expectation to convert, or not, acquired military capital into the civilian labor market.
Previous research has examined socialization into the military and internalization of military capital (Cooper et al., 2018; Maringira et al., 2015), as well as the complexity and difficulties soldiers encounter when they discharge and move from the military field to the civilian field (Cooper et al., 2017, 2018; Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021; Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008). While these studies focused on the military field as a whole, this research distinguishes between different military sub-fields. Furthermore, while previous research emphasized the differences between the military and civilian fields, I will highlight the proximity between them.
The research is based on interviews with former conscripts, men and women, who served in Intelligence Corps and in various combat units in the Israeli military (Israel Defense Forces, IDF). All interviewees were secular middle-class. This shared socio-economic status provided them with similar cultural capital and habitus as a starting point. The article will show that each Corp acts as a sub-field that establishes the potential value of the capital, and its habitus function as a generative principle that constructs the meaning of the capital. I argue that soldiers’ interpretation of the capital they acquired during military service constitutes as a generative force that serves as a necessary catalyst for convertibility.
The article highlights how subjective interpretation facilitates a deeper understanding of convertibility. The contribution of this article is threefold: First, the research discloses the structural homology between the military field and the civilian. While the proximity between Intelligence Corps and the civilian labor market, especially high-tech, is well known (Swed & Butler, 2015), focusing on soldiers’ interpretation reveals the proximity between combat units and civilian labor market. However, this structural alignment of the fields alone does not guarantee capital conversion. Thus, the second contribution of the article is its emphasis that it is the agent’s subjective interpretation that serves as an essential mediating factor; scrutinizing soldiers’ interpretation revealed that soldiers attributed different meanings to the embodied cultural capital, distinguishing between “private self” and “occupational self.” This interpretive process determines which habits were reinforced and therefore their expectation for convertibility. Finally, although I accept that the field establishes the potential value of the capital, this value is open to interpretations, thus individuals take an active part in the process of convertibility, so it is their interpretation of the capital that drives its actualization.
The Evolution and Transformation of Convertibility
Since the 18th century, with the formation of the modern nation state, militaries were considered an essential institution for the definition of the political entity and sovereignty of the nation state as well as for defining citizenship. This created a contract between the citizens and the state, that in exchange for their military service the state will grant those who serve civil, political, and social rights (Burk, 1995; Janowitz, 1976, 1991; Mann, 1993; Tilly, 1997).
This contract between soldiers and the state determined convertibility, meaning, “the ability of a group to convert the power they acquire within, and owing to, military service into valuable social resources – symbolic and material alike – in the civilian sphere” (Levy, 2007, p. 189).
Convertibility mostly rests on the republican contract according to which citizens, as soldiers, are willing to sacrifice their lives and bear the burden of war and preparation for war in exchange for civil, social, and political rights (Janowitz, 1976; Mann, 1993). In this way, military service is converted into civilian rewards, such as social rights, improved social standing, financial benefits, priority for employment, and citizenship (Burk, 1995; Levy, 2007; Levy et al., 2007).
The literature regarding convertibility distinguishes between two reward systems: material rewards and symbolic rewards. Material rewards comprise financial rewards such as pensions, financial benefits, and skills. Symbolic rewards are the product of the prestige of military service itself (Asch & Warner, 1994; Card & Cardoso, 2012; Krebs, 2006; Levy, 2003, 2007; Moskos, 1977). Symbolic rewards and some of the material rewards, excluding monetary rewards, are determined by their convertibility rate (Levy, 1998, 2003, 2007). Furthermore, symbolic and material rewards are mutually related and partially dependent on one another, such that the increase or decrease of one affects the other (Levy, 2007; Mickel & Barron, 2008). Consequently, some material rewards depend on the status and prestige of the service (Burk, 1995; Levy, 2007; Levy et al., 2007).
Since not all groups were able to serve in the military, not everyone could enjoy the material and symbolic rewards that can be derived from military service. Furthermore, convertibility was affected by the different roles taken by those who served in the military, which produced social hierarchies and different possibilities for social mobility for different groups (Soysal, 1994; Levy, 1998; Levy & Sasson-Levy, 2008; Weede, 1993).
Since the 1960s, most Western nations have turned from draft to all-volunteer forces. Alongside this change in the recruitment system, the globalization process, accompanied by neoliberal and post-Fordism perceptions, created market-oriented pressure on the military (Dandeker, 1994; King, 2006; Levy, 2010). These changes challenged the republican contract and created a shift from “citizen army” to, as introduced by Levy (2010), “market army.”
This transition led the military to adopt new roles that endorse equal status for women, ethnic minorities, and homosexuals who, for many decades, had been excluded from military service and therefore from the ability of convertibility (Cohen, 2008; Levy, 1998, 2003, 2013; Sasson-Levy, 2006). This was an achievement of a long-standing struggle by minorities for their right to serve in the military, specifically as combatants, so that they could also utilize military service and convert it into social status, rights, positions, and power (Burk, 1995; Dandeker, 1994; Levy, 2007, 2013) However, this achievement is not yet complete, and the struggle is not yet over, as women remain underrepresented in the military (Reis & Menezes, 2019).
The emulation of market practices also created an individualistic expectation from military service to fulfill the individual’s ambitions and interests (Levy, 2007, 2013; Levy et al., 2007). The penetration of personal gain into the barter between soldiers and the military (Smith, 2005), alongside untying the connection between soldiering and citizenship and between military service and rights (Burk, 2002), weakened the republican contract and devalued convertibility (Levy, 2010; Levy et al., 2007).
Indeed, Israel did not turn to all-volunteer forces and there is still conscription; however, it was also influenced by the globalization and neoliberalism and its implications. Added to this were local processes beginning in the 1970s, with the challenge to the dominance of secular middle-class Ashkenazi men, which until than was the only group that had access to combat roles, and therefore the only group that had the option of converting military service into rights, positions, and power in the civilian sphere and labor market (Levy, 1998; Sasson-Levy, 2003b). The access to combat positions was blocked for Mizrahim, new immigrants, and women, and they were marginalized in the IDF, further underlining their peripheral status in society (Levy, 1998; Levy & Sasson-Levy, 2008; Sasson-Levy, 2003a, 2003b).
In the 1970s, the Mizrahim were the first group to demand access to roles and positions in the military to improve their status. Followed by pressure from Religious Zionists in the 1980s, to create institutional arrangements for their integration (Gal, 2015; Levy et al., 2007; Tiargan-Orr, 2015). In the 1990s, additional groups joined; homosexuals began to raise demands for the removal of restrictions on their assignment in various positions and for equal promotion opportunities, and the “Alice Miller High Court of Justice case,” who struggled to be accepted into the pilot’s course, was the starting point for the struggle for equal opportunities and integration of women in the military, a struggle that continues to this day (Shafran Gittleman, 2018).
These changes, global and local, led to the creation of an expectation for fulfilling individualistic interests manifested in bargaining with the military (Ben-Ari et al., 2023; Gal, 2015; Levy et al., 2007; Tiargan-Orr, 2015; Waldman et al., 2022). Consequently, conscription undergoes changes that created a hybrid model, “grafting” volunteer principles onto conscription while resonating with the republican ethos (Ben-Ari et al., 2023).
Added to these challenges faced by the military were the repercussions of the social protest that erupted following the judicial overhaul in early 2023, which did not spare the military. The judicial overhaul has undermined two symbolic rewards of military service: the political citizenship right granted in return for military sacrifice and the societal recognition of the soldiers’ contribution. This led to the protest of middle-class secular reservists who, for the first time in Israeli history, renounce the militaristic convention that puts the duty to sacrifice above politics (Levy, 2023). The judicial overhaul dealt a crushing blow to the contract between the secular middle-class and the state, triggering a surge of refusal to serve among military reservists. The social protest was abruptly halted on the scent of October 7 attacks and the war that followed, and the protesters were among the first to enlist in both military service and civilian activities.
This research was conducted before October 7; however, convertibility, as shown here, always occurs in a political context. The war began at the height of the middle-class secular protest to reclaim the symbolic rewards, mainly recognition of their contribution via military service (Levy, 2023). At the same time, Religious Zionists emphasize the obligation to serve and sacrifice, which reflect the republican contract (Grosswirth Kachtan, forthcoming).
This ongoing struggle over symbolic rewards suggests that the conversion process is not merely a technical nor objective process, but rather a reflection of a deep and inherent structural tensions that portrays Israeli society. To continue deciphering the complexity of convertibility, in the next section, I will introduce the second theoretical basis of my analysis, Bourdieu’s theory of practice.
Bourdieu in Uniform – Applying Bourdieusian Theory to the Military
To fully grasp the dynamics of capital conversion, one must first situate capital within the field. Bourdieu defines field as a social setting where agents interact according to specific rules, regulations, and social positions (Bourdieu, 1984; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Within a particular field, social actors accumulate capital, which determines their relative position and power (Bourdieu, 1986). Accordingly, the value of the capital is not absolute and different forms of capital can have different values within different fields (Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021).
The military and civilian sphere function as distinct fields, each possessing its own logic, power structure, and rules of conduct. Furthermore, the military can be realized as a “meta-field” comprised of various separated yet interconnected sub-fields (Cooper et al., 2017).
The distinctiveness between the military and civilian fields creates a complex dynamic that forces soldiers to navigate between these competing spheres. For instance, reservists operate as “transmigrants” moving continuously between the civilian and military fields, where different types of capital have different values, so they constantly maneuver and negotiate between competing fields (Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021; Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008). Nevertheless, the military field itself is not static but rather evolves and changes, while integrating civilian principles and seeking to maintain legitimacy as amid social transformations such as threats, public expectations, elements of voluntarism, and material and non-material incentives (Ben-Ari et al., 2023; Lillemäe et al., 2024)
Bourdieu (1986) distinguishes between three types of capital: economic capital, social capital, and cultural capital. Economic capital is directly converted into money and may exist in the forms of property rights. While often less visible during active service, due to standardized conditions, economic capital plays a significant role after discharge from the military. The conversion of military experience into economic capital varies significantly, for example, veterans in technical fields often earn higher incomes than their civilian counterparts, suggesting a successful conversion of skills in specific industries (Schulker, 2017).
Economic outcomes are deeply intertwined with the second capital, social capital, that is the networks and connections that can be converted into other resources (Bourdieu, 1986). Social capital is never independent of other forms of capital since an agent’s social capital affects the other types of capital they possess. Social capital woven during military service can lead to job opportunities and smooth entrance to the labor market (Swed & Butler, 2015). Successful career transitions often depend on leveraging these networks, through veterans’ role as “bridge-builders” or cultural translators helping former soldiers translate their skills and navigate the cultural codes of civilian employers (Roth, 2025).
The third type of capital is the cultural capital. It is the form of knowledge and acquired cognitive ability that enables individuals to identify and favor high culture. Owning high cultural capital grants social superiority and therefore legitimacy and dominance within the social structure. Cultural capital, according to Bourdieu (1986), exists in three forms: an objectified state, that is, ownership of cultural goods, which is manifested through soldiers’ belongings such as weapons, uniforms, as well as mementos, photos, and other artifacts (Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021).
The second form of cultural capital is institutionalized capital. It is realized in the position or recognition of an institution, mainly through possession of degrees and other credentials. Within the military, institutionalized capital is manifested in the form of ranks, positions, qualifications, and military experience (Cooper et al., 2018).
The third form of cultural capital is the embodied state, which is a collection of characteristics, personal traits, capabilities, and long-lasting dispositions, seen as inherent virtues, intrinsic to human nature. These are the internalized skills, dispositions, and physical capabilities acquired during military service. Soldiers increasingly expect to acquire embodied capital with potential for conversion to the civilian labor market as a return on their investment of time and effort (Ben-Ari et al., 2023; Levy et al., 2007; Lillemäe et al., 2024).
The value of the capital is often legitimized by another type of capital, symbolic capital, that is the honor and prestige accumulated through possession of other forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1990). Although not explicitly listed as one of the three primary forms of capital, symbolic capital is at the root of all other forms of capital, since it affects their value, legitimation, and recognition, and it has the potential to be converted into other forms of capital (Lebaron, 2021; Swartz, 2013). For example, the symbolic capital accrued through combat experience is cultivated and valued differently in military and civilian contexts (Cooper et al., 2017).
The embodied capital is closely related and partially overlaps with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus that acts as the generative mechanism of these traits. Habitus, according to Bourdieu, is a system of external principles acquired in a specific social context through social encounters, and it shapes perceptions, thoughts, and actions (Bourdieu, 1990). Habitus exists as a system of knowledge within a particular cultural setting, acquired through exposure and participation in social situations, yet it is internalized as personal perceptions and embedded in the agent’s subconscious level (Davey, 2009; Yang, 2014). The unique cultural setting of the military shapes military identities through everyday practices of soldiering that soldiers carry out (Woodward & Jenkings, 2011). When civilians join the military, they undergo a socialization process during basic training, where they learn and internalize military habitus (Cooper et al., 2018; Maringira et al., 2015). This socialization process engraves them with cultural values and rules of conduct that create identification with the military and transforms them from citizens to soldiers (Bergman et al., 2014; Godfrey et al., 2012; Hockey, 1986).
Bourdieu stresses that practice is the product of the intersection between capital, habitus, and field (1984). Practice results from the relationship between one’s disposition, that is, the habitus, and one’s position, that is, the capital, within a specific social arena, namely the field (Maton, 2008). This relationship will be at the base of my analysis as I will examine soldiers’ perception and interpretation of the capital they acquired during their service in the military field and its sub-fields.
Methodology
The research is based on qualitative methodology that utilizes a semiotic-interpretive approach, which is well suited to examine the subjective point of view of an individual operating within a studied frame of meaning (Creswell et al., 2007; Creswell & Poth, 2016). This approach seeks to examine respondents’ direct experience and performance as a product of their interpretation, and not as measurable and quantifiable.
To highlight the subjective side of convertibility, I used in-depth interviews. Interviews enable us to examine conceptions, interpretations, expectations, as well as retrospective processes and reflections regarding social experience. Although not free of weaknesses, interviews are a significant methodological tool (Edwards & Holland, 2013; Lamont & Swidler, 2014).
Sample
Israel has compulsory conscription, as a result, most Israelis, 1 male and female, have experienced military service. This experience creates a continuum between the military and society, such that almost every Israeli can understand, to some extent, the meaning of military service. Conscription also creates a situation where young Israelis enlist right after high school, so only after discharge, they start university studies or follow other career paths.
The research is based on interviews with 40 men and women who served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Twenty served in various combat units as combat soldiers and combat support personnel, and 20 served in various roles, technological and non-technological, in the Intelligence Corps. The corpus is divided equally between men and women. All interviewees were secular from the middle socio-economic class. The socio-economic status was determined based on geographic residency, reflecting the strong correlation between residential areas and socio-economic standing. All were interviewed after their compulsory service that lasts between 2 and 3 years, creating a comparable group. A few of the Intelligence soldiers served a few extra months after their compulsory service. The characteristics of the participants are detailed in Table 1. All names were replaced with pseudonyms. 2
Participants’ Profiles.
Data Collection
Each interview lasted between 1 and 2 hr and was recorded and transcribed. The first interviewees were located in several ways (e.g., through the researcher’s personal contacts or public notices). The remainder were located using the snowball method, with initial interviewees helping to contact other interviewees.
Although all the interviewees were presented with a few identical questions to give the interview structure, they were at liberty to expand beyond what they were directly asked and were encouraged to illustrate their answers by telling anecdotes on the assumption that these narratives would further enrich the data.
To create a comfortable atmosphere, all interviews began with a general question about the interviewee’s military service. Indeed, I assumed that even this first general question would generate relevant information. Following this, the interviewees were asked specific questions regarding their perception of military service in general and their military service in particular. Then, to scrutinize the subjective perception of convertibility, they were asked to describe what they acquired and gained from and during their service, and how they perceived the potential to convert what they acquired into the civilian sphere and labor market.
This research was conducted in strict adherence to established academic ethical guidelines and received formal approval from the institutional Ethics Committee. Prior to each interview, participants were provided with detailed information outlining the study’s objectives and were required to provide informed consent, acknowledging their voluntary participation and their right to withdraw at any stage. To ensure the highest level of confidentiality and anonymity, all identifying details, including names, were redacted or replaced with pseudonyms.
Data Analysis
To examine the subjective dimension of convertibility, I base my analysis on an Inductive Qualitative Methodology, which is well suited to examine the subjective point of view of individuals operating within a studied frame of meaning, by following themes and codes that emerge from the content itself (Creswell & Poth, 2016).
With the intention of carefully and critically examining the participants’ lived experiences, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was employed. “Concerned with an individual’s personal perception or account of an object or event” (Smith & Osborn, 2015, p. 25), I allowed the interviewees to present their experiences as they perceive them, and for me, as the researcher, to respect this rather than being limited by an a priori hypothesis. The interviews topics were expectations from military service, reflections on military service in general and their specific military service and role, the contribution and influence of military service on them, acquirement during and from military service, the impact of their military service, and role on their civilian lives.
Analysis was performed in line with Smith and Osborn’s (2015) guidelines for IPA. On a case-by-case basis, transcripts were read and annotated with initial notes which attempted to make sense of what was important to the interviewees. Using iterative process, emergent themes for each interview were developed from these notes, which intended to capture and provide an understanding of the interviewees’ experiences. The emergent themes were acquired skills, behavior norms and cultural values, perception of convertibility potential, occupational self, and private self.
The emergent themes were then reviewed and grouped with reference to the entire original data set. Only then, I turned to Bourdieusian concepts which provided suitable framing to understand the emergent themes. Individual respondent superordinate themes were then clustered to create master superordinate themes relevant to each cohort of interviewees. Finally, the superordinate themes for each group were compared so as to determine similarities and differences between them.
Analysis – The Subjective Side of Convertibility
The military, as a “meta-field”, is comprised of various sub-fields (Cooper et al., 2018) and consists of a variety of professions that engage soldiers with different surroundings, demands, and therefore likely different types of capital. Not ignoring the objective differentiation between different military roles, the analysis will focus on the soldiers’ interpretation of the capital they acquired during military service, with the intention to disclose the subjective side of convertibility. The analysis will distinguish between the two groups: combat soldiers and intelligence soldiers, and within each group, the institutional and embodied cultural capital will be analyzed separately.
Conversion of Institutionalized Cultural Capital – Intelligence
Among the military roles, some of the non-combat roles grant soldiers with institutionalized cultural capital. These roles provide soldiers with universal education and knowledge that are not unique to the military and are officially accepted in the labor market. Between the two groups that were interviewed, only Intelligence soldiers had the option to obtain institutionalized cultural capital, for example, serving as a programmer or technology developer. As “Shlomi” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a programmer) noted, “. . . it’s not like the military have a special programming language; we use civilian programming languages.”
The soldiers acquire the exact same skills and professions that exist in the civilian labor market, so there is no need for any adjustments when they get discharged. So, by the time they were discharged, around the age of 21, they gained both profession and experience. Moreover, employers appreciate military experience, and the combination between institutionalized cultural capital, and social capital composed of strong networks and connections, provide them opportunities in the labor market, and specifically in the High-Tech industry (Swed & Butler, 2015).
The potential of convertibility of capital acquired during military service in Intelligences is a well-known fact, as “Adam” (who served in the Intelligence Corps, in Intelligence in special operations unit) indicates: It was never a dilemma whether to become a combat soldier, since I have asthma infantry wasn’t an option, and if you are not a combat soldier you are going to Intelligence . . . there is an understanding in Israeli society, even at the age of 16 or 17 you understand that if you enlist to Intelligence it will open doors for you in the future.
Adam denotes the initial knowledge that teenagers, about to be drafted, have regarding the potential of converting capital gained in Intelligence directly into job opportunities in the civilian labor market. Moreover, he emphasizes the advantage of serving in Intelligence, when there is no need to make any effort at the time of discharge since doors open by themselves, and as will be shown also in the next quote, employers are waiting and expecting for former Intelligence conscripts.
An additional interesting note which emerges in Adam’s quote is his reference to the role he didn’t do or rather couldn’t do – the combat role. The shift toward individual interests from military service increased the prestige and convertibility of technological and white-collar professions, alongside the decline in convertibility of the combat soldier (Levy, 2013; Levy et al., 2007). However, Adam alludes to the still existing symbolic capital of combat role. Thus, there was no need to add this comment, he didn’t have to explain why he didn’t serve as a combat soldier, yet he chose, as done by other former Intelligence soldiers, to point it out.
As mentioned by Adam, gaining institutionalized cultural capital from military service in Intelligence open doors. “Emma” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a data analyst in unit 8200
3
) explains this in more detail: They really grabbed me right after I was discharged, it was easy and surprising for me, they were just waiting for me to be discharged, and they grabbed me. I’m also going to study something in the same field, and I want to work in the field. Thanks to my military service it was easy for me to open to this field, otherwise, I don’t know what I would choose to do.
Although she is aware of convertibility, Emma’s surprised reaction highlights the way former conscripts from Intelligence are valued in the labor market. Furthermore, she signals the impact of military service on her later life. Emma demonstrates the crucial role her military service played in her decision regarding her studies and career. Convertibility, which is affected by the different military roles, creates different possibilities of social mobility for different groups, thus producing social hierarchies (Levy & Sasson-Levy, 2008; Levy, 2007, 2013). As we can see, for those who served in Intelligence Corps, the first door that opens is to the technological field, followed by a second, even wider door, toward work, study, and a career.
However, not everyone who served in the Intelligence Corps obtains institutionalized cultural capital, for example, serving as a SIGINT analyst whose main role is to collect signals. Interestingly, the findings reveal that the service in itself serves as a convertible capital. As “Nikol” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a language analyst and intelligence specialist) noted, They really grab you the moment they know you served in 8200. It was hard for me to find a job as an analyst since I live far from the center . . . but in the end I found a job, not exactly in my field, but in software QA.
4
They are “crazy” about 8200 graduates, both because of their abilities and their seriousness, and because they already have security clearance, so it was very easy to get in there, they really wanted me.
And “Guy” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a SIGINT analyst) adds, I started working in QA and it was unrelated, the connection to my military service in Intelligence was nothing. The only connection was that I served in Intelligence, it gave some kind of seal of approval. My benefit from the military was the authorization that I was in the military, in 8200. It’s like, I served in unit 8200 but didn’t use any of the knowledge from my service.
These quotes indicate the recognition in the civilian society and labor market of the privilege and advantage of military service in Intelligence Corps, that is, of the high symbolic capital of this military sub-field and of the capital acquired within it. This discloses that it is not just the institutionalized capital granted by some of the roles in the Intelligence Corps that is convertible, but rather the service in the Corps itself, which leads me to the embodied cultural capital.
Conversion of Embodied Cultural Capital – Intelligence
Unlike institutionalized cultural capital, acquisition of embodied cultural capital exists first and foremost in the socialization process into military service (Cooper et al., 2018; Swed & Butler, 2015). The military is characterized as an organization with a strict code of discipline and order that is mandatory for everyone who enlists, regardless of his or her role or profession (Bergman et al., 2014). Thus, soldiers learn and internalize military habitus, which is deeply embedded in service personnel (Cooper et al., 2018; Maringira et al., 2015). Alongside the socialization into the military, there is the socialization to the various units that constitute different sub-fields. Each unit has its own unique cultural setting and habitus where soldiers accumulate capital.
The interviews revealed two meanings that Intelligence Corps soldiers attributed to the embodied cultural capital acquired during their military service. The first refers to effect of military service on the private self. As “Eviatar” (who served in the Intelligence Corps in Intelligence special operations unit) describes, “Military service is a kind of a steppingstone for your character, it brings out certain characteristics . . . you learn skills, technical and other, and you gain confidence, independence and responsibility.”
Also “Romy” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a visual Intelligence analyst) denotes, “Personal, professional, and social skills, coping with problems and challenges, a mature and broad worldview, and personal and professional development that I couldn’t acquire without military service.”
And “Hope” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as an Intelligence specialist in unit 8200) adds, “I learned how to learn, how to arrange and organize materials, how to summarize them and how to present them to those who need them. I developed a kind of meticulousness during my service that I didn’t have before.”
The interviewees describe the way military service changed their character, indicating one of the characteristics of the unique setting of the military itself that shapes soldiers’ identities (Woodward & Jenkings, 2011). Indeed, they refer to traits that are part of the military habitus, such as maturity, personal development, independence, and responsibility that, as Romy notes, you couldn’t acquire in any other place. These new traits turn into new dispositions and become a second nature, part of the improved private self.
In addition, their words imply to the unique habitus of Intelligence, leading me to the second meaning Intelligence soldiers attributed to the embodied cultural capital they acquired, which refers to its effect on the occupational self. As “Itay” (who served in the Intelligence Corps as a SIGINT analyst) describes, I learned to be organized and to pay attention to small details . . . I learned to summarize things, to look for the gist of things, not to try to understand every word, to grasp the general idea and then to focus on the matters that are important and to understand them. Another important thing I learned is how to behave in the face of authority and in front of superiors, how to deal with a boss, and how to talk to him and impress him. I also learned how to manage myself in a team, how to do it in a pleasant way, not getting into fights with people.
“Adam” (who served in the Intelligence Corps, in Intelligence in special operations unit) adds, [I learned] how to manage time wisely in order to complete your tasks and meet deadlines, how to deal with people who up rank you, how to make people think you’re doing more even though you’re not really doing it, which is absolutely the most important thing I’ve learned during my service. Meaning, make myself visible so people think you’re doing much more than you really are. That’s really important and it has become part of my present-day toolbox.
The quotes reveal that Intelligence soldiers describe the embodied cultural capital they acquired in language that mirrors civilian workplace, using terms such as time management, meeting deadlines, dealing with the boss, organizational skills, and keeping up appearance. The Intelligence Corps’ habitus is shaped by proximity to the civilian labor market and specifically the High-Tech sector. This creates dispositions aligned with workplace competencies, career preparation, and economic values. During their service, Intelligence soldiers learn and internalize future-oriented, career-focused dispositions, fostering comprehensive occupational self. Thus, they not only acquire institutional cultural capital that can be converted directly into the civilian labor market, correspondingly their military role is an “apprenticeship” for their civilian occupational self, creating professional continuity between the military and the civilian fields.
Conversion of Institutionalized Cultural Capital – Combat Soldiers
Combat soldiers do not acquire institutional cultural capital that can be converted directly into the civilian labor market. The lack of expectation of former combat soldiers for conversion of institutionalized cultural capital was expressed in two ways; first, by referring only to the influence of military service on their private self through self-growth and improvement, which I will elaborate on in the next section.
The second manifestation of the lack of expectation for conversion of institutionalized cultural capital emerged through the clear distinction they made between their military service and their post-service lives. From the moment of discharge, there was no continuity between military service and civilian life. As indicated by “Dor” (who served in the Paratroopers as combat soldier and a medic), I was discharged and went on a trip to Africa for a month, and immediately when I returned, I took a tour guide course. I guided tours and worked with Americans in a summer camp . . . and then I started my bachelor’s degree.
Also, “Dan” (who served in Kfir Brigade as a combat soldier) talked about his transition from the military to civilian life: After I was discharged, I started working in a bookstore. I needed some money and the work was convenient since I knew people there, I could work as I pleased so it fits in well with my studies. I’m about to finish my degree and I intend to quit afterwards, and my ambition is to go into diplomacy.
And a similar trajectory appears in the words “Omer” (who served as a combat soldier in the Armed Corps): It was very important to me to start working immediately after I was discharged because all my friends got discharged long before me. One of my friends told me he will wait for me for the big trip,
5
and so one day after I was discharged, I started working. The first job I found was in an organic supermarket. I worked for two months until an opportunity arose to guide Jewish youth from the diaspora.
What stands out from the former combat soldiers’ accounts is the separation I previously noted between military service and civilian life, both in their discourse and practice. There is almost total detachment from the military service when transitioning into civilian life. When the conversation shifts from the military to civilian life, the military service seemingly ceases to exist, and it appears that one chapter in the former conscripts ended and another began.
Conversion of Embodied Cultural Capital – Combat Soldiers
Unlike Intelligence soldiers, combat soldiers perceived embodied cultural capital merely as a catalyst for personal growth, so they interpret their experiences only through the lens of the private self. As noted by “Marry” (who served in the Air Force, as air defense operator), The military developed my mental capabilities, before that I was really a whiny girl, and I became an assertive person who knows how to stand up for her selves. Today I know how to handle pressure and complex situations. I feel that when I speak, attention will be directed towards me.
“Roni” (who served in infantry brigade as a combat soldier) adds, “Management, order, responsibility and above all security . . . there is nothing I can’t achieve. These are things the military teaches everyone.”
Combat units’ habitus is based on military dispositions, shaped by traditional military values that emphasize sacrifice, civic duty, and national contribution. Indeed, in their quotes, Sara and Roni refer to the military habitus they learn and internalize. Here, we can see similarities between the two groups, both attribute their personal growth to the embodied cultural capital they acquired in the military, as Roni states, “These are things the military teaches everyone.”
Some noted that they owned some of the capabilities and skills prior to their military service. For instance, “Uri” (who served in the Navy, as a missile boat combatant) stated, Overall, discipline and teamwork are kinds of things I had before the military, but it truly developed during my military service. These are the demands from this role, and I had to handle it in order to fulfil the needs of the military.
And also, as “Omer” (who served as a combat soldier in the Armed corps) indicates, There are a lot of things that I think I had before, like work ethic. I think it’s things that were improved in the military, whether it means staying up until 4 in the morning and preparing the attack plans of the battalion on transparencies, because, if you won’t finish them, then there won’t be training tomorrow. The military taught me not to whine about things that happen, I don’t whine about hard work; I don’t whine about being overworked, it doesn’t depress me. I don’t get resentful or anything like that.
According to Bourdieu, fields exist in state of structural homology, when there is a symbolic or structural alignment between the two arenas, whereby the habitus cultivated in one field can be transposed and operationalized in another (Bourdieu, 1984). Due to the functional correspondence between the military field and the interviewees’ home field – all belonging to the middle socio-economic class – the habitus acquired in one field is seamlessly translated and expressed in the other. By entering the service with pre-existing elements of this military-aligned habitus, they are afforded the opportunity to further refine and enhance it throughout their service.
As shown, combat soldiers described the embodied cultural capital they acquired in military terms, and they perceive it only through the lens of the private self. However, allusions to the narrative used by intelligence soldiers can be detected. As appear in the words of “Sara” (who served as a Transport and Logistics NCO, in the Nahal Brigade), The military taught me a lot of things, mostly proportions, meaning and self-discipline. When you are responsible for people, even if you don’t feel like doing something, you must do it. Also, organizational skills, I know how to prioritize tasks, to work under pressure, and to listen and understand people.
A closer look at Sara’s phrasing and the preceding quotes uncovers greater similarities than differences in the groups’ embodied cultural capital. Both groups describe acquiring capital such as responsibility, discipline, maintaining a strict schedule, teamwork, self-sufficiency, coping with difficulties, operating under pressure, and working long hours. However, they perceive, interpret, and conceptualize it differently. In accordance with the combat units’ habitus, combat soldiers internalize mission-focused dispositions that value military experience for its own sake. So, they interpret their service as a formative period of character building rather than the foundation of an enduring occupational identity. Since combat soldiers perceive the capital, they acquired as personal disposition rather than professional toolkit, they do not perceive it as having conversion potential, and they experience professional discontinuity between the military and the civilian fields.
Discussion and Conclusions
In this article, I have shown that focusing on the subjective side of convertibility enables a profound understanding of convertibility. During military service, soldiers acquire various forms of capital, and their perception, interpretation, and evaluation of the capital influences their expectation for convertibility. Thus, between the military service and the objective rewards gained from converting military capitals into the civilian sphere lies the soldiers’ subjective perception of the capital they acquired.
While the fields dictate the objective value of the capital – whereby the civilian labor market pre-determines the value of specific military role, I argue that the conversion of military capital into civilian assets is not an automatic structural process. Instead, the conversion of capital is a mediated process, dependent on the agent’s subjective interpretation; thus, the soldiers take an active part.
The homology between the military field and the interviewees’ middle-class home field allows them to enter the military with a pre-existing habitus, offering a shared opportunity to refine these despositional elements throughout their service. However, as I have shown, the field only provides the potential for capital, while the habitus functions as the generative “engine” that activates it. For Intelligence soldiers, the development of an occupational self allows them to recognize the structural homology between the military and civilian labor market. This recognition, alongside the high symbolic capital of Intelligence Corps in general and unit 8200 in particular, “unlocks” the capital for exchange even without specific skills. Conversely, for combat soldiers, the lack of such professional conceptualization leads to “capital latency.” Consequently, even when the field possesses high-value embodied cultural capital, similar to the Intelligence soldier embodied cultural capital, it remains untapped within the private self. This is because the agent lacks the interpretive framework to invest them in the labor market. Therefore, interpretation is not merely a reflection of the field but a constitutive force in the actual realization of capital.
While existing literature emphasizes the dynamic nature of the habitus and acknowledges the role of subjective interpretation in capital actualization (Wacquant, 2016; Yang, 2014), this study extends these insights. By introducing the distinction between the occupational self and the private self, the research demonstrates how the habitus functions as a “generative principle” that can either activate or inhibit the conversion of capital. Moreover, the study identifies the occupational self as a specific mediating mechanism. By analyzing a socio-economically homogeneous group, this research demonstrates that structural homology alone is insufficient for conversion, and the actualization of capital depends on the agent’s capacity to conceptually bridge these arenas. Thus, the study adds a layer of “interpretive agency” to the habitus, showing that class reproduction is not merely a matter of resource accumulation, but a discursive process of recognition and framing.
This study also offers critical intervention for organizations and policymakers involved in the vocational reintegration of military former conscripts and veterans. While existing research often focuses on the profound challenges and disorientation associated with “reverse culture shock” during the transition to civilian life (Cooper et al., 2017, 2014; Laanepere & Kasearu, 2021; Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008), this research contributes a different perspective. All interviewees described a “smooth transition,” including combat soldiers who did not develop an occupational self and experienced a separation, rather than continuum, between their military service and civilian life course. I suggest that providing “hard capital” is insufficient if not accompanied by a process of identity translation. For combat former conscripts or veterans, who often experience “capital latency,” the primary barrier to the civilian labor market is not a lack of valuable capital, but a conceptual gap in their habitus. Thus, they need to reframe their experiences, moving from a private self-interpretation toward an occupational self. Teaching former conscripts and veterans to recognize the structural homologies between the military field and specifically the battlefield to the civilian corporate world can empower them to “activate” their latent capital and effectively communicate its value to civilian employers.
This study focuses specifically on the secular middle class, which shares a distinct cultural field and a pre-existing habitus. This can explain the smooth transition of the combat soldiers, which enables them to fulfill their goals and aspirations even without acquiring occupational self and without direct conversion of military capital. Furthermore, while this allowed for a controlled comparison between units, it limits the generalizability of the findings to soldiers from the lower socio-economic status or different cultural and religious backgrounds, who might experience a different degree of structural homology or interpret military capital through alternate frameworks. Furthermore, the research analyzes specific unit cultures (Intelligence vs. Combat), future research could benefit from a broader comparative lens, examining a wider variety of military roles (e.g., logistical and administrative) to see if the occupational self emerges in other contexts that lack the high-prestige branding of elite intelligence units.
Finally, this study was conducted within the context of mandatory military service; in this model, there is a strong connection between civilian and military fields, as opposed to the cultural gap that exists between these fields in countries with a professional, all-volunteer force. Consequently, future research is needed to examine the validity of the occupational self within all-volunteer militaries.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Prof. Yagil Levy for his insightful comments, endless support, and unwavering guidance along the way. Also, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Marion Fellenzer for providing me with the serenity and the nurturing space needed to work and write.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.