Inclusion of Diversity: Experiences of (in)Equality among Conscripts with a Migrant Background in the Finnish Defence Forces

ABSTRACT

In this article, we analyse the inclusion of individuals with migrant backgrounds in a public institution through a case study of the Finnish Defence forces. We consider the extent to which individuals with a migrant background perceive existing structures and practices as ensuring equal inclusion within the Finnish Defence Forces, an institution traditionally characterised by ethnic homogeneity. We study (in)equality through the lenses of civic, social, cultural-religious and linguistic inclusion. The article is based on 24 interviews of conscripts with a migrant background. In terms of civic inclusion, most interviewees perceived the military environment, as less discriminatory than in the wider society. Moreover, cultural-religious diversity appeared to be adequately addressed, with well-established practices and routines for its management. However, practices regarding linguistic diversity did not receive the same level of consideration. In terms of social inclusion, some interviewees described experiencing bullying, which they considered to be related to their migrant background. The findings underscore the existence of well-established practices that promote intercultural and multicultural inclusion in a public institution, while they also highlight the need for heightened attention to certain critical aspects.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusion
• multiculturalism
• migrants
• military
• conscript service

Introduction

The effects of growing diversity and multiculturalism within our societies has been extensively studied in migration and intercultural studies. Numerous previous studies have illuminated the various challenges and difficulties migrants encounter in terms of for example belonging, citizenship and racialisation, when seeking inclusion into the various domains of society. However, the inclusion and sense of belonging of migrants in specific public institutions, particularly into the armed forces and mandatory conscript service, has received comparatively less attention. As noted by Bührmann and Schönwälder (2017, p. 1639), research should not only focus on national perspectives on integration; it should also study the ideologies and values operating within institutions, such as armed forces or schools.

In our study, we look at the inclusion of individuals with a migrant background in the Finnish society in the context of Finnish conscription system and the Finnish Defence Forces. Historically, the Finnish Defence Forces has been characterised as an ethnically homogeneous institution, primarily composed of young white males representing the majority population (King 2019, Kosonen 2019, Kosonen and Mälkki 2022). The number of migrants has however increased in Finland especially since the 1990s. Most migrants in Finland originate from neighbouring countries, such as Russia, Sweden and Estonia. However, the number of individuals coming from more distant countries has increased (Statistics Finland 2022b).

With an increasing number of individuals with a migrant background serving in the Finnish Defence Forces (Leinonen et al. 2017), there is also growing diversity in cultural, religious, and linguistic backgrounds among conscripts. Consequently, it becomes important to assess the extent to which existing practices within conscript service and military training take these aspects into consideration and how this influences migrants´ sense of equal inclusion. Central to this assessment is an understanding of how well military service, traditionally designed with a homogeneous perspective of young males in mind, is prepared to address the increasing multiculturalism among conscripts. The Finnish Defence Forces itself emphasises its commitment and aims to ensure an equitable and unbiased operational mode for all personnel, including conscripts and female volunteers (Defence Command 2023). Our aim is to analyse the practical realisation of this commitment from the experience and perspective of conscripts with a migrant background. Although Finland has been among the few countries that have retained conscription, there has however been a growing interest in re-establishing conscription in other countries (see Strand 2023). Thus, the Finnish case may provide useful information for policy setting in other contexts.

Our research is founded on 24 interviews, conducted with individuals who had either completed their conscript service or were currently performing conscript service in Finland. The research seeks to address two primary questions: (1) How do individuals with a migrant background perceive their inclusion during conscript service in terms of (in)equality? (2) How well do they think the current practices of the Finnish Defence Forces take into consideration multiculturalism? We look at the various practices the military system has in place to ensure the inclusion of diversity in terms of four dimensions: civic, social, linguistic and cultural-religious.

Background – Inclusion of Minorities in the Public Institution of National Defence

Research on the inclusion of migrants within military organisations is scarce (Ben-Shalom et al. 2023) particularly within the context of conscription. Diversity within the ranks has however been considered as an important factor for the military’s institutional legitimacy within a democratic society, with arguments suggesting that the military should represent or reflect the broader population (Armor and Gilroy 2010, Dandeker and Mason 2003).

Existing research in the military context has predominantly focused on the inclusion of ethnic minorities into the professional military systems, particularly in the US and UK contexts (see e.g. Armor and Gilroy 2010, Dandeker and Mason 2003, DeAngelis and Segal 2012, Ishaq and Hussain 2002, 2004, Lutz 2008; Ware 2010). These previous studies have primarily examined the recruitment of individuals representing minorities into the armed forces and the representation of ethnic minorities in terms of their percentages (see e.g. Alley-Young 2023, Ishaq and Hussain 2002, Van Den Berg and Richardson 2011 in Dutch context). In the US, the focus has been particularly on race relations and (in)equality between racial groups (e.g. Burk and Espinoza 2012).

In terms of (un)equal inclusion of ethnic minorities, previous studies have focused on the distribution of various ‘military goods’ (Burk and Espinoza 2012) as indicators of equality or inequality. These indicators include, for example, promotion rates (Butler 1976), combat risks and casualties (Fischer 2009, Mazur 1995), mental well-being (Brinker et al. 2007, Burk and Espinoza 2012, Dohrenwend et al. 2008, Nakkas et al. 2019, Salem et al. 2023), or the participation of minorities in special military operations (Kirby et al. 2000). The general perspective has focused on the various disparities and inequalities faced by ethnic minorities (see e.g. Burk and Espinoza 2012 for overview). However, for example, Strader et al. (2021) found that immigrants who enlist in the US military perform very well and sometimes even better than native-born individuals who enrol into service. Thus, being part of a minority does not necessarily lead to negative psychological, behavioural and organisational outcomes in the military, such as increased stress of poorer coping mechanisms (see Perez and Strizhko 2018). It is important to note that different individuals cope with and integrate into military service differently, not solely based on their ethnicity (Parkkola 1999, Salo 2008).

In terms on inclusion, it is also important to note that ethnic minority members have been found to experience higher levels of discrimination and harassment in the military compared to their non-minority counterparts (Ministry of Defence 2019, Salem et al. 2023). According to a previous study, 20 per cent of male and 47 per cent of female conscripts reported experiences of unequal treatment during their service in Finland. Among these respondents, 14 per cent attributed unequal treatment to their ethnic background and 12 per cent to their religion (Leinonen et al. 2017). Furthermore, ethnic minority men, particularly individuals representing Roma and Sami minorities, have been found to experience more discrimination than other men in the Finnish military (Leinonen et al. 2012), possibly due to the strong stereotypes towards particular ethnic groups in Finland (see, for example, Bontenbal 2023).

Experiences of discrimination may also relate to existing ethnic and racial divisions in societies according to which some ethnic minorities are considered more suited to the military than others. For example, in the Dutch context Moluccans and Indo-Europeans have been considered the most similar to the Dutch and have therefore been at the top of the ethnic hierarchy in the military, whereas Surinamese, Antilleans and particularly Muslim soldiers have been lower in the hierarchy and have thus faced most racism (Sion 2016). Typically, those migrant soldiers who are viewed to differ the most from the military culture’s ideal soldier face the most discrimination (Pendlebury 2022 in the US context). What also impacts inclusion is the military culture and the behaviour of military personnel. If the military culture and personnel resist diversification (Resteigne 2022), required changes, for example to better include linguistic minorities, are not necessarily made, leading to these minority members having difficulties in speaking or understanding the language used in the military (De Rosa and Szvircsev Tresch 2022).

Dimensions of Integration

Within the migration and integration field of research, no single universally accepted definition of the dimensions or components constituting inclusion or integration exists. Various scholars have identified different dimensions leading to different groupings, subgroupings and listings (Heath and Schneider 2021). For example, Jonsson et al. (2018) distinguish three dimensions of integration – structural, cultural and social; Penninx (2005) shapes four dimensions – political, social, economic and cultural integration; Heath and Schneider (2021) propose five dimensions – structural, cultural, social, political and civic; while the International Organization for Migration lists six dimensions – psychological, navigational, economic, social, linguistic and political. Frequently, these dimensions are closely interconnected and even overlapping. This article focuses on four of these dimensions, civic, social, linguistic and cultural-religious inclusion/integration, and examines whether migrants experience equality or inequality across these dimensions. We focus particularly on how practices within the defence force structure either contribute to or hinder integration along these four dimensions. These dimensions were selected based on the prevalent issues raised by the interviewees during the interviews.

Civic integration refers to issues related to legal and political inclusion, such as becoming part of the community, acquiring citizenship and political rights. At its core, this dimension refers to the question of ‘whether immigrants are regarded as fully-fledged members of the political community’ (Penninx 2005, p. 139). In our analysis, we will incorporate this dimension by considering the extent to which individuals with a migrant background consider they are included in the military community as equal members. Social integration refers to an individual’s participation and involvement in social networks and friendships in a given social setting (Gracia and Herrero 2004). For minority members, this considers the extent to which they are included in the social structure of the host society, or in this case conscript service. Although social integration is affected by many factors (Gracia and Herrero 2004), we will look at this from the perspective of the experiences of hazing and bullying during service. We take this focus because of the particular role that hazing has had within military culture (Leinonen et al. 2017). Linguistic integration is often understood as a one-way process in which the migrants must adapt to the language of the surrounding society. We, however, particularly consider which steps the military system has taken towards ensuring linguistic inclusion. Cultural-religious integration refers to the actualisation of cultural and religious rights of migrants: whether minority members are ‘recognised, accepted, and treated like other comparable groups’ and whether they ‘enjoy access to the same or comparable facilities’ (Penninx 2005, p. 139).

Context, Data and Method

Finland maintains conscription and mandatory conscript service for all male citizens aged 18–30 years, which also includes those male individuals with an immigrant background who acquire Finnish citizenship before turning 30. Currently, on average, 60–65 per cent of each male age cohort complete their mandatory conscript service (Defence Command 2022). Those who do not complete service often do so because of reasons related to physical or mental health. Men also have an option to perform non-military service, lasting 12 months, if they have a convincing reason to refuse military service (Non-Military Service Act 2007/1446). Nevertheless, only about 7 per cent of the male age cohort conduct non-military service, as societal and socio-norms strongly encourage men to select and complete conscript service at age of call-up (Kosonen et al. 2019). Conscript service is voluntary for female citizens, and approximately 3–5 per cent of the annual conscripts, total around 23 500 individuals annually, are women (Defence Command 2020). The duration of conscript service varies from 6 to 12 months depending on the conscript´s training programme. Unlike in some contexts with professional armies where citizenship is not a requirement to join the military (see Eichler 2014, Ware 2010), participating in the Finnish military does not provide a path to citizenship but instead requires it. The Defence Forces do not compile statistics on the ethnic backgrounds or countries of origin of conscripts. However, some perception about the proportion of ethnic minorities and migrants participating in service is provided by the results of a survey that was addressed to conscripts in 2017. According to the survey, 94 per cent of respondents had either a Finnish or Finnish-Swedish background, 1 per cent a Roma background, 2 per cent a migrant background from outside of Europe, 1 per cent from within Europe, and 2 per cent a Finnish expatriate background (Leinonen et al. 2017).

The data for this article was collected through interviews, with a total of 24 individuals who identified as having a migrant background. The interviewees themselves determined whether they considered themselves to have a ‘migrant background’ or not. We use the term ‘migrant’ in according to IOM (2023) as an overarching umbrella concept that includes people who have moved internationally for various reasons. We note that this is not a legal category, such as migrant workers, asylum seekers or refugees, and we acknowledge that sometimes a separate distinction is made between individuals who move voluntarily and those who are forced to move (UNHCR 2016). As such the category ‘migrant’ in our analysis includes a range of people with various legal statuses and who have had a varying level of agency and autonomy in their mobility (Scheel and Tazzioli 2022, Anderson 2017). In practice, all our interviewees who volunteered for interviews either had personally migrated to Finland from abroad at some point of their lives or had parents or one parent who had migrated to Finland, resulting in their growing up in a multicultural environment. All the interviewees held Finnish nationality, and some also possessed the nationality of another country. The interviewees ranged in age from 18 to 44 years old, with 22 of them being men and two women. The interviews were conducted between September 2022 and March 2023.

We interviewed (a) individuals conducting their conscript service at the time of the interview (17 interviewees). These interviews took place at military garrisons during the interviewees’ service. The research was introduced during classroom teaching sessions, and conscripts with a migrant background were encouraged to participate. The interviews were conducted in empty classrooms and dormitories. We also interviewed (b) individuals who had previously completed their conscript service in Finland (7 interviewees). These interviewees were identified through emailing lists, NGOs, contact persons, language classes and via references from the interviewees, in other words, the snow-balling method (see Cooke and Campbell 2004). These interviews were conducted using various methods, including online meetings (Zoom and Teams), phone calls and face-to-face meetings. None of the interviewees had previous experience of military service in another country. The interviews were conducted in either English or Finnish and typically lasted between 30 and 60 min.

Before conducting the interviews, the volunteer participants were provided with detailed information about the research, their role in the data collection, the responsibility related to processing research material and personal data and each of them was asked to sign a consent form. The study followed the administrative instruction of the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) for research permits and the FDF’s ethics for humanities research as well as the ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity 2019). The work for the study was overseen by an independent research committee composed of researchers from various universities to guide and evaluate the study including its ethics.

Data analyses were performed in accordance with thematic analysis as guided by Braun and Clarke (2012). Braun and Clarke (2012) describe thematic analysis as ‘a way of identifying what is common to the way a topic is talked or written about, and of making sense of those commonalities’ and they propose a six-step approach to conducting it, which we have followed in our research. First, the researchers familiarised themselves with the data through listening to the audio and reading the transcripts. After this, in the second stage, we started generating initial data-led codes that were a mix of descriptive and interpretative. In this stage, the data were systematically organised into increasingly abstract units of information. This was done to gain an interpretation of the material (Stake 2010). In the third stage, we looked for themes that captured an important aspect about the data in relation to the research question and represented a pattern in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006, p. 82). Based on the thematic categories, first versions of analytic descriptive paragraphs were written. In the fourth stage, the potential themes were reviewed in light of the conceptual framework to produce distinctive and coherent theory-informed themes that worked in relation to the data. In the fifth stage, the themes were named in a way that summarised each theme’s core. In this stage, we ended up focusing on the dimensions of civic, social, cultural-religious and linguistic inclusion which became the main categories. The final, sixth stage, constituted producing the report.

Analysis: Inclusion of Diversity in the Military

In the analysis, we consider how well individuals with a migrant background perceive that the existing practices of the Finnish Defence Forces enable their equal inclusion during military service and how well they think the Finnish Defence Forces takes into consideration the diverse backgrounds of different individuals. The analysis is structured around four main themes: civic inclusion, social inclusion, cultural-religious inclusion and linguistic inclusion.

(In)equality in Civic Inclusion: Equal Members of the Community?

The interviewees were asked to assess whether they had been included in the military community as equal members. Generally, the interviewees described that they had not experienced different treatment related to their activities in service. Most interviewees also underlined that they had not encountered discrimination related to their migrant background or their physical appearance. For instance, one interviewee noted:

I wasn’t sure how I would fit in. – – Will they say like I'm not Finnish enough, because I'm black or because I have an immigrant background and stuff. But I was surprised there wasn’t a lot of that, people were nice and friendly, and I didn't even think of me being originally from somewhere else’. (Male, African background, completed service in 2020)

The interviewees generally considered they had been accepted as fully-fledged members of the community and had been treated well, particularly by military staff (see similar findings from Ekholm et al. 2012).

Among the interviewees, there seemed to be a prevailing sense that military staff respected diverse cultures. One interviewee, for example, noted that, ‘They respected that people come from different parts of Finland and from different continents. People with different backgrounds. I feel that it was respected’ (Male, Middle Eastern background, completed service in 2018). Another interviewee mentioned having positive experiences with military leaders who, right from the beginning emphasised strict repercussions for discrimination against anyone based on factors like skin colour or religion:

They told us what kind of repercussions there would be [for discrimination or bullying] and thus everyone knows what could happen. If you are discriminated against, you can go tell your leader immediately [about] who has done so and there will be an investigation. That is why no one dares [to discriminate]. (Male, African background, in service)

Thus, the serious approach to discrimination and the consequent fear of repercussions, such as being stuck at a military base for the weekend, was considered as a successful practice in deterring individuals from engaging in discriminatory behaviour.

In terms of advancement during military service, the interviewees themselves did not perceive that having a migrant background or dual nationality might influence their advancement. For example, when one interviewee was asked about this, she responded: ‘Not at all. That is a good thing here that everyone is treated the same way. It does not matter where I am from’. (Female, European background, in service). While previous studies have found that in Finland, dual nationality can lead to significant disadvantages, differential treatment, and act as a possible proxy for discrimination, particularly in contexts where securing loyalty remains central to the states´ fundamental interests, including national defence (Askola 2022, p. 2, 11), none of our interviewees reported such experiences or expressed concerns about the impact of their dual nationalities on their advancement.

In terms of equal membership in the community during service, most interviewees found the military to be a less discriminatory environment, where an individual´s background was irrelevant, compared to society on a larger scale (see also Ben-Shalom et al. 2023). Several interviewees brought up that they had previously encountered bullying, racism and discrimination at school or in public transport, but most had not experienced such issues during their military service (although some had, as the following section will reveal). Similar findings have been reported in the US military, which is often considered as a less discriminatory and more inclusive environment compared to civilian society (see e.g. Burk and Espinoza 2012, Lundquist 2008, Moore and Webb 2000, Moskos and Butler 1996, Strader et al. 2021).

(In)equality in Social Inclusion: Social Interaction in Terms of Bullying and Bantering During Service

This category focuses on practices regarding a particular aspect of social behaviour during service, that of bullying and hazing, which have traditionally played a significant role in military culture: according to previous research, 42 per cent of female and 14 per cent of male conscript respondents in Finland, not limited to those with a migrant background, reported experiencing bullying during conscript service (Leinonen et al. 2017). While most interviewees reported their experiences of the efforts that have been made to eliminate hazing culture from conscript service (see previous section), some interviewees described instances of bullying and hazing, some of which were linked to their migrant background. One interviewee, for example, explained that due to language barriers, he could not understand everything his dorm mates were saying, and his dorm mates could not understand his Finnish. Consequently, they began labelling him as slow and treating him poorly: ‘But I don’t know how to speak to them and explain things properly. Because I don’t know, maybe I have some problem with my Finnish language’. (Male, Middle Eastern background, in service). This caused stress to the interviewee and negatively impacted his time in service. Furthermore, some interviewees also mentioned witnessing or hearing about incidents where other conscripts had faced discrimination based on their migrant, religious or ethnic background.

Often, officer candidates or squad leaders were especially identified as responsible for bullying. In contrast, military staff was not perceived to be involved in bullying or hazing. One interviewee, however, mentioned an incident of discrimination involving a civilian employee working at a military base in a dining hall. The interviewee described witnessing a fellow conscript with a migrant background subjected to racist shouting after dropping a plate of food. In addition to having this experience, the interviewee expresses disappointment because, despite discussing the incident with their superior, no action was taken: ‘It annoyed me that I am serving Finland, and practicing doing so, and I am defending this country and then comes this lady and says things like that [=racist shouting] and nothing is done about it’. (Male, Middle Eastern background, completed service in 2019). Another interviewee, with an Eastern European background, mentioned feeling uncomfortable at times due to the way military personnel talked about Russians during training and exercises: ‘Sometimes I feel a little … for example, when staff may say something bad about Russians in general – – . That they should be shot and other things like that. Then I always look at them a bit angry, like excuse me, what!’ (Male, Eastern European background, in service). According to the interviewee, the staff should be more considerate of their words and how they express themselves.

Although some interviewees had experienced bullying or hazing, particularly related to their migrant background, most interviewees emphasised that the hazing they experienced was not linked to their migrant background, but it was a common experience for all conscripts in military service. The following quotation illustrates this:

I didn't experience any bullying in that way, but like army … it’s army, there is always some [bullying]. It wasn't because of my skin colour or because of my background, but it’s like a place full of boys, they bully each other a little bit, but it's always because of your performance. (Male, African background, completed service in 2020)

Most often, the reasons cited for bullying were making mistakes, doing something wrong or being too slow: ‘It doesn’t matter if you’re Finnish or from anywhere else; if you screw up, some people kind of bully about that’. (Male, African background, completed service in 2020).

It can also be challenging at times for conscripts to distinguish bullying from joking and banter. According to a previous survey-based study, most bullying during service is verbal, and of surveyed female respondents 32 per cent, and male respondents 9 per cent, noted having experienced verbal bullying (Leinonen et al. 2017). Among our interviewees, joking and bantering were frequently mentioned as part of social interaction during military service. The interviewees brought up hearing jokes about cultural stereotypes, ethnic backgrounds, religion, Muslims being terrorists and foreign accents, and gender-related jokes towards women.

The interviewees’ interpretations of such background-related jokes varied. Generally, interviewees tended to view such joking as part of military culture, as a normal way of communicating when young men are put together, and they accepted it as long as it remained within certain boundaries and did not become constant. Bantering was seen and justified as a traditional part of initiation and socialising during service (see also Ekholm et al. 2012), as one interviewee put it: ‘Here in the army it is just like that, – – that people are constantly roasting each other. – – It is a basic thing’. (Male, Middle Eastern background, in service). Several interviewees also emphasised that this kind of joking and teasing was often done in a friendly way and thus should not be understood as bullying: ‘Sometimes with friends we joke around, they tell me some immigrant jokes, but that is also only joking, and everyone understands that’. (Male, European background, in service). Some interviewees described that if they asked their peers to stop joking, their peers would do so and thus were more willing to put up and accept this kind of behaviour from their peers. Additionally, having a ‘thick skin’ and not getting easily offended was seen as respectable among the conscripts. Therefore, not reacting strongly or becoming upset was seen as the appropriate response to this kind of behaviour.

However, several interviewees did point out that this kind of joking is problematic and racist (see also Sion 2016 for examples on racist joking in the military). As noted by Ekholm et al. (2012), not all racism in the military can be chalked up to harmless joking. For example, one interviewee in our research described witnessing peers putting towels on their heads and mimicking as people with a turban, which they found unacceptable:

People would, for example, in the barracks, put towels on their head and play some turban-people. That is something I have seen, for example. And then they shout something like bismillah and those kinds of things. I think it is shameless – – and they are at least unacceptable’. (Male, Middle Eastern background, in service)

On similar lines, one interviewee described the following: ‘I have heard quite a lot of racists jokes that are considered as jokes. Especially about Jews. Well, I am not very close to my Jewish background and have not taken them personally, but it also has not sounded or felt very nice’. (Male, European background, in service). Not all interviewees found jokes related to cultural or ethnic backgrounds amusing, and while humour may not constitute serious discourse, it can have serious effects, including reshaping reality, co-agitating disparate discourses and creating semantic alienation (Weaver 2011).

(In)equality in Cultural-Religious Inclusion – The Cases of Praying, Fasting and Privacy

Diversity in cultural and religious backgrounds, and how it is recognised within the defence forces, significantly influences the experiences of inclusion of individual conscripts with migrant backgrounds in conscription service. Traditionally, there has been a link between military traditions and Christianity in military culture in Finland (Liuski 2023, Tilli 2016). Interviewees who practised religions different from the majority, particularly Muslims, were content with how their religious needs, such as prayer and dietary requirements, were met by the military organisation during service (see similar findings by Ekholm et al. 2012). It appears that there are established practices for addressing such issues in the Finnish Defence Forces. For instance, one interviewee described,

Because I am a Muslim, there were certain things that I had to do during the army: for example, I pray five times a day and my time in the army also overlapped with fast, that is Ramadan, and I fasted during service. And they respected that. (Male, African background, completed service in 2018).

Interviewees were given permission to pray during training, and suitable prayer locations were arranged, which they appreciated. However, it is worth noting that not all Muslim interviewees utilised these arrangements during their service, illustrating varying needs among Muslim conscripts.

In addition, the interviewees also considered that diversity related to cultural-religious food practices had mainly been well arranged (cf. Sion 2016), as the next extract shows: ‘Because I am a Muslim, I do not eat pork meat. That dietary thing was, in my opinion, taken quite well into consideration’. (Male, African background, completed service in 2016). Another interviewee also gave an example of this and recalled how he had felt taken well care of when one time, during Ramadan, he had had to rest because he was not feeling well. The interviewee noted that his wellbeing was well considered, since other conscripts and supervisors had constantly come to check that he was ok and that even an imam had been contacted for consultation on how to properly treat light-headedness during Ramadan. However, some interviewees also mentioned some problems in terms of considerations of diversity in cultural-religious food practices. Some interviewees recalled how sometimes during forest camp trainings, they had been left without food that they could eat, because of problems in food delivery. One interviewee for example recounted the following: ‘Maybe one time when we were in the forest there was not a food option available without pork, but it happened only once and it did not bother me terribly’. (Male, Middle-Eastern background, 20y., in service). As is evident from the extract, the interviewees regarded these as minor problems, as their needs had been well met in general. What is however disappointing is that similar problems were reported already more than ten years ago in a previous study (see Ekholm et al. 2012), indicating that although gaps in cultural-religious inclusion are recognised they are not always fixed.

Interviewees also raised some concerns related to religion that were not adequately considered within the military, primarily related to privacy and gender. For example, one Muslim interviewee mentioned that, according to his religion, it is not appropriate to be seen naked by other people or to see others naked. This created a problem for him during service, as the shower facilities did not allow for private showers, requiring him to shower at less convenient times: ‘I Always waited for free time to come and then when everyone else had already showered then I went to shower alone’. (Male, African background, completed service in 2016). Another interviewee mentioned that not allowing women to wear head scarves during service might exclude some Muslim women from participating in military service. Furthermore, having both male and female conscripts in one dormitory, a practice recently experimented within the Finnish military to enhance gender equality, was seen however problematic from the perspective of cultural and religious practices by some interviewees: ‘Luckily, I am no longer there [in service], because having women and men share a dormitory is a big no, if you want to look at it from the perspective of my culture’. (Male, Middle-Eastern background, completed service in 2011). While this practice has been implemented on a small scale with the aim of promoting gender equality, it may pose challenges from a cultural diversity perspective (see also Tallberg and Rahikka 2021).

(In)equality in Linguistic Inclusion – A Critique on the Acknowledgement of Language Diversity

The interviewees brought up that language skills, or the lack of them, could create inequality in the conscript service for some conscripts with a migrant background, since all instructions and lectures are conducted in Finnish. The language proficiency of the interviewees varied considerably; while some interviewees spoke Finnish fluently, others had very limited Finnish language skills or did not speak Finnish at all. For those with limited or non-existent Finnish language skills, certain aspects of military service posed greater challenges because the service structure did not adequately consider language barriers.

The interviewees described how imperfect Finnish language skills made it more difficult for them to understand and follow instructions. For example, one interviewee mentioned, ‘It has been quite challenging to speak and to train others in a language that I do perhaps not speak as well as I would like to’. (Male, European background, in service). Some interviewees even felt that they received poor treatment due to language difficulties and found that unfair:

If you do not understand everything, then sometimes you get bad feedback. If you do something wrong, because you have not understood, there is nothing you can do about it. Sometimes there is no time to ask if you get instructions really quickly and then you do something wrong. (Male, European background, in service).

On similar lines, another interviewee noted that, ‘Instead of yelling, people should be better instructed’. (Female, European background, in service). Considering the importance of understanding instructions in an environment involving practice shooting with guns, it seems that the military struggles to accommodate individuals from diverse language backgrounds. In the Finnish military, no Finnish language learning courses are offered during conscript service unlike in some other military contexts, such as in Estonia (ERR 2019) and the US (Strader et al. 2021).

Several interviewees were dissatisfied particularly with the absence of instructions or classes conducted in English. The interviewees also criticised the lack of English options for written assignments, exams and tests and thought that this should be an available choice. One interviewee, for example, noted, ‘Even though I speak Finnish, I have always considered that it would be easier for me to do them [written tests] in English’. (Male, European background, in service). Furthermore, although English reading materials, such as guides, should be available, some interviewees said that this was not the case: ‘When we were given our Soldier´s guidebooks, they were only in Finnish. The English version only arrived many many weeks later’. (Female, European background, in service). Consequently, this placed English-speaking conscripts in an unequal position. Some interviewees suggested that an English-speaking unit might be beneficial: ‘But I think maybe an English-speaking unit wouldn´t be the worst idea. Cause there are a few of us. Like quite a few, and there are a few that speak only a bit of Finnish’. (Male, European background, in service).

Not understanding instructions meant that some conscripts had to rely a lot on their fellow conscripts to translate and help them. One interviewee explained,

The instructions for those conscripts who did not speak Finnish were usually not directly translated by instructors. Instead, the instructors asked someone in the group to translate, simultaneously while that person asked to translate had to learn something new themselves. (Male, European background, in service)

Although most Finnish-speaking interviewees did not mind translating for their peers, some noted that this put an extra strain on them. One interviewee, for example, recalled that, ‘It made it [service] more difficult that I had to act as a translator all the time’. (Asian background, Male, in service). One interviewee further noted that it can put those conscripts that do not speak Finnish perfectly in an awkward position if they have to constantly ask for translations: ‘So it´s quite hard sometimes, like we’re having a little talk, and at the end they ask “Any questions?”. It´s like I´m not gonna be like, “Yeah can you do the whole thing again in English?”’ (Male, European background, in service). Having to continually ask for translations for instructions could put individuals in an unfavourable and unwanted spotlight but, at the same time, not doing it may complicate their learning and thus cause problems for them further into the training.

Conclusions and Discussion

Because of growing diversity and multiculturalism in society, it is of the utmost importance to consider how well diversity is met in public institutions. We explore this issue by examining the case of conscription and the Finish Defence forces. Using conscript service as an example, we illustrate how diversity is met in one understudied field of society and what could perhaps be learned from this context, both good and bad, for other parts of society as well.

In our study, we have examined the inclusion of diversity from the perspectives of civic, social, cultural-religious and linguistic integration dimensions. Our findings reveal insight into how individuals with a migrant background are included during conscript service and the difficulties and inequalities they face in this process. In terms of civic inclusion, most interviewees reported that they had not been treated differently during conscript service because of their migrant background, and many found the military context to be a less discriminatory environment than society at large (see also Ben-Shalom et al. 2023, Burk and Espinoza 2012, Lundquist 2008, Moore and Webb 2000, Moskos and Butler 1996, Strader et al. 2021).

Regarding social inclusion, although interviewees described well established practices to decrease bullying and discrimination, there were also several interviewees who felt that they had been mistreated because of their migrant background. In terms of informal culture, making inappropriate jokes about different religious and ethnic backgrounds was found to be common among participants. The boundary between ‘harmless’ joking and racism can be sometimes blurred and challenging to discern in the military, and a lack of strong policies in this regard can make it more difficult for individual conscripts to intervene and draw boundaries. Along with the official organisation, norms and rules, attention should be paid to the unofficial culture within the military too. Developing more effective policies and practices to address such behaviour and providing comprehensive instructions on inclusivity to both conscripts and supervisory personnel should be integral components of military training.

Concerning of cultural-religious inclusion, it was considered that well-established practices and routines are in place to implement the inclusion of diversity in relation to religion and culture. For instance, Muslim conscripts reported that prayer times and dietary regulations were generally well considered. However, in terms of linguistic inclusion, there is a notable deficiency in equal inclusion. Conscripts with limited or no proficiency in Finnish faced challenges, such as difficulties understanding instructions and they had had to rely mostly on their peer conscripts to translate. This also has an important safety dimension. In practical terms, the NATO membership of Finland will force the Finnish Defence Forces to use more English and thus this will be a timely opportunity to also consider how to include more English services during conscript service.

We suggest that other sectors of society might gain insights from some of the military´s relatively more successful approaches to acknowledging diversity. One such lesson could be related to the strictness in which discriminatory and racist behaviour is responded to during service. The military culture, characterised by strict rules, sanctions, and tight discipline, is reflected in the practices to addressing discrimination. The explicit regulations and well-known sanctions among conscripts can increase a fear of repercussions, thereby potentially reducing racist or discriminatory practices and behaviour. Additionally, administering penalties to those who violate these regulations imparts a sense of justice to the victims. However, the analysis also illustrates that when racist behaviour in this strict environment goes unpunished, it can evoke strong feelings of disappointment and anger. These findings could be applicable, for instance, when considering strategies to mitigate discrimination and racist behaviour in other public institutions, such as educational institutions, or other societal domains such as team sports. Nevertheless, our analysis of joking also reveals that the boundaries of racist behaviour are sometimes subject to debate, and such behaviour is not always detected by those involved. Our results thus suggest that the more formal practices addressing discrimination may not have the desired effect on the informal culture in institutions.

In terms of limitations, what should be noted is that our analysis has focused on the perceptions and experiences of conscripts with a migrant background. Although in some cases our findings support previous statistical findings and bring a more comprehensive understanding, in other areas, more statistical data is needed to analyse inclusion outcomes. Further studies are needed to investigate for example whether individuals with a migrant background have the same opportunities in the military as compared to individuals who do not have a migrant background. This should be looked at, for example, from the perception of advancement and career opportunities and reasons for discontinuation of service.

By focusing on the understudied context of integration into public institutions, and particularly military conscript service, our study contributes to the understanding of how the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in our societies is addressed and in what ways this should be improved. Our results indicate that achieving equal inclusion in public institutions is a multifaceted phenomenon. While some dimensions and practices of inclusion demonstrate success in terms of equality, others still require significant improvement. Our findings suggest that the military should particularly focus on improving linguistic inclusion to ensure that all conscripts have equal possibilities to participate in service. While it is impossible to organise the military service in a way that everybody could use their mother tongue, providing training and materials in English would be a useful start also considering Finland’s NATO membership. Furthermore, we suggest that the existing strict policies and practices in relation to discrimination and racism should be tightly upheld and constantly re-evaluated and implemented in practice. Special attention should also be paid to informal practices and culture to ensure that nobody is excluded by the interaction and jokes between conscripts. Our research thus highlights the importance of both formal and informal practices in supporting equality in the military.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Maanpuolustuksen kannatussäätiö.

Notes on contributors

Ilona Bontenbal

Ilona Bontenbal is a post doctoral researcher at the LUT university in Finland. Her research interests include migrant inclusion and integration, climate migration and transnational communication.

Reetta Riikonen

Reetta Riikonen is a doctoral researcher in social psychology at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests include social identity and intergroup dynamics between majority and minority groups.

Jarkko Kosonen

Jarkko Kosonen has a PhD in military sociology. He works as the head of research in the Army training and simulators research area, in Army Command Finland. His research interests include the conscription system, conscription training and defence will in modern societies.