At the turn of the millennium, the British Army finds its position in relation to British society paradoxical. One one level it enjoys public support; it is seen as a highly professional organization in which the civil population has great trust. On another, its values are portrayed as out of touch with society; its policies or its behaviour in relationship to gender, sex and race are attacked in the press; society is seen to have changed, but the Army has not. The Army’s response is that at least some of the differences betwen Army and society are necessary given that particular nature of its task: ultimately the soldier’s profession is one unlike any other, because it requires him (or her) to be ready to die in the course of duty. The question is whether this right to be different is a factor in explaining why recruiting levels are low. The ability more readily to assimilate ethnic minorities or women could resolve the Army’s manpower problems. But if the Army goes too far to meet the demands of political correctness , will it have ceased to be an effective fighting formation or will it cease to attract those very groups on which it currently relies? The essays in this volume set the relationship between the Army and society in the context of the 20th century as a whole. They then go on to consider the key areas of current controversy - the pressure on the Army caused by changes in society, the Army’s right to be different , race, homosexuality and gender. An illustration from the US provides a comparative case study. Finally, the volume considers the possible impact of social change on fighting effectiveness.