The centre of gravity concept: contemporary theories, comparison, and implications

Q1 Arts and Humanities
E. L. Meyer
{"title":"The centre of gravity concept: contemporary theories, comparison, and implications","authors":"E. L. Meyer","doi":"10.1080/14702436.2022.2030715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article applies grounded theory and epistemological, teleological, ontological, and methodological (ETOM) lenses to describe the prevalent contemporary theories of the centre of gravity concept, originated by Carl von Clausewitz. These include the theories of John Warden, Joe Strange & Richard Iron, Antulio Echevarria II, Milan Vego, Dale Eikmeier, and Jacob Barfoed. The article then compares the theories across 14 deduced theoretical aspects and produces a comparison matrix, that can be used as an analytical tool, and discusses implications as guidance for further research and doctrine development. The article argues that the term “centre of gravity” is polluted, and that the application of the term in military planning and doctrines requires careful attention to the specific theory being applied, so that logical consistency and clear, accurate communication is achieved. Alternatively, the concept may be removed from doctrine altogether, renovated with inclusion of a new unpolluted term, or reconstructed with removal of the centre of gravity, leaving a “critical factor analysis” concept behind. This article also provides a level of granularity to the debate about the concept, that renders critics like Paparone & Davis Jr and Zweibelson partly irrelevant and can provide a more nuanced and qualitative basis for future discussion.","PeriodicalId":35155,"journal":{"name":"Defence Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"327 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Defence Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2022.2030715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article applies grounded theory and epistemological, teleological, ontological, and methodological (ETOM) lenses to describe the prevalent contemporary theories of the centre of gravity concept, originated by Carl von Clausewitz. These include the theories of John Warden, Joe Strange & Richard Iron, Antulio Echevarria II, Milan Vego, Dale Eikmeier, and Jacob Barfoed. The article then compares the theories across 14 deduced theoretical aspects and produces a comparison matrix, that can be used as an analytical tool, and discusses implications as guidance for further research and doctrine development. The article argues that the term “centre of gravity” is polluted, and that the application of the term in military planning and doctrines requires careful attention to the specific theory being applied, so that logical consistency and clear, accurate communication is achieved. Alternatively, the concept may be removed from doctrine altogether, renovated with inclusion of a new unpolluted term, or reconstructed with removal of the centre of gravity, leaving a “critical factor analysis” concept behind. This article also provides a level of granularity to the debate about the concept, that renders critics like Paparone & Davis Jr and Zweibelson partly irrelevant and can provide a more nuanced and qualitative basis for future discussion.
重心概念:当代理论、比较与启示
本文运用扎根理论和认识论、目的论、本体论和方法论(ETOM)的视角来描述由卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨(Carl von Clausewitz)发起的当代流行的重心概念理论。其中包括约翰·沃登、乔·斯特兰奇和理查德·铁、安图里奥·埃切瓦里亚二世、米兰·维戈、戴尔·艾克迈尔和雅各布·巴福德的理论。然后,文章从14个推论的理论方面对这些理论进行比较,并产生一个比较矩阵,可以作为分析工具,并讨论其影响,作为进一步研究和理论发展的指导。文章认为,“重心”一词受到了污染,在军事规划和理论中使用这个词需要仔细注意所应用的具体理论,以便达到逻辑上的一致性和清晰、准确的沟通。或者,这个概念可以完全从理论中删除,重新装修,包括一个新的未受污染的术语,或者通过删除重心来重建,留下“关键因素分析”的概念。这篇文章还提供了一个关于这个概念的争论的粒度级别,这使得像Paparone & Davis Jr和Zweibelson这样的批评者在一定程度上无关紧要,并且可以为未来的讨论提供更细致和定性的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Defence Studies
Defence Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信