A reader recently commented on LinkedIn a suggestion for a follow-up article after reading one of my posts about a Marine Corps color guard. The final paragraph of that post said:
“If you are going to make the comment, ‘these are Marine Security Guards (in Australia) and color guard is not their job!’, don’t bother. Your primary job may not be colors, but when you are assigned to a ceremony, it becomes part of your job and, just like your primary job, you are to read applicable manuals, train, and practice.”
The Marines did a poor job of presenting the colors, especially on the international stage. Their positions and equipment manipulation spoke volumes of how they did not read the MCO to understand their responsibilities, they did not practice adequately, and their understanding of the ceremony was minimal.
The reader responded with a simple observation: “Purpose & meaning of ceremonies is the why behind the rules.” He wanted me to follow up on the social media post with an article. I appreciate suggestions like this. Many of the articles I have written over the years began with a reader’s question, comment, or observation that exposed something worth examining more closely. This is one of those occasions. That sentence points directly to an area I have been researching in increasing depth: Ceremony as Language.
The Manual Tells Us What to Do
The starting point is still the written standard.
That matters because ceremonial performance is not an opportunity to invent a procedure because someone thinks it looks better, feels more respectful, or appears more impressive.
The Marine Corps is quite direct about this. MCO 5060.20 exists to provide “uniformity and standardization” throughout Marine Corps drill and ceremonial practice, and it requires personnel to familiarize themselves with the Order.
The Army takes the same general approach. TC 3-21.5 allows commanders to make certain minor adjustments when circumstances require them but specifically cautions against changing the sequence of ceremonial events because of the need to preserve Army tradition and maintain consistency.
So, yes, read the manual but that is only the beginning. A person can memorize every movement in a ceremony and still have little understanding of what the ceremony means.
Ceremony Communicates
Military ceremony is communication through prescribed action. An Army ceremonial training document actually uses that concept explicitly. It describes an official ceremony or event as one “designed to communicate Army messages to a public audience.” That is significant.
The formation is communicating. The flags, music, sequence, and the positions of individuals are all communicating. A salute communicates. The transfer of an object (unit color, guidon) communicates. Even the absence of an expected action can communicate something. This is what I mean by Ceremony as Language.
Like spoken language, ceremony has vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and context. A flag may function as a ceremonial noun. A salute can function as an action. Position establishes relationships. Sequence establishes meaning. Precedence tells us who or what holds a particular status in relation to something else. Change one element and you may change what the ceremony says.
The Object Can Tell Us What Is Happening
Consider a change of command. It would be easy to describe the ceremony simply as two commanders changing places. That description is technically true, but ceremonially incomplete.
The Marine Corps describes the change of command as representing the formal transfer of authority and responsibility from one commander to another. In a recent 3d Marine Logistics Group ceremony, the passage of the unit colors was specifically described as symbolizing both continuity of command and the trust placed in the incoming commander.
That means the colors are not stage decoration. They are doing ceremonial work. Their presence, handling, movement, and transfer help communicate what is taking place. Once we understand that, the procedure begins to make more sense.
The same analytical method applies elsewhere. When an office changes hands, when responsibility transfers, when honors are rendered, when a flag is raised or lowered, when remains are transferred, or when a unit is activated, inactivated, recognized, or remembered, ask a simple question:
What is actually happening here, and what part of the ceremony communicates it?
That question often reveals why a seemingly small procedural requirement matters.
Rules, Function, and Meaning
I find it useful to look at ceremonial requirements at three levels.
- First is the rule. The manual tells us what action to perform.
- Second is the function. The action may establish consistency, control movement, protect safety, maintain visibility, establish precedence, or allow a large group to act together.
- Third is the meaning. The action may communicate honor, authority, continuity, allegiance, mourning, respect, command, remembrance, or institutional identity.
Those levels are related, but they are not interchangeable. A rule can serve a practical purpose without carrying deep symbolism. A custom can acquire meaning through long historical use. A symbolic explanation may be documented by an official source. And sometimes people invent explanations after the fact because they want every movement to possess some hidden significance. That is dangerous.
Not Every Rule Has a Secret Meaning
Ceremonial research requires restraint. If a manual says to stand at a particular distance, that distance may exist because it produces proper spacing. If a sequence was standardized to keep units consistent, we should not invent a philosophical explanation for every count. If a historical source documents the meaning of an action, we can say so. If an official description says an object symbolizes authority or continuity, we can say so. If history strongly supports a conclusion but the manual does not explain it, we should identify it as documented historical custom or reasoned interpretation. And if we simply do not know why a rule developed, the responsible answer is: We do not know.
Ceremony as Language is not an invitation to create ceremonial mythology. It is a method of understanding what documented ceremonial actions communicate.
Understanding the Purpose Does Not Override the Rule
There is another danger here. Once people begin talking about the purpose of a ceremony, they sometimes conclude that the purpose gives them permission to change the procedure.
- “We are honoring the flag, so anything respectful should be acceptable.”
- “We are honoring the deceased, so whatever feels dignified should work.”
- “We are recognizing the commander, so the exact sequence does not really matter.”
That reasoning reverses the relationship between purpose and procedure. Understanding the purpose usually gives us reason to follow the procedure even more carefully, not less. If ceremonial actions communicate, then changing those actions can alter, blur, or contradict the message. Good intentions do not automatically produce correct ceremonial language.
Someone who speaks a language poorly may sincerely intend to communicate one thing while actually saying something quite different. Ceremony can work the same way.
Why Precedence Matters
This also explains why precedence cannot simply be dismissed as protocol trivialities. Where an individual stands, where a flag is placed, which anthem is played first, who receives honors, who carries a particular color, and who occupies the position of honor all communicate relationships.
The Department of the Air Force, for example, defines ceremonial honors as expressions of courtesy, respect, and recognition and regulates who is entitled to receive them. Those rules are not merely instructions for arranging people attractively, they identify who is being honored and the nature of that recognition: position has meaning, order has meaning, and selection has meaning.
Why Color Guard Standards Matter
The same principle applies to the color guard. A color guard is not simply several people walking together with flags.
The national color occupies a prescribed position. Organizational colors have relationships to it. Armed guards have a function within the formation. Service and organizational precedence matter. The formation itself communicates institutional identity, authority, protection of the colors, and the relationship of subordinate organizations to the nation.
When we rearrange those elements because another configuration “looks better,” we may change what the formation communicates. This is why I spend so much time telling people to identify the governing authority before deciding what looks correct. Aesthetics come after authority.
Why Training Must Go Beyond Memorization
This brings me back to the paragraph that prompted the reader’s suggestion. When you are assigned to a ceremony, the ceremonial duty becomes part of your job. You absolutely need to read the applicable manual, train, and practice, practice, practice. But competent ceremonial training should eventually move beyond: “Stand here.” “Hold this.” “Move on this count.” “Salute now.”
A trained ceremonial participant should begin to understand:
- Why am I standing here?
- What does this object represent?
- Who is receiving this honor?
- Why does this person precede that person?
- Why does this movement occur before the next one?
- What would change if we altered this sequence?
- What is this ceremony actually saying?
That level of understanding creates much more than mechanical compliance. It produces informed precision.
Ceremony Is More Exact Than It Appears
The deeper I research military ceremony, the less I see disconnected traditions and the more I see deliberately structured communication. Some of that structure is explicitly prescribed and some comes from documented historical custom. Some is functional while some is symbolic, and some rules simply create standardization. The researcher’s responsibility is to determine which is which.
That distinction matters because ceremonial accuracy is not about obsessing over insignificant details for their own sake. It is about understanding when a detail carries meaning. A ceremony can look beautiful and communicate the wrong thing. It can be executed with tremendous precision and still use the wrong ceremonial system. It can be heartfelt and still contradict the governing standard.
Conversely, when authority, purpose, action, and meaning align, ceremonial precision becomes more than performance. The ceremony communicates clearly. That is the principle behind Ceremony as Language. The manual gives us the vocabulary and grammar, research helps us understand the meaning, training teaches us to speak the language correctly, and the ceremony tells us what is actually happening.