This text relates to two ideas from my previous posts.
The first one is about concept assemblages and how the term ‘profession’ can be seen as one of them. What I said in that post is that there are higher order concepts that consist of a combination of concepts that results in an assemblage. As I see it, concepts are necessary simplifications of reality based upon observed patterns and tendencies. We make them so we can process reality more systematically and act upon it with more consistent, predictable results. If they are properly defined, they should bring us closer to what happens in reality, even though they can also be models that we create in our imaginations, and that we aim to apply to reality in order to mould it to our desires. Since the concepts that make up a concept assemblage are already either simplifications of reality or models of the imagination, the concept assemblage itself, although sophisticated and a very valuable tool, can become both fairly removed from reality and, more importantly, difficult to be intuitively understood or quickly defined. As a result, its definition can vary among people. Each person could understand it only in relation to different segments of it (similar to the parable of the blind men and an elephant) and/or add other parts to it that come from different interpretations of the same concept. In my post I argue that ‘profession’ can be viewed as a concept assemblage.
Then, in the same post I argue that concept assemblages can harm creative thinking vis-à-vis a changing reality. Concept assemblages clumsily stumble through time as our reality changes at an accelerated pace, due to new life-conditions that gradually consolidate while culture and technology continue to develop. As I previously said, they are hard to be universally understood in only one single way. Not only this, but it becomes even harder to reach a semblance of agreement when different versions of the assemblage emerge at different moments in time, and people hold on to the version that was more readily available when they were exposed to it. So if we want to develop updated concepts that can take the place of older concept assemblages (that have become too muddled both diachronically and synchronically), then we could break them into fragments. We need to bring these lower concepts and ideas back so we come closer to reality. We need to do this while we think hard about them and come to an agreement about what their actual purpose is in this new reality. In short, regaining the capacity that these concepts should have to come up with creative solutions for modern problems can only be done by carefully selecting which of their parts are actually useful and sticking to them in a transparent way.
The second idea is about how as technologies evolve, we increasingly close the gap between the activation of their function and its fulfilment. That is to say, the number of steps between initiating the technology to do what it is supposed to do and it doing it decreases as the technology evolves. I call this a simplification of the technology towards its essential ideal. The technology in its ideal form would require no more than one step from deciding to activate it to fulfilling its function. Each intervening step that in this framework is destined to disappear would be considered an element that distances the technology from its ideal form, because within this perspective any extra effort or procedure that comes between activation and fulfilment is not directly related to it. Instead, all additional steps signal a need to further improve the technology to remove superfluous elements that only remain necessary because innovation is hitting an obstacle.
So when it comes to defining the professions of tomorrow, I wouldn’t dare to argue that we need to rethink them all, but I do think that we need to think of parallel concepts that can better fit the contexts of some people. These are people that have much to offer in our new reality but cannot find conceptual means to address and plan what they are doing systematically and/or communicate it as simply as, say, a data analyst or a secretary can.
For example, I would only choose the fragment of the ‘profession’ assemblage that speaks to the committed application of skills so as to create a meaningful contribution to society at any scale (family, community, city, country, etc.). Then, I would combine this with the idea of personal talents, inclinations, visions of the world, values, acquired skills and skills potentially acquirable in the short term to create a new smaller concept of ‘profession’ that wouldn’t be called profession. Then again, we have the assemblage ‘calling’ or ‘mission’ to talk about purpose, but it doesn’t quite capture this combination that I just described of contribution and commitment with talents, values and human potential. I think that such a small assemblage could be properly captured in a concept and institutionalised in some sense. Then, this would make establishing an innovative purpose, learning to commit to it, leading others towards it and being appreciated in conventional ways the same way professionals that fit pre-existent descriptions are, could open the door for a wealth human potential that is being wasted in an era of disconcert about what we are supposed to do to uphold a good life for all. I don’t think that the umbrella term ‘entrepreneur’ cuts it anymore.
Lastly, when it comes to the idea that when technologies reach their essential form they do away with all the superfluous steps in the middle, I think that the concept assemblage of ‘profession’ and many of the professions themselves could go through a similar process, almost as if they were technologies themselves. I think that if we consider what each profession or the institutionalised educational system that is currently the norm are actually supposed to do (in their ideal form), we will see that a huge number of steps between choosing to devote oneself to one profession and making the contribution that is expected from it are completely outdated and superfluous.
Of course, I think that it is technological advancement and cultural-evolution that change the grounds upon which these steps mark their path towards the fulfilment of the profession’s utility. So a few question emerge from this: what elements within these professions, or within the concept of ‘profession’ itself, or within that of education, are essential and which ones are superfluous? What parameters would be more appropriate to employ to assess expertise, credibility, identity consistency or candidate value in this new reality? How can we agree upon new concepts in order to socially normalise and culturally institutionalise the clearly enormously valuable projects and unprecedented professional identities that new generations of talents are coming up with?
As a last note, It’s interesting to think that all these concepts in their current incarnation are relatively new and definitely historically placed. They developed in specific contexts (such as the reorganisation of societies and states in the industrialised XIX century) where things were changing at such a rapid and vertiginous pace as they are today. Thus, it’s not such a crazy thing to propose more focus and more collective effort in this regard.
In a future post I hope to address the idea that recognition from others is crucial for developing a more effective self-identity of societal contribution, and that the possibility of being properly assessed and recognised by other experts is no less important. If there is no clarity or a common ground to define and talk about what we are doing when we are doing something meaningful, seeing it through will be much harder, and much less incentivised than it should.
✵
Leave a Reply