S. Lerner wrote:
> >From: "vivian Hutchinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (snip)
> >FROM JOB TO PROFESSION
> >by Andrew Kimbrell
> >
> >* The word job in English originally meant a criminal or
> >demeaning action. (We retain this meaning when we call a bank
> >robbery a "bank job.") After the industrial revolution took hold in
> >18th-century England, the first generations of factory workers felt
> >that wage work was humiliating and undignified. Angry about being
> >driven from their traditional work on the land or in crafts, they
> >applied the word job to factory labour as a way of expressing their
> >disgust.
> >
> >* Even today many of us avoid the word job, preferring more
> >upscale terms like occupation or career to describe what we do for
> >40-plus hours each week. Yet the older meaning of these words
> >also reveals something about the nature of work.
> >
> >Occupation originally meant to seize or capture. (It is still used in
> >this sense when, for instance, we speak of the German occupation
> >of France during World War II.) What an apt description of how jobs
> >take over our lives, subjecting us to the demands of outside rulers.
> >The original meaning of career fits well with the role we play in the
> >speeded-up global economic rat race. In the 19th century, career
> >meant "racing course" or "rapid and unrestrained" activity.
> >
> >* In searching for ways to put meaning back into our work, we
> >might want to revive the term vocation (from the Latin for "voice" or
> >"calling"). Today, however, "having a vocation" or "answering a
> >calling" usually means embarking upon a religious life--an
> >unfortunate narrowing of the concept.
> >
> >We all deserve to be involved in work to which we have been
> >called by our passions and beliefs. Following a vocation can lead to
> >a profession--literally, a "public declaration" of what we believe and
> >who we are. A profession is what our work should be, but so rarely
> >is ...
This and the excellent follow-up employment statistics posted
by Sally is a heartening development in that it understands
the importance of language in these issues. I wrote an
article to the FW list about these same definitions based
upon my dictionary library that traced the history quoted
above and suggested the same need to deal from a place
of vocation rather than jobs in the discussions on this list.
I am often told by economists that I should just change
jobs if I wish to have more capital, a good health plan,
education for my child and a retirement. As the above
states, a vocation is a calling based upon who one is with
the "doing" flowing from that being. The whole set of
concepts, on an inter-personal level, that underlie today's
economic structures are against the idea of vocation.
Instead we are dealing from a place similar to roles
in a movie where a director picks characters, who may or
may not be trained actors, for their "type" as a person
rather than their skill in a vocation.
"Types" can be
developed quickly and with the help of a behavioral
type of acting class and a good therapist (to help in accepting
not quality, as in elevated skill, but "quality" as in a
set of personal characteristics) a person can market
their person as a product of a certain type. If they are
not successful, the answer is not to develop new characteristics
under their product name but to rename themselves under
another set of characteristics. Possible until public
recognition becomes too developed in which case they are
marketed as advancement in their skills when all it is really
is the imagination of another director who sees them differently.
They are the quintessential short term employees (AGILE) or
flexibles. A movie, a play or a performance in a bar is still
called a "job" and is treated by the American society as temporary
employment, which it is. Movies pay well, while bars pay poorly
but thinking in systems will show that the formula is the same and
is the same formula being used by UPS for a large portion of
their workforce as well as Micro-Soft.
The whole idea of re-engineering is an entertainment industry
model. That also throws into question the figures on employment
since such short term employment only tells whether someone
is being paid for work at that particular moment in time casting
doubt on the relevance of job figures from month to month much
less year to year. But I've said this before as has Mike
Hollinshead.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that the New Zealanders are alive, well
and asking what I consider to be pertinent questions about the
future of their work.
I'm also delighted that Sally has forwarded the post.
REH
