Like so very many others across the globe at present, one year into the viral pandemic finds me also one year into unwanted unemployment. Unemployed, but alive and largely otherwise unaffected means I am indeed one of the very lucky. We in Australia have been, by and large, very fortunate compared to the deaths and suffering we continue to witness on a daily basis elsewhere on our fragile and benighted planet. It has however allowed me opportunity to think and write once again for the first time in some while. The thrust of what follows may seem overly selfish in its focus as it is clearly driven by my own current circumstances, yet I hope its wider applicability may be seen and valued; perhaps even acted upon?
I think I may have touched upon this previously when
mentioning Roman Krznaric's inspiring book The Wonderbox: Curious Histories
of How to Live. In chapter four 'Work' he proposes 'that many people
eventually seek jobs that provide a more profound sense of purpose; work which
is an end in itself rather than a means to an end, and which helps them feel
that they're not wasting their lives'. This of course overlooks the very, very
many among humanity that have not the privilege of such luxury, living as they
might in a desperate day-to-day struggle for their very continued existence, but
for now I too am going to acknowledge yet, with apologies, pass over this
aspect of lived reality.
Roman identifies and discusses four purposes that 'stand out
in the history of work: being driven by our values; pursuing meaningful goals;
obtaining respect; and using the full array of our talents'. The last of these
four he discusses in the section 'Talents: high achiever - or wide achiever?'
and it is this particular topic I will expand upon. Partly I wish to discuss
the language we have employed around these two options but more so I wish to
draw attention to the value judgements inherent in our language choices - the
semantic history and connotations our words and phrases come burdened with and
which can actually be to the detriment of an individual's self-image,
self-worth and employment prospects.
Poor Adam Smith gets blamed for a great deal and whilst it
is true he recognised the 'torpor of the mind' threatening 'the man whose life
is spent in performing a few simple operations' and who 'has no occasion to
exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention', the fact remains that
his seminal work The Wealth of Nations and its promotion of the concept
of division of labour has at least in part driven our contemporary obsession
with specialisation. Yes, there are benefits, both personal and cultural, to be
gained from individuals pursuing a topic of study to its apogee, plus it has
frequently been observed that the extent of humanity's knowledge is now so vast
that even greatly sub-divided fields of study might contain single strands of
interest that yet remain too large and complex for one person to master. But is
this in itself sufficient justification for the apparent devaluing of those for
whom such a singular focus holds no appeal?
My focus will be upon the language around Roman's 'wide
achiever' but let's first make a simple list of some of the words we associate
with the high achievers. A quick scan of entries for 'expert' in a thesaurus or
two throws up synonyms such as master, adept, authority, professional,
specialist, virtuoso, ace, giant, maestro, whiz, gun, hot-shot, prodigy,
wunderkind, genius, boffin, scholar, old hand, veteran, connoisseur, elder,
sage, oracle, philosopher, guru, dab hand, doyen and savant. Words that I think
we might all imbue with principally positive connotations? In earlier times I
feel perhaps we held a similar regard for those we believed excelled in a broad
range of disciplines or occupations? I believe it was with respect or even awe
that we employed expressions such as Renaissance man, universal man and
polymath, but our language seems now to have slipped to the perhaps lesser
regard we accord the current multi-disciplinarian, many-sided man or all-rounder.
And does anyone really want to be considered, or referred to, simply as a
generalist, jack-of-all-trades or Roman's cleverly positivised wide-achiever?
The simple truth remains however that many among us are just
not 'wired' for an enduring interest in, and prolonged pursuit of, a single
passion or obsession. Their interests are many and widely varied. Some, it is
true, may do no more than dabble in disparate fields whilst others might excel
in many and even here our natural tendency is to value the latter over the
former. Excellence is seemingly always regarded as a superior goal than that of
'mere' competence? What is it within our societies and cultures, indeed perhaps
within human nature itself, that promotes a disregard for those among us whose
accomplishments are 'good', preferring instead to always seek the 'better' and
only truly value the 'best'? Surely within a global populace approaching eight
billion, for the vast majority attainment of 'good' in one area of endeavour is
commendable and to be 'good' within multiple disciplines equals or surpasses
'better' or even 'best' in a singular pursuit? I should like to be a 'good'
partner, parent, friend, draftsman, cook, brewer, handyman, driver, designer, photographer,
cyclist, swimmer, writer, artist, curator, consultant, builder, first-aider,
gardener, teacher, salesman, manager, mentor, youth worker, lover, reader,
researcher, printer, singer, student, surfer, philosopher … and so much more,
before I would desire to be the 'best' at anything. Indeed, I have been 'good'
at all the above listed occupations, though no doubt I could be 'better' at
many.
And yet, in our culture's default determinant of individual
worth, as evinced in the commonly accepted first question asked of newly met
acquaintances, 'What do you do?', we're frequently encouraged to judge or rank
their response according to their preferably high level of attainment in a
singular occupation. Nowhere is this more evident than within the employment
market. The entire ethos is one of seeking individuals who are the very best
within the narrow confines of a highly specialised role or position
description. Rare indeed is the stated intent that of finding a rounded and
balanced individual, competent across a wide range of diverse skills, with
understandings of and attributes applicable to multiple areas of a business's
structure and undertakings. Today, even managers, directors and CEOs are
appointed if they are perceived to be the best of their 'kind' that applied,
though they may have little or no experience or skills beyond those attained in
a management degree and frequently no knowledge whatsoever of the actual
business of the company or agency.
Which leaves those of us, like myself, who have pursued a
life wherein each new opportunity to broaden our range of knowledge, skills,
experience and competence is embraced with wholehearted delight and enthusiasm,
perceived as little more than ne'er-do-wells with limited focus or staying
power and a complete lack of ambition. Rather than 'wide-achievers, we are
labelled 'under-achievers'! Often this is far from the truth. Rather, it is
simply that our ambition, focus and perseverance is not limited to, or
constrained by, an almost obsessive compulsion to be the 'best' at a highly
specialised pursuit. Just perhaps it might be argued that our very flexibility
- of curiosity, capability and adaptability - is our greatest strength. Not
constrained within the rigid confines of specialist dogma, we might bring new
ideas and fresh insights to all we embark upon.
Certainly, over the past decade there has been an increased cultural
curiosity in, and valuing of, multi-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary and
inter-disciplinary working modes (see below for definitions) but these are
still often seen as collaborative pursuits involving numerous specialists.
Surely there is value also in finding this flexibility of thought, this neurological
plasticity, within individuals also? But I fear such a desire is little more
than a quixotic dream. The pace of change across an entire society is slow
indeed, even when change is desired, and I for one perhaps no longer have the
time to truly benefit from such a cultural shift. Whilst once we valued the
wisdom of our elders - which was deemed of even greater value because indeed it
was gained across, and applicable to, many aspects of life and living - the
contemporary mindset values almost exclusively the perceived dynamism and
potential of youthful exuberance and innovation; fresh ideas and constant 'progress'.
Those, like myself, who have passed the half-century mark, are often judged
principally by our age alone; falsely seen as being out-of-date and rigidly stuck
in a rut of preconceived notions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite all we have to offer, especially those among us who
embrace our 'wide-achievements', we are indeed largely, and oh-so-wastefully,
relegated to the employment scrap-heap. We are seen as un-employable. We are
the unwanted.
Disciplinarities - Definitions by Alexander Refsum Jensenius
Intra-disciplinary:
working within a single discipline.
Cross-disciplinary:
viewing one discipline from the perspective of another.
Multi-disciplinary:
people from different disciplines working together, each drawing on their
disciplinary knowledge.
Inter-disciplinary:
integrating knowledge and methods from different disciplines, using a real
synthesis of approaches.
Trans-disciplinary: creating
a unity of intellectual frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspectives.
