13 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Great post Jeff – ah bureaucracy. That is certainly one of the major problems any organization faces as it gets larger and the Church is no exception. It will be interesting to see how the Church bureaucracy evolves over the next 20 years though. |
“the electron-stained wretches of the new century” Nice! Interesting post, Jeff. Boorstein’s ideas remind me of Nibley’s “Day of the Amateur” essay. So who influenced whom? |
Great post. Speaking of bureaucracy and the church, some bureaucrats in church-owned institutions can be especially frustrating because they think they can trace their authority all the way to the top. |
While I think the Church will always struggle with/against the bureaucracy, I think it has one big organizational advantage. There is NO path for bureaucrats to rise to the top of leadership positions. Those are entirely staffed and filled by ‘selected volunteers’ and that’s not going to change. The only fear would be that someday, the lay called leadership is neutered by a professional bureaucratic class and continues to serve as nothing more than figure-heads. |
Bureaucracy is of course easy to bash, but professionalization? I think that Boornstein assumes a dichotomy that amateurs take on certain endeavors because of their pure motives while professionals must have false motives, or even to preserve their own power. I think both assumptions are false. First, amateur apologists can hardly be described as a class of people with “pure” motives. Second, the professionalization of certain things like the academy, while admittedly it does draw boundaries between insiders and outsiders, is unfairly characterized as only existing for the sake of excluding amateurs. Rather, they are setting certain professional standards in order to strengthen the field, to make it both safer from the potential disasters of those who are untrained (consider his own examples of law and medicine as areas where I think we are all glad for this professionalization), as well as to raise the quality of the product of that industry. Further, I don’t think that one can say that professionals don’t love what they do, and amateurs do. Professionals got into their field because they loved it so much that they wanted to do it full time, and, importantly, they were good enough to be able to turn their love into a profession. |
I was wondering the other day if CS Lewis’ astounding insight into spiritual matters was really just the result of conclusions he’d reached during the course of his life and it was purely circumstantial that others related. This discussion is above me, but I do feel better about being an amateur. |
TT–I also had some concerns about Boorstin’s stance against professionalism–surely medicine doesn’t just exist for itself, although I can think of a certain Law and Order episode about an AIDS doctor who had contracted the virus himself and was testing out possible drug cocktails on his end-of-life patients… But sensationalist TV aside, my bigger concern with increasing professionalization is the necessary and inevitable specialization that seems to accompany it. This is particularly evident in the academics, where graduate students seem to have to carve ever narrower, ever more novel niches of inquiry. I worry that this extreme specialization will actually decrease the overall utility of such an education. But even more, I’m worried that such a specialized world is much less friendly to the amateur. I think about President Hinckley, who built, remodeled, wired, and did the plumbing on his house for years and years and years. I suppose that could still be done–and people still do it–but as computer technology becomes more and more integrated into house-building, car-repair, etc., the cost and training required might edge out the amateurs. But this is a rather gloomy view of the future, and I certainly don’t think that the solution is to somehow arrest our state of technology at a level accessible to non-professionals… |
TT, I think you raise fair points. However (though I have not read Boorstin’s book in question, so I cannot say for sure), I intuit just from the excerpts here that he probably wouldn’t disagree with you. I think we have all seen manifestations of what he calls the “professional fallacy” at work, and he’s pointing out how it negatively affects the amateur spirit, not condemning professionalization in its entirety. In the last quote, for example, he talks about enlisting “the loyalty and industry of bureaucrats without being paralyzed by their caution,” implying that even bureaucrats have their use, his criticisms notwithstanding. It’s likely he recognizes the redeeming aspects of professionalism somewhere along the line as well. But, someone more familiar with his ideas would have to confirm this, I’m merely speculating. |
I loved this post. |
While I think the Church will always struggle with/against the bureaucracy, I think it has one big organizational advantage. There is NO path for bureaucrats to rise to the top of leadership positions. Those are entirely staffed and filled by ’selected volunteers’ and that’s not going to change. The only fear would be that someday, the lay called leadership is neutered by a professional bureaucratic class and continues to serve as nothing more than figure-heads. Go talk to someone who actually *works* for the Church. I’m fond of saying that I keep my testimony intact by separating the doctrinal from the ecclesiastical. My uncle, who is employed |
And before we get too far down the road of bashing professionals … I’d rather not have my networks or my bridges designed by renaissance men who picked up a book in January and by March, think they’re ready to be thrown into the fire. (That may be an extreme example, but in general, there is much to our society that lends itself well to the professional.) |
TT: Orwell is right when he says that Boorstin isn’t saying professionals should have no place, or that they shouldn’t exist. But that there should always be room for talented amateur enthusiasts as well. The problem isn’t professionalism, but a tendency among certain professionals to look down their noses at anyone not in the guild. Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote his first papers, and many amateur astronomers today are doing great and valuable work. Professionals need to make sure they leave room for and welcome amateurs who can bring a freshness and vitality to their fields. There was a wonderful example of this at the FAIR Conference. I know it has ‘apologetics’ in the title, but most of the sessions were not apologetic in character. Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster had a presentation on the White Horse Prophecy that was not apologetic, for instance. Bringhurst, a professional historian of 25 years, approvingly cited a paper on the White Horse Prophecy by George Cobabe, who, though he holds two degrees, was working as an insurance salesman when he wrote it. Later during a break after their session, Bringhurst and Cobabe were having a very congenial and interesting discussion, and again, Bringhurst was very complimentary about Cobabe’s work. It would have been easy for Bringhurst to ignore or denigrate the work of an outsider, but the fact is Cobabe has done some fine work in this area, even though he’s not a professional historian. It’s that kind of openness to amateurs that I saw over and over at the conference that was so heartwarming. By the way, you can read Cobabe’s paper here. Tagore: Thanks for the pointer to Nibley’s article. I had missed that one. I loved this quote: “Official credentials, a foolproof shield against criticism and scrutiny, were naturally coveted most by those who needed them most: it was the poorly qualified who clamored for the status symbol of the degree.” Truly confident and competent professionals aren’t threatened by amateurs. They welcome their input and contributions. And as TT points out, many of them are in their fields because they love them. More power to them! |
[...] was full of traditional students like me, as well as some amateur enthusiasts (I mean that in the best sense of the word) including one superannuated [...] |