This topic has generated a tremendous response, and for a while
there I was wondering if anybody was going to disagree with my Philippic against professional gatekeeping and
expert elitism.
Below you will find another batch of thoughtful, interesting
commentary on these issues from LEM readers, including a few dissonant
opinions, and more musing in reply from me. Thanks to everyone who
wrote and shared their thoughts.
Cult of professionalism
From: Nancy Butts
Dear Charles,
I look forward to your columns each week on Low End Mac, but the one you wrote this week on
the cult of professionalism really touched a
nerve. I, too, am a working writer, in my case since 1982. The first
eleven years of my career I was a reporter and then news editor for a
weekly paper, and won four state awards for my work. I also published a
couple of columns in the Macon Telegraph, a Knight-Ridder paper, and
have done freelance work as well. All this, and my college degree was
in religion, not journalism. Currently I write what are called young
adult novels and have had a modest degree of success with my first two
books. I agree wholeheartedly with every point you made.
But it wasn't until last night when I was watching the evening news
that the full insanity of this cult struck home. I missed the beginning
of the report, so unfortunately I cannot tell you the name of the
researcher or what university or group he represents. I believe the
report came out of a university in Washington. In any case, the
gentleman was interviewed on camera to explain the results of his
survey, and he was absolutely appalled that millions of American
children were being left in the care of unlicensed, uncertified,
untrained caregivers. To whom was he referring? Why, grandparents and
other non-parental relatives. He saw no value in children being cared
for by people who loved them and had an actual connection to them, and
the importance of the decades of experience grandparents especially
have amassed in "on-the-job" experience escaped him utterly. I think
this researcher epitomizes what you wrote about earlier this week.
Best,
Nancy Butts
Hi Nancy,
Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
The ideological notion expressed by the TV interviewee
exemplifies what Christopher Lasch was getting at in the bits I quoted.
It also owes much to the philosophy of Donatien Alphonse Francois -
better known as the Marquis de Sade. In his "La Philosophie dans le
Boudoir," Sade wrote:
Do not think you can make good republicans so long as
you isolate in your family the children who should belong to the
community alone.... If it is wholly disadvantageous to allow children
to imbibe interests from the family circle, which are quite different
from those of their country, it is wholly advantageous to separate them
from their family.
In 1990, Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education at
Wellesley College, asserted, "In order to raise children with equality,
we must take them away from families and communally raise them." If
children can't be taken away physically - yet - Sade's ideological
heirs like Bane are determined to separate them culturally and
intellectually from their parents' (and grandparents') values when the
latter conflict with the dogmas of secular humanism. The cult of
"professionalism" and "expertise" just makes a scientific sounding
excuse.
Best wishes for continued success in your
uncredentialed writing career.
Charles
Elitism & Expertise
From Yoon Ha Lee
Dear Mr. Moore,
I am in the curious position of both agreeing and disagreeing with
your stance on this issue.
First, you cite numerous instances of "expertise" leading to poor
results in your response to Martin Sorensen. I
am concerned at your conflation of correlation and causation; your
examples suggest overly monocausal explanations for the phenomena you
describe, viz. low literacy rates and high rates of degenerate
disease.
I will say up front that I'm somewhat biased, as I am a teacher in
training and even with the small exposure I've had to the issue, I've
discovered it's extremely complex. For one thing, the definition of
"functional literacy" keeps becoming more and more challenging. It used
to be enough to be able to do simple ciphering, know your letters, read
by rote (I've had the dubious pleasure of paging through a Horn Book
replica).
Now we expect (almost) *all* kids to stay in school until 10th grade
and be able to analyze Shakespeare knowledgeably. (See Ray McDermott's
works on literacy, as a particular author I'm familiar with.) It may
also be the case that worthwhile reforms suggested by educational
experts fail to be implemented in a manner consistent with their
vision, either for philosophical or financial reasons. I'm
student-teaching at a high school where there aren't even necessarily
enough textbooks for all the students in a given class; many teachers
end up spending their own money to provide additional classroom
resources, out of a not-particularly-impressive salary (I've done it
already and as a student-teacher I'm not even paid).
Many other factors can contribute to literacy rates, such as the
relationship between pedagogy/instruction and linguistic research on
how most people learn to read and write effectively (I can read 50-100
pages an hour, and I was taught to read and write by a Korean mother
whom most people, noticing only her trouble with English phonology,
would have deemed "English-deficient;" on the first day of kindergarten
I was teaching other kids how to write their names!), the incidence of
immigrant populations who have had varying levels of formal schooling
in their native language(s) (let alone English), the amount of support
and resources available for students whose families speak another
language and teachers' efforts (or lack thereof), the amount of support
and resources available for *teachers* who may have little to no
training in linguistics and language-acquisition theory - Well, the
list could go on, and I trust that others can speak more knowledgeably
on this matter where I am myself less than an amateur. :-)
Second, that being said, I am currently teaching in a field where
elitism and expertism as you describe is rampant: math. In American
society, the social construction of math is that either you're good at
it or you're not, and never the twain shall meet. People are being
*blocked* from access to important and powerful mathematical ideas
because of a perceived elite of people who are "good at math"; math is
decontextualized from people's lives to the point where it becomes
possible and not particularly unusual for a student to ask me, "Ms.
Lee, when are we ever going to see this statistics stuff in real life?"
When I suggested that numerical data connote objectivity (which is not
always the case) and that statistics are used in conjunction with
people's math-phobia to mislead or deceive, she was shocked. In this
context, I fully agree that certain types of elitism are harmful to
society and the individuals who comprise it.
Third, as far as doctors go, caution is indicated. There are
instances where doctors are not adequately informed about medical
developments that are relevant to a particular patient. (I've heard
complaints in this regard about women's health care; for example,
medications are still not necessarily tested on both men and women,
though research increasingly suggests that the same drug may have
different effects on them.) On the other hand being a good doctor is
*really difficult.* My father, who is a surgeon who did his internship
and residency in the U.S. (and rails against the state of medicine in
Korea, which still isn't quite on par), hates talking about
antibiotics. Why? Because some consumers in their wisdom will badger
their doctors into giving them antibiotics even for relatively minor
viral illnesses (a common cold where secondary infections are highly
unlikely, for example), or stop taking an antibiotic course so they can
hoard medicine, only to be hit with a relapse when the few
antibiotic-resistant bacteria are given freedom to renew their assault.
When all's said and done, I would rather have a certified surgeon
operating on me than someone off the street. :-p
Expertise is valuable because we can't all specialize in every topic
that will impact us and our lives. However, it is the duty of the
expert to be conscientious in his/her roles and especially to educate
the non-experts as much as possible. It is also the non-expert's duty
to be conscientious in seeking out knowledge as it becomes relevant,
and in fact to *demand* to be educated so as to become an informed
decision-maker.
And by the way, I always enjoy your columns on Low End Mac and
Applelinks; you happened to hit a couple nerves, and I hope that I have
been half as rational and calm in my response as you are in your
journalism. Sincerely,
(Ms.) Yoon Ha Lee
(Just call me Yoon, I'm clarifying my sex to avoid embarrassing
anyone as I've been addressed as "Mr. Lee" over the Internet on many
occasions)
Hi Yoon,
Thanks for your letter. An adequate response would
require an article-length dissertation, which is one of the
difficulties in addressing these weighty philosophical topics in short
articles. I stand by my causal evaluations on the basis of big picture
end result analysis, but I freely concede that they stem from several
decades of researching, thinking, and writing about socio-cultural
issues, and not from particular, scientific methodism (which I think is
part of my point - I do not blindly accept scientific opinion as the
authoritative last word on anything, although it is the best authority
we have on certain issues to be sure).
The late Richard Weaver, an astute philosophic
commentator, observed that: "the specialist stands ever at the
borderline of psychosis.... Specialization develops only part of a man;
a man partially developed is deformed... suffering from a severe
fragmentation of his world picture.... Men so obsessed with fragments
can no more be reasoned with than psychotics."
That said, theoretically, teachers are a constituency
I should sympathize with. Education and learning are values I hold in
high esteem. However, at least here in Canada and broadly speaking
(exceptions acknowledged), the teaching profession has become a strange
hybrid of pseudo-professional arrogance and belligerent trade-union
tribalism. Ideals of academic excellence seem to have fallen by the
wayside on the road to economic self-interest, politically correct
socialization, nitwit avant-garde teaching theories, and wannabe
professional prestige.
Canada has the second most expensive education system
in the world, but according to Statistics Canada, 29% of this
cash-burner's 16 to 24 year old products lack the basic skills to read
a newspaper. Since 1966, despite astronomical inflation of education
expenditures, Grade 8 reading comprehension has declined by 9% and
reading skills by 11%.
Nevertheless, the teaching profession vigilantly
guards against any imposition of objective accountability and strives
to control and manipulate public discussion of school programs, teacher
performance, and student achievement. Teachers argue that education
performance can't be judged objectively (untrue), making classroom
malpractice or incompetence impossible to identify. This brazenly
self-serving notion leaves learning objectives and outcomes up to the
arbitrary judgment of individual teachers, on the basis of shifting
fads and trends in teaching methodology. It also conveniently renders
performance-based wage scales impractical, so teacher's pay (maybe you
should come to Canada - teachers' salaries are pretty attractive here)
is based solely on academic degrees and seniority.
My daughter, who was home-schooled up to the end of
her middle school years, is now enrolled in public high school. She has
completed three years' (Grades 10, 11, and 12) in two years, and her
average for her mid-term exams (the ones that count for university
application) was 96.4. However, she says that she feels like the longer
she remains in public school, the stupider she is getting, and that she
was farther ahead intellectually during her last year of
home-schooling, in which she was nominally in Grade 9, but actually
doing stuff like auditing and writing papers for a 100 level college
philosophy course (she got As, and the prof said he was marking her no
differently than his regular students). She says there are a few good
teachers at her school, but even they are hamstrung by the inane
curriculum and numbskull bureaucracy, as well as the cultural
illiteracy of most of the students (and indeed many of the teachers -
some of the stuff she's told me is enough to make you laugh or cry or
both).
Enough teacher bashing for this session. ;-)
By the way, I'm 100 percent with your dad on the
antibiotic issue, a topic I have written about for several
publications. Better not get me going on that!
One of my big beefs with the medical establishment is
the arrogant and supercilious dismissal of all healing and wellness
methodologies that fall outside the allopathic Medical Model. Better
not get me going on that either!
I certainly don't disparage genuine applied expertise,
and I, too, would want a highly trained and skilled expert surgeon
operating on me were it necessary too.
Thanks for reading.
Charles
Thanks for wonderful material
From Katie Bretsch
Thanks for the article and discussion on Internet v consensus of
competent.
BRAVO!! Made my day!
Thanks, Katie.
Charles
"Professionals"... bah...
From Eric McCann
I read your article on LEM, The Internet vs. the
Consensus of the Competent, and it brought to mind my experience in
technical support.
People with certifications - particularly the MS certifications -
get paid a great deal. If you have an MCSE, don't expect to make under
$30,000/year. Still, many of these are "paper MCSEs" who love the
letters after their name and tested well - but have no practical
experience.
Dealing with these people is almost inevitably a pain - the less
they know, the more arrogant they are. A typical conversation goes
like:
"Well, I need you to do such-and-such."
"That won't help."
"We need to check the settings" (which are inevitably WRONG after
this conversation."
"Look, I know it won't help, I'm an MCSE/MCP/NCA/PITA!"
"Then you should have no problem clicking on a control
panel...."
Degrees and certifications don't do a heck of a lot to prove
"credibility" to me any more because of this. It's too bad they still
do for so many others.
Eric McCann
Hi Eric,
While it is, of course, possible to be an actual
expert in a particular field, and I respect that, my empirical
observation is that credentials alone are no guarantee of
competence.
In certain fields (e.g.: surgery, aircraft piloting),
credentials are certainly necessary and desirable, because the
potential for harm from incompetent practice is great, but these are
also areas where skills and levels of expertise can be objectively
evaluated and tested.
This thread began with discussion of journalistic
professionalism, and journalism is a field where objective evaluation
beyond competence in things like spelling, grammar, and style is quite
difficult, and where, IMHO, the marketability of what one produces
should be the criterion of entry, success, or failure.
Charles
Oh I just can't seem to let this one go...
From Tim Baxter
Further thoughts on credentials (as you've got my brain working).
Integrity is easily found in journalism, at least at the four papers I
worked at.
Objectivity, on the other hand, is a sacred cow that may as well be
butchered. True, complete objectivity requires omniscience, which I
suspect isn't exactly a common attribute. The best we can hope for is
to get as close to the truth as we possibly can, but even that begs the
question, what is the truth? As close as we can will always be a
bit distant from where the truth is because of our own, often
unrecognized biases, lack of complete information, sloppy writing, or
an inability to see where the truth may be. Or heck, any number of
other factors could come into play. Honestly, I think papers may have
been better (they were certainly more interesting) 75 or 100 years ago,
when they made little pretense of objectivity but instead took an
editorial stand.
From a strictly business standpoint, working toward objectivity may
have been the dumbest thing they ever did, as it destroyed much of
their product differentiation. Now, after dragging you through my
half-baked philosophical and business ramblings, I wanted to add one
more thought, which I think goes a long way toward explaining how
journalists work....
I think when it comes down to it, there are four basic types of
journalists. While few fit neatly in one category (do people ever?), I
think these are pretty solid archetypes:
- Writers. These are the folks who can turn phrases like a pretty
girl turns guys heads. They can just make 'em do whatever they want.
They could make a cereal box worth reading.
- Thinkers. Possessed of an unusual clarity of thought and an
abundance of original ideas, these are the people you read because
they'll make you think, or you're at least interested in what they
might expose you to next. FWIW, I'd place you in this category. Take it
as a compliment.
- Reporters. These people can research and write on anything. It
doesn't matter if they've never been exposed to it a day in their life,
they'll find out everything and turn in clean usable copy by deadline.
They ain't artists; they're bricklayers. They use their research and
words to build something strong and useable. I'd put myself here.
- Those who finished the classes.
And since I just can't seem to stop on this... the very worst kind
of writer is one who's intent on telling you how smart he is. If he's
really a category 2 thinker, he doesn't have to tell the reader,
they'll just know.
Which is my longwinded way of saying, "gee I really hate
long-winded, semi-erudite ramblings with no lead, no precision of
language and really, no discernible point at all."
In my journalism classes, "write concisely" was virtually a rallying
cry.
On the other hand, you'd never know it by this longwinded
missive.
Hi Tim,
:-))
I'm flattered by you placing me in Category 2. I
consider myself more of a Category 3 type with aspirations toward
Category 2 and futile wishes with regard to Category 1.
Several years ago, John Fraser, former editor of
Saturday Night magazine and before that a reporter and foreign
correspondent for the Toronto Globe and Mail for 17 years, delivered a
withering critique of the journalistic objectivity cult - calling it
"one of the vainest goals a humble craft ever set itself."
"There is no such thing as a strictly objective
story," declared Fraser. "It isn't possible. Everything - from the
structure of an article to the choice of facts is filtered through a
particular outlook and a prejudiced mind.... The most you can hope
for... is relative honesty. And the very best (i.e.: the most honest)
journalists always let their readers know their specific prejudices and
the general nature of the intellectual equipment through which they
distill their stories."
Charles
Re: The Consensus of the Competent
From Clayton Bennett
Mr. Moore -
Disclaimer: This is a quick, ad-lib note; it is not careful
writing.
First, thank you for introducing me to the writing of Christopher
Lasch. I've been through several of his book reviews so far and a few
short articles. He was as opinionated as William Bennett, George Will,
William Buckley, or Michael Medved, but far more articulate and
coherent. My browsing led me to the Reason.com site, which is the best place on
the Web I've found yet to challenge my ideas with intelligent opposing
views.
Meanwhile, about the value of credentials: I'm a writer and editor
who specializes in "business communication" - that is, materials
designed to provide factual information that encourages readers to act.
When I see what passes for marketing communications and public
relations writing, I wish for a standards body that could keep at least
some of the hacks away from the profession. At the same time, I left
college with only a few credits to earn before I would receive a
bachelor's degree. That makes me an uncredentialed amateur, no matter
how good I believe my work is.
Compounding the problem further is the way a professional
association or academic institution evaluates someone's fitness to join
the club. With colleges, you can get most undergraduate degrees by
paying up, showing up, and not giving up. Granted, Ulysses was right
when he said perseverance alone was omnipotent. But that hardly
inspires confidence in the quality of effort new grads will - or even
can - make in the marketplace. Professional associations may have more
strictly defined criteria for accreditation, but they may also be used
as a way of enforcing conformity to the practices by which the
profession protects itself against amateurs.
Having written that, I'm now thinking about earning those last few
credits and pursuing accreditation - as a cynical and ironic gesture,
of course. The mistaken value clients place on those little suffixes
will have nothing to do with it.
One last thing: I enjoy your columns, and wish I could set up an
AvantGo channel to make sure I don't miss any.
Regards,
Clayton Bennett, who usually says more with fewer words
Hi Clayton,
Or as Blaise Pascal lamented:
"I have made this letter longer than usual, only
because I have not had the time to make it shorter." Lettres
Provinciales (1657), xvi
- And of course, the value of accreditation is dependent upon what is
being measured and by what criteria.
Charles
Journalism as art: Art vs. Consensus
From Magilum
I recall having had a similar argument about art a while back in
your own Mailbag column at Applelinks. I had little interest in the
conversation when the other fellow started to sound like Dan Knight's
mystery webmaster and journalism expert.
In any case, it was my contention all along that artistic talent,
perhaps any talent, means more than any supposed education. It's a real
devaluation of an individual's assets to suggest that a person must be
spoon-fed on even a cookie-cutter curriculum to be worth a damn. While
both talent and education may be good for some, the latter
certainly can't take the place of the former.
Particularly with art, the line drawn between good and bad art does
seem to be a subjective one indeed. For those without the eyes and
judgment to really see art, let alone create it, their opinions are too
often a bland deference to the most prestigious or popular view.
Credentials can be considered a measure of education, and ability to
regurgitate said education, not a measure of talent or creative
ability. For those without talent, and the talent-blind, the state's
seal of approval is all they have.
Exactly. :-)
Charles
Credentials and Journalism
From Katherine Keller
Dear Charles,
I have been following your pieces on journalism credentials with
some interest. And though I hope you'll some day come to the light of
OS X ;) you are dead on about this topic.
I am one of the founding members of Sequential Tart, "a 'zine by women
who love comics". We'll be turning 4 years old in September. To make a
long story short, the 'zine was founded by ten uppity women who
couldn't find the kind of comics and pop-culture print magazine they
wanted to read and realized that with one's comp-sci major, and three
network admins we had all the tech savvy needed to get our dream up and
running. We posted Volume 1, issue 1 in Sept. 1998 and haven't looked
back.
We decided early on to make ST a not for profit enterprise. While we
do sell banner ads to defray server space and bandwidth costs, no one
writing for ST has ever been paid a cent. The site is a labor of
love.
Our critics may dismiss us as a mere "fanzine," but at the end of
the day (and this very long history lesson), I can say it's not about
if you're "pro" or "am"; it's not about how much money you have behind
you; it's all about whether or not people want come to your site and
read your content. If you're good and have got something interesting
and important to say, people will come.
Likewise, prestige isn't about being "pro" or "am." Prestige cannot
be bought, only earned. And, pro or am, if, when you talk, people
listen, then that is prestige.
LEM doesn't have its large readership (and prestige) because Dan
Knight is a relentless marketing machine with a huge cash flow and a
J-degree from a "big" school. LEM has its readership because every day
Dan Knight delivers excellent content. Period.
-Katherine-
Hi Katherine,
Well said, and you amplify the point I made about
letting the market decide in my reply to Eric McCann above.
Of course, popularity is not necessarily a reliable
measure of excellence (look at the relative market success of Windows
vs. the Mac OS). ;-)
Charles
Re: More Thoughts on Professional Elitism and
Gatekeeping
From Owen Strawn
Re: http://lowendmac.com/misc/02/0227.html
Thanks for continuing the discussion of a fascinating subject - it
seems a bit one-sided, but it is the side that I agree with...
I would like to respond on one or two points:
Please don't outright dismiss the value of psychological therapy. My
life has been vastly enhanced through the help of a competent
psychologist. Sometimes it takes an outside observer to help you
understand the forces that shape your life, and to help you develop
strategies for overcoming them. These are learned skills, and they are
not often learned within the context of family in our western
culture.
Of course credentials are no guarantee of effectiveness here either,
but where else do you start?
Note that the responsibility for actualization remains with the
individual - a therapist can't make you better, but they can help you
learn to make yourself better.
Martin's desire for electric installations and structures to be
developed by credentialed professionals comes probably from
insufficient knowledge in these fields for him to evaluate them
personally. This doesn't mean that he couldn't learn these subjects if
he chose to, just that he doesn't choose to do so.
Credentials can be an important way to protect yourself in
areas where you have no knowledge or other way to evaluate the quality
of a service provider, but in that case you still have the
responsibility to evaluate the quality of the credentialing
authority.
I am a degreed engineer, but one of my major professional heroes is
self-taught (Aerodynamicist John Roncz). I have encountered many
engineers who demand that you accept their position because they have
more experience. These are always wrong.
IMO this is that same as criticizing a journalist because of a lack
of credentials. If a criticism is not based on the merits of the work,
then I find it serves admirably as an indictment of the critic.
If someone (in any field) is not willing to teach you why they are
doing it this way, then you must retain a healthy
skepticism. This will frustrate competent professionals who have poor
people skills, but maybe a therapist could help them deal.
Owen Strawn
Hi Owen,
Good summary of why credentials are sometimes a
necessary evil (or at least potential evil when the *idea* of
credentials is abused or misapplied)
Charles
Elitists?
From Joe C. Carson
I just read your latest...
I really have to ask, who is being the "Elitist" here and who is
trying to become the Big Kahuna of "Gatekeepers?"
I think there is some sort of adage about pots making insulting
remarks about kettles that might apply.
P.S. Are you guys still stumping for Apple to dump modern technology
in favor of Intel's mid-Twentieth century antique technology?
Joe C. Carson
Huh?
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
