|
 Peg's
Polemic
Every
month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified
style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned
column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...
Number
19. Professional
As
in 'unprofessional behaviour' or 'unprofessional attire'. As in
'not good'. As in 'cause for dismissal'. Given that extreme consequence,
we'd better define 'unprofessional'. Easier said than done.
The
word 'professional' means, simply, 'pertaining to the profession'.
Not helpful. Let's assume that the profession's standards are being
referred to, standards which, presumably, identify a certain
minimum regarding quality of performance. For example, good
counselling depends on trust; specifically, the counsellee trusts
the counsellor not to tell others what has been discussed during
the session. Therefore, a counsellor who fails to maintain confidentiality
is being unprofessional. Consider another example: it is incontestable
that certain professions are best carried out when their practitioners
do not accept bribes. So if a police officer or a lawyer did accept
a bribe, s/he would be guilty of unprofessional behaviour. So far,
so good.
What
about the professor who has a relationship with a student? Is it
incontestable that university education is best achieved without
personal attachment between professor and student and/or when the
professor is impartial? Is impartiality possible, let alone probable,
even without professor-student relationships? (I'm thinking of racial,
religious, and gender prejudices, and even simple personality conflicts.)
(And do personal attachments necessarily mean lack of impartiality?)
Consider
the profession of broadcast journalism. One could argue that based
on the evidence of public opinion polls, a newscast is taken more
seriously (i.e., is more successful) when delivered in a bass voice.
So it would be unprofessional to hire tenors, let alone altos and
sopranos.
Things
become even murkier when we leave unprofessional behaviour and venture
into unprofessional attire. In which professions is the success
of the job dependent on specific attire? Incontestably, scuba diving
and fire fighting. What about nursing? Why do they have to wear
those uniforms? They aren't intrinsically sterile. Ease of identification
in emergencies? Okay. What about the staff at fast food outlets?
I should think correct identification is pretty much guaranteed
by their being behind the counter--not that getting fries with that
is a matter of any urgency. From here, we can readily get into the
ridiculous: how does wearing make-up relate to success on the job
for an airline worker or a bank teller? (one of the former fired
for not wearing any, one of the latter fired for wearing too much);
how does wearing cotton pants and a sweatshirt relate to success
on the job for an elementary school teacher? (suspended without
pay for the entire school year).
That
much of professionalism is concerned with appearance is unsettling
for several reasons:
(1)
There is often no correspondence between the appearance of competence
and competence itself; whether that teacher wears polyester or denim,
for example, does not, cannot, indicate the quality of her
teaching. (Especially in education, this view is abhorrent because
it contradicts one of the fundamentals of scientific inquiry: we
try to teach our students to understand what it is, not what
it looks like.)
(2)
It violates one of our moral fundamentals--'don't judge a book by
its cover' and 'it's what's on the inside that counts'--and
makes us hypocrites.
(3)
Accordingly, it doesn't matter then whether or not we actually do
X; it matters only whether or not it looks like we've done
X. Hello?
Truth
is, much of professionalism comes down to custom. The airline attendant
was not conforming to custom. Nor was the bank teller. Nor the teacher.
Each was doing something a little aberrant, a little individual.
But how can we justify equating 'professionalism' with 'conformity'?
(Well, we seem to equate 'morality' with 'conformity' fairly
easily--) A researcher was once reprimanded for using 'unprofessional
salutations' in letters requesting information: rather than 'Dear
Sir/Madam', a simple 'Hi' began the letter. Unprofessional or just
unconventional? Would recipients of such letters really refuse to
send the information just because 'Dear Sir/Madam' wasn't used?
(What do we take each other for?)
Now,
from 'doing what's expected' (custom), we easily get to 'doing what
you're told' (obedience) as a definition of professionalism. Consider
this: "...she did not seek out politically charged stories
to make her political point, nor refuse an assignment for political
reasons (or for any other). Margaret was a professional. "
[from Margaret Bourke-White: A Biography by Vicki Goldberg] In fact,
it may not be unusual for charges of 'unprofessionalism' and 'insubordination'
to occur together (insubordination referring, of course, to not
deferring to your supervisor, perhaps especially with respect to
orders given).
In
fact, it's beginning to look like being professional is incompatible
with being an individual, an individual with ideas, values, thoughts,
feelings, integrity. To be professional, you wear a uniform (you
look like everyone else, you become impersonal) and you do
what you're told (you listen to another person, rather than to your
own person). Is it not 'unprofessional' for a doctor to refuse to
help an injured person who has just killed and is certain to kill
again? No doubt, it would be 'unprofessional' for an engineer to
refuse a project with military applications. Impartiality and emotional
distance, no personal opinions or judgements--I'd say professionalism
is downright dangerous.
.
Peg's
Polemic will next be updated early-August 2002
Previous
polemics
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
|
