The Professionals and the Public

That social category we consider to be the "professional" occupational groups in society is less studied and discussed than it ought to be, but has not been wholly ignored by social scientists--as Thomas Frank shows when giving the general reader a handy round-up in the first chapter of his 2016 book Listen, Liberal.

In considering that category--and especially how the professionals see themselves standing in relation to the rest of the society--it is useful to remember the root of "professional" in "profess." If many identify professionals and professionalism with modernity, rationality, science, the professional's perception of their place, now as much as ever, can be understood as that of a priest in relation to the laity, in their having a monopoly of activity and (presumably) wisdom in some important sphere of human life. This puts them in a position of power and privilege over them which has as its obligation an ethic of service to the public--but they also regard themselves as unaccountable to that public on the grounds that it is incompetent to judge of what they do.

For those who are egalitarian or rationalistic or both in outlook, who distrust authoritarianism and hierarchy, who think that those who have power are prone to abuse it and must be held accountable accordingly, this situation can be described as "problematic" at best--all as a great many of those who may not have particular ideas about society generally find it very uncomfortable dealing with professionals. This is especially when they are not used to dealing with professionals, when they are looking up at them rather than down at them socially, when poverty forces them to have an eye squarely on the bill, when in the likely emergency situation they are desperate for straight answers and for assurances professionals too rarely give--the "god in a white coat" who responds to a frightened and desperate patient's questions with evasions and condescending smiles. Professionals, whose training and position makes them creatures of authoritarianism and hierarchy, and scornful of those "not of the priesthood" who would dare judge them, or even just try and make sense of that sphere in which they consider themselves supreme, tend not to be terribly sympathetic or accommodating to their clients' anxieties and disadvantages, with this carrying over to their larger view of the world--with, as Frank argued in that book, important implications for our politics today.