Posted on 11/04/2017 8:51:35 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
The cultural role of specialization in progressive ideology has become more apparent to me over the years, especially as I learn more about them at the same time I am learning about the Founders. It should be overlooked any longer.
The progressives, they really enjoy specialization. Man #1, he is a professional organizer. Always has been, always will be. Man #2 is a professional Human Resources coordinator. Man 3# is a professional journalist. Man #4 is a professional teacher. Man #5 is a CEO. Man #6, he is a professional politician.
Wait a second. Professional politician? Go with me here for a second. What were the Founders?
Many of them were lawyers. But actually, they were historians. But actually, they were philosophers. But actually, they were politicians.
Some weren't lawyers, instead they were farmers. But actually, they were authors. But actually, they were theologians. But actually, they were politicians.
You see that? They weren't specialists. They were generalists. They did many things throughout their lives, and did not look at politics as a life-long career and certainly did not go off to college to achieve that one single goal.
This is actually a part of the problem - the old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it" - well, what does a specialist know BUT his specialization?(and let's not forget the role of university indoctrination)
How can a specialist in, say, fixing some sort of complex machine possibly know about Article 3, section 2? That's not his specialization, that's for the Constitutional experts to handle.
How can a specialist in, say, nuclear physics, possibly know about the constitutional debates between August 6th to August 18th, 1787? That's for the history experts to handle.
How can a specialist in, say, medicine, possibly know the meaning of God's Law/Natural Law and the Enlightenment? That's for religious experts to handle. Add into the fact that the doctor who works 18 hours a day isn't then going to go home and read the Constitution before bed. Sure, there may be a small handful who will, but not nearly enough to make up the difference.
You see how the weakness is necessarily bred into the mix? I'm referring in all cases to super smart people here. This isn't an issue of lack of intellect. It's a lack of exposure.
Hyper specialists are natural suckers for tyranny. Serfs in the waiting. "Eh, politics? Bah, that's for the politicians to handle. Fake news? Bah, that's not for me. That's for the journalists to handle. History? No, I will leave that to the historians. Economics? I'm not touching that one. Go ask an expert." Specialization breeds large amounts of weakness.
Listen to the wording of this small preface:
In an age of specialization, one's activities are necessarily delimited by the professional interest. However, the great war has affected more than the vocational superstructure of our lives. It has rocked the foundations of civilization, and compelled the revaluation of many standards far more vital and more basic than the vocational. This fact may explain, if it does not justify, this excursion afield of a student of economics.The war has changed many of the conditions of living which demand analyis. Unlike the chemist or physicist, the student of the social sciences cannot vary the conditions of his experiments, but must wait until the processes of history afford him an opportunity to observe variations In phenomena, and to study their causes.
The war has upset some accepted articles of faith, but it has confirmed many others, which not only stood the test of war, but determined the victory. Many new needs have arisen and some old tendencies have become clearer.
We are entering a new era. We may do so blindly, or we may attempt to crystallize our ideas on the issues arising out of the war for the purpose of intelligently controlling social forces.
The problems of social and of political adjustment, and of the conservation of human resources, are neither less pressing nor less significant to the country than are the economic and financial questions, which have riveted the attention of statesmen and publicists during the past year. The little attention which the social problems have received is not a criterion of their relative importance in the life of the American people. It is characteristic of human nature to neglect those problems which, though they deal with the most fundamental aspects of the national life, lack the driving force of the economic motive.
This volume is a sequel to "American Problems of Reconstruction, a Symposium on the Economic and Financial Aspects." In the treatment of their subjects the contributors were requested to discuss:
1 . What have been the effects of the war?a. What pre-war conditions have become more clearly defined?2. What should be our policy during the reconstruction period?b. What new conditions has the war brought to life?
Thanks for suggestions are due to Drs. Dickinson, Rogers and Wolman, and others of the group of men who gathered at the Cosmos Club during the war. The volume has benefited as a result of the advice of Dean William H. Welch, of the School of Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University, and of my brother, David, particularly in the section dealing with the social aspects of medicine. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to President Frank J. Goodnow, Professors Charles H. Cooley, Franklin H. Giddings, M. M. Kaplan, T. I. Parkinson, Roscoe Pound, E. A. Ross, and Arthur J. Todd, and Mr. Abraham Flexner, for helpful suggestions.
That's from "America and the new era, a symposium on Social Reconstruction" It's a book written by progressives, for progressives. Social reconstruction? Who but progressives look at the progressive era through the era after World War 1 as an era of social reconstruction. Progressives are very intense when it comes to their "fundamental transformation" of America, and they have been since day one.
Notice how the theme of the preface is entirely geared toward social control, with a sprinkle of economic talk. That's the job of the new specialist in the progressive era, social control. Control over you, over your life. In part, this is also why progressives worship the false god of "the economy" so intently. They can use it for control purposes. Sure, it can be said that in the short term, an economy comprised entirely of specialists will be more productive and prosperous with fatter bank accounts than the corresponding generalists. However, at what price?
Here we are, one century past the progressive era. Tyranny is knocking at our door, demanding payment. You ready to pay the price for abandoning generalization? The generalists then had more freedom than the specialists do now. Choose wisely.
Ping.................
Is it just me, or do the listed professions all have common factors in that they 1: produce nothing, 2: take no talent, and 3: are occupied by rather dense individuals?
Over-specialization is a unintended consequence of a college degree for every person and a college degree required for any job.
There is no benefit to being a person described as “good worker, smart, learns fast” anymore. You must have spent a nominal 4 years (preferably 6-8) studying something in a formal institution. So, everyone becomes a specialist because HR departments demand it. In fact, in HR Management praxis, a “specialist” is paid considerably more money than a “generalist”, even a well-experienced generalist, because the assumption is that the specialist can do much more in their area of focus. With all things being equal, this is true. But all other things are rarely equal (i.e. the experience level of a generalist).
American business has created the specialist monster, not Progressivism. Progressives are just better at gaming the system than Conservatives. It is really their greatest strength.
Thanks, ProgressingAmerica.
Bottom line: Progressives of all stripes are Repressive Tyrants.
Two other issues with specialization:
(i) Specialized fields often attract fellow travelers in terms of politics and belief systems; having generalists around with sufficient understanding to independently critically assess their “profession” limits their political power and reach. On the flip side, having tightly sequestered specialists with no critical review leads to the rise of pseudo-scientific disciplines like the many “studies” we have today.
(ii) True geniuses are capable of making lasting contributions to many fields, which is missed through specialization.
People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.
Wealth of Nations, p. 1 p. 207
Part 1, page 207.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
There was a term used back when a classical education was the norm.
Renaissance Man. They were men who were classically educated in Latin, Greek, Philosophy, History, Law, Agriculture, Engineering, Science, and the Military arts.
Those with those abilities used to be called “Well rounded”. It was a term I learned from my Dad.
“Is it just me, or do the listed professions all have common factors in that they 1: produce nothing, 2: take no talent, and 3: are occupied by rather dense individuals”?
You are right on # 1. Social Engineering is their goal.
It’s easy for them to do # 2 & 3 because the people who fall for it are dumber than they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.