Wednesday, July 6, 2005

"I urge you to be inspired by many muses, and to make a symphony of their voices."

Just came across a great article on CNN by historian Dr. Theodore Zeldin about "a new kind of conversation". Dr. Zeldin proposes that people are learning to be too specialized, and this is a root cause of our unhappiness. He suggests that we have conversations with strangers about our beliefs and our dreams in order to determine what we truly want out of life--that we focus on generalizations, a holistic picture, rather than specifics, so that we can achieve a more well-rounded world view.

This particular section really struck me:

Education -- bachelor, master, doctor -- is organized to make you ever more specialist and often incomprehensible.

Specialization seldom gives wisdom. Join instead the newly invented postgraduate course that uses conversation to make people generalists and not just specialists, giving them broader sensitivities, and an understanding of how different occupations and cultures think.

Participating in the intellectual adventures of other disciplines is a purge for arrogance.
I have instinctively avoided specialization for some time now. Whenever I think about what kind of job I would like to have, I ultimately see myself walking down a narrow corridor, trapping myself on one route, eliminating thousands of other options. That prospect has always terrified me into inaction. Is there a way to generalize, to keep my options open, to "participate in the intellectual adventures of other disciplines"...and still put food on the table? Or will I have to give in and specialize at least a little in order to survive in this economy?

1 comment:

Heather Meadows said...

It does seem overly simplistic, cavalier, and unfair to write off the educated. There is obvious merit and value in specialization--what if, for example, doctors didn't specialize?

I think Dr. Zeldin's points do bear some consideration, though.

I may seem overly idealistic, but the idea of writing off anyone makes me uncomfortable. I would prefer to be open to everyone, and to judge the merit of ideas rather than people. I strongly believe that brilliance can come from anyone, anywhere, and I think that all brilliance should be respected and nurtured.

This is why the idea of conversations with strangers is so appealing to me. In these conversations, you're not just broadening your own worldview...you're positively reinforcing the act of thought. Too often, what people think and feel becomes secondary to the perceived economic effect of having them around. People are, in a subtle way, trained not to think, and simply to excel in predetermined paths. When someone does not follow the path, for whatever reason, it is unconscionably easy to just, well, write them off.

I think people should be free to pursue their dreams, whether that be a trade, a PhD, an office position, a business, or whatever else they can think of. And I think people are free to do that in this country, to an extent. But it's undeniable that it is much easier to follow a scripted path...and when you go the easy route, the tendency is to try and make things even more easy, which can lead to tunnel vision.

(Side note: I do think that specialization to the point that your language is inaccessible to the common man can be a bad thing. Think, for example, of how science stories and poll results are handled by media outlets. Since the reporters don't really understand what's going on, they have to interpret everything before they write their articles, and this often leads to misinformation. I think there is a lot to be said for simply explaining how things work, without heavy reliance on specialized language. I think that all knowledge should be accessible to everyone, to foster the learning and development of all people.)