by aporia » Nov 5th, '09, 11:31
One sociologists' definition is:
A "professional" is a member of a "professional" organisation.
A "professional" organisation is effectively what other "professional" organisations call "professional".
There are some, rather flexible, rules about "professional" which includes that the person needs to have studied for something that can only be taught. For example, engineering might be in this class, while drawing or tea-leaf reading is possibly not.
The "professions" therefore are therefore those trades in which the "professional" member is accountable to the "professional" body. A doctor, a barrister, a solicitor, a dentist. These are "professionals" because they are members of a "professional" body. If they make a major mistake then the "professional" body will sanction them. A doctor's receptionist is not a "professional" because it is the medical practice partner who has the sanction not a "professional" body. Teachers can't be "professionals" because they are employed for their labour and are not members of a "professional" body but rather a trade union. I don't know if the GMC officially recognises the RCN as a professional body for instance. Maybe it does which shoots my statements down. I'd be interested to know, but I think it's a bit like the definition of a "country". Only those "countries" that are recognised by other "countries" are actually "countries", despite what the members might believe. I'm thinking of Palestine/Tibet/Wales/Yorkshire.
The distinction is blurred if the doctor works for a drugs company as they are effectively hiring out their talent like any other trades person.
The definition is further blurred because another definition is basically someone who is paid for their deliverables and carries their own risk (ie self-employed)
And further blurred because "professional" is taken to mean "anyone who has a job" which is why adverts for flat shares ask for "professional people".
Then there are the ABC marketing categories (oh how glorious is the british class system). A self-employed mage who owns their own company, employs people and is the company director would (I think) be an A or a B. I don't know where entertainers sit on the scale.
I'm not sure I agree with all of the definitions and it's many many years since I studies sociology so the current thinking may well have moved on. But i'd be inclined to call a magic a trade, rather than a profession because of the lack of a necessity for academic rigour. As I say, I may well be totally wrong. If I am I'm sure that someone will put me right.
Last edited by
aporia on Nov 6th, '09, 11:34, edited 1 time in total.