On that recent “Other versions of Vocation” post, commenter Tickletext had some fascinating things to say about the difference between “vocation” and “career”:
It’s instructive to contrast the metaphorical underpinnings of “vocation” and “career.” The central metaphor of vocation is, of course, a calling–latin vocare. The person who is called is the receptor of that gift, the respondent to that calling, which originates not in oneself but in the Person who calls.
But the word “career” is etymologically associated with roads, courses, chariot-paths, etc. Poets used to speak of the “career” of the sun in its course across the sky. This is how modernity generally conceives of work, as a choice of course, not a calling and a gift. The person who faces a career choice faces a crossroads of choices. A person usually discovers one’s vocations as they naturally unfold through the talents that arise in relation to the people to whom one is called. But the criteria for making the right career choice and taking the right career path are self-originating, they are discovered by being true to oneself and one’s desires (to speak the Hollywood argot). Because that is extremely vague, and because one’s desires are in constant flux and contradiction, there has arisen a whole industry of incantatory-astrological magicians and paperback mountebanks who hawk the right “formula” or series of steps, which, if purchased and followed, will bring happiness and success in one’s career choice.
Universities today are extremely career-oriented, of course. Like all the secular schools the Christian university I attended had a Career Center but no Vocation Center, nor was vocation taught in any substantive way. The phrase “revolutionize” is a cliche, but a strong and full articulation of vocation properly understood would truly transform the way we approach education. In the humanities, for instance, an understanding of art, literature, and criticism as vocational means of serving the neighbor would provide a compelling alternative to the dehumanizing, obscurantist tendencies of modern English departments.
In another comment, he added this:
One reason I find the distinction between vocation and career useful is that the former category has a teleological orientation which is lacking in the latter. By which I mean: the career culture has no sound way of differentiating legitimate careers from illegitimate careers. It doesn’t really matter WHAT career you choose–the choice is the only important thing. Who are we to judge the choices of others, anyway? There is a built-in aversion to truth in the career mentality. And thus it leaves the neighborhood in the cold and fragmented.
But vocation acknowledges the flourishing–the shalom–of the neighbor as a legitimate check to the authority of choice. Vocations that prove deleterious to the health and well being of the neighbor are no vocations at all. But the same cannot be said of the career mindset, which is inherently choice-oriented. Vocation doesn’t deny the role of choice, it just humbles it, redirects it.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
One of the things I noticed when my children began highschool after having been homeschooled to 8th grade, is that even at that level of education, the process of learning is not about vocation at all. It is about taking one's skill set and using it as a commodity. They are to harness their abilities to find a career, not take their gifts and use them in service for others. Now, it was a completely secular school, but even when I was in school, there were educators who promoted the service of others. It is being lost in education today.
I know what my vocation is and as many times as I want to quit and want to give up, I can't seem to do it. Yet, I can't seem to make it into a job either. I feel very blessed that I am not financially responsible for my family, otherwise I'd still be living in a garage with a couple of cats. Is it proper to separate one's "day job" from one's vocation? Or can a vocation work economically? It seems that it can for many people, but folks in the arts tend to have a harder time making this work. I hate to think about my sculptures in terms of commodities that need to be sold in much the same way that Pottery Barn sells its throw pillows.
In order to gently correct Dr. Veith's notion that I am a "she," I have updated my username so as to more accurately reflect my thoroughgoing masculinity. My new name has the added benefit of having more pop culture relevance than my Henry Fielding allusion alone.
Thanks to Dr. Veith for his continuing faithfulness in teaching about the rich doctrine of vocation.
Brave Sir Tickletext, thanks for your insight here on the natural connection between a healthy view of vocation and service towards one's neighbors. I just really appreciated reading this today. Also thanks to the blogger.
Ah brave sir, you've missed an opportunity. By allowing us the misinformation that you are a "she", you could have really messed with our heads. As it is, I'm having to redraw you in my imagination once again. I'm trying to grasp what "thoroughgoing masculinity" looks like. I keep coming up with a racehorse, but that can't be right.
Sarah in Exile:
Like many people in the arts you may hate to think of your art as commodities to be bought and sold. But somebody has to. If your family has no head for making money from your vacation, you may be forced to look elsewhere. Fortunately for you, there are people in this world (agents and art dealers, for example) whose vocation is to do just that. It may simply be a matter of finding such a person to make your vocation economically productive. I pray you find such a person who is trustworthy.
I sympathize with your situation more than you might expect. One of my daughters is about to graduate from college with a degree in dramatic arts. How that vocation will supprt her financially is a matter of great concern to me. I have every confidence in her talent. But this is an inhospitible world for artists.
thoroughgoing masculinity…
rock hudson
cary grant
cole porter
gary cooper
the father on the tv series my three sons.
the father on the brady bunch
samantha´s husband on bewitched
marlon brando
these men all had something in common and all were icons of thoroughgoing masculinity.
Your comment is interesting in contrast.
hey tickletext. yup your comments were great. and … well composed.
I will attempt to emulate!
)
Brave Sir Tickletext raises another interesting point, though. Someone close to me just accepted a job with a law firm, and will be working exclusively in the division of the firm that does foreclosures. Foreclosing on people who don't/can't pay their mortgages isn't something we normally associate with helping one's neighbor. But the person (or stockholders of the bank) that lent the money are our neighbors as well.
I guess I'd like to understand better how you differentiate between a "legitimate" and an "illegitimate" career. So, what are the guidelines?
As for "Bewitched" it wasn't the original Darren, just his replacement. But Fred MacMurray?!?!?! Oh Frank…SAY IT AIN'T SO!
Thoroughgoing masculinity: think LeBron James plus Martin Luther plus Bono plus Robert E. Lee plus Groucho Marx plus Johnny Cash plus William Wilberforce plus the Marlboro Man plus Samuel Johnson plus Ned Flanders plus Richard Petty minus Richard Dawkins…
A simple way to differentiate might be that an illegitimate career harms your neighbor or yourself. Drug dealer, prostitute, pirate, terrorist, etc. Would a tatoo artist fit in to that criteria?
But not Veith? I really thought he'd figure into that Ken Doll of personalities you've assembled. But it is all too overwhelming. My mind got stuck on LeBron James plus Martin Luther. I'm sticking with racehorse.
I'd go further than this, although I agree with the differentiation. A legitimate career must also take into account one's own personal sense of sin and of calling–which can vary a lot–and one's gifts. Using Kerner's example: there are lawyers out there who would not be able to handle foreclosures for reasons of conscience or personal piety, but that does not make the handling of foreclosures–which Kerner rightly points out is a legitimate service to the banks–an illegitimate vocation. LAJ's "harming yourself" may be what I'm trying to unpack a little more.
In a related way, I had lunch with my very liberal and non-Christian attorney yesterday. We were discussing his "career", and he went through a long list of reasons it brought him satisfaction, none of which involved the value of his service to his clients. When I broached that aspect of his life–pointing out that an aspect of his potition in life was that he had served his clientele well and faithfully–he seemed puzzled, as though it was something he'd never given much thought to. I found it mildly instructive.
Oops. I should add that the descriptive "very liberal" was not meant to imply that that is the cause of his apparent blindspot. "Non-Christian", however, was meant to imply something more.
Sorry, Mr. Tickletext. Fielding! Of course. I will revise the pronoun.
I don't see anything in the Bible or the Lutheran confessions that says that one has to make money from one's vocation. Actually, our vocations are multiple. I well know about your art, Sarah, and you have the gifts of Bezalel (see Exodus 35, the first place in the Bible that explicitly speaks of vocation, as well as God's gifts to the artist). That is your calling. But you have other callings too. If you have a "day job" that is a calling too, a station where you can serve your neighbor and live out your faith.