Affiliation:
1. School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
2. Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, 116 Edgbaston Park Road, Birmingham B15 2TY, UK
Abstract
Work on callings has burgeoned in the past 20 years, yet recent reviews exposed a lack of conceptual clarity and disagreements around its definition, components and measures. One lingering point of contention revolves around the element of prosociality: is a calling orientation primarily motivated by self-interest, prosocially orientated, or a mix of both? This conceptual paper reviews and examines the pro-self and prosocial component of a calling outlook, by examining and comparing the ways in which they feature in different calling subtypes: classic, neoclassic and modern callings. Our analysis suggests that these subtypes vary in where they are located on a pro-self–prosocial continuum: classic callings are located on the prosocial side of the axis, modern callings are located on pro-self side of the axis, and neoclassic callings can be situated in the middle of the continuum, integrating self-orientated and other-orientated motivations. Our analysis further suggests that these calling subtypes draw on divergent value systems: classic callings are propelled by self-transcendent values, modern callings are driven by self-actualization motivations, and neoclassic callings integrate both value systems. We therefore argue that the subjective experiences of pursuing a calling within each subtype pathway differ, although they may culminate in similar outcomes. The paper offers a novel framework for analyzing people’s calling that draws on their values.
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,General Psychology,Genetics,Development,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics