Professions in the Current Context

Abstract

Commentaries on `the professions' have long reflected a tension between two, apparently conflicting, perspectives. On the one hand, professions are viewed as uniquely ethical occupations; on the other, as powerful groups who have masked their pursuit of self-interest behind essentially spurious ethical codes. It is argued that this paradox reflects a more general problem evident in the sociology of work; that is, that the division of labour in capitalist society incorporates and reflects co-operation, as well as exploitation and conflict. Since Parsons' early distinction between `professionals' and `bureaucrats', `professions' have been regarded as particular types of occupations; it is argued that the concept of profession does not describe a generic occupational type, but rather, a mode of regulation of the exchange of expert labour which has powerful universalist overtones. This professional ideal (which may, of course, often not be evident in practice) is found to be articulated explicitly in Marshall's early development of the concept of `citizenship'. In the current context, such ideals are being articulated in opposition to the present Government's attempts to introduce quasi-markets in the provision of state financed services such as health. Although the deregulation of the occupational market may initially be seen to be `against' the interests of some `professions' when viewed as protected occupational groups; experts in performance monitoring such as lawyers and accountants will be likely to benefit from an emphasis on regulation by market forces. Nevertheless, the continuing significance of `professionalism' as a mode of regulation suggests that it would be premature to assume that market-led provisions and procedures will eventually prevail.