Society and The Men of Profession

K. RANGA RAO
Lecturer in Sociology, Andhra University

Two of the chief characteristics of modern society are: the prevalence of large-scale formal organisations and the all-pervading influence of the state over the society. In view of the increasing necessity to look after the welfare of all the citizens in the country, the state is assuming more and more powers and consequently societal operation is getting centralised more and more.

The large-scale formal organisation with its pyramidal structure, strict hierarchy of authority and rigidity of rules and regulation! develops a bureaucratic structure of administration with all its demerits such as officialdom, aggrandisement of the job, redtape etc. As against these evils of centralised administration of a large scale organisation, in a democratic country, devolution of powers to local bodies is suggested as a major remedy. Accordingly in India too we have adopted decentralisation of authority as a desirable administrative measure and are practising the same under the scheme of Panchayati Raj.

However, devolution of authority or decentralisation of administration by itself will not do any thing substantially good until and unless the same is followed by a proper recognition of the importance of a professional person. In fact it would not be wrong to say that decentralisation of administration and professionalisation of occupations are the two important remedies for the evils of the centralised-formal-bureaucratic administration. It does not require much elaboration to explain the fact that modern society, unlike the primitive, requires greater division of labour and a higher degree of specialisation of functions. It is, therefore, necessary that jobs are filled with people having special knowledge and skills. While devolution of authority minimises the impersonal formalistic behaviour inherent in the centralised administrative set-up, besides ensuring local participation, professionalisation helps to increase the efficiency of the administration by reducing the evils of bureaucracy, besides reducing the interference of the politician with the day-to-day working of the administrator. It may not be far from the truth to say that the pitfalls of the community development projects in rural India and the mal-functioning and inefficiency of the various institutions–educational, medical, engineering, scientific, cultural, social service and other public utility services–are mainly due to non-, or less, recognition of, and increasing interference with, the professional person’s job. In fact the great philosopher Whitehead “so dreaded the extension of political controls that he urged increasing professionalisation as the most promising way to tighten the sagging moral web of contemporary societies.” As observed by Robert A. Nisbet it is important to note that the modern social and political thinkers appear to give more and more importance to the individual on one side and the state on the other, keeping the social groups in between untouched. In fact it is these groups that play an important role in the transmission of the culture of the society from one generation to the other and also in building up the character of the individual citizen. Nisbet, therefore, ‘pleaded for giving more powers to these groups provided they are guided by professionals.’ This obviously means that even though Nisbet favoured devolution of authority, yet he gave more importance to the professional guidance for, he believed that such a guidance by a professional would ensure greater efficiency of service by an institution.

A cursory glance at the modern society reveals the important fact that gradually more and more occupations are being added to the four traditional professions, viz., Law, Medicine, the Ministry and Teaching; the latest addition being Social Work. Social service which was supposed to be anybody’s job has now become a professional trained worker’s job. The main reason for such a change is that the Social Worker, just as any other practising professional person, has “a broader ground of knowledge; the mastery of a specific science or art demanding prolonged study before it can be competently applied, and a relative independence in the performance of his function.” The professional person, therefore, has direct interest in the advancement of his science more than anything else. More often than not, each professional association develops its own ethical code and lays stress on the quality and social purpose of the service rendered. Apart from ensuring expert service to the client, the professional person takes the financial reward or gain as secondary or subordinate to the human or societal welfare. According to the ethical code of the American Medical Association “A profession has for its prime object the service it can render to humanity; reward or financial gain should be a subordinate consideration.” It is in view of this function and characteristic of a professional Dr. R. C. Angell in his illuminating study Free Society and Moral Crisis observed that “as more and more institutional groups come under the influence of professionally traine persons who feel responsibility for the society’s welfare, new organs of orderly change can come into being.” Discussing the importance of moral norms in a society Dr. Angell comes to the conclusion that the two main inculcating processes of a society are the moral indoctrination of children and the professionalisation of services. He says that the professionals who “are going to fill roles in the society that are both powerful and difficult to moniter are given ethical training in the course of their education so that they will perform their functions with due regard for society’s welfare.”

Such being the crucial status of the professional person in modern society, he, as an upholder of the social values and as one mainly devoted to societal welfare, should guard himself against political and economic interests. When a professional takes to active politics (or is influenced by politicians) or gives more weightage to earning, then he necessarily sacrifices societal welfare to selfishness. The political interest or any such interest which is essentially outside the scope of his profession prevents the professional or his association from pursuing the declared objectives with all devotion and sincerity. In such a case the professional would indulge in anti-social behaviour doing a lot of damage to the society. The corrupt doctor would then perform an illegal operation (e. g., helping abortion when the same is prohibited), the lawyer would help his client to evade the law (e. g. helping one to evade the income tax) and a social worker would encourage immoral or anti-social behaviour (e. g. visiting prostitutes instead of helping to eradicate prostitution). Under these circumstances it is open to anybody to conjecture anything about the conditions of such a society. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the politicians, the professional associations and the educational institutions to help promote sound professional training and thereby devoted professional service. The politicians themselves should follow an ethical code not to interfere with the professional and his field. The professional association equally should try to divest itself of political influence. The educational institutions, which again consist of professional men (teachers), should endeavour to indoctrinate, uninfluenced by other considerations, each candidate during the period of training for a particular profession. But paradoxically enough the educationists, scientists, and such other professionals basking in the sun of public administration seem to have become enervated and to have forgotten professional standards of devoted service. Here it has to be particularly noted that once the educationists and the judiciary forget their professional duties it would certainly become very difficult for any society to inculcate or uphold any social and moral values.

Another word about the professional associations. It is likely that under the pretext of maintenance and advancement of professional standards, a professional association would try to maintain professional secrecy and develop a private jargon of its own. This, no doubt, is essential in the interest of scientific development. But if the same is carried on to its logical end with a view to shut the ordinary public out of it and thereby enhance its importance in the society, it would certainly be a step in the wrong direction. It is true that by simply knowing certain fundamentals of each profession everyone would not become eligible to practise the same. But it is equally correct to say that making the ordinary citizen acquire some knowledge regarding each profession and the service rendered by it would go a long way in correcting and mending his day-to-day behaviour. Knowledge of the fundamentals of health, nutrition, law, science etc., would certainly broaden the mental horizon of an individual. This will also help reduce the burden of the professional to a great extent for his advice and help will be sought regarding very important matters only. Therefore any professional association interested in societal welfare should make no attempt of keeping itself at a long distance from the public. If a professional association were to be successful in extending its knowledge to as many people as possible “it would thereby reduce to a minimum the need for its therapeutic service while enlarging greatly its preventive service.” After all, prevention is better than cure; and it is with this belief and hope that we in our country have embarked on a large-sized programme of extension services in each and every field. It is also certainly the purpose and aim of the present day international technical cooperation missions. Societal as well as human betterment today is greatly dependent upon the fruitful collaboration between the professional and the non-professional, particularly the politician.

Cannot we save humanity from the threat ofatomic war if the professional scientist, in the interest of the welfare of humanity, ceases to collude with, and bow down before, the politician?