Friday, May 27, 2011

specialisation

I have an issue with specialisation. Of course the argument that specialised people become shades of what they could be has been reiterated several times, especially these past two centuries; that the sense of wholeness that came with the specialisation of before is lost now, the simplest of jobs have been broken down into smaller pieces. But that is not what I am talking about here. It has more to do with my issue with specialisation, personally.

I just find it incredibly difficult to stick with one thing long enough to be called a specialist. Not because the subject in question is uninteresting, or unimportant; I simply find it futile trying to ignore all the interesting data pertaining to other subjects, all this knowledge bombarding me relentlessly. It might have been easier a few decades ago where the most accidental information one gets is through a newspaper. But no, that is not the case now, information cries for our attention all the time, everywhere. Of course, for someone who is passionate about one thing, it might be argued that all that information is crystalised automatically, purposefully, to be focussed on the subject of their passion.

But that is not the case with me. I am merely a thinker; and what do I think about: everything and nothing. I have to think about the civil war in Libya, the financial crisis in Greece, the gender disparity in India, the spiraling climate change, the value of society, of life and death...At the same time, I cannot write a substantial paper on the war in Libya, the rise of China, the environment or existentialism, because I am not an expert. I know enough about each of those subjects to draw my own conclusions, to make my own judgement, but not enough to elaborate originally on any of them.

Potential for value is present in everything, but is only realised through recognition by the other. This blog is an attempt to see if there is 'market' for a thinker like me.

No comments:

Post a Comment