In a profession, autonomy and self-regulation still hold true or are even desirable in the modem corporate and bureaucratic world.
A profession's right to exist, along with the power and privileges its members enjoy, rests upon the professions upholding of public values through the development, transmission and application of a body of knowledge.
The creation of this body of knowledge and its concentration in the hands of a few creates a knowledge gap between the professional and client.
That gap gives the profession power.
Such power is reinforced by differential access to other resources -technological, physical and organizational.
For example, it is not just medical knowledge but access to medical technology that gives the medical profession its capacity to heal.
It is the institutional links to courts that make barristers so effective.
The knowledge differential is deliberately created and increased to further the power of the profession.
However, once power differentials are created for whatever reason, there is a reluctance to give them up and there remains a temptation to use them for personal gain, either at the expense of the client or in some cases to the mutual enrichment of professional and client at the expense of the wider public.
Controlling the use and abuse of that power is one of the principle concerns of the community and one of the principle purposes for professional ethics.
The fundamental question concerning any profession receiving public support and privileges is how can that support, and its continuation, be justified.
That justification cannot be in terms of the benefits the profession confers on its members but the benefits the profession confers on the general public.
The argument is that an educated group of specialists developing, transmitting and applying a specialist body of knowledge will use that knowledge to benefit the broader community.
This argument builds upon the ideal that the establishment and sustenance of a profession involves a social compact with society, granting privileges such as autonomy, self-regulation, monopolistic rights and public funding of professional education in return for the provision of desirable social goods.
The provision is that the profession places 'the public interest foremost, even if serving the public interest may at times be at the professionals' own expense'.
Crucially, different public values and interests will apply to different professions and should be seen as embodied in the very definition of these professions.
For example, the medical profession and its privileges are justified by the values of preserving life and health.
The legal profession and its privileges are justified by the values of upholding justice, the rule of law and the rights of the individual.
It is easy to be cynical about such claims but there is little doubt that most professionals believe them and, for the most part try to act upon them.
A profession's right to exist, along with the power and privileges its members enjoy, rests upon the professions upholding of public values through the development, transmission and application of a body of knowledge.
The creation of this body of knowledge and its concentration in the hands of a few creates a knowledge gap between the professional and client.
That gap gives the profession power.
Such power is reinforced by differential access to other resources -technological, physical and organizational.
For example, it is not just medical knowledge but access to medical technology that gives the medical profession its capacity to heal.
It is the institutional links to courts that make barristers so effective.
The knowledge differential is deliberately created and increased to further the power of the profession.
However, once power differentials are created for whatever reason, there is a reluctance to give them up and there remains a temptation to use them for personal gain, either at the expense of the client or in some cases to the mutual enrichment of professional and client at the expense of the wider public.
Controlling the use and abuse of that power is one of the principle concerns of the community and one of the principle purposes for professional ethics.
The fundamental question concerning any profession receiving public support and privileges is how can that support, and its continuation, be justified.
That justification cannot be in terms of the benefits the profession confers on its members but the benefits the profession confers on the general public.
The argument is that an educated group of specialists developing, transmitting and applying a specialist body of knowledge will use that knowledge to benefit the broader community.
This argument builds upon the ideal that the establishment and sustenance of a profession involves a social compact with society, granting privileges such as autonomy, self-regulation, monopolistic rights and public funding of professional education in return for the provision of desirable social goods.
The provision is that the profession places 'the public interest foremost, even if serving the public interest may at times be at the professionals' own expense'.
Crucially, different public values and interests will apply to different professions and should be seen as embodied in the very definition of these professions.
For example, the medical profession and its privileges are justified by the values of preserving life and health.
The legal profession and its privileges are justified by the values of upholding justice, the rule of law and the rights of the individual.
It is easy to be cynical about such claims but there is little doubt that most professionals believe them and, for the most part try to act upon them.
Source...