Do Professions Remain Analytically Distinct From Non-Professional Occupations?

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Meaghan Furlano
{"title":"Do Professions Remain Analytically Distinct From Non-Professional Occupations?","authors":"Meaghan Furlano","doi":"10.1111/cars.70056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent debates in sociological literature have questioned whether ‘professions’ and ‘non-professional occupations’ remain analytically distinct concepts. This article engages with longstanding scholarship on work, occupations and professions to address this question. Drawing primarily on the work of Adams (2018), Saks (2021) and their associated neo-Weberian approaches, I argue that professions are socially constructed and historically, geographically and temporally contingent. As such, the contemporary macrostructural conditions (re)shaping professional work in the Anglo-American context—most notably emerging subjective forms of precariousness—should not be interpreted as signalling the demise of professions. Rather, they represent the latest iteration of professional work and its ongoing effort to maintain hegemony amid shifting economic structures. Although professional and non-professional occupations appear to be converging in some of the respects traditionally separating them, I argue that professions remain analytically distinct from non-professions. This distinction persists because professionals continue to benefit from the economic and symbolic advantages they have secured through state legitimation, social closure, and the enduring cultural representations of themselves and their work that promote the ideological ‘common-senseness’ of their elevated social and economic status. The article therefore concludes that professions are not experiencing a ‘crisis’ but are instead entering a new phase of their ongoing reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":51649,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","volume":"63 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13620194/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cars.70056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent debates in sociological literature have questioned whether ‘professions’ and ‘non-professional occupations’ remain analytically distinct concepts. This article engages with longstanding scholarship on work, occupations and professions to address this question. Drawing primarily on the work of Adams (2018), Saks (2021) and their associated neo-Weberian approaches, I argue that professions are socially constructed and historically, geographically and temporally contingent. As such, the contemporary macrostructural conditions (re)shaping professional work in the Anglo-American context—most notably emerging subjective forms of precariousness—should not be interpreted as signalling the demise of professions. Rather, they represent the latest iteration of professional work and its ongoing effort to maintain hegemony amid shifting economic structures. Although professional and non-professional occupations appear to be converging in some of the respects traditionally separating them, I argue that professions remain analytically distinct from non-professions. This distinction persists because professionals continue to benefit from the economic and symbolic advantages they have secured through state legitimation, social closure, and the enduring cultural representations of themselves and their work that promote the ideological ‘common-senseness’ of their elevated social and economic status. The article therefore concludes that professions are not experiencing a ‘crisis’ but are instead entering a new phase of their ongoing reconstruction.

职业在分析上与非专业职业有区别吗?
社会学文献中最近的争论质疑“专业”和“非专业职业”在分析上是否仍然是不同的概念。本文结合长期以来关于工作、职业和专业的学术研究来解决这个问题。主要借鉴Adams(2018)和Saks(2021)的工作以及他们相关的新韦伯方法,我认为职业是社会建构的,是历史、地理和时间上偶然的。因此,当代宏观结构条件(重新)塑造了英美背景下的专业工作——最明显的是不稳定的主观形式的出现——不应该被解释为职业消亡的信号。相反,它们代表了专业工作的最新迭代,以及中国在不断变化的经济结构中维持霸权的持续努力。虽然专业和非专业职业在传统上区分它们的某些方面似乎是趋同的,但我认为专业在分析上仍然与非专业不同。这种区别之所以持续存在,是因为专业人士继续受益于他们通过国家合法化、社会封闭以及他们自己和他们的工作的持久文化表现而获得的经济和象征优势,这些优势促进了他们提高社会和经济地位的意识形态“常识”。因此,这篇文章的结论是,职业并没有经历“危机”,而是进入了一个正在进行的重建的新阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Canadian Review of Sociology/ Revue canadienne de sociologie is the journal of the Canadian Sociological Association/La Société canadienne de sociologie. The CRS/RCS is committed to the dissemination of innovative ideas and research findings that are at the core of the discipline. The CRS/RCS publishes both theoretical and empirical work that reflects a wide range of methodological approaches. It is essential reading for those interested in sociological research in Canada and abroad.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书