The aim of the paper is to go beyond current theoretical disputes about the heuristic value of notions of "profession" and "professionalism" in contemporary (western) society and try to re-assess the everlasting pillars of their epistemological foundations, the existing gap between what a professional or a professional performance is, could be or ought to be. Surely what we still call "profession" and "professionalism" are socially constructed issues. Their social meaning and their empirically testable frames of references stem from a variety of space-time conditions. However, historical evidence shows that these terms always have been referring to a particular type of social actor tailored to handle certain basic human problems according to given expertise in order to achieve trans-personal aims relevant at a broader social level. It would be seriously misleading, and even wrong, therefore, to abandon such terms now, when troublesome human experiences -weakenesses, dangers, fears, risks, etc. -are not withering away at all, but, on the contrary are spreading and will remain ubiquitous in the future. Accordingly, a major emphasis is put on the requirement of the social utility and necessity of the professional mandate as a "disposition of means" to deal procedurally with occasional but socially recurrent "calls for help," which implies a particular knowledge, a special personal committment and a highly refined relational interation as a way somewhat to "normalise" given societal dynamics.

The aim of this article is to raise social-scientific awareness about the growing disenchantment with basic assumptions about the progressive outcomes of western-styled ‘modernity’ and ‘modernization’ and how western society is standing up to such a disquieting historical trajectory and facing the challenge of other emerging models. As there is no doubt that only a substantial cultural change could counteract the trend, the article deals with that part of the western epistemic community that embodies the highest cultural capital, namely learned professions, by asking what theoretical and practical limits are they reaching? Are they accountable for the ongoing general situation? Are their knowledge, commitment and performance socially adequate? If not, do professional work, action and trustworthiness require new analytical, social and moral foundations? A plausible answer to these questions seems to be offered by the abandonment of traditionally dominant formal-rational methodology, a return to the concept of substantive rationality and the appraisal of the multidisciplinary advancements provided by sociology of science. In this respect, the analysis stresses the limits of dominant sociological approaches to professions, by centring on the notion of status-role and by enlightening the pivotal importance of the indeterminacy of knowledge as primary professional traits of professionalism. Consequently, it suggests the need for a radical theoretical revision of common views about sources, forms and degrees of socioprofessional reliability, trustworthiness and confidence, given the fact that such a revision is anyhow required in practice by the new trajectories of the profession power–knowledge nexus in the age of the risk–knowledge society.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract