tendency towards a more democratic inclusion of the larger number of professional men in the various professional societies, and by the formation of such bodies as the "Congress of the Building and Construction Industry," in which it is sought to bring together in all of the larger communities, not only architects and engineers, but all of those that are functionally connected with building, including contractors, sub-contractors, material manufacturers and dealers, skilled and unskilled labor, building loan and real estate men. There has been, then, a tendency on the part of the professional men to realize that they must become cooperators with the other elements of the total function of which they are a part, rather then one directing element. One item in the final report of the Post-War Committee on Architectural Practice said in effect, "The architect by himself cannot cure the deficiencies in his service, or the problems with which his profession is faced; he can only improve his service and make it more adequate to the public need as he realizes his functional relationship to the other parts of the building industry, and through cooperation makes these other elements realize each its distinctive functional responsibility."
In other fields, apparently, there have been similar drawings together of technician with worker and of technician with management, as in the experiments of the English Building Guilds. Whatever may be their measure of success or failure, these, like the Congress of the Building Industry in this country, are efforts towards democracy. The opportunity for the professions to lead in such moves is of immense value.
All of the post-war stirrings within the professions (of which there are legion) are interesting because it appears most important that the professional ideal be now clarified and democratized. Everywhere we see signs that the motive that has inspired industry and commerce is being questioned; a realization is growing that the old motives are inadequate. People say, "If it was possible to conduct the major operations of the great World War without the prime impulse of money getting, is it not possible gradually to increase the number of normal activities inspired by other than money getting?" The commonplace reply is that the necessary patriotic enthusiasm would be lacking. But the professions in the finest sense do actually get their inspiration from a motive other than the money-getting motive. Why, then, is the professional impulse limited in its scope? The earning of a livelihood is naturally the result of competent practice of a profession. But that is not its prime purpose in the best sense. The prime purpose is the perfection of a service, and the most important reward of that perfection is, not the extent to which it is paid, but the extent to which the service is appreciated by those best competent to judge it, by those who practise the same profession.
The whole argument with regard to the validity of (and the extensibility of) the professional motive is remarkably demonstrated by R. H. Tawney of Oxford in his admirable Acquisitive Society.[1] He says in part:
A profession may be defined most simply as a trade which is organized, incompletely, no doubt, but genuinely for the performance of function. It is not simply a collection of individuals who get a living for themselves by the same kind of work. Nor is it merely a group which is organized exclusively for the economic protection of its
- ↑ The Acquisitive Society, by R. H. Tawney, Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Harcourt Brace & Howe, 1920.
