On that recent “Other versions of Vocation” post, commenter Tickletext had some fascinating things to say about the difference between “vocation” and “career”:
It’s instructive to contrast the metaphorical underpinnings of “vocation” and “career.” The central metaphor of vocation is, of course, a calling–latin vocare. The person who is called is the receptor of that gift, the respondent to that calling, which originates not in oneself but in the Person who calls.
But the word “career” is etymologically associated with roads, courses, chariot-paths, etc. Poets used to speak of the “career” of the sun in its course across the sky. This is how modernity generally conceives of work, as a choice of course, not a calling and a gift. The person who faces a career choice faces a crossroads of choices. A person usually discovers one’s vocations as they naturally unfold through the talents that arise in relation to the people to whom one is called. But the criteria for making the right career choice and taking the right career path are self-originating, they are discovered by being true to oneself and one’s desires (to speak the Hollywood argot). Because that is extremely vague, and because one’s desires are in constant flux and contradiction, there has arisen a whole industry of incantatory-astrological magicians and paperback mountebanks who hawk the right “formula” or series of steps, which, if purchased and followed, will bring happiness and success in one’s career choice.
Universities today are extremely career-oriented, of course. Like all the secular schools the Christian university I attended had a Career Center but no Vocation Center, nor was vocation taught in any substantive way. The phrase “revolutionize” is a cliche, but a strong and full articulation of vocation properly understood would truly transform the way we approach education. In the humanities, for instance, an understanding of art, literature, and criticism as vocational means of serving the neighbor would provide a compelling alternative to the dehumanizing, obscurantist tendencies of modern English departments.
In another comment, he added this:
One reason I find the distinction between vocation and career useful is that the former category has a teleological orientation which is lacking in the latter. By which I mean: the career culture has no sound way of differentiating legitimate careers from illegitimate careers. It doesn’t really matter WHAT career you choose–the choice is the only important thing. Who are we to judge the choices of others, anyway? There is a built-in aversion to truth in the career mentality. And thus it leaves the neighborhood in the cold and fragmented.
But vocation acknowledges the flourishing–the shalom–of the neighbor as a legitimate check to the authority of choice. Vocations that prove deleterious to the health and well being of the neighbor are no vocations at all. But the same cannot be said of the career mindset, which is inherently choice-oriented. Vocation doesn’t deny the role of choice, it just humbles it, redirects it.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In