Disabling Professions

by Ivan Illich, Irving Kenneth Zola, John McKnight

Why do we put so many resources into medicine, education and law with so little apparent benefit? Why do we hold the professions in awe and allow them to set up what are in effect monopolies? This fascinating and controversial collection of essays challenges the power and the mystique of the modern professions.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Politics, Theory, Economics, Cultural

128 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Ivan Illich was an Austrian philosopher, Roman Catholic priest and critic of the institutions of contemporary western culture and their effects of the provenance and practice of education, medicine, work, energy use, and economic development.

Reviews

[Zack · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most thought-provoking books I have ever read. Short and to the point. The arguments are not that complex, yet are very profound. I find myself thinking about what this means for my life. Highly recommended for everyone!

[Deb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly eye-opening way of re-thinking much of how we view career fields.
This book was a footnote in another book I was reading recently, which I actually put down temporarily because I was engrossed with the premise of this short book and several of the chapters in particular. Worthwhile - prepare for a huge paradigm shift!

[Fishface · Rating 5 out of 5]

WON. DER. FUL. Every word cuts to the bone.

[Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are you really helping and who is benefiting? One of the best critiques of liberal institutions and the professional world ever.

[Michael Heap · Rating 4 out of 5]

Throughout my professional career (in clinical and forensic psychology) I always wondered if I and my colleagues (most of whom I looked up to) were not as much part of the answer as part of the problem. I have continued along this vein since retiring. Maybe it’s partly because, during my training in the mid-1970s, I was exposed to the writings of the priest and philosopher Ivan Illich and his collaborators and their book Disabling Professions. This describes how certain influential (and, in the UK at least, largely state-funded) professions thrive by cultivating disability and neediness in their target populations. The book obviously greatly influenced me at the time and has continued to do so ever since. I can't recall that the writers came up with any answers that were all that practical, but where I am now with these issues (along with many other people, though some have rather extreme and uninformed opinions) is that we need to create a healthier social and physical environment in which people can thrive and where they are more empowered to come to their own understanding of the challenges of life and how they can meet those challenges, rather than believing they need 'experts' to solve them on their behalf.

[Bruce Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disabling Professions, by Irving Illich with essays by Irving Kenneth Zola, John McKnight, Jonathan Caplin, and Harley Shaiken (2005, 127pp). This collection of essays question, in rather harsh terms, the power and mystery of select professions (and I would argue there are others). The authors assert that we put considerable resources into and delegate considerable power to medicine, education and the law. We have allowed ourselves to be wholly dependent on lawyers for a wide variety of issues, we’ve ceded authority over our bodies and psyches to doctors (among other medical professionals), and we’ve allowed formalized education and specialization in many fields to subvert our lives. Are we as individuals and as societies better off as a result? Illich’s introduction to all of this is mind-numbing and jammed with jargon, but the essays that follow are worth reading. We really should ask if we are better off for allowing, for example, lawyers and medical professionals to elevate themselves to unreachably lofty perches as we grant them extraordinary power over our lives. Unfortunately, while the questions that are posed are well worth considering, there is no real discussion of alternatives in our society. This book is a bit dense, but it’s provocative depictions of constraints on our lives and the questions the essayists pose are eye-opening. Just read this thinking you’ll get any answers.

[Kevin Fulton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is a fun, quick read because the authors rely on their own opinions and are not burdened by fact checking their ideas.

Ivan Illich is always thought-provoking, such as his concept of invented needs, “Schooling qualified graduates to climb ever more rarified heights and implant and cultivate ever newer strains of hybridized needs.” But, frustratingly, so many of his ideas for improving society lead to harming individuals by being firmly against many technological improvements because they also have downsides.

All the authors’ chapters are worth reading, with the chapter on the medical field creating disabilities being particularly interesting. This book only aims to preach to the choir, a choir I am not a part of.

[Bharati Challa · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is an entire chapter on how lawyers have bullshit jobs (read David Graeber) and how the profession needs to be stripped of its majestic image because really - why are we pretending like most cases aren't argued purely on facts (and if it is points of law, too, then we must question the very bureaucratic nature of placing form over content... also,,, why has so much to say). Such a good read as a resentful student of the law. Not great for my ongoing crisis (What am I doing at law school? Why do lawyers need to wear those stupid robes? Have I duly and diligently screwed the course of my life up? et al.)

"The members of this small élite do not merely
condemn and sentence, but, by a fine continuous thread of
judgements, actually fashion our social standards and set the
bounds of our public morality" -> the spawning of a 'hidden government', the demon origin story of the "custos morum" of the people...

Life, right?

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

if two of the contributors had not made several quite contradictory and / or otherwise confusing comments i would have given this "everyone should read this" book five stars.