The Dilettante's Dilemma
dilettante (plural dilettanti or dilettantes)
An amateur, someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest rather than as a profession or serious interest.
When I was a kid, I played football, tennis, soccer, and ran track — in addition to poor attempts at baseball (my near-blindness led to many bunt attempts) and basketball. Playing multiple sports was the norm; only country club kids specialized. Since my days of roaming the neighborhood, a seismic shift has occurred — a move towards specialization at a young age.
At first, I believed this observation was limited to athletics. We all know parents who are much more into the game than their kids. They live vicariously through them from the sideline. They want their kids to be the best at something, so they send them to expensive camps, put them on year-round circuits, and pressure them to perform. I’ve since realized this phenomenon goes beyond the field and court. Kids specialize academically earlier and earlier, locking themselves into narrower paths that go deeper into a chosen field.
Specialization is vital for economic prosperity. Adam Smith said, “the greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.” When we specialize, we become more efficient and productive in that task. And more production leads to increased wealth and a better quality of life.
Another economic principle is the law of diminishing productivity. It states that an advantage gained from a unit of production input will advance marginally and eventually level off or decline. In other words, more isn’t always more.
Author Michael Pollan, who wrote one of my favorite books, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” said of specialization:
“I can probably earn more in an hour of writing or even teaching than I could save in a whole week of cooking. Specialization is undeniably a powerful social and economic force. And yet it is also debilitating. It breeds helplessness, dependence, and ignorance and, eventually, it undermines any sense of responsibility.”
Pollan rightly points out that over-specialization leaves voids in life’s greatest joys, in his case, cooking delicious, healthy foods. As someone who studies economics, I hate applying economic principles to individuals. What is ultimately good for productivity may not be best for each person. We aren’t machines, after all.
Occasionally, I stumble across a word with a negative connotation that doesn’t sound so bad to me. Dilettante applies. I know a lot of self-proclaimed connoisseurs, but few who’d describe themselves as dilettantes. In my experience, the words are confused and misapplied.
A dilettante is “an amateur, someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest rather than as a profession or serious interest,” while a connoisseur is “an expert — one who understands the details, technique, or principles of an art and is competent to act as a critical judge.” Dilettante is most commonly used as an insult to point out a lack of knowledge in a given field.
Most of the self-proclaimed “connoisseurs” I know are dilettantes, but I suspect they’d be offended to be called one. But We should embrace the term. Being curious enough to explore areas of interest develops a more well-rounded person who can relate to others and is rarely bored.
Philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti also observed the shift to specialization, saying:
“Unfortunately, most of us are becoming mere technicians. We pass examinations, acquire this or that technique, in order to earn a livelihood; but to develop technique or develop capacity without paying attention to the inner state brings about ugliness and chaos to the world.”
He also said, “You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it.”
Today’s hyper-specialization is the opposite of the intellectual boom of the Renaissance. A “renaissance man” is someone with a burning curiosity, wide-reaching interests, and knowledge across many fields. Leonardo da Vinci is the ultimate renaissance man. He was best known for his wonderous art; he was also a scientist and inventor — a true polymath.
What about specialization?
Specialization ushered in an era of unimaginable prosperity. To return to a time with little specialization would create a world with more poverty and suffering. Specialization and the following productivity gains make time for leisure, creativity, and exploration (or sedentary screen time if you so choose).
Famed physicist Richard Feynman said, “I am always looking, like a child, for the wonders I know I’m going to find — maybe not every time, but every once in a while.” We should all aim to restore our child-like curiosity. Time outside your expertise should be enjoyed, not considered a waste of time. Being more dilettante-like enables healthy activation and expansion of the mind and more numerous opportunities to interact with others with fresh perspectives.
I don’t mean to rant against specialization or recommend against pursuing a passion. It’s merely a caution — focusing too narrowly, too soon, can limit the pursuit of happiness, exploration of marvelous ideas, and the pursuit of creativity. The desire to deeply pursue can lead to remarkable discoveries and great pleasure, but it can create discontentment and burnout if done solely for economic gain or social pressure. Mechanization and complete specialization are best left to machines and robots…humans are designed to think, feel, and explore.
