일의 심리학: good work:- 우수함과 윤리의 만남 2002년 02월 24일 (이정모 교수님의 글을 퍼옴)

[아이]

** 건강상 이유로 당분간 자료 작업을 쉬려하였었지만
아래 글을 접하고는 또 참지 못하고 작업을 하였군요.
아래의 영문 원문을 보시도록 하고, 시간이 없거나 부담이 되시는 분은 우리말 요약을 보시기 바랍니다.

======================================================

The Chronicle Review 사이트에 실린
Howard Gardner의 글을 추려, 손질하여 옮긴 것이고 그 과정에서 편집하며 몇 가지 사족을 붙였습니다.

---------------------------------------------------
[일의 심리학: 좋은 일, 잘 하는 일:- 우수함과 윤리의 만남]

full text at:
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i24/24b00701.htm
-------------------------------------------

프로이트도 사랑과 일이 삶의 열쇠라고 하였지만, 그는 성과 사랑만 다루었다.
인간의 활동인 일에 대하여 심리학은 왜 그 동안 다루지 않았나?
심리학을 연구하는 사람들의 두 경향성, 즉 반-체험주의와 요소주의 관점때문이었을 것이다.
그렇다고 하여 심리학이 일의 문제를 완전 무시해온 것은 아니다.
그동안의 전문가 및 기술(skills) 문제의 연구, 동기 연구, 성인 발달 연구, 응용산업심리 연구는
일의 문제를 다루어 왔다. 그러나 일의 심리학적 연구가 그 본질적 측면을 다루지는 않았다.
1995년 이후 최근에서야 일의 문제가 체험적 관점에서 다루어지기 시작하였고,
다중지능 이론가인 Howard Gardner, 창의성 연구자인 Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, William Damon, 등이 좋은 일, 잘한 일이라는 "good work." 의 개념을 연구하기 시작하였다.
"good work."이란 무엇인가, 어디에서 찾을 수 있는가, 어떻게 그런 것이 이루어지며, 이를 어떻게 조장할 수 있는가? 일을 잘하려는 사람들이 왜, 어떻게 성공하거나 실패하는가?
특히 현재와 같이 환경이 급변하고, 많은 압력이 주어지는 상황에서?

우리 심리학자들은 이러한 문제를 연구하여 내야할 도덕적, 윤리적 의무가 있다.

"good work."이란 것이 단지 기술적 측면에서만이 아니라, 도덕적 측면에서도 적용될 수 있는 그런 의미의 "good work."이란 무엇인가?
예를 들어 두 변호사; 이길 수 있는 소송만 다루며 개인 호주머니만 불리는 뛰어난 변호사와 계속 지기는 하지만 끊임없이 약자편에서 일하는 양심적인 변호사를 생각하여 볼 수 있다.
누가 "good work."을 이루어낸 것인가?
"good work."을 이루었다고 볼 수 있는, 캐서린 그래햄(워싱톤포스트), 요나스 솔크(폴리오 연구자), 요요마(첼리스트), 들을 생각할 수 있다.

가드너 등이 2001년에 출간한 책: Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet.

그들의 연구에서
100명의 저널리스트와 100명의 유전과학자 연구 결과,

유전과학자들은 일에 대하여 전적으로 만족해하는 사람들이다. 매일 아침을 즐겁게 맞고 일을 수행한다.
그들은 자신들이 자연의 비밀을 해독할 수 있다고, 가능성을 믿는다, 그리고 그 결과가 인류의 건강과 복지를 위하여 기여할 수 있다고 믿는다. 일을 추구하는 데에 별로 장애가 없다고 본다. 윤리적 갈등도 별로 없다.

한편 저널리스트들은 자신들의 직업에 대하여 풀이 죽어 있다. 이상을 갖고 그 직업에 뛰어 들었으나, 모든 회사의 결정이 위에서, 경제적 이득 위주로 이루어진다고 본다.
중요한 일에 대하여, 완벽하게 탐색, 분석한 기사가 아니라
단순하고 센세이널한 기사 중심의 일을 할 수밖에 없다고 믿고 있다.
그들 중의 많은 사람들이 저널리즘 직장을 떠나고 싶어하거나 떠났다.
일과 관련하여 목표, 가치, 장애, 소망, 전략 등이 잘 맞지 않고 있다.
"poorly aligned"

그런데 이것이 9월 11일 사건 이후로 변화하고 있다.

그러나 윤리적 갈등은 두 유전과학, 저날리즘 직종에서 모두 일어나는 현상이다.
상황조건이 불안정하고 시장경제 압력이 제어되지 않는다면 'good work'을 추구할 수 없게 된다.

이러한 현실은 무엇을 의미하는가, 우리 한 사람 한 사람 개인에게, 그리고 우리 사회 전체에게? 그런 상황에서 우리들 중의 대부분은 체념하고 부정적인 현실을 수용하게된다. 직장을 그만둘 수 없고, 직업을 그만둘 수 없고, 자녀 양육비 등 지출하여야 할 여러 비용들 때문에 그만둘 수 없는 사정에 처한 사람들이 대부분이게 된다. 그런 상황에서 우리는 good work을 할 수 없다. 일하는 직장의, 그리고 자신의 경제적 이득이라는 제왕의 군림 하에 놓여져 어쩔 수 없게 된다. (그리고 그런 상황에서 할 수 없이 일상의 삶을 살면서, 개인적으로는 자아가 실현되지 못한 '불만스런 삶, 참 삶이 아니라 연명하는 삶을 살게된다. 그렇게 살다 일생을 끝내는 것이다.: 편집자 사족)

그러면 어떻게 하여야 하나? 미국의 유명한 사회학자 마가렛 미드가 이야기한 것처럼 세상은 창조적 소수에 의하여 변화되는 것이라고 믿는다면, 우리는 good work.을 이루고 만족을 얻는 (개인적으로 전문기술을 발전시키며 동시에 사회에 기여하는) 과정은 다음과 같다고 본다:

우리 한 사람 한 사람, 각자가 이니시어티브를 취하는 것이다

각자 3M의 길을 가는 것이다: Mission(사명감), Models(모델), Mirror(거울).

첫째로 Mission: 자신의 사명을 정하라. 자신의 직업이 무엇이던 건간에, 자신의 일의 사명을 정하는 것이 중요하다. 무엇을 이루려 하는가, 그것이 사회에 어떻게 기여하는가, 그것이 사회에 어떠한 차이-변화를 가져오게 하는가? 여기에서 이야기하는 사명이란 그냥 열거하고 나서 잊어버릴 그러한 사명이 아니라, 자신이 이 직종을 택한 본래의 이유를 재확인하고, 그 이유, 사명을 아직도 지니고 있는가, 거기에서 얼마나 멀어졌는가, 어떤 방향으로 멀어졌는가 등을 다시 생각하고 판단하는 진지한 노력을 할 수 있는 그러한 사명을 이야기하는 것이다.

둘째는 Models: 역할 모델을 확인하는 것이다. 자신의 분야, 직종에서 자신이 동일시하고, 존경하고, 그러한 사람이 되고 싶어하는 인물을 파악, 확인하는 것이다. 저널리스트들은 유명한 Edward R. Murrow, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, or Katharine Graham 들을 존경한다. 그러나 조심할 것이 있다. 이러한 모델이 되는 인물이 있는가하면 이러한 길을 가지 못하도록 핍박하는 자, 반-지도자anti-mentor들이 있다. (이러한 사람들을 피하거나 이들의 영향권에서 벗어나거나 투쟁할 수 있는 나름대로의 전략을 스스로 또는 동료들과 공동으로 개발하여야 한다: 편집자 사족)

끝으로 Mirror: '거울 테스트'를 거쳐야 한다. 우리는 각자 자기 자신이 우리가 원하였던 사람인지, 원하였던 일을 하고 있는지를 객관적으로 볼 수 있어야 한다. 자신을 거울에서처럼 되돌아보면 보여진 자신이 자랑스러운가 아니면 난처하게 여겨지는가? 자신의 직업 자체가, 일이, 거울테스트에 합격되는가? 상당히 많은 저날리스트들은 자신의 직종이 변화되어가는 양상에 대하여 당황하여 했고, 일부는 자발적으로 그 직업을 떠났다고 하였다.
중요한 것은 직종에, 그 직업에 머무는가의 문제가 아니라, 그 직업의 본래의 사명을 유지하느냐이다.

물론 good worker가 되려고 한다고 하여 누구나 성공할 수 있는 것도, 개개인이 자신을 객관적으로 정확히 볼 수 잇는 것도 아니다. 정확히 본다고 하기보다는 우리는 보고싶은 것만 보는 긍정적 편향을 지니고 있다. 그렇기는 하나 3M을 지니고 있다면 도움이 될 것이다.

9월 11일 이래로 많은 사람들이 자신에게 '내가 정말로 내가 하여야 할 일을 하고 있는가? 만일 아니라면 내가 무엇을 하여야 하는가, 그리고 어떻게 그것을 추구하여야 하는가 하는 질문을 묻고 있다. 이러한 커다란 충격적인 상황은, trauma는 사람들로 하여금 본질적인 문제에 대하여, 자신의 삶과 일에 대하여 진지한 되물음을 던지게 한다.

심리학자들! 그동안 '일 심리학'을 무시 또는 소홀히 해왔던 우리들. 과연 이 직업이 무엇을 이루고 기여하는가 하는 것에 대하여, 인간의 삶에서의 '심리학'의 역할에 대하여 진지한 되물음을 던지고 주의를 돌려야 할 때이다. (이하 편집자 추가): 모든 사람의 삶의 핵심인 '일'. 그 일이 어떻게 이루어지는가, 어떻게 가치를 지니는가, 어떻게 하면 좋은 일, 잘한 일이 되는가, 어떻게 하면 만족스런 일을 하는 삶이 될 수 있는가, 그렇게 일할 수 있는 사람들의 심리적 특성은 무엇이며, 이들을 어떻게 육성할 수 있을 것인가, 그러한 좋은 일 잘한 일 상황이란 무엇이며, 그러한 상황을 만들기 위하여 심리학자는 무엇을 하여야 하는가에 대하여 진지하게 연구하여 볼 시점이다. 심리학자들의 할 일이 많다. 사명감을 가져야 한다.



--------------------------------------------------
<원문>
From the issue dated February 22, 2002


Good Work, Well Done: a Psychological Study
By HOWARD GARDNER

The topic of work has long been the subject of academic study. Indeed, from their beginnings in the 18th and 19th centuries, the disciplines of economics and sociology accorded labor, production, and the organization -- and organizations -- of work a primary place in their firmament of concerns. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx documented the opportunities and challenges faced by individual workers; &Eacute;mile Durkheim and Max Weber probed the nature of bureaucracy, the division of labor, and the sense of calling. Today, when adults around the world spend about half of their waking hours at work, the topic is ever more salient.

Yet the actual experience of work has been strangely neglected by the very discipline equipped to tell us the most about it: academic psychology. Influential psychologists have had relatively little to say about the ways in which workers conceptualize their daily experiences -- the goals and concerns that they bring to the workplace, the human and technical opportunities and obstacles that they encounter, the strategies that they develop to make the most of their experiences, the stances that they assume when faced with ethical dilemmas. Scanning the indexes in the psychology textbooks on my bookshelf, I find few references to work. That vast category is dwarfed by the entries for "word," on one side, and "working memory," on the other. To be sure, Freud deemed "lieben und arbeiten" the keys to a satisfying life; but, along with the majority of his colleagues, he directed most of his attention to sex and love, rather than to the experiences of work and the workplace.

Why have we psychologists shied away from studying something that means so much to so many of us? To be sure, any explanation is necessarily speculative. My own guess is that two facets of 20th-century psychology -- particularly of the American academic variety -- have militated against a holistic, experiential focus. On the one hand, psychology has suffered from a strong case of physics envy. It has sought the basic laws of the mind. The low-hanging fruit that has tempted us here are studies of sensation, perception, and the elementary operations of cognition. Indeed, those are the areas of academic psychology that have earned recognition in the National Academy of Sciences and even in the rare Nobel Prize.

The other feature of psychology has been its bias toward atomism -- toward breaking down complex processes and problems into their most basic and irreducible elements. So, when psychologists turn their attention to work -- or, for that matter, to play -- they focus on the identification of specific skills, like typing a paragraph or playing peekaboo, where the relevant variables are most easily identified and controlled for. The complex world of work, with its welter of experiences, is too hard to pin down in the laboratory.

That is not to say that psychology has ignored all aspects of work. Research on how skill and expertise develop tells us about the importance of steady practice and the emergence of well-entrenched scripts to govern our daily endeavors. Studies of motivation reveal the intricate interplay between external rewards for high-level performance and those intrinsic satisfactions that can keep us engaged over the long haul, even when things are not going well. Examinations of adult development document the importance for psychic well-being of satisfaction in the workplace and the pleasures we take in passing on our skills, understandings, and passions to the younger generation. And applied industrial psychology -- that exile from the university -- aims to secure optimal performances from employees.

The scant literature on the psychology of work thus exhibits a striking schism. Arrayed on one side are studies that focus on technical excellence: what it means to be an expert or an innovator. On the other are studies that focus on the individual as a member of a working group or team. What's largely missing from the contemporary psychological literature are those topics that initially intrigued Adam Smith, above all a student of moral sentiments, and Max Weber, an explicator of work as a calling. I'm talking about the place that work occupies in the overall life experiences of the individual. It is high time that members of the psychology community attempt to bridge that schism.

Two other psychologists, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and William Damon, and I have come up with a name for the line of study that has been neglected in our profession: We call it "good work." Since 1995, we have been conducting in-depth interviews with professionals in an effort to define work that is good in two senses: It exhibits a high level of expertise, and it entails regular concern with the implications and applications of an individual's work for the wider world. We seek to understand what is good work; where it is found; how it develops and can be fostered. Most especially, we examine how individuals who wish to do good work succeed or fail in doing so, particularly in a time like our own, when conditions are changing very quickly, when market forces have enormous power over the individual (with few, if any, significant counterforces), and when our sense of time and space has been radically altered by technologies like the World Wide Web.

Clearly, we believe that a frontal attack by mainstream psychology on the experience of work is overdue. Equally clearly, it is especially important at this time of rapid change throughout the world. But, perhaps most important, we, as researchers, have a mission with a moral agenda. Too often, psychologists like us have studied competence purely in a technical sense -- what does it mean to be intelligent, to be creative, to be a leader? What we haven't done is pay attention to the ways such talents are deployed. My colleagues and I want to see whether it is possible to understand that happy circumstance in which "good" in the technical sense converges with "good" in the moral sense.

To understand what we're after, think of two hypothetical individuals. Lawyer A wins most of her cases but cuts every possible corner and accepts only clients with deep pockets. Lawyer B defends the poor and the downtrodden, follows every regulation scrupulously, but consistently loses cases. Lawyer A is good only in the first sense of the term, of demonstrating expertise; Lawyer B only in the second sense, of showing concern for the wider world. We can all list individuals from various professions who appear to be good workers. My own roster would include the publisher Katharine Graham, the polio researcher Jonas Salk, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma, the tennis star Arthur Ashe, and John Gardner (no relation), the creator of many impressive institutions, to whom my colleagues and I dedicated our recent book, Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet.

We are continuing our study across professions as varied as theater and philanthropy, but we initially focused on two realms of work that are crucial today: journalism and genetics. We reasoned that they deal with two vital forms of information in our lives. Journalists tell us what is happening in the world and update us as needed; in the biologist Richard Dawkins's term, they provide our "memes." Geneticists study the information that is most important for our physical existence -- the code in the genes that reveals our life prospects. Until 50 years ago, genetics was carried out at some remove from our personal health. But in the wake of an epochal scientific revolution, geneticists stand poised not only to reveal our personal destinies, but also to provide the information and tools that could lead to genetic engineering, genetic therapy, and cloning of organs or entire organisms.

As psychologists, my colleagues and I wanted to know what it is like to work at the cutting edge of such influential professions. To find out, we conducted interviews with more than 100 geneticists and 100 journalists. Most were recognized leaders in their respective professions, but we also spoke with a number of young professionals and midlevel practitioners, those solid workers who are established but not leaders. We asked our subjects about their goals, their values, the obstacles that they encountered, the strategies that they used at such times, their backgrounds, their professional aspirations. We also posed ethical dilemmas and asked them to carry out a "Q sort," a procedure in which they rank their personal values in importance. Generally we accepted their testimony as sincere and truthful. Yet we also challenged them when it seemed appropriate -- for example, if they contradicted themselves or the published record -- and we reviewed each single-spaced page of each 30-to-50-page transcript in terms of our general knowledge and in light of the testimony of our subjects' professional colleagues.

At the time of our initial study, in the late 1990s, the experiences of the two groups of professionals could not have been more different. Geneticists were almost wholly a satisfied lot; they could not wait to get up in the morning and pursue their work. They felt that it was possible -- even likely -- that they could achieve their goals of deciphering the nature of life and catalyzing the discovery of procedures and treatments that could improve health and lengthen lives. They saw few obstacles in their paths. Nor did they express particular concern about ethical dilemmas that have since been widely reported -- about, for instance, the ethics of cloning, stem-cell research, and various forms of genetic therapy. (In fact, the greatest concern they raised was about misuse of genetic data by insurance companies -- the only area in which the geneticists themselves played no role.) In our terms, their domain was "highly aligned": In 1997-99, all of the principal stakeholders, from individual scientists to shareholders of biotech companies to the public, were in their corner.

In sharp contrast, the journalists were by and large despondent about their profession. Many had entered print or broadcast journalism armed with ideals: covering important stories, doing so in an exhaustive and fair way, relying on their own judgment about the significance of stories and the manner in which they should be presented. Instead, for the most part, our subjects reported that much of the control in journalism has passed from professionals to corporate executives and stockholders, with most of the professional decisions made less on the basis of ideals than of profits. They described what felt to them like an ineluctable trend away from stories of any complexity or sensitivity, toward material that is simple and sensational, if not of prurient interest. Journalism emerges, in our phrase, as a domain that is "poorly aligned": It is difficult to carry out good work in the profession; many individuals have left the field, and quite a few more are considering doing so.

While our findings might appear to be simply a "good news, bad news" story, we determined that it is more complex than that. Alignment or nonalignment are temporary conditions. Journalism was well-aligned in America in the 1950s; genetics could well become misaligned, if the research agenda comes to be set by corporate executives rather than by scientists, or if there is a major mishap in the field, a kind of genetic Three Mile Island.

Indeed, in the brief period since September 11, a realignment of sorts may already have commenced. The frivolous aspects of journalism have receded to some extent; readers and viewers want their news straight up, and they turn to the most reliable outlets. Genetics has not yet been directly affected. But it may be that, in the aftermath of September 11, there will be pressures to mobilize the best brains to fight bioterrorism rather than to carry out basic research in a field like genetics. The recession will no doubt also put a crimp in financing. And the very specter of bioterrorism reminds us of the essential amorality of all science and technology.

Whether, and to what degree, the work experience in journalism and genetics changes as a result of recent events, our study illuminates how individuals feel about good work in their fields. Consider the story Ray Suarez told us. In the early 1990s, the Chicago-based television journalist was assigned to cover a story about the possible dangers of video games; a producer had heard that such games might cause epileptic fits in children. The more that Suarez probed, however, the more he realized that the threat was not genuine. As he put it, "About halfway into the reporting of the story, I realized that we were talking about one-tenth of one one-hundredth of one one-thousandth of the kids who play video games. But TV has a tendency to play everything like 'Here's a possible danger of video games.'" Suarez had tried to get out of covering the story, but his boss insisted that he go on and file it. "If you have a contract and a contract says certain things, you have to do what you're told," the reporter reminded us. Suarez realized that he would continue to encounter such pressures and felt that he could not tolerate them. He was considering leaving the news business altogether when he landed a job with National Public Radio. From that time on, he has worked for public broadcasting. He has opted to pursue a career in which he is able to carry out work in which he feels pride.

A very different kind of situation was faced by a young scientist (who asked not to be named) who was working in a genetic-research program. To his surprise, he discovered that some of the protocols in his project were being financed twice -- by the National Institutes of Health, at taxpayers' expense, and by a for-profit drug company. Neither underwriter was aware of the double billing. Steeling himself, the young scientist reported what was clearly an improper situation to the dean of the medical school. The dean listened carefully and thanked the young informant. But the whistle-blower, who was trying to do good work, soon discovered that he was being moved to less sensitive positions on the team, and that nothing was being done to correct the lapse of ethics. Eventually, he realized that the dean had been the one to devise the system of double billing. The geneticist -- forced to choose between probably injuring his career and tacitly condoning a scam -- decided to leave the university.

The dilemmas that Suarez and the young scientist described are faced by workers in every domain. Anyone can be pressured to do questionable things that promise profits; anyone can discover an illegal procedure and be penalized for reporting it to someone in authority. And, as our study confirmed, the goal of carrying out good work is harder to reach when conditions are unstable and market forces are allowed to run unchecked.

What does that mean -- for our individual psyches and for society as a whole? In such situations, many, if not most, of us resign ourselves to our fate. It is difficult to quit one's job, let alone one's whole profession; and few in midlife, saddled with mortgage and, perhaps, tuition payments, have the fortitude to do so. As a result, we are left with a society in which profit motives reign supreme -- and in which few feel in a position where they can perform good work.

It is worth remembering, however, Margaret Mead's famous remark: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Following Mead's quintessentially American sentiment, and on the basis of our study, my colleagues and I believe that the most likely path to satisfaction in good work -- in the sense of developing expertise as well as helping society -- is for each of us to take the initiative, one by one. We therefore call on people to focus on what we term the "three M's": Mission, Models, Mirror.

First: Define your mission. Whether you are a professional or a worker in a service or manufacturing industry, it is important to lay out the mission of your work. What are you trying to achieve, how does it serve society, what difference does it make? We are not speaking here about producing mission-statement boilerplate -- something to be promulgated and forgotten. Rather, we are talking about identifying the reasons that one originally chose one's work and making a serious effort to determine whether that mission still stands or whether one has strayed from it -- and, if so, in what direction. Evidence for the rarity of that exercise is the gratitude that many of our subjects expressed after they had taken a few hours to wrestle with the fundamental questions we had raised with them about their work experience.

Second: Identify role models. We probably all sense that it helps to identify individuals in our jobs whom we admire and strive to emulate. Many newspeople, for example, talk about looking up to Edward R. Murrow, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, or Katharine Graham. But we were intrigued to find that individuals are also influenced by anti-mentors or tormentors, individuals from whom they strive to distinguish themselves. Several scientists told us that they were emboldened to pursue a certain line of work when a colleague or mentor said that it could not be done or, worse, that they could not do it. A few older female scientists recalled that their own professors had questioned their commitment to the field, and they said they felt a particular mission today to work with promising young women.

Finally: Take the mirror test. Ultimately, individuals need to be able to look at themselves objectively and see whether they are the kind of person they wish to be. When you look at yourself in the mirror, are you proud or embarrassed by what you see? How do others feel about you? And how does your profession, as a whole, stack up -- does it pass the mirror test? Quite a few journalists we interviewed expressed dismay about the way in which their profession was evolving, and a few indicated that they had voluntarily left broadcast news. We were reminded of the remark by Harold Evans, who has edited major newspapers in England and the United States: "The problem many organizations face is not to stay in business but to stay in journalism."

There is no guarantee, of course, that everyone who strives to become a good worker will succeed. Nor is there any guarantee that individuals will always assess themselves accurately; we all have a tendency to see ourselves in a positive light. Yet the research that my colleagues and I are conducting indicates that the three M's can help us and our society.

Anyone involved in a study of the human sphere has searched his soul in the weeks since September 11. Stacked against the enormous political, ideological, financial, and religious forces that have been unleashed, the individual human psyche seems in some ways a slender reed. Yet I've been struck by the extent to which so many of us -- ranging from college students to the most experienced and successful professionals -- have been jarred into posing fundamental questions to ourselves: Am I doing the work that I should be doing? If not, what should I be doing, and how should I be carrying it out?

As a psychologist, I had thought that most commitments to good work arise from a personal revelation or trauma, when one's life is reoriented because of a Damascene experience. But clearly, on occasion, a tremendous jolt to our wider world can also bring about reconsideration. After the detonation of nuclear weapons over Japan, for example, many particle physicists confronted agonizing questions about their work. What is unprecedented, in my experience, is a shock like September 11, which reverberates through an entire society -- a shock so great that workers across the economic and political spectrum have come to pose existential questions to themselves. While such questions assuredly go beyond the hours at work, they cannot fail to ignore the substantial part of every day that is devoted to human labor. Perhaps the pervasive reflective activity of recent months may deliver a message to a discipline like my own, which has, for too long, virtually ignored the meanings of the central activity in our lives.

Howard Gardner teaches developmental psychology at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. With Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and William Damon, he is the author of Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (Basic Books, 2001).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Page: B7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this story




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright &copy; 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education