The Email Professional
It has occurred to me that during the course of our lives, when we talk with one another, the topics of conversation will oftentimes drift towards a discussion on our work. That being, what we or others do. This is such a commonplace occurrence that I find it difficult to believe anyone would have lived without thinking on what happens in the world on a day-to-day basis, and what might be had circumstances been different. People will sit there, daydreaming, talking, imagining the hypotheticals, the conceptual them. I believe this sort of imagination is inherent in our very being, so much so that it may very well be implanted in us from birth, stretching across generations, from our recent great-grandfathers to, perhaps, the nomadic tribes that wandered across prehistory.
With this in mind, how do we frame this for ourselves? How do we interpret this line of imagination?
We do so using the framework we find ourselves navigating already. It seems simple that our great-grandfather wouldn’t have pictured himself working as a computer scientist. This is obvious, but nonetheless important; we think in the terms available to us, in the norms and expectations set on a societal scale.
If you were to ask anyone, preferably an adult, just to list any ten occupations within a few minutes, they’d probably tell you something resembling the following:
Farmer
Firefighter
Doctor
Artist
Police Officer
Construction Worker
Journalist
Businessman
Politician
Teacher
This list is basic and excludes many, many other very real lines of work that people do, but serves as an example to ground our discussion. Others may give varying answers, but my guess would be that we’d share a few in common. I, being the author of this website, came up with these ten in a matter of maybe forty seconds, and in doing so, have revealed a little about myself. And before going further, I’d encourage readers to do the same, or at least just note a few professions that come to mind whilst reading this.
The jobs listed above are easily definable; most people would be able to picture any single one and be able to give a rough description of what it would entail. Accounts of any given occupation may vary from person to person, but would, in all likelihood, be somewhat accurate. We’ve come into contact, at least at an abstract level, with each of these, even if we’re young.
An interesting revelation occurs when we realize that these jobs are very much grounded in reality, that is to say, the physical world. This will inevitably vary from profession to profession, but most would agree that this statement is relatively true, at least by most measurements. It conforms to our notion of work. Understanding this, what does my list above lack?
It excludes a category of employment I’ll refer to as ‘email jobs’, as undertaken by ‘email professionals’. These jobs consist of sending emails, taking phone calls, attending meetings, filling out Excel documents, noting things onto forms, updating websites, and other similar, abstract tasks. I myself work as an email professional, and didn’t mention it in the list above. I would be willing to assume that many, if not most, people reading this have, at some point or another, worked as an email professional themselves. And to those who have, ask yourselves: did you list it? My guess for many would be no. The trouble here comes when we realize that this type of work occupies a very sizable portion of the job market here in the United States, perhaps in Europe as well. So, why don’t we list email professionals when we typically conceptualize occupations?
The answer is straightforward: we can’t conceptualize email professionals as an occupation. They exist outside of our societal frame of reference, and yet at the very same time, form an integral piece of it. This contradictory position characterizes our time, in the current moment of history, as awkward. The proof of this can be found within everyday conversation; when talking to another who has an email job, the amount of additional information needed to simply ground the discussion is excessive. For example, we can imagine a potential casual chat between acquaintances going like this:
“What is it that you do?”
“Well, I’m a business analyst.”
“Oh, interesting. What is that?”
“It involves collecting information from our clients to determine what they want from our company.”
“Okay. And how do you perform your job?”
It isn’t difficult to imagine that even as such a conversation progresses, that one party would still be left confused as to what it is the other actually does, even on just a day-to-day basis. This is becoming more common as the number of email professionals increases. It is at this point where we encounter the problem at the crux of this phenomenon.
Because email professionals exist, have vague characteristics, are difficult to communicate with, and are becoming more prevalent in our society, we are facing an issue of peer-to-peer relatability. If we accept the assumption that what we do comprises a large portion of our personhood and lived experience, then we are truly masking ourselves from each other. And make no mistake, it is happening. No one can sympathize with, say, a business analyst like they can with a farmer, or a fireman, or a doctor. Getting to such a level of understanding for an abstract occupation isn’t possible, even if both parties were business analysts themselves. This obfuscation hides us from one another, ultimately making it difficult to connect past a superficial level.
Compounding on the emerging difficulty of communication, this phenomenon extends out from the interpersonal space to the societal space. The vast majority of the institutions which surround and shape us are, today, carried on the backs of email professionals, the underlings which mainly serve to disseminate top-down information from those at the top of the institutional hierarchy. This is a fact. How, then, can we discern the true essence of the things which form the basis of our society? The answer, at least in some part, is that we can’t. It’s virtually impossible. The vague space involved here has, intentionally or otherwise, created a barrier between ourselves and an explanation for the nature of society’s modern structure.
Let’s take a moment to recount our steps:
When we conceptualize things, we use a frame of reference provided by our societal context.
Occupations, being no exception, are thought of by considering their relation to our norms and expectations.
Occupations form a large portion of our personal identity and lived experience.
Our common understanding of occupations does not include nebulous email professionals.
The number of email professionals found in our society is growing.
Interacting and communicating with email professionals is made difficult due to the vague nature of their work.
Our society is comprised of institutions.
Discerning the structure of our society necessitates understanding what institutions do.
Institutions utilize email professionals.
We cannot accurately discern the nature of our society.
A barrier is formed between populations and the institutions which shape them.
One may wonder how devastating this actually is. After all, there were undoubtedly periods in human history where the structure of society has mystified the general population. This is true, but if one were to compare the organization of generations passed to today, they would notice markedly different social conditions, namely, the alleged de-stratification of our contemporary time. Taking the premise that our liberal democracy allows us social movement, the inevitable thing to do would be to seek upward social mobility, both for ourselves and our children.
How may we visualize this goal? By becoming a part of a societal institution. And what does that look like? Here, we encounter the problem once again.
It is within these vague email professions that true societal stratification is maintained. If, for instance, one were to enter an institution for the express purpose of affecting society, they would be utterly lacking in the means necessary to enact actual power. The reason for this is that most institutions, protective of themselves, would bar the vast majority of people from entering into any position with real authority. Instead, most would be given an email job, one that may or may not serve a meaningful business function. Only through intense internal review would anyone be risen out of what I’ll call ‘the email class’. Those who are promoted are thereby shielded from any legitimate scrutiny using the email class as a barrier to entry. Of course, a few types of institutions stand out as more pernicious in this regard; unelected bureaucracies, non-governmental organizations, large corporations, and even local-level social clubs, to a lesser degree.
So, where does this leave us? I am unsure. It would seem to be self-perpetuating, but I would have to spend more time thinking on it. And unfortunately, I have to go. I have a meeting at 3:00 PM to discuss the upcoming monthly email distribution list.
