Should economics be pursued as a profession or a vocation? Below I argue that this choice of subjective orientation is enormously important, and tends to dictate whether an economist will serve the cause of truth and freedom, or waste his or her talents on convenience, ephemera, and statism.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives one definition of «vocation» as «The work or function to which a person is called; a mode of life or employment regarded as requiring dedication». The eminent semanticist S.I. Hayakawa also emphasizes «dedication» as the distinctive feature of a vocation which differentiates it from a profession.
In praxeological terms, a vocation involves what Ludwig von Mises «introversive» labor while a profession involves «extroversive» labor. The essence of introversive labor is work undertaken solely for its own sake and not as a means to a more remote end. Extroversive labor, in contrast, is performed because the individual «prefers the proceeds he can earn by working to the disutility of labor and the pleasure of leisure».
One of the «two most conspicuous examples» of introversive labor, according to Mises, is «the search for truth and knowledge pursued for its own sake and not as a means of improving one’s own efficiency and skill in the performance of other kinds of labor aiming at other ends». The second is «genuine sport, practiced without any design for reward and social success».
It is not that the effort expended by the «truth seeker» or «mountain climber» does not involve the disutility of labor, rather «it is precisely overcoming the disutility of labor that satisfies him». Thus genuine truth seeking in any scientific discipline qualifies economically as «consumption» and its pursuit as a vocation.
Economics: Vocation or Profession?
