The Death of the Renaissance Man
The era of the Renaissance man, or the polymath, is at an end. Although quite evident in Western societies, this is not purely a Western phenomenon. Virtually every career path is centered around having depth in one specific area; knowing much about many things is not something that is credited in a meaningful way. Even though many post-secondary institutions, particularly in North America, make a certain breadth mandatory for their degrees, it seems to not affect much. For instance, during my arts (I prefer social sciences as a more concise term) bachelor’s degree, I had to take at least one or two science subjects and a minimum amount of language courses as part of the international relations component of my degree. You might get people doing double majors such as I did, or doing certificates, but the breadth is nonetheless quite limited.
Specialization is something that is far more valued than breadth; that is why you have so-called experts who may know a lot of things about a particular subject, but are incapable of looking at their field of knowledge in a holistic manner. I am not the first to acknowledge the gradual replacement of the polymath with someone who is more specialized. Of course, people should play to their strengths, but a breadth of knowledge is not something that is generally encouraged. In grade school, there is some level of this, but it is something that barely scratches the surface. Rather, this is set up in a way for students to find their strengths and interests.
During my ongoing master’s degree, I have had professors say things like, “We see you as aspiring researchers, even if you may not see yourselves that way." I have never really seen myself as a researcher, even if I might enjoy researching, although I seldom find any enjoyment in writing research papers. Only recently have I had a better idea of what I wanted to do career-wise, and even then, I would not want to be reduced as a person to embodying my career. When I was younger, I fantasized about potentially doing all sorts of things, although I think that is fairly common among children. Seeing this "dream", if you could call it such, slowly wither away gives me a lingering sadness, even if it is impossible for one to be everything he wants to be. Why does the notion of being a polymath appeal to me? It stems from having many doors open before you; being able to dream large and accomplish much in many spheres. The polymath mostly survives in more “creative” careers, to an extent.
This being said, there isn’t anything wrong with individual people who want to be specialized. Not everyone can be a polymath, nor should it be expected. Rather, part of the issue comes from coordinated hyperspecialization on a societal scale, making it difficult for 1) potential polymaths who have such interests to develop themselves as such, unless they are very privileged in both time and finances 2) said polymaths to play an influential role, who will always be looked down upon in relation to an “expert”. Someone who is an “expert” may have a certain claim to accuracy and have some respectable weight to their words, but these ideas can only be challenged. During COVID, there was plenty of reason for skepticism about certain policies and actions by public authorities; having inconsistent and poorly justified policies is a major way to decrease public trust. Politicians may try to rectify this with cabinets or other managerial or advisory roles filled by experts. In my view, this creates compartmentalization rather than increasing the knowledge of any party involved. Part of the reason for this shift is the attitude towards how one should use their time - pursuing many things at once is not seen as valuable as specialization. It is much easier to find experts who are highly specialized than someone who knows a great deal about many things, to rival many experts. Whether this is a symptom of how society has developed to unconsciously marginalize the polymath or not, the people it produces will often up either being very specialized, or still being a loss for what to do in terms of where to go in the world. Hence, why many people opt for "fuck you, give me money" degrees, so this is less of a concern. This is also why “useless” degrees often say more about what a society is looking for and about economic prospects, rather than they do about the individual who has it. That is not to say that all degrees are worthwhile; rather, the path to realizing one's potential through them can be quite convoluted. Even in STEM, which have clearer potential careers, it is not always so straightforward.
I acknowledge it may be a rather idealistic way of thinking, although the benefit of more polymaths in society, or at least increased breadth - accompanied by depth - in educational development would do much good. However, I don’t see any society on Earth valuing this sort of thing. Europe and the domains it spawned have moved away from this over the centuries, and other peoples were never quite at the place to value such a thing, beyond on a very limited, largely aristocratic scale. Now, spiritual aristocracy is what ought to matter, rather than the vain trappings of social signifiers, which talk loudly, but say little of worth.
When I have been asked what I do for work or what I want to do for work, I always found this question irritating - with the former - or a bit confounding. I suppose there are a lot of people who think in such terms, but for me personally, I found it somewhat offensive to be likely reduced to a social indicator in what my career is. In an ideal world, I’d want to be an advisor to an esteemed intelligent person of high influence: that’s as close as I’d get to a dream job that contributes to the world in a meaningful way, and would most likely suit my preferred lifestyle as well. The first career I remember wanting to have was as an archaeologist when I was 8 years old (I still think it’s cool). It’s engagement that matters to me in a career having the ability to do this or that as a career path, or make a certain amount of money.
Although I have written about myself in the context of discussing the Renaissance man, I wouldn’t truly consider myself a polymath, more like an aspiring one (maybe one day, if I have both the time, discipline, and resources to end up as such), even though I am knowledgeable about quite a few things, although that is relative compared to the ignorance around me. I lack the dedication to get to that point, and I think few enough people could truly call themselves as such. Curiosity, however, is a necessary component. That’s how I’ve always been, as long as I can remember. As most people get older, they become less curious, which does make sense as they figure out the ways of the world. What one needs is the potential to develop. I find it laughable when these education programs talk about increasing literacy, especially in a global context, and having such and such basic subjects. Although expecting polymathy to be commonplace would be too much to expect, there is still great untapped potential for development that I fear will never be realized.
The main way one realizes their potential in this world is through the grace of others; meaningfully increasing their potential means increasing it in as many areas as possible, rather than honing in on just one. As Aristotle said “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” Being a polymath comes from passion, not merely being a machine that processes information and spits it out on command.