The Call of the Wild: Zookeepers, Callings, and the Double-Edged Sword of Deeply Meaningful Work

Critical Analysis

In this text, the authors explore how zookeepers characterize their relationship with their profession. They frame this as a calling, and compare two styles of how people come to embrace work as “deeply-meaningful,” work that is not done “solely for economic of career advancement reasons” and instead is performed in support of “a sense of significance, purpose, or transcendent meaning” (32).

One of these styles is aligned with a Protestant Reformation approach, where “calling is that place in the world of productive work that one was created, designed, or destined to fill by virtue of God-given gifts and talents and the opportunities presented by one’s station in life” (33). Curiously, the authors group rather than juxtapose this with a neoclassical approach where work is a utility-driven concern and a calling may be more rationally constructed and less pre-destined—meaningful work is not there to find, but instead is something developed in service of a set of passions and interests. These approaches think of work product as something that is moral and in service of a larger force (God or society).

The alternative presented is described as a modern view, one that highlights these passions and interests as a “duty to the self,” in service of “self-knowledge, identity, self-fulfillment” and a pursuit of happiness (51). This view assumes that a calling is a choice, something that is selected purposefully (along with any physical or emotional challenges that may come with it). A calling is work that is personally satisfying.

The authors conclude that both are true, and that a calling is a “double-edged sword.” Both perspectives drive people to work in the face of challenges that may be objectively considered unreasonable (low pay, dirty jobs, an intrusion on personal life), and might be considered rationalizations for engaging in this type of work. And, both views introduce a sense of sacrifice, where doing a particular job means accepting a vulnerability to “potential exploitation by management” and a feeling of suspicion based on “heightened expectations about management’s oral duty related to the work” (52).

Students use calling-like language to describe their experiences in studio. Design studio is a place that feels right, as if someone has either found or is embracing (or even creating) work that they find meaningful. This research helps explain why students might be willing to take on long hours, physical and emotional toil, and a culture of criticism and fear in exchange for learning to do design work—they may be “finding” a calling, in the sense of a Protestant or neoclassical perspective, “embracing” a calling, as with a more modern view of meaningful work, or even “building” a sense of calling in an entrepreneurial way of approaching situations. As with the author’s findings, in each case students can become susceptible and exposed to exploitation by their instructors and, subsequently, by the workplace they may find themselves in after graduation. The emotional charge of calling and the drive to do meaningful work may obscure the need for health, integrity, and dignity.