One of the little annoyances of modern life is what I consider the modern misunderstanding of the words “amateur” and “professional”.
Not as sad and infuriating as the way the word “disinterested” has been rendered useless, I’ll admit, but still troubling.
“Amateur” has come to imply condescension, at least, if not that something outright isn’t good enough. “Professional” is superior, better in every way. I have an iPhone Pro and a MacBook Pro laptop. There’s nothing about them specifically for earning money, let alone in a regulated way. Those are just designations that justify them costing more money.
“You’re such a pro” is a compliment.
“Amateur hour” is an insult.
In origin, the two words aren’t even opposites.
An amateur is someone who does something purely because they want to, “for love”.
A professional is not just someone who does something for money, but someone qualified to charge for a service that requires proof of capability along with registration.
A couple of hundred years ago, being an amateur was prestigious. In sports and science, it was associated with being disinterested (yes, in the sense of being unbiased) because payment was considered something that might affect someone’s judgement. To do something for no reason other than passion, beholden to nobody, was to be pure about it, and trustworthy.
At that time, professions had a different prestige, and a guarded one. Nobody was a professional sportsman, let alone a professional barista.
It feels peculiarly modern to have prestige based on being paid to do something. It’s logical, inasmuch as money is tangible proof of worth – the value of the things done is clear, because someone has chosen to exchange hard currency for it. But in past times that would have been considered a very crude judgement. At least in theory, they held worth to be largely about things other than money (although admittedly those with recorded opinions were mostly wealthy enough to have the luxury of that opinion). Worth, in terms of achievement at least, was decidedly NOT about being paid, but about pureness of purpose (the amateurs) or actual qualification (the professionals).
I feel sad about this, and kind of resentful that it’s such a default.
I need money as much as anyone, and take pride in my work. But the things I’m most proud of in work and in life have been done for love. Even when money was involved. I don’t think I’m special in that way, either. There are psychological studies proving that money is a demotivator in most things that matter. If you pay people, they stop caring about the more intrinsic factors that they did before being paid, and stop seeing the value in them. Something that is worth bearing in mind before ditching a job you hate for trying to make a living at a hobby.
Amateurs, serious amateurs, good amateurs, do the best of anybody, historically. Some of them even get paid, but the key is that the money is not the driving factor.
Even now, amidst all the hustle culture and capitalist assumptions, we know this, deep down. It’s why we prize “founder mindset” and “passion” has become a cliché. We KNOW doing things for money isn’t cool and pretend we aren’t when we are.
“Professional” has survived with its prestige intact even as it’s been downgraded from official recognition to mere money-taking.
But “amateur” is still a tainted word by now, even so, which is a sad fate for a love-related word. Relationships are one of the few situations left where payments devalue how they’re seen.
A healthy society would still value doing things for love.