Words are powerful; more specifically, the connotative meanings, or attached emotional responses behind words, are powerful.

For example, which one of each pair sounds/feels better to you—"Secretary" or "administrative assistant"?"Garbage man" or "sanitation engineer"?"Fat" or "plump" (when describing a person)?"Emaciated" or "lean" (also when describing a person)?"Estate tax" or "death tax"?"Iraqi War" or "War on Terror"?"Global warming" or "climate change"?"Lied" or "misspoke"?"Hunger" or "very low food security"?"Invasion" or "pre-emptive counter-attack"?"Disabled" or "physically challenged"?"Hyperactive" or "behaviorally impaired"?

First, let me note that the pairs above are all denotatively synonymous, but that fact does not matter if one were to choose the "wrong" one of the pair; offense will most certainly be taken.And second, let's face it, that list could continue ad infinitum.

Let me also note that I am by no means equating the pairs above with each other in terms of social acceptability; rather, I am simply trying to demonstrate how our emotional responses to words help shape our perceptions of the meanings being communicated by those words.

All of that prefatory material is included to make this simple request of society in general and of many of my own peers in particular: Stop calling teaching a vocation.A job? Yes.A profession? Definitely.A career? For many, absolutely!But I am tired of hearing about the grand nobility of my vocation (i.e., my "calling" in life), as if that singular, pathos-laden word can justify socio-economic inadequacies.

There's a feeling attached to that word.One does not choose a vocation; rather that vocation comes tap-tap-tapping ever so lightly at the heart's door in the middle of the first evening spring rain of the year.And it would be rude, downright insulting, to the knocker not to answer that door, for that knocking shall never go away.Ever.

With such a quaint vision of the nurturing relationship between vocation and Chosen One come a few subsequent, and unrealistic, expectations.

First and foremost involves the compensation for services rendered.If that service is a calling deep within one's heart, deep within one's soul, deep within one's core of being, then adequate compensation easily becomes little more than an afterthought.In fact, such recompense, no matter how meager, is actually a bonus, since the ideal reward in a vocation is a heart molded, a brain educated, a life changed forever; and for that bonus, the receiver is mandated to be grateful.Anything less (for example, complaining about less-than-adequate compensation) would be considered disrespectful and vulgar.

Second come the extra time and money spent by the individual in honor of the vocation.Spending one's own money (which, as a reminder, is already less than sufficient) on both compelled professional development and necessary supplies is a requisite for any member of a vocation. (And, by the way, the tax write-offs allowed by our less-than-gracious federal government are capped at a paltry sum for all of those out-of-pocket, vocational expenses.) Moreover, devoting those extra, countless, uncompensated hours laboring for the noble causes encapsulated in the core of the vocation is simply expected.Spending one's money on personal desires and needs would be egocentric; going home at the end of the prescribed working day would be selfish.And neither characteristic is socially acceptable in a vocation.

Third and finally concern the super-heroic abilities to transform a human being's very existence on this planet just by interacting with that individual a few hours a week.Never mind the dire poverty at that child's home that allows him/her to feel hunger grumbling in the pit of his/her gut every night while lying in bed.Never mind the absentee parents who can't or don't support the social and emotional needs of their own offspring.Never mind society's negative influences via the media that voluntarily receive more time with that child each week than does anything or anyone else.No matter at all.The incredible, unrealistic expectation placed upon a member of a vocation is to mold that human being into something better—much, much better—simply because that's what the "calling" is expecting him/her to do.

Does a lawyer have to deal with such prearranged mores imposed upon him/her by society?Does a doctor?Does a businessman/woman?No.Because theirs are jobs.Careers.Professions.

And because they have all chosen careers over vocations, they all deserve both the pragmatic manifestations of societal respect and a set of reasonable expectations rather than the metaphorical handshake and pat on the back—both of which are singularly pleasant, but neither of which gets one very far in the American capitalistic system.

I can't speak for those out there involved in other similar vocations (e.g., pastors of small churches, social workers in large cities, and nurses everywhere), but as for me and my fellow teachers, I know that the term vocation will simply no longer do. That societal perception does not correspond with the career I have chosen to pursue with my professional life.

To put it simply, the word vocation has become nothing more than socially-imposed, emotional subterfuge.And if we're ever going to change such impractical perceptions, we must certainly change the language first.

Robert Archer is an English Teacher for 12 years. Presently at Shadle Park High School
Spokane, WA. He may be reach by email: r_archer3@yahoo.com

Published October 3, 2008