Amateurs…
Been meaning to write something about this for a few days, but I’ve had my hands full…
A few days ago, Alex at Relevant History wrote about the rise of the “amateur” vs. the “professional” with regard to blogs:
Some people have taken umbrage with the term “amateurization,” on the grounds that it’s pejorative: empowerment is what’s going on, they argue. But I think that the term “amateur” is exactly the right one— if we know who amateurs once were, and what being an amateur meant. Essentially, bloggers are operating a system that Victorian gentleman scientists would have recognized immediately.
I’d add that Alex’s point seems to tie in with something I wrote about a few days ago, the distinction between buying and tipping. One doesn’t tip a professional, because by definition they are producing a good or service for a fee. The Victorian amateur scientists Alex describes didn’t work for a fee – rather, their efforts were funded through the patronage of either wealthy family members or other sources.
The difference, of course, is that the patronage system of Victorian science relied on relatively consolidated sources of money – bloggers, on the other hand, seem best supported when they can draw support from widely distributed patrons, reducing the burden on any individual donor (and the risk that any one patron’s wealth might dry up). And though there aren’t many bloggers making a living from their “hobby” yet, I’d wager that this will change in the next few years (consider the Andrew Sullivan example)…