The Dilettante's Dilemma: Versatility in a World Obsessed with Expertise
dilettante (plural dilettanti or dilettantes)
An amateur, someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest rather than as a profession or serious interest.
As a kid, my afternoons were filled with neighborhood pickup football games on the Baptist church’s lawn that only ended when we ran out of light. On weekends, my parents ushered me to rec league soccer games, spending their mornings with other parents in the makeshift stands. And in the cherished summer months, we’d walk to the local park to play tennis or volleyball. Back then, playing multiple sports was the norm, a cherished rite of passage for those of us without the privilege of ‘country club’ specialization.
A lot has changed since then. Youth sports are dominated by year-round training and travel teams, where children don’t just cross town for a game — they cross the country for tournaments. The concept of an off-season has vanished, replaced by expensive camps promising to hone skills and create ‘elite’ athletes. This intense focus might lead one to assume these children are destined for professional sports careers. However, a closer look often reveals a different story: many parents are more interested than their young athletes.
The early specialization trend extends beyond sports fields and courts. Students are increasingly pressured to specialize earlier, often before they’ve had the chance to explore a wide range of subjects. By middle school, many are already plotting career-specific courses, with schedules packed with advanced classes in a single discipline.
Undoubtedly, specialization has been a cornerstone of progress. As Adam Smith observed in The Wealth of Nations:
“The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor.”
This principle has driven economic growth for centuries: when we specialize, we become more efficient and productive. The resulting productivity gains lead to greater wealth and improved quality of life.
While specialization has its merits, another fundamental economic principle offers a cautionary tale: the law of diminishing returns. This law asserts that the advantage gained from each additional unit of production input will eventually level off or even decline. More is only better to a certain point.
Michael Pollan, who wrote one of my favorite books, ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ eloquently captures this tension:
“I can probably earn more in an hour of writing or even teaching than I could save in a whole week of cooking. Specialization is undeniably a powerful social and economic force. And yet it is also debilitating. It breeds helplessness, dependence, and ignorance and, eventually, it undermines any sense of responsibility.”
Pollan cuts to the heart of the matter: over-specialization creates voids in life’s pleasures and skills, in his case, cooking delicious, healthy foods. His example illustrates a broader truth: what’s optimal for economic productivity isn’t always best for individual well-being or fulfillment. We are not mere cogs in a productivity machine but complex beings with diverse needs, interests, and potentials. The relentless pursuit of specialization risks reducing us to one-dimensional producers.
Dilettante — An Insult?
Every so often, I encounter a word steeped in negative connotations that, to me, seems undeservedly slandered. Take “dilettante,” for example. A dilettante, by definition, is “an amateur who engages in an activity for enjoyment or casual interest rather than as a profession.” This stands in contrast to a connoisseur, “an expert who understands the nuances and principles of a field and is qualified to act as a critical judge.” Today, dilettantes are often dismissed or derided, while connoisseurs are celebrated and revered.
However, these terms are frequently misunderstood and misapplied. A dilettante — far from being a mere dabbler — engages with a field out of pure interest, perhaps bringing a freshness and enthusiasm that the so-called experts have long since lost.
Ironically, many self-proclaimed “connoisseurs” I encounter are, in essence, dilettantes — though they’d bristle at the label. I propose we not only reclaim the term ‘dilettante’ but celebrate it.
Philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti had this to say about specialization:
“Unfortunately, most of us are becoming mere technicians. We pass examinations, acquire this or that technique, in order to earn a livelihood; but to develop technique or develop capacity without paying attention to the inner state brings about ugliness and chaos to the world.”
Today’s hyper-specialization is the opposite of the intellectual boom of the Renaissance. During that era, the ideal was the ‘Renaissance man’ or ‘polymath’ — an individual with an insatiable curiosity, wide-ranging interests, and expertise across diverse fields. This approach to knowledge was not just admired; it was seen as the pinnacle of human achievement.
Leonardo da Vinci epitomizes this Renaissance ideal. While he’s best known for his extraordinary artistic creations like The Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, his genius extended far beyond the canvas. Da Vinci was also a groundbreaking scientist, engineer, and inventor. His notebooks reveal designs for flying machines, hydraulic pumps, and even an early robot. He made significant contributions to anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics. This breadth of expertise wasn’t incidental to his success — it was central to it.
What about specialization?
It’s essential to acknowledge that specialization has propelled us into an era of unprecedented prosperity. Reverting to a time of minimal specialization would lead to widespread poverty and hardship. The efficiency gains from specialization not only enhance productivity but also afford us the luxury of leisure, fostering creativity and exploration — or even time for sedentary pursuits, should one choose
Famed physicist Richard Feynman said:
“I am always looking, like a child, for the wonders I know I’m going to find — maybe not every time, but every once in a while.”
We should all strive to reclaim this childlike wonder. Diverging from our fields should be a joy, not deemed frivolous. Adopting a more dilettante-like approach not only invigorates and expands our minds but also opens up abundant opportunities to engage with diverse ideas and people, enriching our perspectives and experiences.
The Specializing Generalist
My intention isn’t to disparage specialization or discourage passion. Instead, I urge caution: an overly narrow focus, especially early on, can constrain our pursuit of happiness, creativity, and exploring wonderful ideas. Deeply engaging in a passion can yield incredible discoveries and immense satisfaction. However, when driven solely by economic motives or societal pressures, this same pursuit can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction. Complete mechanization and specialization are realms suited for machines and robots. Humans are designed to think, feel, and explore.
The challenges of tomorrow will likely require interdisciplinary solutions, demanding the kind of creative, flexible thinking that comes from a broad base of knowledge and experience. So, let us champion a new ideal: the specializing generalist. One who can dive deep when necessary but whose foundation is built on wide-ranging curiosity and diverse knowledge. In doing so, we may not only enrich our own lives but also equip ourselves to tackle the complex, interconnected challenges of our future.
