Generalists/Specialists

One of the evaluation interests of my life has been to analyze the differences between those persons known as specialists and those who are generalists. The specialists tend to look at life through different lenses than the generalists. Analysts and the public generally look at both through interpretive lenses. The most respected appear to be the specialists, but generalists tend to guide society. Specialists are fewer in number, paid better, are presumed to have more information about the topic/problem that has gained predominant attention, and are less likely, when established, to be the subjects of personal scrutiny. There are benefactors and scoundrels in both groupings as there are also in the general population. The generalists are concerned about the whole of life experience as major interest: the specialist with the meaning and influence of the point of special concentration. This is not to say that both representatives are devoid of an understanding of the elements and the compounds, but the orientation often makes significant difference in human relationships, evaluations and outcomes. I have enjoyed personal friendship with every generalist physician that I have chosen as, my doctor. I have not enjoyed such friendships with all the specialists my doctor has referred to me. I doubt if I would return to the dermatologist or the urologist he named – but did go at leas once to each. I would be pleased to go again to the specialist in blood disorders and surgeons to whom he referred. I am fully convinced that all referrals were to persons who knew their stuff. There is a mystery in persons, perhaps found in our personalities and cerebral orientations that instruct us about contexts with which we have to do. Interaction is seen in all relationships.

I am currently reading what appears to be the best biography of Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist of the second half of the twentieth century, and heard in person by millions of persons in the world. The book is well written for either information or analysis, is documented extensively, is non-judgmental but objective in tone, but something is missing. Graham invited me to the faculty of Northwestern College, then in Minneapolis, to inaugurate a Speech and Drama Department. I accepted, asking that another person also be invited. He immediately acquiesced, and everything I asked for was provided. We talked together about the need for excellence in the curricular offerings. He agreed, even making a firm order to a reluctant colleague to carry through in a challenging budget issue. There were several matters that suggested an excellent future. I was asked my opinion of whether he should relate to the pressures he received from Hollywood personalities to be speaker on their estates. (I felt he would jeopardize his new world-wide reputation if related to the Hollywood culture. He turned, went into his office, and returned the call to Jane Russell turning down her invitation.) A year later he invited me to be his first writer – in order to meet a strenuous speaking schedule. I was to write for radio. Peace With God emerged from that period. Daily invitations were coming to him. I was asked if I would go with him one summer and offer critique of his speaking. He knew he was effective but believed he needed to develop some factors in his presentation, give more sophistication to his sermons to be accepted in other cultures, for wider ministry. I agreed but the project was dropped when his team, always gracious to me, thought the procedure would be misrepresented. He was constantly under pressure from cynics. On one occasion we were doing a Sunday afternoon roundtable on ABC. The director asked him if he knew of anyone who was there to embarrass him. He listed six names as possibilities. The person selecting the questioners toward the end of the program found three of the names on the slips of paper submitted with questions.

The questions were designed to create distraction. The director did not approve the slips for consideration. Graham had decided that he would become a specialist – one thing only. He invited me to the meeting in which he resigned from the presidency of Northwestern. He would be known for his specialization – only evangelism. That was interpreted by observers everywhere, as Graham’s singular simplistic approach that made him one of the ten most admired persons in the world, supported by his family and his life model – a specialist, like the Apostle Paul. Biographers are often generalists and may miss part of their subjects.