Occupational identity refers to the conscious awareness of oneself as a worker. The process of occupational identity formation in modern societies can be difficult and stressful. However, establishing a strong, self-chosen, positive, and flexible occupational identity appears to be an important contributor to occupational success, social adaptation, and psychological well-being. Whereas previous research has demonstrated that the strength and clarity of occupational identity are major determinants of career decision-making and psychosocial adjustment, more attention needs to be paid to its structure and contents. We describe the structure of occupational identity using an extended identity status model, which includes the traditional constructs of moratorium and foreclosure, but also differentiates between identity diffusion and identity confusion as well as between static and dynamic identity achievement. Dynamic identity achievement appears to be the most adaptive occupational identity status, whereas confusion may be particularly problematic. We represent the contents of occupational identity via a theoretical taxonomy of general orientations toward work (Job, Social Ladder, Calling, and Career) determined by the prevailing work motivation (extrinsic vs. intrinsic) and preferred career dynamics (stability vs. growth). There is evidence that perception of work as a calling is associated with positive mental health, whereas perception of work as a career can be highly beneficial in terms of occupational success and satisfaction. We conclude that further research is needed on the structure and contents of occupational identity and we note that there is also an urgent need to address the issues of cross-cultural differences and intervention that have not received sufficient attention in previous research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
Skorikov, V. B., & Vondracek, F. W. (2011). Occupational identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research.
How some lawyers apparently want the public to imagine them.
A number of relatively recent experiences has lead me to post this thread.
Posted around town are some billboards by a lawyer who is apparently specializing in plaintiffs' cases and criminal defense. I don't know him well, but I do know him.
When I first met him, he came across, quite frankly, as a metrosexual. I was quite surprised later on when I learned that he'd grown up on a ranch, and that he had a brother who now ran it. Now, however, he appears on billboards with a huge mustache in Western attire and saddle and portrays himself as a cowboy.
And I guess, by cowboy, I mean both real cowboys and the movie image of a cowboy.
Cowboys, and that is of course a real occupation, have been a popular cultural image since the late 19th Century. It's really interesting to me, as somebody who is a stockman and who has, accordingly, done a fair amount of cowboying, how cowboys continue to have a sort of wild image that they acquired in that time period. I love working stock, but most of it isn't anything like what movies portray. Maybe none of is, which is why the popular Yellowstone television show tends to anger me.
Of course, being a lawyer isn't anything like portrayed on television either.
Anyhow, I never tell people that "I'm a cowboy", but I find that I"m referred to that way, in the working sense of the word, from time to time. Or, people will refer to me as a rancher the same way from time to time. I'm always a bit flattered when they do, as if I'd had my ruthers in the world, which I haven't, that's what I would have done full time. I can't say its my occupational identity, however, as I'm well aware that I don't do it full time.
Affecting the image, however, miffs me. It's fake. If you simply come across that way, as you are naturally that way, that's one thing. Using it to promote your legal career, however, is bullshit.
Indeed, on real cowboys, not all of which are men, today:
I guess this gets back in a way to this thread:
If you are going to be a lawyer, look like one, it's what you actually are.
And, by the way, there's at least one politician in the state that does the same thing, and I'd have the same criticism about. He's not a lawyer, but a commercial landlord.
Anyhow, it also gets to the weird association that the law picked up at some point with cowboys around here. I don't know when this occurred, but it might have been about the time that Gerry Spence's book Gunning for Justice came out. Spence didn't try to portray himself as a cowboy, but he did take on a Western influenced style, wearing a fringed jacket and a cowboy hat as a matter of course. Spence being sui generis has been able to consistently pull that off whereas those copying him tend to look absurd.
Anyhow, "Gunning for Justice" is actually a phrase that's been around for awhile and he didn't introduce it, as t his movie poster from 1948 demonstrates:
Spence's use of it, however, seem to have pushed into another sort of use, at least locally.
On this, it's interesting that the cowboy image can be coopted this way, whereas other "manly" professions genuinely cannot. Fighters (boxers) have been a little bit, and I suppose that was an obviously one, but nobody, for example, talks about "whaling for justice".
Anyhow, dressing up like a cowboy for affect if you are not punching makes you a Rexall Ranger, not a cowboy.
While I'm at it, a Wyoming lawyer has affected the cowboy appearance for her columns on one of the local electronic journals. In this case, she's gone for the a way too big hat big pushed way up on the forehead so you can see the face look, which to a working stockman looks absolutely absurd. The same journal actually as a working rancher who wears his hat correctly as a columnist, and up until recently had another who did the same.
As a total side, if you notice in old cowboy portraits they often have their hats pushed to the back of their head, something moderns have wondered about, and for which they've even assumed that must be how they wore them.
No, the cameras were bad.
Isom Dart at Brown’s Hole Wyoming.
If they hadn't pushed them up some, their faces would have been in shadow
On identifies, I had a couple of odd encounters recently, one of which involves mental decline, and the other which involves gender attraction.
I'll start with the latter one first. There's an older profession that I don't know well, but who've I've been familiar with for a very long time. Somebody much more familiar with him than me dropped that he's a homosexual. I was shocked. Not because homosexuality in general shocks me, but because it was very well closeted for decades. Indeed, he's married with children.
I suppose that might be the rule for people north of 70, the closteting, that is.
In retrospect, it pretty quickly made sense for some reason. It just explained some personality quirks that I'd long noticed. The point of posting it here, however, is that if it's true, he's lived a lifetime with sort of an interesting strained identity.
He's not the only one I know of who is alleged to be in this category. Frankly a fairly well known person in the region is claimed by some insiders to fit this as well. In that case, it's more notable for his public opinions on things, which would be generally contrary to this inclination, assuming its true.
Now, I'll note that I have the typically misunderstood Catholic views on homosexuality. I'll also note that one of these individuals is a co-religious, and the other was. My only real point in noting all of this is to note that it must be a strain to live an entire life with a sort of false identity, assuming that its true in either case, which I can't really say for sure.
I'll also note that homosexuals of that vintage who did not present themselves as "gay", which is different, may have had a better understanding of marriage than many. Catholic Answers Hugh Barbour defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman to produce children for the worship of God, which while it may be more than that, that captures a lot of it. People like to say that before Obergefell homosexuals couldn't marry, but that's simply false, if we consider that marriage is a unique institution between two people capable of reproducing and bound to care for those they create.
Going on to occupations, I've also run across recently a situation in which I've been dealing with somebody whom, once again, I don't know that well but who is still working fulltime and whose clearly suffering from some compression loss in the psychological cylinders. I'm not their pal or anything but it's sad to watch. It's also sad to watch, however, somebody whose psychological identify is so closely identified with the practice of law, they can't leave it.
I've known more than one lawyer who practiced into advanced old age with no mental detriment. But it's also the case quite frankly that a person's physical clockworks, and often their mental ones, start to slip a bit after the hands hit 60 or so. I'm frankly not convinced at all that allowing people to practice a profession after some point in their 60s is a good thing, and I don't think people should carry on into their 70s. For one thing, it's just sad. Surely there was something else that interested them once.
Back to occupational identities.
One of the really minor features of this blog is the M65 Field Jackets in the wild. page. Minor.
I like M65 field jackets. When I was in the Guard I had at least six of them due to having bought two and having been issued four more. The reason I was issued four is that at Ft. Sill the switch from OG-107 to BDU was going on and we were issued OD field jackets. As soon as I got back, we were issued BDU field jackets, and told to keep the old ones.
I gave one of the OD ones to a girlfriend who had need of a jacket while I was in university, and then eventually I just got to big, i.e,. gained weight, or filled out, whatever, and couldn't wear the size I'd been issued. But I still had the next larger size, Large Regular.
Well, time, etc.
A surplus store here had a whole bunch of uniform items here before they went out of business and I bought several BDU ones. I just really like them. I picked up a OD one for my son, as they're a nice coat, but naively didn't for myself. The OD ones you can wear for daily wear really.
Well, here recently I found a Greek Lizard pattern one for sale and I bought it for hunting. Which meant that I had three woodland pattern ones, one desert pattern one (a gift of an old soldier) and a Lizard pattern one. Then I saw the current multicam pattern one for sale on Ebay, which I ordered. Finally, I decided I needed an OD one and bought one of those off of ebay.
Some of these have the US Army tape on them. One, the multicam one, came with paratrooper wings from the former and his name tape. I took the name tape off and the paratrooper wings. I'm not a paratrooper. The OD one came with a name tape, the U.S. Army tape, and two unit patches. I took everything off but the US Army tape.
For reasons that are silly, and I can't explain, I ended up ordering name tapes. I can now sew those on.
Why? I'm not sure. I don't need name tapes on old uniform items for any rational reason. Rather, I was required to do it back in the day, and I still feel like am now. Indeed, it would make a lot more sense to take the US Army patch off the OD one so I can use it for its intended purpose of regular daily wear.
Odd
Well, I found a M1943 replica on sale and ordered it. It won't have any patches.
I need to stop buying them.
As a further aside, a Carhartt coat is much warmer. My old one is pretty much blown out now. It was a gift from my wife and I've been resisting getting a new one, even though I need to. Guess I'm hoping for another one as a gift so that I don't have to buy it.
Back to occupational identities for a moment. It occured to me how, when I was young, men had much less of one. They genuinely seemed more well rounded than men do today
People always like to claim things were different, if not outright perfect, when they were young. But it does seem to me that genuinely men were quite family oriented. That meant that their professions and occupations were focused on providing for their families, but it also meant that their professions tended not to be all that they were, including to themselves. I can vaguely recall some men who were very career oriented being criticized for it.
Every man that I knew when I was young tended to almost be identified by a collection of interests. Medical professionals were often hunters and fishermen. Indeed, I don't know one who wasn't. Some were dramatically so. Men who had come into professions from farms and ranches tended to still be identified with their origin and retain some contacts with that life. I knew a fireman who was a pretty good amature geologist, another who was a car restorer, and another who was the first long distance runner I ever knew. More recently professionals, or at least lawyers, have almost become cartoons of themselves in some instances, only engaging in the law or perhaps one activity that's sort of socially approved for lawyers.
It isn't good.
Last Sunday I ran this item:
I knew that the Bundesheer has a mountain infantry brigade.
I've sometimes thought that if I had been born in Germany, which I'm very much glad I was not, I'd have opted for a career with this unit. Outdoors. . . animals, etc. By the same token, if I had been born French, there's the Chasseurs Alpins.
Hmmm. . .
Well, I didn't opt for a career with the Wyoming Game & Fish, so I'm probably just fooling myself.
Have a nice day at work.
Mehr Mensch sein,
.jpg)
