Читать книгу The Triumph of Profiling - Andreas Bernard - Страница 9

Although the self-made profile first appeared during the second half of the 1990s on social networks and online dating sites, the format soon emerged in a context that was not truly related to the new medium of the internet. In the genre of job-application manuals, which have been flourishing on the book market in conjunction with the gradual standardization of “job-application culture,” the concept quickly gained enormous popularity. In Germany, the books by Christian Püttjer and Uwe Schnierda have occupied a dominant position in such literature for the past 25 years. By now, the duo has produced more than 60 guidebooks of this sort, with titles such as Confidence in Interviews, Success in the Assessment Center, or The Definitive Job-Application Handbook (their magnum opus).²⁹

These books and brochures began to attribute an important role to the concept of the profile by the end of the 1990s. In their 1999 handbook Applications and Resumés for College Graduates, for instance, the authors stressed that “lacking a profile” was the most detrimental factor for applicants, and in a section called “The Rules of Persuasion” they advised job-seekers especially to “create an individual profile.”³⁰ In these early publications, however, the concept did not yet serve as the keyword and foundation of their entire approach to applying for jobs. This changed around the turn of the millennium, when Püttjer and Schnierda trademarked their so-called “profile method” and began to include this term in the titles or subtitles of most of their books.³¹ According to Christian Püttjer, their focus on the profile was a response to a media-technical shift in the job market – namely the establishment, around the year 2000, of online job applications – which resulted in the implementation of stricter formal standards and limited the space allowed for narrative elements in covering letters.³² “The modern requirements for job applications,” or so begins The Definitive Job-Application Handbook, “can only be met by creating a profiled presentation of oneself.” Every stage of a job search is now organized according to this basic category: “Show your profile when making personal contact with potential employers, make sure that it occupies a clear place in your job-application portfolio, present it in phone calls with the businesses you would like to join, and seamlessly integrate it into your interviews.”³³ Across the 550 pages of the book, the term recurs in numerous variations: “qualification profile,” “job profile,” “application profile,” “short profile,” and so on.

Yet how, in Püttjer and Schnierda's estimation, does an “individual profile brimming with informative keywords” have to look in order for job-seekers to “achieve their goal and find a desirable position?” The three “cornerstones” of the profile method, which the authors list at the beginning of every publication, seem rather ambivalent in certain respects. The third point – “trustworthiness” – contains the following exhortation: “Do not distort yourself; your personality is in demand!” And yet this injunction to represent yourself as authentically as possible contradicts the first point, which requires the “precise fit” of applicants and makes the following claim: “The more you cater to the stated job requirements in your application, the more likely you will be to succeed. Adopt the perspective of the HR department.”³⁴ This dual challenge – the conflict between honest introspection and adapting oneself to suit the needs of others – is perhaps indicative of a fundamental characteristic of the self-made profile: it is a format that simultaneously allows for both the utmost individuality and the utmost conformity.

To the extent that the goal of self-description is to suit the prescribed requirements of an employer as closely as possible, today's independently created profiles approximate those created in the name of applied psychology and criminology. In job-application profiles, the external perspective of the psychologist or criminal investigator, which was directed toward pathological schoolchildren or unknown offenders, has simply been transferred to the authors themselves. They must be able to view themselves with the unerring eyes of the businesses where they might want to work. In this light, it makes sense that Püttjer and Schnierda offer the following advice to those creating profiles: “Become a detective on your own case and uncover your professional past!”³⁵ Thus, the application specialists themselves imply that criminal investigation can serve as a fitting model for representing oneself on the job market. Today's profiles, though composed in a gesture of sovereign individuality, conform to a prescribed set of requisites, and it is presumably this very conflict that gave rise to the contradictory metaphors in Püttjer and Schnierda's guidebooks. As the authors repeatedly stress, profiles need to have “sharp contours,” and yet they also urge applicants to “round out their profiles.”³⁶ The incoherence of this imagery demonstrates the paradoxical demands of the format. Representing a unique yet fully adaptable individual, the ideal profile has to be precisely and imprecisely delineated at the same time.