Any society, and especially a jurisdiction, will require a set number of roles typically performed by the state: a speaker of the house, a commissioner of police, a chief justice, an accountant general, a postmaster general, a medical superintendent. Whether we are talking of India (the world’s largest democracy by population) or Tuvalu (the world’s smallest sovereign island state), these roles must exist in a well-functioning democracy. Small societies may be unable to spread out these roles over as many people. So, they combine some of the many roles within the job description of the same person. Therefore “[n]ot only are there fewer roles in a small scale society, but because of the smallness of the total social field, many roles are played by relatively few individuals” (Benedict, 1967, p. 26).
To illustrate this with a real life example, consider the department of sociology of a large public university. York University (YU), Toronto, Canada (population: 36 million) is a large public tertiary education institution with over 55,000 students. It employs 41 full-time academics in its department of sociology (https://www.yorku.ca/laps/soci/). At the University of Malta (UM), the only public university in this small island state (population: 500,000) with some 12,000 students, there are just six full-time academics in its department of sociology (https://www.um.edu.mt/arts/sociology/ourstaff). Both departments are expected to teach sociology at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and lead or supervise cutting-edge research in this field. This means that the sociologists at UM cannot afford to specialise too closely, unlike their disciplinary colleagues at YU. Some areas of narrow specialisation, which may thrive at YU, may remain unclaimed at UM. And, among themselves, sociologists at UM will be expected to broaden their portfolio enough to be able to offer a suitably comprehensive curriculum to their students; something that sociologists at YU do not have to consider.
This leads to a situation of flexible specialisation in the small island locale: one whereby individuals occupy vacant talent or expert niches, not necessarily because they are seasoned and proven experts in that field; but because they may have cognate knowledge in a related field. As “polyvalent handymen” and women (Bennell and Oxenham, 1983, p. 24), flexible specialists are also better at ‘connecting’ knowledge, gravitating more naturally towards trans-disciplinary positions and epistemologies. Of course, in order to cover a greater breadth, they may have to sacrifice depth. But such ‘depth’ may not be that critical in small island jurisdictions: a limited (and non-specialist) amount of knowledge in a specific field may be enough to satisfy the needs of that society. “Small [often island] countries certainly need the best; but in small countries, the best may sometimes be defined in terms of flexibility and breadth, rather than depth” (Brock, 1988, p. 306) … although this may be hard to admit. Prestige apart, there is, really, no choice but to put into practice the tweaked version of that old adage: being a Jack (or Jill) of all trades, and hopefully sufficiently master (or mistress) of all (Firth, 1951, p. 47; Jacobs, 1989, p. 86). With the resort to “occupational multiplicity” (Comitas, 1963, p. 41), any specialisation, and the division of labour it assumes, remain incomplete (Shaw, 1982, p. 98). There are clear benefits in being a big fish in a small pond (Baldacchino, 1997, p. 127).
Investing in a repertoire of skills, preferably specialisms, successively and/or synchronously comes across as a rational strategy: the more so if small island citizens, in the course of their working lives, have to face (often sudden) economic setbacks and reversals as well as openings and opportunities (including the option to spend time off their island) (Carnegie, 1982). The role enlargement and role multiplicity that accompany such behavioural responses to the small island condition are shrewd response mechanisms for enhancing, equilibrating and minimising risk in boom or bust conditions: a core component of a “security centered survival algorithm” (Brookfield, 1975, pp. 56-57). There is a tacit recognition that each option is, in itself, limited and fragile, not enough to constitute a permanent and secure operation. This occurs because of either changes in client taste or demand (via shifting market trends) or talent supply (because of ease of replacement or increased competition). Maximizing role diversity and exploiting specialisms while and for as long as they last is a proven, winning combination in the face of uncertainty.
Documented life histories of small island citizens often reveal and illustrate how these persons are essentially glocally operating, flexible specialists and brokers. Consider Isaac Caines (a pseudonym), stevedore, cane cutter and labourer from St Kitts (Richardson, 1983, pp. 54-5); Kawagl, a Chimbu subsistence farmer from Melanesia (Brookfield, 1972, pp. 167-8); or Marshy, the street vendor who specialises in steamed fish and bammy, from Kingston, Jamaica (Wardle, 2002).
Baldacchino, G. (1997). Global tourism and informal labour relations: The small scale syndrome at work. London: Mansell.
Benedict, B. (Ed.) (1967). Problems of smaller territories. London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies.
Bennell, P., & Oxenham, J. (1983). Skills and qualifications for small island states. Labour and Society, 8(1), 3-38.
Brookfield, H. C. (1972). Colonialism development and independence: The case of the Melanesian islands in the South Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brookfield, H. C. (1975). Multum in parvo: questions about diversity and diversification in small developing countries. In P. Selywn (Ed.), Development policy in small countries (pp. 54-76). London: Croom Helm.
Brock, C. (1988). Education and national scale: the world of small states. Prospects, 18(3), 302-314.
Carnegie, C. V. (1982). Strategic flexibility in the West Indies: a social psychology of Caribbean migration. Caribbean Review, 11(1), 10-13, 54.
Comitas, L. (1963). Occupational multiplicity in rural Jamaica. In V. Garfield & E. Friedl (Eds.), Symposium on community studies in anthropology. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press.
Firth, R. (1951). Elements of social organisation. London: Watts & Co.
Jacobs, J. (1989). The economic development of small countries: Some reflections of a non-economist. In J. Kaminarides, L. Briguglio & H. N. Hoogendonk (Eds.), The economic development of small countries: Problems, strategies and policies (pp. 83-90). Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
Richardson, B. C. (1983). Caribbean migrants: Environment and human survival on St. Kitts and Nevis. Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Shaw, B. (1982). Smallness, islandness, remoteness, and resources: an analytical framework. Regional Development Dialogue, 3(1), 95-109.
Wardle, H. (2002). Marshy and friends: informality, deformalisation and West Indian island experience. Social Identities, 8(2), 255-270.