One initial step we can take towards moving beyond our traditional understanding of making as a mere practical activity is to go deeper into what precisely making does entail, in terms of the socio-cognitive processes involved in the art of doing. In this vein, Richard Sennett’s seminal work, The Craftsman, is particularly enlightening. In the opening pages, Sennett begins his argument by returning to Hannah Arendt’s theoretical contribution and, at the same time, questioning its assumptions. If, in the human condition, Arendt distinguished between the three figures of the animal laborans, the homo faber and the zoon politicon, by contrasting them and recognizing the primacy of political action over other forms of activity, Sennett recognizes these categories, but questions their separateness, as well as the premises on which this separateness is based; namely, the dichotomy between doing and thinking, with the latter having primacy over the former. According to Sennett, integration of doing and thinking sees its concrete implementation in the figure of the craftsman, by which he meant a specific condition of humanity rather than a historically specific social category. To understand the intimate nature of this condition, he uses the concept of “craftsmanship,” which he calls “an enduring, basic human impulse, the desire to do a job well for its own sake. Craftsmanship cuts a far wider swath than skilled manual labor; it serves the computer programmer, the doctor, and the artist” [6, p. 9]. Therefore, craftsmanship is not just manual labor, but art, mastery, the ability to achieve what we set out to achieve, which includes manual and intellectual activities alike. Considering it just a technical routine is a big mistake, as Sennett underlines: indeed, the craftsman achieves a synthesis between “the hand and the head,” enabling concrete actions—even repetitive, habitual ones—conversing with thought and creativity. In order to grasp the mechanism that nurtures the virtuous conversation between making and thinking, one must have a deep understanding of the three fundamental abilities of craftsmanship, namely “the ability to localize, to question, and to open up. The first involves making a matter concrete, the second reflecting on its qualities, the third expanding its sense” [6, p. 277]. Finally, one further aspect highlighted by the American sociologist is linked to the social dimension of learning, which was peculiar to the transmission processes of knowledge in medieval workshops: this social dimension is inherent to mastery by way of the sociable expertise that individuals develop. “Sociable expertise doesn’t create community in any self-conscious or ideological sense; it consists simply of good practices. The well-crafted organization will focus on whole human beings in time, it will encourage mentoring, and it will demand standards framed in language that any persons in the organization might understand” [6, p. 249].