Michael Armstrong
10/31/12
Service Analysis
EN 101
After reading Father Linnane’s “State of the
University” speech I felt a certain level of accomplishment. In a subtle way
Father Linnane successfully complimented everyone involved in the Loyola
University community. From the faculty and staff to every new student Father
Linnane, complimented us in away that was both uplifting and humbling. His
speech had striking similarities to the other works that we had to read this
week.
Father Linnane challenged us all to succeed in every
aspect of our lives while, strongly rooting ourselves the principles of a
Jesuit University. Father Linnane highlighted the recent improvement in
application rates and Division I athletics, but at the same time stated the
need for further development. He stated that, “All of these initiatives, as
you’ll recall, are designed to support our fundamental goal of becoming the
nation’s leading Catholic, comprehensive university.” This statement hints to
the fact that the future success of Loyola University coincides with our
ability and willingness to separate ourselves from others. Father Linnane
stressed how important it is for Loyola University to be successful in a way
that doesn’t follow the traditional formula of success. In addition, he states
it is imperative that the University continues down its unique path of success that
is originally rooted in Jesuit beliefs and traditions. The idea of uniqueness
and individuality that will eventually breed success can be seen in the
messages of other works we have read.
In Richard Hague’s, “ Directions for Resisting the
SAT,” we become innately aware of the detrimental nature of standardization. Hague
pays serious attention to the importance of remaining a unique and
irreplaceable individual. In his poem we see the speaker stating that we should
not, “observe the rules of gravity. /” This quote suggests to the reader that
conventional wisdom such as gravity, commas, or even history are subjects worth
our observation, but we should not fixate on them. Hague argues that we must
break free of those strict rules because they hinder our “desire to live whole.
/” In addition Hague states we should, “ follow no directions/” and, “ Listen
to no one. /” Hague suggests that an independent mind set, such as the one
described above, will allow readers to become more independent and, “ Make your
mark on everything.”
Furthermore, Hague points out this message to an
intended audience of teenagers. Those who are in the process of taking
standardized tests, like the SAT, face this issue of standardization seemingly
every second of their high school lives. As someone who has recently gone
through the process of standardized tests this poem has personal significance,
and does a great job of undermining the overwhelming idea of standardization. (I
find it important to not that Loyola, being a unique Jesuit University, is one
of the few SAT/ACT optional schools in the country!)
“Directions for Resisting the SAT” has a subversive
message that highlights the importance of creating your own future from your
own individual model. Hague’s message sheds light on the way in which rules can
often become barriers for success, and how no one person can be summarized by a
number, test, or even a few words.
These messages contrast with the militaristic structure of “First
Practice” by Gary Gildner.
Gildner uses the physical structure of the poem and emphasizes
the drawbacks of competition to draw attention to the unintended consequences
of success. Gildner structures “First Practice” into two separate stanzas
connected by the two words, “No one.” Those two words are significant because
the represent the sole barrier that divides the two stanzas. In many ways that
line is symbolic of a coach or referee of two different teams. In addition, the
two separate stanzas come to represent the two lines that the speaker says
Clifford Hill divided them into. This stanza structure draws attention to the
divisional properties of competition.
Gildner uses Clifford Hill as a symbol to represent
the drawbacks of too much competition. The speaker characterizes Clifford Hill
as a, “man who believed dogs/ ate dogs” Meaning that Clifford Hill has a
mentality that every other man in the world is in competition with him
therefore, he must compete against them. Hill is described as a bully, and one
who, “ hates to lose.” Gildner uses this characterization of Clifford Hill as a
symbol of the success driven society that we live in today. Furthermore,
Gildner draws the reader focus on how people have become too focused on winning
that they can no longer see the benefits of losing. When Clifford Hill states,
“ I don’t want to see/ any marks when you’re dressed, /” The reader gets an
impression that anything short of winning is unacceptable, and that you will be
looked down upon if you fail to succeed. Gildner suggests that the success-oriented
society we live in misses the potential benefits of losing or failing, like the
benefits of learning from mistakes. As a result, we become weaker as a whole
society, and we forget about the unknown consequences of success that are often
harmful. A possible solution to this bleak success oriented society is more
people like Chef Sampson.
In Stephanine Shapiro’s, “ Serving Up Hope” Chef
Sampson is idealized as a figure that represents success in its purist form. If
Chef Sampson had attended Loyola University I believe Father Linnane would be
overjoyed with the way Chef Sampson has gone about his life. As executive chef at the five-star
restaurant Harbor Court, Chef Sampson could have easily stayed at Harbor Court,
and continued up the culinary ladder. Fortunately, he decided to, “switch
roles,” and begin a path of community building. This path that Chef Sampson
went down epitomizes how Jesuits define success. Chef Sampson was at the pinnacle
of his culinary career. He seem to succeed in ways that some chefs can only
dream of. However, Sampson never lost sight of his true ambitions of community
building. After Sampson started “Chefs in the Making” he continued to help
those suffering from drug issues. Sampson’s creation of “Chaefs in the Making”
is a culmination of his success in the culinary world, and in the community. This community outlook is an example of achievement
that is the result of a person who remained rooted in sound morals. In Bharati
Mukherjee’s, “A Father” we see the resulting consequences of one who loses
sight of how they define success.
In the short story, “A Father” Mukherjee illustrates
the unfortunate the common side effects of success. Mr. Bhowmick, a father and
husband, is by all means a successful man. After leaving India he secured a job
as, “Chief Engineer,” for General Motors in Detroit. Coming from nothing in
India Mr. Bhowmick’s apparent accomplishments would make most believe he leads
a happy and comfortable life. Unfortunately, this is not the case at all. He
states that he does, “not love his wife now, and he had not loved her then (during
the wedding).” In addition, he gets very little satisfaction from his highly
successful daughter. What Mukherjee suggests from all of this is that success
can be incredibly constructive or destructive. In cases like Chef Sampson we
see the constructive nature of success, however in a case illustrated in “A
Father” where the climax of the story results in Mr. Bhowmick striking his
daughter we see the destructive nature of success. Additionally, in, “A Father”
we see the blinding property of success. Mr. Bhowmick became so caught up in
his views of success that he neglects to see the family he created. He becomes
blinded by his idea of success, and as a result he comes to destroy.
No comments:
Post a Comment