Bennett, Oliver. "The manufacture of hope: religion, eschatology and the culture of optimism." International Journal of Cultural Policy, vol. 17, no. 2, 2011, pp. 115- 130, Academic Search Premier. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
This source was
selected because of its angle regarding purposes for religious pursuits. The studies reflect religious adherence for
the purpose of having a life filled with optimism and hope. This parallels to Hal, who uses religion to find
hope in his mediocre life. Hal becomes
susceptible to an unauthentic faith because as soon as the hope dissipates and
life doesn’t go as planned, the religious adherence and devout practices
cease.
Dolive, Evan. "Dolive: 'Millenials' not cause of church attendance decline." Longview News-Journal [Texas], 2 Sept. 2016, Academic Search Premier. Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
This source was
selected because it offers a postulation regarding why church attendance and
overall spiritual pursuits are declining.
The strict stigma and judgmental stereotype regarding those within the
Church dissuades the younger generation from entering a faithful
community. This contributes to the loss
of authenticity in religion in today’s society, which provides evidence for my overall
purpose of the essay.
Garcia-Rivera, Alex. "Mass should be a come-as-you-are party." U.S. Catholic, Aug. 1995, Accessed 10 Nov. 2016.
This source was
selected because it emphasizes how the institutionalizing of religion has
prompted a decline in the spiritual connection long treasured in religious
pursuits. The repetitious ceremonies and
rituals make finding a genuine connection difficult. The patterns of religion have become habitual
exercises that are performed without meaning and hinder one from finding true
spiritual connection, which contributes to the overall purpose of proving the
loss in authenticity in religious faith.
After much brainstorming and formulating questions that offer depth and critical analysis for a research paper, I have concluded to focus my essay on the topic of religion. The following ten questions were the result of brainstorming processes:
1) Is religion in the world losing authenticity?
2) Is the popularity of religious practices waning?
3) Do the majority of religious participants practice religion to conform with their respective peers and community?
4) Does religion simply exist as a source of hope for people when times are bad?
5) Are faith and passion still common elements in practicing dogmatic pursuits within religious institutions?
6) Is Hal truly connected spiritually with God or is religion simply an outlet to blame his problems on?
7) Is there ever a truly genuine connection with God that is prevalent throughout Friendswood?
8) Has religion evolved into an obsolete practice that clings too heavily on ancient concepts?
9) Has religion in today's society become superficial?
10) Does genuine faith still exist in the multitude that used to prevail in the past?
After reviewing the questions, I created a more refined question that encapsulates the topics of the questions above in which I plan to focus my essay on. The following is the refined question that will guide the direction of my essay:
Is religion losing authenticity and becoming a dogmatic restraint that people follow simply to conform to familial and communal expectations?
After arriving at a question suitable for my essay, the following thesis statement was created:
Because religious pursuits are evolving to become dogmatic restraints that people follow to conform to familial and communal expectations, a loss in the spiritual authenticity is waning. Therefore, the superficiality that now develops within religious communities impedes on true pursuance of spiritual connections with God.
The following video captures some of the issues I may touch upon in my essay.
6) Discuss Jose. Who is he? What makes him a significant character? What happens to him that motivates his activism? What is Hal’s initial response to Jose?
Though only a minor character that is left out of the central burning conflict of the novel, Jose becomes a crucial contributor to the plot as well as a strong follower of positive accountability. Jose is one of the security guards who works for Avery Taft. Like Cully, Jose sits in an old trailer during the night and goes on rounds to ensure no trespassers set foot into the Banes Fields site. He befriends Cully as the two bond over a mutual hatred and disgust for Avert Taft.
Jose’s true significance to the novel becomes apparent only in the later stages of the book. It is when Jose “got a rash all over that arm” (Steinke 343) and “couldn't breathe” (343) after following Avery’s orders to dig something up. Taft’s orders led Jose to perform a task that forced him to come into contact with “black stuff in the dirt” (Steinke 343). The contaminants in Avery’s building site prompted Jose to suffer serious health impediments, such as burning rashes and flares in long suppressed asthma.
The event prompted Jose to look towards activism, which is where his significance as a character becomes crucial. Jose was harmed by Taft’s sketchy and unethical business actions, and the injuries were enough to surge Jose into a powerful whirlwind of activism. Jose told Friendswood Dispatch that, “He’d seen black tars and pools of green brackish oil near the construction-it had given him breathing problems” (Steinke 367). He then showed the public that Avery Taft dismissed such alarming dangers. Jose revealed Taft for the grimy and greedy business man that he is. He told the public that Taft thought such occurrences were “normal things at a building site” (Steinke 367). No longer could the schemes go on and Jose’s actions were enough to cease dangerous building that would lead residents to live in houses built on hazardous toxins. Jose’s activism saved the health of the town and stopped a disastrous catastrophe before it took its toll. Jose also proved that Lee was right, and he forced the EPA and the public to confront the truth and see the situation for what it truly is.
His exhibition of positive accountability became prominent in the midst of the struggle. In order to affirm the legitimacy of his claims and show the world the real Avery Taft, Jose had to admit to his part. Jose admitted that, “He’d been asked to hire a crew to bury a huge plastic box” (Steinke 367). Jose did not hide the fact that he buried a container of poisonous chemicals, and although at the time he was unaware of what the container was, he knew such a request was suspicious. Jose took responsibility for his part in the chaos, which reflects positive accountability. Jose also made sure that Taft and his industry was held accountable and made right their wrongs, which was another good exhibition of positive accountability. Jose was able to express his discontent in a calm way.
Though a key character, the response to Jose wasn’t always initially positive. When first hearing of Jose from Cully, Hal Holbrook didn’t give in a second glance nor acknowledge the importance of what he thought. When Cully told of Jose’s beliefs of the toxins, Hal Holbrook shrugged it off when he said, “There’s stuff like that all over town. There are oil fields just off I-45. There’s a refinery in Alvin. Been there for years. I don’t see the point in getting all worked up about it” (Steinke 343). Hal’s indifference and immediate nonchalance automatically degrade Jose’s claims to a bunch of nonsense. Hal’s first response to Jose stresses him to be insignificant and unimportant. Hal also belittles Jose’s injuries when he asks Cully, “Well, he’s breathing now, ain’t he?” (Steinke 343). Jose is hardly given the attention or concern that the situation demands, and he is regarded by Hal with such little significance. Hal clearly has no care or regards for Jose and what he does.
The following video captures the benefits of blowing the whistle, which is essentially what Jose did. Jose told the public information about Taft and his company dealings. The video shows that actions like Jose's should be embraced.
Works Cited
Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New York: Riverhead Books, 2014. Print.
How does Hal use blame to protect Cully and
himself? What is Hal trying to protect
himself from?
Hal has habitually
externalized all blame throughout the course of the novel. In order to maintain the perfect image he has
for his family and his son, Hal discharges such pain and discomfort of Cully’s
setbacks on outside forces. Hal uses
such blame to protect the image that he has so carefully crafted in his head
over the years. Cully is the star
football player, strong and handsome and resilient. He bonds with his father, and they have the
stereotypical American dream connection.
Having to accept the wrongs would shatter what holds them together. For instance, Hal is quick to rid his son’s
sexual assault as a small mistake. He
makes the mistake seem like a trivial human error that was bound to happen to
one who couldn’t control lust because “there always were and always would be
girls like that” (Stienke 149). Hal
finds every reason available to try to believe that his son was still wholesome
and good. Accepting anything less would
mark his failure as a parent. By
constantly placing blame on a force outside of himself, Hal is trying to
protect himself from reality. The
present offers little for Hal, so it is no surprise that he is preoccupied with
the better times in the past. Hal
distorts the truth in his mind because he needs to safeguard the one thing in
his life that goes right, and that is his son.
Cully becomes a beacon of hope and life for Hal. Cully becomes the manifestation of all the
happiness and joys that Hal has ever found in the world. Hal goes on to believe that “his son still
had all of that glory, the bright, athletic blue, unfaded” (Steinke 148). Cully breathes life into a dream that has
long passed for Hal. Hal feels boxed in
and subconsciously blames everyone because to do otherwise would mean to accept
the truth. It would mean to accept that
his son is no longer the burning light that brought him hope. It would mean that his life is barren of
hope, and that even his one joy has dissipated by the evils of the world.
Dex begins to befriend Willa. Is his friendship genuine? Why does he befriend Willa? Does he blame himself for what happens to
her?
The friendship that Dex is trying to
cement does have authenticity behind it, but his active efforts to physically
reach out to Willa were no doubt prompted by the rape rumors. It was evident since the beginning of the
novel that Dex always invested a large interest in Willa. Even when his friend Weeks went off about Willa
being weird with all her cat-like make-up and introverted hobbies, Dex defended
her saying, “She seems nice enough to me” (Steinke 42). He refused to let outside opinions influence
what he thought of Willa, Dex liked being her partner in English, and he had a
crush on her. Before the conflict began
to make the whole situation messy, Dex did have genuine care and concern for
Willa; however, such care would not have been expressed had the rape not occurred. Because Dex had such care for Willa, he has
placed upon himself a deep blame for what happened. Dex was at the scene of the event and was a
mere floor away from the violence inflicted on Willa, and he did nothing to
stop it. He left the Lawbournes house, leaving
Willa prey to the lust and violence with no protection. Dex absorbs the guilt and blame for the event
and tries to give solace to his tortured conscience by befriending Willa. The blame that Dex takes on is enhanced by
his mother’s avid stance on the issue.
His mother ardently scolds the collapse of integrity when she preaches, “There
were all these boys there just sitting drinking downstairs or swimming. Why didn’t they do anything to stop it? It just kills me that boys here would do
that, boys I’ve had in my own house (Steinke 181). It has already been established in the
beginning of the novel that Dex has a strong connection with his mother, so it
can therefore be implied that he holds his mother’s opinions with the highest
respects. When his mother vocalizes her
outrage at such incompetent boys who allow such violence to take place, Dex
further internalizes the blame. He falls
shorts of his mother’s expectations and feels the grimy dirt of a guilt that
lingers in his heart. Somehow
befriending Willa compensates for his failure to help her, so he does his best
to help her now.
Choose an institution (marriage, government, academic,
church, family, mass media) to discuss why “they” are speaking and why “they”
are blaming.
The institution of the Church, though
taking a low-key stance up to now in the novel, has subtly inflicted an intense
blame onto Willa. When Willa goes to
meet with Pastor Sparks, he surprisingly did not offer any words of warmth or
comfort. Everything he said seemed cold
and demoralizing that made Willa feel unfit in the hands of God. Pastor Sparks went on to ask her, “Because
you know you had free will to go to that house, didn’t you?” (Steinke
187). This was the pastor’s elusive way
of making Willa see that her course of actions are to blame for the mess, as if
it was her free will that caused Cully to violate and rape her. Pastor Sparks makes the Church seem to be a
very cold, unforgiving place that fails to provide the nurturing needed for
someone who has been afflicted by the cruelest of sins. The question seems to hang in the air as to
why the Church would speak on this topic. It seems that the Church sees the situation
differently than how Willa interprets it.
The Church fails to see the vulnerable girl who was drugged, sexually
violated by multiple boys, and left alone to forget everything. Rather, the Church sees a sexually loose
woman who indulges in promiscuity and lures other men into temptation and
forces them to act on their lust. In
terms of the Church, Willa becomes a whore, and according to Scripture, the
Church and “the beast will hate the whore; they will devour her flesh and burn
her up with fire” (Steinke 220). Willa
becomes a walking symbol of lust that leads others into sin, so the Church must
speak and proclaim the evils of promiscuous behavior. Additionally, the Church wants to keep its
hands clean of sin, so what better way to do that than to place the blame on
Willa? It gives the Church a bad reputation
that one of its regular parishioners fell victim to the Devil. To try to cover the whole thing up and
displace themselves far away from the nasty fallout, the Church finds it easier
to blame Willa and look the other way.
Getting involved would create an intricate web of negative attention
that would leave the Church in a gridlock.
It’s simpler to remove themselves from the conflict rather than cross
the blurry line that questions the Church belief system.
Works Cited
Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New
York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA, 2014. Print.
It is in
the midst of the most grueling situations that the most desperate cries for
change become audible. The tortured
grief that plagues Lee’s heart took root in the wood-paneled room of City Hall
and bloomed into a hot-blooded passion. Complacent
men who believed they had the authority to pass the final judgment couldn’t
dampen the fire in Lee’s soul. Because
of Lee’s persistent tenacity to make her voice heard, it was no surprise that the
smug officials perceived Lee to be an annoying gnat that caused a rift between
them and their beloved plans. Lee
clearly stood as a threat, but to treat her as such would give her the momentum
to surge forward with even greater vivacity than she did before. Showing their intimidation would loosen the
very foundations in which they built their authority on, so they try to write
Lee off as an insane nutcase who has lost all the reason needed to be considered a valid
source of information. The officials
attempted to create an impenetrable wall that would not let Lee’s ideas seep
through the cracks. Only by belittling
Lee and ignoring her very daunting case could they hope to succeed. Lee was lucky if she could scrape away the
wall brick by brick, for “it was rare that she managed to get her concerns on
the agenda anymore…she could usually say a few things about her research before
adjournment, and maybe two or three out of thirty people would listen” (Steinke
87). The officials absorbed a persona of
nonchalance and acted as if the sweat didn’t drip down their brow. The councilman with a “blunt face like a bull’s”
stood “with that thin smile” (Steinke 87-88). The officials created an illusion of being
untouchable and treated Lee as if she held very little importance, as if she
was a feeble human being who was incapable of any real contributions to
society. By doing such, they failed to fulfill their
responsibility to protect. They failed
to protect the rights of the citizens to dissent, they failed to acknowledge the
potential health hazards to the community, and they failed to safeguard the
rights of the citizens handed down by the Constitution.
The EPA took
a similar response to Lee by painting themselves as the epitome of reason and
practicality and marking Lee as a bundle of irrational antics. When Lee counters Ms. Dawson’s testament of
viable land, Dawson retorted, “Cancer rates, as you know, can be
deceptive. There are many factors…other
health stressors such as nutrition, smoking habits, an older population”
(Steinke 89). Dawson’s response
exhibited how the EPA attempted to strip Lee’s carefully calculated argument into
a jumble of nonsense, which invalidated the legitimacy of Lee’s claims. To further make Lee’s argument vulnerable,
Dawson was quick to ask “May I ask how you got those?” when Lee flashed the
pictures she took at Banes Field (Steinke 89).
The EPA drew the audience’s attention towards Lee’s illegal trespassing
to further reflect her as being mentally unstable and confused. It was hard to concentrate on Lee’s very
alarming evidence when the opposition worked to show Lee’s pitfalls, such as
failing to act in accordance with the law.
In doing this, the EPA failed to fulfill their responsibility to
protect. They are fully aware of the
danger that surrounds building on the chemical dump site. They are gambling with the lives of many
people. They should take more intensive
investigations to ensure guaranteed safety.
Works Cited
Steinke, Rene.Friendswood. New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA, 2014. Print.
When is it okay to dissent? This question has answers varying far and
wide. There’s really no concrete
guidelines that will mark what dictates when it’s okay to go against the grain
and when it’s okay to just go with the flow.
With this in mind, the answer to this question is open to fluctuation as
attempts are made to make some tangibility out of such an abstract topic.
Based on the readings, there is one
glaringly obvious reason that stands at the forefront when it comes to
pinpointing when it is acceptable to dissent.
Dissent is warranted in any situation in which a person or group does
unjustifiable harm that hurts a collective group or individual. In fact, not only is it warranted, but the
dissent should be inflamed to the point where a back seat is not taken and a
vocal stance parades its ideas until the people have no choice but to
listen. Ignorant fools who are too
cowardly to admit their wrongs should not walk away from the mess they made
unscathed. They sit in denial, as if somehow
the toxic fall-out of their slimy course of actions was some surprise twist in
fate. The consequences of their actions
are not accidents, they should not come as shocks. Dissent must be exercised loud when vile
people paint themselves as victims when they know they are the culprits who
knowingly committed unforgivable harm to others.
The ongoing environmental issues in
Friendswood that keep being labeled as “safe” is indeed a very culpable cause
for dissent. Take Rue Banes, a culprit
of chemical waste disposal in Rosemont, for example. In what appeared to be an interrogation, Rue
Banes said, “I had my man dig a pit, and we poured the waste in there. Every year, the agencies came out and tested
the soil, and except for one or two times, the levels came out clean…Once or
twice the smell got bad, and when I told Garbit, they sent out a small plane
that sprayed a perfuming agent to cover it…I had no idea” (Steinke 33). It’s incredibly hard to believe that
companies had no idea what their actions were doing to the environment. Red flags could be mounted almost
everywhere. The few tests that didn’t
come out clean and the odd smell should have been huge warning bells that demanded
immediate investigation. And how could
all these companies continue to validate the safety of their clearly toxic
actions when people all around were being fatally harmed? Was Michelle Small’s stillborn baby some
strange fluke of events? Was the
permanent brain damage inflicted on the teenager who dumped the chemical waste
for Rue Banes in no way related to the exposure to deadly toxins? How many times did oil have to seep through
the cracks in residential driveways before people stopped thinking about their
pockets? Were the deaths of vibrant
souls like Jess really dismissed to have absolutely no correlation to the
alarming levels of chemicals? Lee and
other activists should be dissenting, and not only is it okay to in this
situation, but it is necessary. It is
necessary to dissent because if there is no one to testify against the
officials who are comfy on their high thrones, there will never be a change in
the way society is run.
Likewise, the many citizens in East
Chicago experience a similar situation that deems dissent to be okay. When “hundreds of children suffer from
excessive levels of lead in their blood,” there is clearly a jarring problem in
the governing system that will dictate much dissent to solve the problem (Goodnough
4). If no one were ever to dissent and
voice out, there would be no restraints that force organizations like the EPA
and businesses to perform their jobs in a way that guarantees the safety of
others.
A slightly differing situation
arises in the form of the Stanford rape case.
Although this deviates from the environmental themes, a similar
structure occurs that shows when it’s okay to dissent. In the former two scenarios, dissent was
deemed okay because without it, the culprits receive no repercussions and could
continue to harm others. In a similar
way, if the poor victim of sexual assault never voiced her justifiable disgust
with the results of the Brock Turner case, a precedent would be established
that made sexual assault excusable if intoxication was involved during the time
of the crime. With that kind of
precedent in place, people like Brock Turner could get away with serious
felonies that should never have occurred in the first place. The victim executed perfectly justifiable
dissent when she spoke out and said, “Alcohol was not the one who stripped me,
fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost naked” (Baker
9). Such dissent could escalate to the
creation of a better legal system that does not tolerate sexual assault under
any circumstances.
So when is dissent okay? There
really is no one clear answer that can cover all the bases. But if there is anything that can be
determined, when you feel a passion that stirs in your heart and you know deep
down that there must be a change, dissent will most certainly be okay.
The following video clearly captures how speaking your mind is never a crime, and that it can be a powerful tool that incites momentous change.
Work Cited:
Baker, Katie. "Here's The
Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker News."BuzzFeed. N.p., n.d. Web.
1 Sept. 2016.
Goodnough, Abby. "Their
Soil Toxic, 1,100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes - The New York
Times."The New York Times - Breaking News, World News
& Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Sept. 2016.
Steinke, Rene.Friendswood.
New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA, 2014. Print.
In the first thirty pages of the novel, it is apparent that the characters of Lee, Hal, and Willa are becoming the sole focus. Author Steinke crafts her writing in a way that allows the reader to absorb snippets of information regarding the characters. Just in the first few pages, Steinke offers glimpses of Lee’s past, such as her split from her husband Jack, to help the reader better understand her behaviors in the present. On page thirty, there is evidence to suggest some tragedy regarding Lee’s daughter Jess when she wrote, “Jess felt close and far away at the same time, as if she were hiding somewhere, tiny, in the pulsing phone waves between them” (Steinke 30). These ominous suggestions coupled with the melancholic vibes created by Lee’s solitude provide valuable insight regarding Lee’s resilience. Lee becomes a woman toughened by the harsh realities of poverty, strained familial ties, and separation. Lee harnesses her life experiences into a sole purpose: Trying to uncover the fraud of the oil refinery companies that destroyed part of her past. Her past fuels her passion for justice.
Hal immediately strikes the reader as a man who has lost himself in a world of monotony and taxing work. Having been worn down, involved in an affair, and addicted to alcohol, he “said a tired prayer. Help” (Steinke 18). The desperation and need for a revival in his life is clear.
In trying to uncover Willa’s character, the reader gets the sense that she appears to have many normal teenage experiences. She gets butterflies around boys, hangs with her best friend Dani, and sometimes goes to parties in the woods; however, the author does leave the reader to wonder whether some traumatic experience is locked away in her past somewhere. Her frequent hallucinations could have root in some disturbing experience that Willa’s mind is trying to suppress.
In describing Friendswood, Steinke creates an atmosphere of destruction that continues to reflect a town battered and torn by multiple influences. Right from the first page, the town is written to have “fallen branches and toppled road signs” from a ravaging storm (Steinke 1). Friendswood appears to be a battleground that has been succumbing to the forces of both man and nature. When the oil company attempted to bury the oil, the once lively Texas town fell into toxic turmoil. The lands smelled “acidic and bitter, benzane fumes or worse” (Steinke 11). The land became tainted with pipe and scraps of rubber. To further emphasize the dilapidated and crumbling nature of the town, Steinke wrote, “The sludge appeared, thick and oozing and with a streak of fluorescent green” (Steinke 28). The sludge is personified into being an evil force that continues to creep in on the town and suffocate its beauty, vivacity, and hope. With such descriptions, Friendswood becomes an incredibly desolate and hopeless place that is inundated with despair, which is reflected by the lost feelings experienced by the characters. The video below captures much of the grief and desperation that characterizes Friendswood in their fight against human neglect of the environment.
Work Cited: Steinke, R. (2014). Friendswood. New York, New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA.
