In the 8 summers I spent at what was then called National Music Camp in Interlochen, MI, known then as "the home of America's gifte youth" (and trust me, we could take the Mickey Mouse Club song and have fun with gifted youth)(, atone of he Sunday Morning non-denominational services, we would have a reading from Matthew of the Parable of the Talents. Yes, many of us understood that a talent was an ancient measure of money, but the clear intention to have us think of our gifts, the English synonym of talent actually derived from this parable. We were not to be like the unfaithful servant and fail to develop those talents.
I suppose that I am far from alone in having experienced someone telling me of something I could do, "Boy, if I had your talent I would ..." or "why with your gifts aren' you using them to make more money?" In the profession for which the latter part of my life has been defined, for all the respect we so often have ostensibly proffered in our direction, we are also reminded of the old saw that "those who can, do; those who can't, teach."
It is interesting that in many of these exchanges the underlying sentiment is often clearly that a talent is only of value insofar as it has a pecuniary value. In that sense, one might say our approach to talents returns to the original meaning of the word in the famous parable.
But even if we remove the crass monetary evaluation, there is still a question of the responsibility we have to the talents an gifts we may have. It is a reflection upon that concern which is the subject of this Saturday Morning reflection.
As I pass through the 2nd half of my 7th decade, there are several things that are clear to me when one considers the gifts or talents of people, including myself.
First we often do not know all our talents - we often are not presented with opportunities sufficient to enable us to discover how good we can be at something, or even that we have a real passion for it.
Second, many people cannot explore fully all the talents they know they have.
Third, our education system, as it increasingly narrows it focus to those things easily tested, fails to let many of our young people even properly develop the gifts they know they have, much less have the opportunity to explore others. This, by the way, is very true of the overly tested subjects of language (reading and writing) and mathematics, since the beauty and fascination of both are so often squeeze out by how we assess in those domains.
Finally - and this is critical - just because someone can do something well does not mean s/he should do it.
I thing the first three items are fairly self-evident to anyone who has taken the time to seriously reflect about them. I have seen too many students who others might have written off as dull and/or limited in ability suddenly shine, show a flash of real brilliance, in something that matters to them. As far as not being able to fully explore all one's talents, many people find they have to make clear choices between say an academic pursuit, a musical talent, and an athletic ability: that statement might describe fully 1/3 of the students I taught in honors and Advanced Placement classes, usually at least two of he three categories, with others entering as well - dance, poetry, art, cooking, fashion design, etc.
Since I have often written about the third of the three numbered points, I want instead to focus on the last - that just because we can do something well does not mean we should do it.
Sometimes the issue may be one of conscience or morality - I am superb at preparing people to take standardized tests like the SAT, and in fact could make very good money doing so either working for someone else or especially setting up my own tutoring practice. In fact, I have worked for several organizations that provided classes (Princeton Review) or tutoring (Princeton Review and Prestige Tutors). But the vast majority of those who purchase such services for their offspring have children who are already advantaged on such tests by virtue of family background and socioeconomics, the classes and tutoring serving primarily to exacerbate the inequality by which they already benefit.
I know people who are what is called profoundly gifted - they are superbly talented in a number of domains. I will not presume to speak for them, since I have seen some who somehow are able to use their talents quite fully across multiple domains in a way that is somewhat alien to my own experience.
To a degree this is, as is much of my writing, an open sharing as I reflect upon my own experience.
When I was a small child, my first piano teacher wanted to put me on the concert stage and a school system that was reluctant to accelerate students regularly pressured my parents to have me skip a grade. in part because my mother had been an academic child prodigy (graduating from Hunter College HS at 14, Cornell at 18, Columbia Law at 21), I was sheltered from what that could have meant. Looking back I might say that I developed none of my talents - musical or academic - as much as I could have had I been pushe. Often I slid by on sheer "talent" because those teaching me did not know how to provoke or challenge me. I do not blame them, in fact I thank them, because partially as a result I had a semi-normal childhood (as much as one could in our very dysfunctional household) which broadened and deepened me as a person as much as it may have limited my performing spectacularly as perhaps anticipated by that first piano teacher.
Coming as I did from a fairly non-athletic family, being able to play interscholastic and intercollegiate sports was important for my self-esteem. I was never the first picked for sports, but was usually in the top third, in part because I used my natural analytic abilities to get more from physical abilities lesser than some around me.
What is interesting is that it was only at the end of my participation in intercollegiate athletics that I finally discovered where i was superb - with quick reflexes, an ability to process huge amounts of visual information in motion, relatively strong hands, and a well-developed understanding of the game, I was a spectacular college goalie. I was about to drop out for the 2nd time, had been fooling around in the goal during practice, when the JV goalie who was also the backup varsity goalie broke his hand. I played very well in te final JV game, and since I was dropping out was as a courtesy allowed to suit up for the final varsity game. When the varsity goalie tore up his knee 1/3 of the way through the game, I went in for the rest. Years later the hall of fame coach Jimmy Mills told me that after the JV game he had almost started me over the senior, but because he had played all season and it was his final game, did not follow his instincts. We lost that game to Swarthmore 1-0. I did not give up the goal. It definitely should have been at least 2-0 and maybe 3 or 4 for them. I had several outstanding saves in the goal, and one truly memorable moment: their first string all-american striker came on a breakaway, I sprinted out of goal, and outside the box, perhaps 25-30 yards from the goal line tackled (soccer style) him, putting him on his ass and taking the ball away.
I mention that not so much to brag, although I am obviously still proud of that moment, rather to use it as an illustration. I had a real talent as a goalie, one far greater than my talent as a field player, and one I discovered almost accidentally. I would years later occasionally play goalie in an adult league, but my discovery of this talent was effectively too late for me to fully develop it.
When I was in school and in college I struggled as a writer. I could not find a voice. I equally struggled to find how I could translate my perceptions to words offered to others. By my young adulthood, after dropping out of college the 2nd time after that soccer game, I was already becoming confident in my abilities to communicate orally, even on an ad hoc basis. But then I had the feed back of the people to whom my remarks were offered, and I could adjust very quickly. As I developed that talent, it was preparing me for my later role as a teacher.
But writing was different - even if I knew the audience, it was not necessarily an interactive process, and to avoid being trappe within the limits of my own thinking I was heavily dependent upon feedback.
I think it fair to say that over the years I have become a somewhat skilled writer. Some might even say I have a real talent for certain kinds of writing, even though as yet there has been little financial reward for my efforts as a writer. Not that there have not been offers - publishers have approached me, but what they wanted in a book was not what I wanted to write. It is this that leads me to ponder the question in the title of this post.
Like my teaching - which is what primarily defines the latter part of my adulthood - I find that applying any skill, gift, talent I may have primarily for the economic benefit it brings me very unsatisfying. Only insofar as I can see what I do having benefit to society beyond myself does it have sufficient meaning for me to apply it.
If I return to the Parable of the Talents, I think I am inclined to interpret the master who gives us the talents that we can either put to use or bury in the ground can be seen - at least for me - as human society. I cannot apply my "talent" as a teacher in isolation from others, my writing as meaningful as it may at times be for more has little point if it speaks not to at least one other person.
Yes, there is satisfaction in doing something well and receiving acknowledgement and even praise from others, although sometimes simple thanks matter more, and what matters most to me is to see it in some way unlock something in someone else - after all, I am a teacher.
I have had the luxury of being able to lead a comfortable and in many ways richly fulfilling life without having to pervert my talent - to put it out for interest returned by the bankers. I have certainly not had to bury my talents, although I have over time chosen o focus on some and not on others.
which leas me to what perhaps will pass for something of a conclusion. I think ultimately our responsibility to our talents is to adress them with as much integrity as we can given the limits of our own lives. For some those limits are economic - we have to have money to survive. For others we choose to make commitments - of family, or of other things - that preclude our doing with our talents what otherwise might be possible. If there is something about this to which I might apply some criticism it is that too mjch f how our society is structured forces many people away from what they could really do well, from what they really enjoy, even it they know - and remember, many never even get the opportunity to discover talents, or else discover them too late for it to be meaningful, as I did about my talent as a goalie.
Which leads me to this observation - I am not merely a teacher, but also a social critic, one who uses whatever talent he has as a writer to help illuminate aras of our society I find wanting, restrictive of the full blossoming of the possibilities of the people around us.
Insofar was we measure things by pecuniary measures we keep people from discovering and/or from developing and using the talents that should be their right - a right to explore then decide for themselves which among these they will use, whether for earning a living if possible or at least for maintaining one's own sanity.
So perhaps I do not have a real "conclusion." Reflections often raise as many questions as they answer. Perhaps that is also true of this.
It is my practice to reflect, particular on Saturday mornings.
For better or worse I usually choose to share, utilizing whatever talent I may have as a writer.
Make of this whatever you will.
Peace.