Similarly, Mr Stevens abandons his professional self in the belief of serving his Lord Darlington without protest, let alone question, for example, the order to fire two Jewish maids. Not only did he felt that the execution of this duty was an instance of “dignity” as a professional but admonishes Miss Kenton’s concerns as matters beyond their judgement, reminding her that “our professional duty is not to our own foibles and sentiments, but to the wishes of our employer” (Ishiguro, 1989, p. 107). As he says that the “butler’s ability [is] not to abandon the professional being for the private one at the least provocation” because, he continues, “great butlers are great by virtue of their ability [. . .] not be shaken out by external events, however surprising, alarming or vexing” (1989, pp. 42–43). Even though his employer later refers to this “minor incident” as “wrong” Stevens does not even for a moment thought it that way (1989, p. 109). Moreover, in service to his master, he even abandons his dying father by rationalising it with a thought that his father “would have wished me to carry on just now” (1989, p. 80). What he was to carry on was to attend to the guests of his employer who had come to attend “the conference of 1923” (1989, p. 52). 

Narrow Nationalism