It’s now live!

Check it out!

“Actually, they frequently wind up alleviating the damage done by money and weapons, or ’seducing’ the ‘underdeveloped’ to the benefits of the world of affluence and achievement.”

The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn’t have volunteered in the first place…I am here to suggest that you voluntarily renounce excercising the power which being an American gives you.”

Ivan Illich

This quote suggests that American’s feel they have a debt to underdeveloped countries. As Americans, why might we feel we have a debt to poorer countries and people? How can a “do-gooder” take into account the context of the situation they volunteering within, learn the repercussions of this, and inform future volunteers?

Illich’s speech showed us a perspective of service which we do not normally think about or hear. The questions he raises could help us ensure that our service at the Boys and Girls Club is productive. Another question we could ask is, “Is it necessary to alleviate the damage done?” Also, is it possible to help in one area and do damage in the other? If so, how do we reach a compromise?

Colleen, Lynn Leigh, and Casey

Service: to supply a person with something.

“I want us to talk about why, in the context of conflicting interests and the historical dominance of one racial or gender group over another, it is possible that ’service,’ in and of itself, can have racist or sexist outcomes despite good intentions. For example, I resist the notion of service learning for U.S. students in the Philippines, my country of origin, because I think it perpetuates a ‘colonial mentality’ among Filipinos and a kind of ‘manifest destiny’ amoung U.S. students. To my way of thinking, the results of the history of U.S. dominance in the Philippines is so overwhelming that it is almost impossible for a U.S. student doing what is regarded on both sides as ’service’ not to deliver a message of superiority.”

How does the notion of modern Americans supplying less wealthy countries with goods and services effect the people being serviced; what are the racial and cultural ramifications?

Americans often do without thinking causing harm to others unintentionally. It is important for Americans to be more aware of what effect they have on the people they are “serving” and how these people view them as a result of their actions.

Another question we could be asking is “do the people Americans provide services to really want our ‘help?”‘ It is hard as Americans to really know the impact we have on others. As Americans we seem to have a mindset that since we have a more developed country (often viewed by Americans as the best country), that it is our duty to help those we percieve to be less fortunate, regardless of whether our help has been asked for or not.

Hopefully our question will lead American service learners in foreign countries, or in any cultural setting different from their own, to stop and think about the effects of their service, and whether it is really needed/desired, and possibly even humble them a little.

A group like this could not have developed unless a mood in the United States had supported it – the belief that any true American must share God’s blessings with his poorer fellow men. The idea that every American has something to give, and at all times may, can, and should give it, explains why it occurred to students that they could help Mexican peasants ‘develop’ by spending a few months in their villages.”

How can this mindset, this way of thinking, actually cause harm where good is intended?

This question is highly relevant to our own service learning that is central to this course. It leads to personal questions: are we wasting our own time? Are we causing harm at the Boys and Girls clubs when we mean to be helping the children there? Answering this initial question can guide how we spend time ourselves, both during this quarter and as we do service in the future. Our question is not a mere exercise in intellectual thinking; it has ramifications in real life and in our success in this class and at the Boys and Girls club. The question can also lead to more general ponderings: What forms of service and practices common to service really do help? Which ones cause harm? How can we perform service in the most effective way? Which forms of service should be abandoned altogether? How can you tell the difference? Asking our initial question can lead to a transformation of the ways we do service, both as individuals and as a community.

One way in which service can cause harm is when the volunteers force ideals and culture on the people who are being served. While the people may have physical needs – shelter, medicine, clean water – they are generally content with their culture, which doesn’t necessarily need changing. When volunteers try to impose elements of their own culture on those being served, they can destroy a culture as good as their own, contribute to a global monoculture, and cause turmoil in the country as the old and new cultures clash.

My quote comes from page 316 of the Cruz reading.

“I would argue that the possibility of mutuality of interests and needs implied in the concept of reciprocal learning could be more easily realized if it were not tied to any notion of service.”

How does the balance of powers shift in a relationship between two people when servicing another is involved?

Service according to our definition implies that one person is superior to the other when servicing their partner. This question raises concerns of respect within the partnership whether it be personal or in the community. In addition, we could have looked into gender roles. Is it the man that is always dominating? Is it the person servicing or the person receiving that is in power? Our question is important because it leads into the previous question.

The balance of power is affected when sex is brought into a relationship due to emotions and attachment. Ideally, both partners would have an equal balance in power. It could cause tension, vulnerability, eagerness to trust, and a debt that one partner feels they owe to the other.

In this context, the idea of service can be seen as negative. Is service a good thing in regards to the partnership if it is not balanced?

-“I think it is possible to empower learners (through service learning) and not promote the common good (by reinforcing a sense of inferiority among those “served” or a false sense of power among those who “serve”).

-How do you avoid the sense of inferiority if/when service is seen as a process?

-The other questions we have are: How does it relate to other service not just missions in Mexico?  If your motivation for service is skewed, then is your service towards people beneficial or detrimental?

-These questions are worth pursuing because the answers can give insight into whether or not a person should even be involved in service.   

At worst, in your “community development” spirit you might create just enough problems to get someone shot after your vacation ends and you rush back to your middleclass neighborhoods where your friends make jokes about “spics” and “wetbacks.”

Does this “community development” or repair and/or maintenance to the village actually improve the Mexican residents living conditions or is it rather something done for the volunteers personal fulfillment?

Claim-Illich interprets the reports they sent back on their labor as how only one perspective is being used. Illich’s reaction using “‘community development’ spirt”as a sarcastic way to express the volunteers ignorance of the actual reality of the situation, therefore creating a false sense of self-accomplishment.

The purpose of our question is questioning whether or not the volunteers are actually repairing anything and benefiting the Mexican community. Illich would say no and that they are presumptuous in thinking that they can go into the community and do any good or if what they are doing just worsens the situation. Others would contend that the simple service to village by the volunteers would help if by nothing else, simply providing a better living situation.

These questions will lead us into what is the difference between simply service and service learning. What can the volunteer do to provide a greater service both by learning themselves, as well as teaching the people whom which they are helping.

My quote comes from page 316 of the Cruz reading.

“I would argue that the possibility of mutuality of interests and needs implied in the concept of reciprocal learning could be more easily realized if it were not tied to any notion of service.”

The author would argue that volunteers and the people in need of help would both be more satisfied and get what they wanted if the volunteers were not focused on serving the people. Cruz believes in reciprocal learning. Both the volunteers and the people “in need” should be sharing a positive experience in which both sides truly understand each other and what each side wants and needs.

Our definition of service is: “also of a man, to have sexual intercourse with (a woman).” This could also apply to same-sex couples. This definition is functioning in the Cruz quote because when two people are having sex, it would be ideal for the two people to have mutual feelings about pleasing each other and how they want to be pleased. They should want to have fun exploring, instead of feeling that there must be a specific outcome of the sexual experience. They shouldn’t feel like they have to be having sex with their partner or “serving” their partners sexual needs. They should be doing it because they want to and need to. This definition of “service” implies mutual understanding and giving.

Ivan Illich gives a speech to the Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects, in Cuernavaca, Mexico. He opposes the movement of “missionary” and charity type American organizations who build houses in certain poor areas of Mexico. In the latter part of his speech when he is addressing the flaws of the InterAmerican Student Project system, he says, “Your reports about your work in Mexico, which you so kindly sent me, exude self-complacency. Your reports on past summers prove that you are not even capable of understanding that your dogooding in a Mexican village is even less relevant than it would be in a U.S. ghetto.” Illich interprets their reports as being defined as how only one perspective is being used. The “self-complacency” suggests that the reactions of a few Mexicans are masking the actual reality of the situation, and therefore creating a false sentiment of success. In turn, this word “dogooding” becomes the basis for cross-cultural learning: fulfilling moral goals at the expense of an Mexican dissent.