We also discussed yesterday Richard Stengel's Time Magazine cover story on the efficacy of a national service program. Stengel argues that we need a stronger, more-centralized plan for supporting civic engagement. Among other proposals, he suggests the formation of a national service academy (akin to military academies), a public institution of higher education that would train young people interested in careers in various sectors of public service. He also argues for Baby Bonds, federal investment of $5,000 in every baby born in the U.S. Once of age, an individual would have the option of giving one year of service in return for the matured bond (about $20,000). Stengel's report is provocative on many levels. He also points out that cynicism and mistrust of the government is at an all-time high and so is volunteerism. And he cites some interesting studies that suggest that civic engagement is highest in homogenous communities--the more diverse a community, the less civically engaged its members.
We had a great (though quite heated) discussion of the article in class. Several students took much offense of the notion of "paid" service and thought this would sully the intentions and motivations of servers as well as the service itself. Some rejected the analogy and connection between "military service" and "community service" (Stengel suggests that those interested in their baby bonds could opt for either) as another example of polluting the "purity" of service. For some in the class, "service" has this exalted, pure, and apolitical status. Nobody in the class who opposed the military service/community service conflation expressed general opposition to the military in general or current policy in particular...but they did see military work as a completely different domain, a domain involving politics. My sense (and I want to clarify this next week) is that many in the class see joining the military as a political statement and/or a statement of particular partisan leanings. But community service, in their eyes, exists outside the world of political partisanship.
Stengel, Richard. "A Time to Serve." Time Magazine (10 September 2007): 49-67.
x-listed in 'bdegenaro'
Friday, September 21, 2007
workgroups
In my Writing for Civic Literacy class, students formed workgroups for their collaborative projects. Glad we waited until we'd had several class discussions and done a whole-class site visit to the foster home...which I think gave everybody more context for thinking about the actual work. Looks like we've got four workgroups.
1. Success Stories. A series of reports on folks who have aged out of the system and found success with independent living. St. Peter's wants to use these reports in their grants and as web content, to demonstrate effectiveness.
2. Legislative advocacy plan. A comprehensive report on the state of foster care in Detroit to use in Lansing to justify public support for the home.
3. Vocational plan. A comprehensive report on the Detroit job market including recommendations on the feasability of on-site vocational programming.
4. Training manuals for tutors. Instructions for their new volunteers who'll be doing direct, one-on-one instruction with the residents.
Woo! This is going to be an interesting couple of months.
x-listed in 'bdegenaro'
1. Success Stories. A series of reports on folks who have aged out of the system and found success with independent living. St. Peter's wants to use these reports in their grants and as web content, to demonstrate effectiveness.
2. Legislative advocacy plan. A comprehensive report on the state of foster care in Detroit to use in Lansing to justify public support for the home.
3. Vocational plan. A comprehensive report on the Detroit job market including recommendations on the feasability of on-site vocational programming.
4. Training manuals for tutors. Instructions for their new volunteers who'll be doing direct, one-on-one instruction with the residents.
Woo! This is going to be an interesting couple of months.
x-listed in 'bdegenaro'
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Morton
Keith Morton. "The Irony of Service: Charity, Project, and Social Change in Service Learning." Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 2 (1995): 19-32.
Morton rejects the prevailing notion that there exists a continuum of types of service and that faculty need to move students away from volunteerism toward advocacy. Instead, he proposes three distinct paradigms: charity, project, and social change, each having a set of logics and the potential for thin or thick execution, integrity, and depth.
"Most commonly, a service continuum is presented as running from charity to advocacy, from the personal to the political, from individual acts of caring that transcend time and space to collective action on mutual concerns that are grounded in particular places and histories" (20). In the continuum model, charity is painted as "giving of the self" with no concern for "lasting impact" (20). Advocacy, meanwhile, is concerned with change and is more "mature" and "complex" (20). Thus, something to move students toward, as it has greater concern with root causes and investment in relationships (21).
Instead, acknowledge that each has its own logic. We should thus be "challenging and supporting students to enter more deeply into the paradign in which they work; and intentionally exposing students to creative dissonance among the three forms" (21).
Charity's limited in that the work is fragmentary, focuses on deficits, and can create a dependency (21), but positive in that the work is person-centered and spiritually rich (25-26). Project models emphasize community problems and develop plans for solving those problems (21), the limitations being that sometimes there are unforseen consequences, universities are painted as saviors/experts, and can lack flexibility (22) and that the motivator for addressing problems can be a negative emotion like anger (27). Social change models involve collaborative work that reveals and analyzes root causes of injustice and power imbalances (22).
Any of these might be "thin" if "paternalistic" or fails to offer alternatives or "leave people tired and cynical" (28). "Thick" if "grounded in deeply held, internally coherent values; match means and ends, describe a primary way of interpreting and relating to the world; offer a way of defining problems and solutions; and suggest a vision of what a transformed world might look like" (28).
Morton rejects the prevailing notion that there exists a continuum of types of service and that faculty need to move students away from volunteerism toward advocacy. Instead, he proposes three distinct paradigms: charity, project, and social change, each having a set of logics and the potential for thin or thick execution, integrity, and depth.
"Most commonly, a service continuum is presented as running from charity to advocacy, from the personal to the political, from individual acts of caring that transcend time and space to collective action on mutual concerns that are grounded in particular places and histories" (20). In the continuum model, charity is painted as "giving of the self" with no concern for "lasting impact" (20). Advocacy, meanwhile, is concerned with change and is more "mature" and "complex" (20). Thus, something to move students toward, as it has greater concern with root causes and investment in relationships (21).
Instead, acknowledge that each has its own logic. We should thus be "challenging and supporting students to enter more deeply into the paradign in which they work; and intentionally exposing students to creative dissonance among the three forms" (21).
Charity's limited in that the work is fragmentary, focuses on deficits, and can create a dependency (21), but positive in that the work is person-centered and spiritually rich (25-26). Project models emphasize community problems and develop plans for solving those problems (21), the limitations being that sometimes there are unforseen consequences, universities are painted as saviors/experts, and can lack flexibility (22) and that the motivator for addressing problems can be a negative emotion like anger (27). Social change models involve collaborative work that reveals and analyzes root causes of injustice and power imbalances (22).
Any of these might be "thin" if "paternalistic" or fails to offer alternatives or "leave people tired and cynical" (28). "Thick" if "grounded in deeply held, internally coherent values; match means and ends, describe a primary way of interpreting and relating to the world; offer a way of defining problems and solutions; and suggest a vision of what a transformed world might look like" (28).
Friday, September 7, 2007
what kind of civic engagement makes us happy?
Yesterday I had the first sesion of my upper-level 'Writing for Civic Literacy' class. Great group of students, all coming to the class with a good deal of experience doing various kinds of civic work. Four have spent time doing hurricane relief on the gulf coast. Several spoke of growing up "in the church," where community service was mandatory. Most involve themselves in Volunteer Dearborn activities via student life on campus. Glad that they all have frames of reference to draw on in our discussions as well as our planning for our own course projects with the foster home.
My research assistant, who's sitting in on the class and conducting the interviews for our project looking into student notions of civics and community, is an intern with a think-tank in the college of ed. and doing research on child abuse and the foster care system. So she'll provide invaluable context for our work and be another resource for student projects.
For the research, I've been looking at a lot of literature on service learning (look here for critical summaries of that literature) that tries to take the pulse of student perceptions of civic engagement. The party line seems to be that students have much affinity for volunteerism but much skepticism toward activism. Much of the literature bemoans this as a sign of apathy and disengagement from the political process. One thread I'm starting to explore is the idea that students have an affective connection to "volunteer work," which feels good and lacks the agonism and discomfort of "activist work" (something I felt while handing out peace literature at the Dream Cruise two weeks ago!). Okay, that's worth exploring. But having digested the Wingspread Statement (a manifest written by students a few years back), I'm seeing that there may be a kind of converse to this, too. Many faculty have the opposite affective desire: one that involves a bodily attraction and passion for activism. The literature reflects this, especially that which bemoans apolitical students and uses as its evidence resistance to electoral politics and attraction to 'service sans politics.'
(cross-listed on bdegenaro blog)
My research assistant, who's sitting in on the class and conducting the interviews for our project looking into student notions of civics and community, is an intern with a think-tank in the college of ed. and doing research on child abuse and the foster care system. So she'll provide invaluable context for our work and be another resource for student projects.
For the research, I've been looking at a lot of literature on service learning (look here for critical summaries of that literature) that tries to take the pulse of student perceptions of civic engagement. The party line seems to be that students have much affinity for volunteerism but much skepticism toward activism. Much of the literature bemoans this as a sign of apathy and disengagement from the political process. One thread I'm starting to explore is the idea that students have an affective connection to "volunteer work," which feels good and lacks the agonism and discomfort of "activist work" (something I felt while handing out peace literature at the Dream Cruise two weeks ago!). Okay, that's worth exploring. But having digested the Wingspread Statement (a manifest written by students a few years back), I'm seeing that there may be a kind of converse to this, too. Many faculty have the opposite affective desire: one that involves a bodily attraction and passion for activism. The literature reflects this, especially that which bemoans apolitical students and uses as its evidence resistance to electoral politics and attraction to 'service sans politics.'
(cross-listed on bdegenaro blog)
Hart
Hart, Joseph. "Protest Is Deal. Long Live Protest." Utne Reader (May-June 2007): 38-40.
Hart suggests that the contemporary anti-war movement fails to affect much change and gain wider coverage because the movement uses the same tired strategies (i.e., non-violent street protests) that have been dominant for four decades. One critic quoted in the series' centerpiece calls these techniques "political exhibitionism" (39), referencing the fetishizing of the symbolic. The piece also charges that for many activists, this performance has become an end in and of itself. Hart argues that to get mass attention, the peace movement needs to engage the public in ways that are creative, dynamic, and interactive.
Some thoughts: This is what I'm talking about regarding affective dimensions of faculty-student relationships in service learning. Many faculty seem to be tied to the exhibiontism of activism and regret that students aren't tied to the same modes of social change. Faculty may feel nostalgia or other affective connections to activist modes. The problem arises when the ASL literature frames students as passive or apolitical. Maybe they just have a different set of affective connections (one tied to volunteerism, perhaps, or maybe too Wingspread's notion of "service politics").
Hart suggests that the contemporary anti-war movement fails to affect much change and gain wider coverage because the movement uses the same tired strategies (i.e., non-violent street protests) that have been dominant for four decades. One critic quoted in the series' centerpiece calls these techniques "political exhibitionism" (39), referencing the fetishizing of the symbolic. The piece also charges that for many activists, this performance has become an end in and of itself. Hart argues that to get mass attention, the peace movement needs to engage the public in ways that are creative, dynamic, and interactive.
Some thoughts: This is what I'm talking about regarding affective dimensions of faculty-student relationships in service learning. Many faculty seem to be tied to the exhibiontism of activism and regret that students aren't tied to the same modes of social change. Faculty may feel nostalgia or other affective connections to activist modes. The problem arises when the ASL literature frames students as passive or apolitical. Maybe they just have a different set of affective connections (one tied to volunteerism, perhaps, or maybe too Wingspread's notion of "service politics").
Long
Long, Sarah E. "The New Student Politics: The Wingspread Statement on Civic Engagement." Second Edition. Providence, Rhode Island: Campus Compact, 2002.
The official statement-cum-manifesto of the 2001 Wingspread Summit on Student Civic Engagement, which gathered 33 undergraduate activists and volunteers to discuss civic engagement.
I: Democracy and Education
Long et al argue that statisticians have got it wrong when they only use markers like voting to measure engagement, which they feel has "multiple manifestations" including the arts (alt papers, poetry slams) and involvement with the local or the global instead of the national level. They find "conventional politics...inaccessible" and state that "service is a viable and preferable (if not superior) alternative" (1). Countering binary thinking of much of the literature, they argue that service is an "alternative politics" where they: build relationships, learn organizing skills, increase awareness, and strategize for problem solving and social change. In other words, it's a step toward more traditional politics (2). They get involved for a variety of reasons (many overlooked or not well understood) including faith-inspired reasons and special interests rooted in identity markers. Service has more potential than traditional politics of bringing voiceless into the process of decision-making. "Democracy is defined less in terms of civic obligation than of the social responsibility of the individual" (5)...Long et al want to reclaim the rhetoric of the individual and frame engagement as personal and rooted in individual and/or sub-cultural identity. But they want context too: "The realization that individual choices have larger public repercussions is an integral piece of one's moral, social, intellectual, and civic development" (6). They see service as an incremental, developmental step toward traditional politics.
They suggest that ASL programs 1) avoid making agencies or community partners feel like they're being studied or objectified, 2) orient students into the community and the work they'll be doing, 3) emphasize quality of experience over minimum numbers of hours, 4) transcend the administrative imperative to use service as good p.r. for the university, 5) "teach us the community-building/organizing skills that we need" (8), foreground reciprocity, 6) devote material resources, 7) involve students in program development and leadership, giving them a real voice in the process, 8) avoid the too-common model of higher ed where "we are encouraged to be primarily consumers of knowledge and democracy--not active producers" (12).
II: Service and Politics
Long et al develop a model of the modes of civic engagement: conventional politics, community service, and "service politics." They reject the notion that service and volunteerism is necessarily apolitical, instead seeing the service-to-politics process as a developmental one.
They define conventional politics as electoral politics and/or working with institutions like political parties and special interest groups. Community service on the other hand is no less engaged with social issues or critical understandings of social context. The latter is more desirable for many young people who "dislike the institutional focus" and have an "anti-institutional bias." They use the analogy of formal religion and say the service is imperative is like having an individual spirituality that one follows. The third mode, "service politics," "becomes the means through which students can move from community service to political engagement. Those who develop connections to larger systemic issues building on their roots in community service adopt a framework through which service politics leads to greater social change" (18). They "find contemporary political life distasteful and unresponsive to their efforts" (19). Service politics can look at root causes of social problems: "Service politics is a form of civic engagement that looks at systems, while service is typicallty geared toward symptoms" (19). Activism can be a natural outgrowth of service politics.
Some thoughts: my work with SPHB can follow this service politics model. They do the work, study context, do project-based learning, and then their research papers can be the moment of political praxis. I don't impose an agenda, but give them resources and opportunities for political awareness and consciousness and contextual understanding of social problems. Then, allow them, through their own term papers, to involve themselves in material change.
Students may be drawn to service work for affective reasons. The feel-good nature of volunteerism which avoids the agonism of activism. But perhaps faculty are drawn to activism for affective reasons--a bodily and passionate attraction-cum-romance for activism (with a twinge of nostalgia)?
The official statement-cum-manifesto of the 2001 Wingspread Summit on Student Civic Engagement, which gathered 33 undergraduate activists and volunteers to discuss civic engagement.
I: Democracy and Education
Long et al argue that statisticians have got it wrong when they only use markers like voting to measure engagement, which they feel has "multiple manifestations" including the arts (alt papers, poetry slams) and involvement with the local or the global instead of the national level. They find "conventional politics...inaccessible" and state that "service is a viable and preferable (if not superior) alternative" (1). Countering binary thinking of much of the literature, they argue that service is an "alternative politics" where they: build relationships, learn organizing skills, increase awareness, and strategize for problem solving and social change. In other words, it's a step toward more traditional politics (2). They get involved for a variety of reasons (many overlooked or not well understood) including faith-inspired reasons and special interests rooted in identity markers. Service has more potential than traditional politics of bringing voiceless into the process of decision-making. "Democracy is defined less in terms of civic obligation than of the social responsibility of the individual" (5)...Long et al want to reclaim the rhetoric of the individual and frame engagement as personal and rooted in individual and/or sub-cultural identity. But they want context too: "The realization that individual choices have larger public repercussions is an integral piece of one's moral, social, intellectual, and civic development" (6). They see service as an incremental, developmental step toward traditional politics.
They suggest that ASL programs 1) avoid making agencies or community partners feel like they're being studied or objectified, 2) orient students into the community and the work they'll be doing, 3) emphasize quality of experience over minimum numbers of hours, 4) transcend the administrative imperative to use service as good p.r. for the university, 5) "teach us the community-building/organizing skills that we need" (8), foreground reciprocity, 6) devote material resources, 7) involve students in program development and leadership, giving them a real voice in the process, 8) avoid the too-common model of higher ed where "we are encouraged to be primarily consumers of knowledge and democracy--not active producers" (12).
II: Service and Politics
Long et al develop a model of the modes of civic engagement: conventional politics, community service, and "service politics." They reject the notion that service and volunteerism is necessarily apolitical, instead seeing the service-to-politics process as a developmental one.
They define conventional politics as electoral politics and/or working with institutions like political parties and special interest groups. Community service on the other hand is no less engaged with social issues or critical understandings of social context. The latter is more desirable for many young people who "dislike the institutional focus" and have an "anti-institutional bias." They use the analogy of formal religion and say the service is imperative is like having an individual spirituality that one follows. The third mode, "service politics," "becomes the means through which students can move from community service to political engagement. Those who develop connections to larger systemic issues building on their roots in community service adopt a framework through which service politics leads to greater social change" (18). They "find contemporary political life distasteful and unresponsive to their efforts" (19). Service politics can look at root causes of social problems: "Service politics is a form of civic engagement that looks at systems, while service is typicallty geared toward symptoms" (19). Activism can be a natural outgrowth of service politics.
Some thoughts: my work with SPHB can follow this service politics model. They do the work, study context, do project-based learning, and then their research papers can be the moment of political praxis. I don't impose an agenda, but give them resources and opportunities for political awareness and consciousness and contextual understanding of social problems. Then, allow them, through their own term papers, to involve themselves in material change.
Students may be drawn to service work for affective reasons. The feel-good nature of volunteerism which avoids the agonism of activism. But perhaps faculty are drawn to activism for affective reasons--a bodily and passionate attraction-cum-romance for activism (with a twinge of nostalgia)?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Murphy
Murphy, Troy A. "Romantic Democracy and the Rhetoric of Heroic Citizenship." Communication Quarterly 51 (2003): 192-208.
In the U.S.American context, "citizens who 'roll up their sleeves' and 'make a difference' in their communities ostensibly exemplify an ideal form of citizenship to which all Americans might aspire. Such citizens are as 'ordinary' as the larger American public for whom they serve as models, but are 'extraordinary' because of their individual effort, quiet humility, and selfless acts of citizenship" (193). We're taken as a culture with this iconic image of the everyday hero. This icon, who does "apolitical acts of volunteerism" (193), becomes normative, excluding political and rhetorical dimension of citizenship. The icon is quiet (esp. in the political arena), is not part of the political process and is not engaged in collective action or organizing or advocacy. "The heroic citizen as constructed sets a standard for ideal citizenship that depoliticizes the very idea of citizenship and works to further marginalize the legitimacy of more rhetorical, public, and potentially contentious aspects of democratic citizenship. Whether it is the broader image of all citizens as heroes who essentially disregard politics and quietly go about their daily lives without complaint, or the specific actions of highlighted representative characters who define the most admirable qualities of participation through romantic images of community service, the 'good citizen' as public image is marked by a quiescent and harmonious disposition which is antithetical to the types of rhetorical contestation and political action that is sometimes necessary in a democratic society" (203).
The narrative of the heroic individual fails to challenge the cynical attitude we have toward government and politicians. Reagan popularized the "heroes in the gallery" at his states of the union..."good citizens" who "care rather than complain" (199). Bush 2 similarly valorized everyday heroes of 9/11. Rosa Parks: valorized for her everyday-ness, but her organizing with NAACP is often overlooked. Paul Rogat Loeb's work problematizes this model for actually obscuring root causes of injustice.
Some thoughts: Murphy calls the heroic icon normative...but, going a step further, isn't the icon serving a social control role, a la Foucauldian disciplining. We're disciplined by the narrative or Rosa Parks and the other mythologies Murphy outlines. Further, there seems to be an affective dimension that makes us happy. We're pleased and reassured by the narrative. In reality, citizenship doesn't always feel good.
In the U.S.American context, "citizens who 'roll up their sleeves' and 'make a difference' in their communities ostensibly exemplify an ideal form of citizenship to which all Americans might aspire. Such citizens are as 'ordinary' as the larger American public for whom they serve as models, but are 'extraordinary' because of their individual effort, quiet humility, and selfless acts of citizenship" (193). We're taken as a culture with this iconic image of the everyday hero. This icon, who does "apolitical acts of volunteerism" (193), becomes normative, excluding political and rhetorical dimension of citizenship. The icon is quiet (esp. in the political arena), is not part of the political process and is not engaged in collective action or organizing or advocacy. "The heroic citizen as constructed sets a standard for ideal citizenship that depoliticizes the very idea of citizenship and works to further marginalize the legitimacy of more rhetorical, public, and potentially contentious aspects of democratic citizenship. Whether it is the broader image of all citizens as heroes who essentially disregard politics and quietly go about their daily lives without complaint, or the specific actions of highlighted representative characters who define the most admirable qualities of participation through romantic images of community service, the 'good citizen' as public image is marked by a quiescent and harmonious disposition which is antithetical to the types of rhetorical contestation and political action that is sometimes necessary in a democratic society" (203).
The narrative of the heroic individual fails to challenge the cynical attitude we have toward government and politicians. Reagan popularized the "heroes in the gallery" at his states of the union..."good citizens" who "care rather than complain" (199). Bush 2 similarly valorized everyday heroes of 9/11. Rosa Parks: valorized for her everyday-ness, but her organizing with NAACP is often overlooked. Paul Rogat Loeb's work problematizes this model for actually obscuring root causes of injustice.
Some thoughts: Murphy calls the heroic icon normative...but, going a step further, isn't the icon serving a social control role, a la Foucauldian disciplining. We're disciplined by the narrative or Rosa Parks and the other mythologies Murphy outlines. Further, there seems to be an affective dimension that makes us happy. We're pleased and reassured by the narrative. In reality, citizenship doesn't always feel good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)