I've been conducting interviews with service learning students who spent the term working with a residential foster care facility in Detroit. One event that the students have been referencing over and over again in the interviews: a group of foster kids pretending to look for time capsules and buried treasure in the gardens behind the facility. On a Saturday morning, a group of the students and I were working with several of the foster kids prepping the gardens for the winter (the facility is a Greening of Detroit site and home to one of GofD's urban gardening programs). Just a moment in which kids used their imaginations, but also a moment of hope, a moment of play, a moment that my students are now reflecting on as life-affirming. Not a moment that erases the material realities of residents, but something that's still meaningful, especially for students for whom emotional discourse is a big part of how they talk about civic engagement.
(cross-listed in bdegenaro)
Monday, December 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
blunt
In the service learning course this term, one of the first moments of direct contact at our work site consisted of the following comment: "Where did all the white girls come from?"
The students and I had car-pooled to the site for a tour and an orientation session. Naturally, the comment became part of our discussion during the subsequent class. The students and I observed that the comment struck a dischord for multiple reasons. The blunt articulation of identity markers just isn't part of "university talk." The marker "girls" potentially condescends and offends and has certain kinds of historical weight (male bosses calling adult women "girls").
How to approach such a comment? First, with an open discussion where we (not just, or even primarily, me) talk about the rhetorics (the multiple dimensions, the multiple contexts, the multiple uses--all of which are competing, contested, overlapping, and contradictory) of the comment. One of those rhetorics: our identities as outsiders who don't have the right to impose a certain kind of talk. Another: our human right to dignity. Another: the ways gender informs the comments' meaning. Another: the ways race informs the comments' meaning.
Were the young women in the class offended by the statement? If so, as women? As members of various racial and ethnic identities? Turns out, not at all. One Arab-American, muslim woman made the comment "Nobody's ever called me a white girl before," which brought levity to the discussion. The consensus was that these were adolescent guys responding to college women. The consensus was also that to pay too much attention to the comment would serve to reinforce racial stereotypes (young African-American males as threats) and a troubling hierarchy (outsiders/college-types coming into a setting and dictating the "rules" of how to talk).
Fair enough. As a learning moment, the discussion nicely highlighted the importance of contextualizing language and analyzing multi-valent meanings/contexts of discourse. And yet, I hope that we didn't gloss over the gender implications with a "boys will be boys"-esque trope.
(x-listed in bdegenaro)
The students and I had car-pooled to the site for a tour and an orientation session. Naturally, the comment became part of our discussion during the subsequent class. The students and I observed that the comment struck a dischord for multiple reasons. The blunt articulation of identity markers just isn't part of "university talk." The marker "girls" potentially condescends and offends and has certain kinds of historical weight (male bosses calling adult women "girls").
How to approach such a comment? First, with an open discussion where we (not just, or even primarily, me) talk about the rhetorics (the multiple dimensions, the multiple contexts, the multiple uses--all of which are competing, contested, overlapping, and contradictory) of the comment. One of those rhetorics: our identities as outsiders who don't have the right to impose a certain kind of talk. Another: our human right to dignity. Another: the ways gender informs the comments' meaning. Another: the ways race informs the comments' meaning.
Were the young women in the class offended by the statement? If so, as women? As members of various racial and ethnic identities? Turns out, not at all. One Arab-American, muslim woman made the comment "Nobody's ever called me a white girl before," which brought levity to the discussion. The consensus was that these were adolescent guys responding to college women. The consensus was also that to pay too much attention to the comment would serve to reinforce racial stereotypes (young African-American males as threats) and a troubling hierarchy (outsiders/college-types coming into a setting and dictating the "rules" of how to talk).
Fair enough. As a learning moment, the discussion nicely highlighted the importance of contextualizing language and analyzing multi-valent meanings/contexts of discourse. And yet, I hope that we didn't gloss over the gender implications with a "boys will be boys"-esque trope.
(x-listed in bdegenaro)
Friday, September 21, 2007
a time to serve
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'
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'
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").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)