A Key Point Taken from “What We Talk About When We Don’t Talk About Service” by Adam Davis
This piece works primarily to emphasize how power dynamics are present in service work and how, if unnoticed, these dynamics hold the potential to perpetuate inequality. Davis identifies the primary difference between the server and the served in the case of service to be the role of freedom. Simply put, the individual doing the service has chosen to serve while the individual being served is so served because they need said service. The fact that the service dynamic requires one player to “live in the realm of freedom” while the other lives “in the realm of necessity” means that it requires inequality to function. Furthermore, Davis asks if perhaps the server enjoys this state of inequality in which they take on the position of the superior. Service ideally stands as a means to lessen inequality, but Davis argues that, if service is used to affirm one’s superiority, it likely will never achieve its idealistic goal. A Key Point Taken from “Educating the ‘Good’ Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals” by Wetheimer and Kahne In their piece identifying how different forms of citizenship fit into a society, Wetheimer and Kahne first note three types of “good” citizens: the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen, and the justice-oriented citizen. The personally responsible citizen is defined as an individual who follows the rules, donates to causes and volunteers, simply put, an individual who does all and more than what is expected of them, all on a largely individualistic scale. The participatory citizen is an individual who is active in civic affairs, organizing events for those in need and encouraging voting. The final definition is that of the justice-oriented citizen. The justice-oriented citizen observes matters of injustice in society and calls for “collective strategies for change” to challenge said matters of injustice. While it is the least commonly pursued, the justice-oriented citizen, the authors argue, is most crucial in certifying democracy because it is the only citizen which can identify and challenge institutions of power. Reflecting on “Identity and Social Action: The Role of Self-Examination in Systemic Change” by Tania D. Mitchell As the child of a professor who teaches primarily about race and gender, a good portion of my life was spent being lectured on the importance of recognizing my privilege. While acutely aware of my many privileges (especially those granted to me as a middle class white person), I often found myself exasperated, wondering what I, as so privileged an individual, could do without heightening my privilege. I was ashamed to think that whatever successes I achieved my life would be in some ways the product of my privilege and was terrified that any way of pursuing my interest (I sought to understand how people react to cultural difference and work to promote peaceful cross-cultural interaction), would only serve as some form of colonialism through “helping.” It was with poorly concealed frustration that I confronted my mother with these concerns, asking her how I would ever be able to work beyond my identity to make the change I wanted to see in the world. She told me first that no, I would never be able to escape my identity. Noting my displeasure, she added that this didn’t mean I would be unable to do meaningful work in my fields of interest, and that the fact that I was so aware of my identity was a crucial element in my ability to do said work. She spoke of humility, how I would need to allow myself to follow, the listen, to learn. She then reminded me that whatever role I would play in the huge effort of establishing a better world, I would discover through listening to others and knowing myself. This conversation many years ago rushed to the surface as I read Mitchell’s article. Mitchell explains how she has found that students, when responding to injustice, could far better make sense of their roles within the system when faced with their own identity. In understanding one’s identity and learning of others’ identities, Mitchell explains, “we move from assuming to understanding.” In this place of understanding we can understand not only what change must be made, but our own roles in making said change.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorStudent at the University of Washington, Sophie Aanerud, will be studying abroad in Berlin, Germany. Here are some of her thoughts . . . Archives
August 2017
Categories |