Transitioning to an Open-Action Society where Community Service is a Norm

     It is no secret that the world is plagued with social issues. Through infomercials, e-mails, word of mouth, or personal experiences, the vast majority of we have been continuously showered with statistics relating to how many people die from hunger every sixty seconds, or how many people lose their homes every day; however, many of us think we are so disconnected from social issues that although we acknowledge something needs to be done, we may not feel that we are the ones that can help. Indirect relief—such as donating money to an organization that helps combat a social issue—is one of the most common ways people show that they want to support a cause. However, direct relief—volunteering to give vaccinations to the poor, cooking food at a shelter, providing shelter for the homeless, or even scouting—is less common and more challenging for people to commit to due to time constraints, logistical challenges, or outright fear. Due to the uncommonness of voluntary service, it seems that the only people who we acknowledge as providing community service are “good” or “bad”. The good people are the ones who go “out of their way” to help others in need and the bad people are those who “are required by law to perform service” as a form of punishment. Why must community service be considered a good deed OR a form of punishment? Why is it not a norm and how can we make our society more open to action so that community service becomes a norm?

     In “Where Need Meets Opportunity”, Jane Quinn identifies early adolescence as a “period where individual interests, skills, and preferences become salient” (96). However, throughout her article, her primary focus is on teen development through the use of pro-social programs and extra-curricular activities. While some of the programs—such as boy scouts and girl scouts—incorporate community service into their missions, the vast majority of the programs are concerned solely with the healthy growth of teens and their relationships with peers. This is inherently good, but it does not solve the issue of making community service a normal activity. For one, the participation rate in these programs is consistently low. Many of the programs are not available to all kids equally. Those in low-income areas who many would say are “in desperate need of these programs” have a much more difficult time accessing them than those in high-income areas may not have as many social issues to confront(Quinn 105). Another issue is that these programs are available ONLY for youth and culminate in a “graduation-like ceremony” that, in my opinion, signifies that the end has come and the youth are no longer bound to the mission of the program.

     In “Reading and Writing the World”, Betty Smith Franklin discusses the importance of charity, civic engagement and social action in our society. She acknowledges that charity in and of itself “does not require the helper to move through interpersonal reality to an examination of social and political reality or to call accepted practice into question” (25). In other words, if one chooses to only write a check, they can easily avoid asking why a given social issue is a reality in our world while simultaneously acknowledging that there is indeed an issue. It seems as though through her domain of social action, there is an attempt to solve the issue of the lack of active questioning in charity. However, another issue arises. While social action “claims a vision and makes active and accessible steps toward that vision”, it does not solve the issue of getting people to overcome their real fears of community service (Franklin 26). Not all forms of social action are popular and furthermore, many forms of social action—such as boycotts—may prove to be unpopular within a given society and can even go as far as to endanger the lives of those who decide to take on this social action.

     Both Jane Quinn and Betty Smith Franklin provide real solutions that have been tested and tried in real-world applications. However, the one thing that the two others have in common is that their proposals are not socially “normal”. They are constructed in a way that it appears as though a limited population—the affluent, well-protected, and/or well educated—are not only the only ones who can combat social issues, but are also the only ones responsible for combating social issues. These two authors show little attempt to find ways to include people of various social classes and backgrounds into becoming open-action individuals. They only provide barriers as to why different people cannot access different programs or why some people can avoid confronting social problems through charity while others cannot.

     Through my research, I will compile information from multiple authors and synthesize their information to better understand why community service and open-actionness are not cultural norms in America and how and where to start the process of transitioning into a culture in which there are virtually no social barriers, stigmas, or criteria that needs to be met in order for people to volunteer simply because it is just a primary trait of our way of life.

______________________________________________________________________

Quinn, Jane. “Where Need Meets Opportunity: Youth Development 

       Programs for Early Teens.”The Future of Children 9.2 (Fall 1999): 

       96-116. JSTOR. Web. 27 Dec 2010.

Franklin, Betty. “Reading and Writing the World; Charity, Civic Engagement, 

       and Social Action.” Reflections 1.2 (Fall 2000): 24-29

    

     

Early Fieldnotes Reflection: Why Did It Take this Long?

    The guest relationships within Shalom Center is very complex. To “outsiders”—those who have never been to Shalom Center—it may just appear to be “a bunch of homeless/poor people gathering for the day”…But to those who are “insiders”—those who frequent Shalom Center either as a guest or volunteer, or staff member—the guests almost appear to be a microcosm of the society we live in. It is diverse in many ways—including economically. Some people need toiletries, bus tickets, and food, whereas others may need rent assistance, laundry services, or a place to rest. The diversity of needs is even more apparent when you talk to some of the guests.

One lady that I had a casual conversation with has been estranged from her two sons (Age 18 and 21) for about 17 years. Only recently has she reconnected with them. They live in Florida and she does not have the money to visit them yet. She is recovering from an addiction and is just starting to get back on her feet. She is homeless and stay at Shalom during the day and at an ex-boyfriend’s place during the night. She grew up in a lower class environment where nobody went to school. This is not the first time she has experienced poverty, but this is the longest period (about 10 years) that she has ever experienced.

A man that I spoke with was college educated from IU. He majored in chemistry and was on track to attend medical school. He came from a Working class family in Lowell, Indiana and had a strong desire to move up into middle class or upper-middle class status. This all changed when he started to show a decline in his mental state and developed Schizophrenia. He was an only child, with both parents passed on, and no relatives to help care for him. He has been homeless for about 20 years now living between homeless shelters, abandoned homes, good Samaritans cars, couches, public restrooms, etc.

Another man that I spoke to grew up in an upper-middle class family in Ohio. He has abused drugs since he was in middle school and supported it through money from his parents when he went away to school. He dropped out of college during his senior year and went to live with a girlfriend in Evansville. They broke up a year later and he moved to Bloomington to stay with a friend and look for a job but this proved to be very difficult; his drug abuse ruined job opportunities for him and eventually he was cut off from his parents and forced to fend for himself. He is not homeless, but he does not have any money to re-enroll in school to complete his education and his parents have refused to aid him.

These three stories represent three different people who once occupied separate socio-economic classes. These are three people who, outside of shalom, would have never communicated with each other. They admitted to this. But the one thing these people had in common was that they had a story to tell of how they came to be in the situation they were in. I was willing to listen to the story because it represented situations so foreign to me that it was truly interesting to hear first-hand accounts. Then I remembered. This community that used to be invisible to me is not visible. I would not say I have been “accepted” into their community, but I have been exposed. Millions of people have yet to be exposed to such a small yet vulnerable community. It is a community that should be so easy to come into contact with. All it takes is to walk through the door. However, it took me 20 years to do this and many others never can make the step into a different community due to class barriers that are difficult to willingly cross. I still cannot figure out what holds me back. I always knew poverty existed. But I never truly came into contact with it until now. What took so long?