Shalom Community Center: My Observations of an Open-Action Society

Major Projects

Audience to Audience with a Gorge in Between

Tikkun Olam? I Don’t See a Problem! and Visual Portrait

Are Volunteerism and Open-Action Dependent on Each Other?

Supporting Projects

What is this "Civic Engagement" We Speak of?

Unknown Barriers

Early Fieldnotes Reflection: Why Did It Take this Long? 

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

Late Fieldnotes Reflection: Open-Action within Shalom

Late Fieldnotes Reflection: Open-Action within Shalom

     I have recently coined a term—at least, I hope I have—that defines a type of society or environment where volunteerism is a normal and expected function of society. This term, Open-Action, means that people—by nature—volunteer for the greater good of their society and that as opposed to being seen as a special or extraordinary act of goodness, it is just seen as natural behaviors that everyone adheres to.

     In “Fieldworking”, the authors mention that “One key word can unlock information about the habits, beliefs, geography, and history of a whole group of people” (p. 310). Furthermore, the authors state that “we become cultural translators in situations that we may not realize are important” (p. 311). Within the Shalom Community, I have not found a word that is unique to the center alone; however, the term “Open-Action” is one that can be used to decode the underpinnings of what volunteerism means at Shalom. At the center, there are three primary groups of individuals: Guests, Volunteers, and Staff. The guests are those who are the primary users of the various services that the Shalom Community Center Offers. The volunteers are those who assist the center is carrying out non-professional tasks such as message taking, distribution of mail and daily hygiene/medical products, and retrieval/deposit of guests personal items. Finally, the staff members are those who undertake specific professional duties directly related to the well-being of the guests. These duties range from Rental Assistance to transportation assistance to even the retrieval of documents such as a birth certificate. Although it seems like each specific group has their own established place and that the staff are strictly there for paid professional services, I have continued to see evidence of an inter-community open-action society at Shalom.

     When I last volunteered, I collaborated with a guest and staff member to carry several large chairs up to the respite room. Typically, some agencies forbid any work deemed laborious to be only undertaken by staff members who are covered by liability insurance through the agency. Those who are not—typically guests and volunteers—may not assist in these activities. However, due to the low-barrier status of Shalom Center, this is an example of one a policy that is not in place that facilitates Open-Action qualities in the agency. When we were helping each other out, we did not look at it as if it were 3 distinct people undertaking a task. We knew that we needed each other’s help and since the three of us are all part of the Shalom community, it was only natural that we assisted each other. This behavior is not only an example of the great rapport found between many members of the community, but proof that the occupational/social status that each one of us holds did not inhibit our productivity nor did it exhibit any role conflicts during the task.

     This experience models of how I have been able to become a cultural translator using language. I was able to use the term “Open-Action” to look deeper into the relationships between guests, volunteers, and staff. The fascinating thins is that while I initially did not feel that studying this relationship was important, in the end, the importance of the relationships between these groups is important to note. Studying this interaction proved that there really is not much of a difference in the statuses and occupations that people hold in relation to conducting non-specific acts of volunteerism for a community. In short, anyone and everyone can be part of an inter- and intra-communal open-action society.
_______________________________________________________________

Sunstein, Bonnie S., and Elizabeth Strater. "Chapter 6 Researching Language: 
       The Cultural Translator."FieldWorking: reading and writing research. 
       3. ed. Boston: Bedford/St. 

       Martins, 2007. 310-311. Print.

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?

Unknown Barriers

                                                                                   

   This photo describes a puzzle. It describes the life of someone who has themselves together, but probably not in terms of society's view of "together". This photo represents someone who is still regarded as challenged because their life is not the way it should "normally" be. This life seems distorted. The colors are natural, but the product is not refined. This photo represents the barrier that mentally challenged people often face. They have the picture put together how they can understand it, but we, society at large, may not understand it. So we can ignore it or pretend to understand it. It is our choice. But the mentally challenged have a choice as well. Maybe we are the challenged ones. It is challenging to depict this photo. It is a barrier in front of our mind that is difficult to smoothen. Just like the edges on top of the concrete fence. Why climb it when you can walk along it never knowing what is on the other side? If we took a peak on the other side it may be more clear to us. Then again, maybe it won't. For many people, this would not be a risk worth taking. But for many others, it is a way of life they face daily as they try to integrate into mainstream society. This is the figurative road to the vast cultures within Shalom Community Center. We cannot understand this.

This photo looks washed up. Kind of like this child in the red shirt. The knees are bent and the back is hunched like an old man. He looks like he is going off of the road. The grayness makes it seem like it is raining and the colors are washing away. There was another man further ahead. Where did he go? It doesn't matter because he was really old anyway. Is this what giving up looks like? The child seemed to grow old so fast. Nobody else in the picture is there to help continue the journey up the hill. This is a photo that depicts weakness. I see this figure as weak because it looks like he does not want to continue the battle. But what is the battle? To me, the battle is being fought by those who are physically handicapped. They may appear to be able-bodied at first and then if something happens, we can assume they need help. But is it our responsibility? We did not "cause" the situation. We only saw the effects of it. But we do nothing. We do not know any better. So to the lawn of Shalom this man goes. Because, we cannot understand him.

Night has arrived and the sky is dark. This child is out past curfew and looks like they are running away! It appears as though an authority figure shines their light at the child, but the child ignores it. The road and barrier seems to fade in the distance. The child is almost free. But they are still being followed. That red backpack sticks out like a sore thumb. The child will get caught and sent to juvenile detention. What a bad child this must be. His parents must be upset. This is a photo that shows the issue of a child just beginning their journey to success. But the road ahead will prove to be challenging. Society's roles were meant for adults, not children. So this child may be returned to an environment that is not sound for them. But it is sound for us, the mainstream society. If the child is lucky, they will see the door to the family room at Shalom. It is to the left, right off of Walnut Avenue. But many people cannot see it because they just drive by. Understanding the safety of children is difficult for many if they are not related. So our society neglect's them.

A simple sunset. The barriers seem to blend in with the sky in a way that shows some kind of hope. The red and orange hues show an element of calmness and warmth that does not fit with any type of adversity. We can see that there is an older figure up ahead on the road. Well, I assume they are older anyway. But the exact relationship to this child is unknown. But in this manipulation, I kept the older figure. It represents the disconnect between the older and younger generations. Yet, they appear to be heading in the same direction. There must be a common goal in between them. But if this was the road of life, why is the child so far ahead? Or is the old man that far behind? This photo represents the mindset that much of society has towards the elderly and the young. They both seem to posses infantile traits. It seems like the most powerful are the "middle-aged". They may have experienced barriers when they were younger, but now, there are fewer. As they age, there will be more. But the barriers of yesteryear will be forgotten. We can understand barriers to our own age. But every situation is unique. If we cannot live within the barriers of each age-group at the same time, then why should we care for any group other than our own? It seems hard to understand.

This looks triumphant! The child looks so big! So grown! The barriers seem to be split and the path should open soon. The child...no, the young adult is able-bodied, strong, and can now fend for themselves. It seems clear now. This newfound energy should be taken advantage of. This figure should go to school, become successful, do great things. The time is now. The old fart up ahead chose not to do anything and he is going downhill. So do something with yourself. All this person needs is an I.D., birth certificate, money, and a home. But this was all left behind, downhill, in the past. Society does not see this though. So we blame the figure. There is no excuse why this young adult should fail. But what if we have failed this young adult. This concrete barrier seems to be splitting. But maybe this figure knows better. He knows that it is splitting but will probably not be split anytime soon. It is just a big tease just like many bureaucratic processes. But we do not have to deal with those barriers. So we do not care to understand.

_______________________________________________________

There are many barriers in our society. They can be as high as the concrete wall or as long as the road or as small as these figures. But they can be overcome. We just have to know about them in the first place. It takes manipulation of the barriers to understand them. But our society does not do that. Instead, we manipulate the "others" in community--such as the guests at Shalom--to conform to the barriers society sets up. And when we do that, we then assume that the barriers are actually the "others" instead of the structure of society. These pictures represent just a fraction of the ways we can manipulate barriers.

Original Photo

What is this "Civic Engagement" We Speak of?

     The concept of “civic engagement” may encompass various classifications depending on whom you ask to define it. To a young adult, a form of civic engagement may be informing peers about participating in an upcoming event to support breast cancer, or to encourage neighborhood residents to “reduce, reuse, and recycle” items that are fit to do so. To an older adult, this concept can mean voting in local and/or national elections, maintaining the beauty of a park landscape, or even volunteering time to assist the elderly population. However, these ideas of what constitutes civic engagement does not have to be dictated based on age, gender, sex, or socioeconomic status (amongst other variables). I believe that civic engagement is ultimately defined by the individual who carries out what they see as “civic engagement”. To illustrate this concept, I will unite two pieces relevant texts by utilizing each of the author’s personal beliefs together as vehicles to explain my understanding of what “civic engagement” encompasses.

     In “Where Need Meets Opportunity”, the fact that Jane Quinn maintains her belief: “[Early teens] willingly participate in programs they find attractive and responsive to their needs” (96) can be seen as reason as to why early teens need to enroll in youth development organizations. Similarly, Betty Smith Franklin, the author of “Reading and Writing the World” realizes that the assigned texts, community organizations, and the environment of the work her students embark on represents the level of overall contentment and self-fulfillment that the students embody (24). These two viewpoints seem to paint a picture that civic engagement must be cultured during the most formative years of one’s life. However, they each pose a conflict on the setting in which this engagement must take place.

Quinn places an emphasis on providing a program outside of the traditional educational setting whereas Franklin engages us in a dialogue that encourages an educator supported service-learning initiative. Furthermore, she also maintains that several separate domains—charity, civic engagement, and social action—should be incorporated into the agenda (24). Is one approach more important than the other? Are there qualities in each respective approach that is impossible to attain using the other approach? Does a lack of any quality invalidate either approach as defining civic engagement?

When looking at the challenges that each approach faces, we see similarities and differences between them. Using Quinn’s approach, we see issues arise regarding participation, access, funding, effectiveness, and coordination with other youth services (104-113). When examined on the surface from Franklin’s perspective, there seems to be an immunity from these issues as her ideal demographic is college students who, through their tuition, are paying the institution to utilize this opportunity to provide a civic service to a community. However, when we further analyze one of the issues Quinn poses—funding of the programs—we begin to discover issues that can pose a problem for Franklin’s definition as well. For example, Quinn explains that due to differences in the diversity of funding, program experience will vary greatly between different demographics of youth due to the instability of funding sources many programs have to deal with (107-108). Likewise, while Franklin’s students are able to serve at any of the chosen agencies that represent one of the domains she listed, they too will have to endure the realities of serving in different environments that may not receive equal funding. In addition to this, the program effectiveness—which can be, but is not always a result of funding discrepancies—can affect Quinn’s demographic by not fostering an environment where the youth feels they are being motivated to benefit themselves and the community and also affect Franklin’s demographic by enabling the students to feel that their impact as rather educated individuals is not being felt by the community they are serving; in addition to this, Franklin’s students would be forced to revisit their discontent through writing while Quinn’s students can presumably move on. This synthesis of the authors’ beliefs begs the question: Is civic engagement defined by the level of self-improvement that an individual sees after they take part in internal or external engagement, or is it defined by the “mere” action of joining a community to perform civic engagement regardless of whether it is a self-fulfilling activity or not?

     After analyzing each author’s perspective on this concept using one other as a lens looking upon the other, I am able to define civic engagement as a combination of each author’s theory. Civic engagement can be a youth program in which youth are engaged in extra-curricular activities that can be diverse and range from Boys & Girls Clubs of America to Scouting. Each program has the common denominator of teaching youth to be active members of the community by helping peers stay away from negative elements such as drugs and violence and using critical thinking skills to solve problems such as staying warm with no heat source or attending to someone who is choking on food. These seemingly elementary activities promote civic responsibility that many of us take for granted. At the same time, civic engagement can be a service-learning project in which university students embark on a journey to serve an organization’s mission and find ways to impact the organization using their learned academic and social skills. This can mean providing literature for the community to highlight various services provided by an organization or analyzing what they gained from their experience to start up their own organization that may serve a specific cause. This angle also promotes civic responsibility that some may also take for granted by find hard to become part of themselves (whether a recipient or donor of services).

The emotions and experiences received through self-seeking and selfless programs and/or actions that causes one to pursue any action that has a positive effect on a community is my ultimate definition of the true meaning of civic engagement.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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