Is 'Service' The Best Word?

Frances Moore Lappe wrote a piece on Huffington Post amid the inauguration festivities this week asking whether "service" is really the best word/tool to use when intensifying national civic engagement efforts.

My own hesitation about the service frame is simple: If I serve, someone else is being served. If I serve, I act, but the other -- the beneficiary -- does not. Making ourselves servants, we might also ignore our own legitimate needs as well as be tempted to imagine we already know what others' needs are. In any case "service" seems to create two classes: the givers and the receivers.

And that's a big problem. Doesn't this dichotomy help blind us to the reality of the human condition that Martin Luther King, Jr. called us to see? In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he wrote, "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."

Lappe goes on to point out that serving is about more than the "helper's high" that 95 percent of volunteers reported feeling in a recent study, as a result of helping others. Creating King's "network of mutuality" leads to developing a "liberation of talents," that, once relieved from oppression, can bolster our society.

So, instead of "serving" others, which continues the oppression of the receivers' skills, Lappe argues that we should be sure that a partnership exists that uses the talents of all stakeholders -- group problem-solving instead of service.

Lappe cites Obama in this post, given his example as a community organizer with an affiliate of Gamaleil, a large Chicago-based advocacy network, supporting activist leaders of low-income communities. What's intriguing to me is that I saw Obama's experience with this approach come into play when he was in Erie last April.

A gentleman asked Obama a question in the town hall portion of the event in which he laid out the problems he was having in his life and essentially asked, "What are you going to do for me?" Instead of providing a litany of policy prescriptions, Obama first asserted that the appropriate first question was, "What are you going to do for yourself?" and then he went on to speak about responsibility, much like he did in his inaugural address.

In a world with rapidly growing technology that breeds an efficiency-first approach, Lappe's argument and Obama's philosophy reminds us that even though fixing another's problem might make us feel good, it doesn't do anything long-term for society. We should be doing all that we can to collaborate, pool resources, skills, and gifts, and tackle our challenges together.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting ideas. It

Interesting ideas. It reminds me of the Peter Levine post from a few months back noting that in many instances in low-income communities the idea of service could invoke a backlash because in many instances the "service" opportunities should in reality be full-time jobs occupied by community members:

can't go into details yet about our data or methods, but we have been talking to inner-city youth about civic and political engagement. I'm forming the hypothesis that when young, working-class and poor Americans hear about "volunteering," "community service," or "giving back to the community," they think of manual labor for no pay. The example that comes up most often is cleaning a street or park. These are precisely the jobs that people in their families and neighborhoods are paid to do--but not paid enough. Nor are such workers treated respectfully by their clients or supervisors; nor do they get opportunities for learning or leadership on the job.

"Service-learning" was mandatory for these kids while they were in high school. In at least some cases, the students end up cleaning or painting for free, under the direction of middle-class adults (teachers and others). So while Mom is cleaning hotel rooms for minimum wage and no benefits, her children are cleaning parks as part of their education for democracy.

This kind of example may or may not be rare. It certainly exists, and it is worth serious attention. I can hardly think of anything more alienating than to be told that you are now going to study democracy and community, that you will learn habits that you should stick with for the rest of your life, that the way you're going to study citizenship is to perform low-skilled manual labor, and that no one is going to pay you for that work.

I am proud to be part of the movement for community service and service-learning. I think these opportunities should be expanded. But the first rule is, Do no harm. If done poorly in the context of working-class life, I think service-learning could be one of the most effective and lasting way schools have to disempower their youth.

Also, I have some personal experience working with Gamaliel and I will say that while they have an impressive network and can organize some really great and effective programs, they're decision making and planning process would best be described as the opposite of "efficient."