Rethinking service

I’m a service-learning junkie.  For the past year and a half I’ve been figuring out what service-learning is and what it means to me. And, with that, I’ve realized that I’m not too keen on the actual term service-learning. I write this as I am now wearing a specially designated service-learning TA shirt (yes, I got free clothing). The shirt says, “I am the hyphen.” So, if we take the shirt for what it’s worth, I (as a Service-learning TA) am the hyphen between service and learning? The one who connects these two words? I like the idea of that, but the word service bothers me.  

One of Deans’ questions states, “When and how do service-learning pedagogies reproduce rather than disrupt dominant ideologies?” I have a difficult time with this question because of what I think about service-learning: I like to think of community work as engagement more than anything, focusing on reciprocity of learning, the moving between genres of writing and sites of action (classroom and community sites), and the intersectionality of factors such as race, gender, class, sexuality, language, etc. To me, these ideas are important because they necessitate a dialectical approach—something that is not just one sided “us serving them” or “us imparting our wisdom.” It’s active and engaged; I don’t see it as service.  I never really thought much about the definition of service-learning until last semester when Chris got me to think about what it would mean to say “community engagement.”  The more I think of it though, it’s an important move. For me, service-learning can very well perpetuate oppressive roles in community interaction, though Deans’ definition cautions us not to fall into these roles. It’s so easy to “reproduce” ideological assumptions, even when we try to “do good.” So, I guess that’s where this question leaves me: my goal isn’t “to serve.”  My goal is to engage with a community and learn about it, with it, and from it. To do this, we have to be able to notice the multiplicity of perspectives that comprise the community, and that create our own ideologies.  And somewhere in all of this, the community MUST come into play: what do they want? What are they learning? What do they need? I’m not saying that this removes ethical questions; once we think all ethical questions are solved, we have a major problem. But I do think that going about service-learning as community engagement highlights different ideals.

Thinking back to last week, I think part of the problem with my session was that I went into it thinking I had to “help” my student. Yes, I would like him to do as well as he can on his writing. But, I think what matters more is that he gets what he needs out of the session. I try not to fall into the “server/served” binary that Deans cautions, but I think it takes a constant reminder that this is a difficult mindset to break. And again I keep coming back to the idea of engaging in conversation may make a difference. I’m not there to serve, but to engage and work alongside.