Moving from Fear to Empathy in Service Work
For many international students we come into this city with only a vague understanding of its geography. Everyone knows Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Rodeo Drive but equally acknowledged, in far more hushed tones, is Skid Row. In many ways Skid Row has become the most politicized neighborhood in America, the two word phrase that Fox News and CNN anchors gleefully slip out of their tongue to rag against efforts for political reform on both sides of the aisle. For many people Skid Row is no longer a real physical place but an abstracted symbol of the country’s problems with homelessness, affordable healthcare, housing and mental health, treated in a manner both dehumanizing and condescending. Of course this is no different for international students for whom homelessness, only next to gun violence, is the boogeyman they are explicitly warned to look out for by their parents, peers and the state. The same stories always get peddled around to incite fear: that homeless people are dangerous, that they are there because of their poor individual choices, drug addiction and other vices. It is clear that if one goes into service work in Skid Row, with an organization like Water Drop, with only these stereotypes in mind they will be going in with the wrong attitude, perhaps looking at the residents with at best pity and at worst disgust, rather than empathy. The only way to truly disentangle these preconceived notions is through education, which comes through a deeper understanding of individual stories and structural issues. Only by recognizing the root cause of these problems can we move forward from a place of fear to empathy, which is perhaps the best way to go about service work.
Though the onus is on the individual to educate themselves, for many the process of education and of re-learning about structural issues is facilitated by classes like WRIT150, which force one to read widely and critically, and cause one to recognize homelessness as a failure of the state. It is incredible how many myths about homelessness can be debunked when viewing the actual factors that lead to its cause. When assessing the conditions that lead to homelessness one can see the main factor as the lack of affordable housing within Los Angeles especially in comparison to cities like Detroit which have a higher rate of poverty but a lower rate of homelessness because of lower housing prices. Homelessness can hence be seen as a failure of the state to provide enough affordable housing for all rather than an individual failure. The scarier implication however, is that even for those who think of homelessness as a character flaw there is a profound lack of empathy for the misfortune of others, especially if one was to view the residents of Skid Row with fear. This fear response is more indicative of a capitalist society which promotes selfishness and competition at the expense of others, being willing to easily discard those who cannot perform. It is harrowing to see these misconceptions actually translate into government policy like the banning of sleeping in public places and the creation of hostile architecture, which targets the individual and does nothing to solve the root problem. Understanding structural issues as such can introduce a sense of clarity within service learning and cause one to recognize that the people of Skid Row are not there of their own volition but because of the failures of the state, moving from a fear response to one of empathy.
Moreover, through reading about the individual stories of Skid Row residents and directly interacting with them one can further shatter preconceived stereotypes of the homeless. During my first session with Water Drop I was able to hand out water and interact with the residents of a specific sector of Skid Row. Through this it became clear to me that for many the neighborhood was just the place they lived and not something that entirely defined their lives. That homelessness was both something they were forced into and the best possible option for them at the time, being setback by heavy fees within legal cases or the high cost of healthcare. However, it was important to be cognisant about the power imbalance at play in this situation, and recognize the ways I could help from my position of privilege. Being aware of structural issues made me better understand my place in the lives of the residents and the long term goal of Water Drop, which was to provide as much aid as possible and to create the space for residents to comfortably attempt to transition out of Skid Row. This perception colored the interactions my partner in Water Drop, who had been volunteering for two years, had with the residents, actively listening and enquiring about their housing applications and their plans for the immediate future, while also taking note of the individual material needs of each resident in the hope of bringing it to them the next week. Understanding structural issues allowed me to approach my service work from both an empathetic and pragmatic position.
Perhaps the best articulation of the model of service learning that moves from a fear response towards empathy is Tania Mitchell’s model of “Critical Service Learning”. Mitchell’s model suggests that the best way to go about service learning is to be aware of the structural issues of the community you are helping, to recognize your own privilege and become an active contributor towards social change. This model attempts to recenter the focus of service learning from the traditional emphasis on personal character development, which is achieved by short term service projects, towards a focus on transforming individuals into involved members of their community by investing their time and energy long term. As such, what Mitchell is stressing is that service learning should not be considered a highly individual act that cultivates better character for students for their long term careers, but one based on conscious community involvement which directly aids one’s immediate surroundings. One can hence see how this model better cultivates empathy by forcing one to look beyond their own personal needs towards the needs of others. In practical terms this can translate into more attentive service work, to interact with the residents of Skid Row not out of obligation, but to genuinely consider their various needs as human beings.
However, once we move away from fear to empathy we can still recognize the pragmatic limitations students face within their service work. The biggest limitation of the “Critical Service Learning” model is that it presumes that most students will have the free time to devote themselves long term to service projects and if they do not the work may not be as meaningful. This is frankly incredibly unrealistic given the various commitments students hold, in keeping up with classes, co-curriculars, internships and projects which support their long term career goals. Moreover, organizations like Water Drop are conscious of this lack of time and function on a “drop in drop out” model to accommodate as many volunteers as possible. As such, Mitchell’s model starts to resemble more of an ideal rather than something which can actually be put into practice by all. In many ways it is counterproductive to label those unable to commit to long term service work as selfish or ineffective, because the act of performing the service work itself already contributes something of inherent value to the various communities they are helping.
Furthermore, it would also be unfair to completely discount the traditional model of service learning and its focus on character building. Despite how disingenuous mandated service hours can appear, working directly with underprivileged communities can still inculcate a sense of empathy for many students who grew up sheltered. Moreover, if one were to view service work under the larger umbrella of “societal harm reduction” whether in the immediate sense of helping communities or in the long term of developing positive values in students the traditional model is still useful. Especially since schools like USC feature various programs that directly funnel students into industries of war and exploitation. After all those with economics and public policy degrees may later be the ones drafting harmful laws that negatively impact the homeless and those with aerospace degrees will be the ones designing the drones and bombs that indiscriminately destroy villages at the hands of the US military. Perhaps the character building emphasized by traditional service learning can indeed inculcate empathy and cause many to reconsider their future, destructive career paths.
The larger question, as such, becomes how we can reconcile our limited time as students with the long term time commitment that seems synonymous with effective service work. It may essentially boil down to one’s mindset, as though some students will hopefully find the drive to continue their service work long term, those that do not should work more intentionally. A goal which can be achieved by having an awareness of structural issues, which though short term, can potentially aid organizations in their long term goals. After all, what keeps most community organizations afloat is not just the long term contributions of a few individuals but the mass of volunteers they receive each week who may very well never show up again. There needs to be people who come down to do the work regardless of how committed they are. What matters is how effective their service work is in the moment they are there, and having an awareness of structural issues can make all the difference, making people more empathetic and attentive to the actual needs of those they are serving.
