The Value of Critical Service: Not just giving, but thinking
In the present era, even though technological advancement has contributed to society’s rapid development, it has also fallen to many social injustices. For example, poor homeless people, high crime rates, educational injustice, etc. This is a time when traditional community services are of little use. This is where critical service becomes especially important compared to traditional service. While some say that the primary goal of community service learning is to improve students’ perspectives and skills. I believe that volunteering for community service is not just for students’ personal growth; it should encourage students to reflect on deeper, systemic issues rooted in our society and that changes in students’ thinking offer more possibilities for eliminating these issues.
You may ask, what exactly does traditional service mean? Why it is said to be inefficient. In “Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning,” Tania Mitchel is quoted as referring to traditional service as “meeting individual needs but not usually as political action intended to transform, not usually as political action intended to transform structural inequalities” (Rosenberger, p. 29). “(qtd. in Mitchell 51). By citing Rosenberger’s definition of traditional services, Mitchel better explains the limitations of traditional services: they do not address the root causes of social inequity. Therefore, “inefficiency” is obvious for traditional services. In this context, traditional services are seen more as a task, a means of enhancing the “skills and vision” of middle-class children. It is not about solving the more profound problems and thinking of the homeless.
In his article “Ideal and Real In Service Learning,” Mitchell critiques the shortcomings of the traditional service model, such as the fact that community service becomes a task performed by many entitled people to assist those in need and that it never seeks to be explicitly politically active or pragmatism, or the experience of seeking to address structural inequalities through community service. “For students with a more critical lens on economics and government, direct service is less attractive, ameliorating the worst suffering. “(Mitchell and Donahue 460). Mitchell here directly articulates that this traditional service model is unhelpful in addressing structural social injustice and that it perpetuates the problem of homelessness Even worse, it leads students to believe that social services are unhelpful to certain disadvantaged groups.
So, what is the specific difference between traditional and critical services? As Mitchell argues in his article, “Traditional vs. asks students to use what is happening in the classroom- the readings, discussions, writing assignments and other activities to reflect on their service in the context of larger social issues.” Stated differently, Mitchell argues that critical service is different from the traditional give-and-take of service in that critical service is important for students to think about social issues and to apply their classroom knowledge to feedback and examples, allowing them to be more in touch with the structural causes lurking beneath the surface of an incident. Critical service offers the possibility of more effective solutions to social problems by emphasizing critical thinking rather than mechanically accomplishing a goal.
Since critical service is better, does this mean that traditional community service is something that can be stopped at once? The answer, of course, is no. Traditional community services provide the homeless with necessities such as water, clothing, and food. When homeless people are worried about whether they will be starving and get cold tonight, traditional services can give them some necessary assistance. More significantly, Traditional Services can inspire more college students and young people to engage in critical community service. Through traditional community service, these future urban planners go to places they could not reach from their ivory towers, such as homes and schools. For example, my involvement in Waterdrop allowed us to go to Skid Row, where the single story is full of danger and chaos. As an international student, I come from Jiangsu Province, China. At first, I was worried. After all, since arriving in LA, I had barely been to Skid Row because everyone seemed to think the neighborhood there was dirty and unkempt. I was afraid of being harassed by the homeless and even more fearful of being hurt by them. However, all that anxiety changed after getting personally involved in community service.
When I participated in Water Drop, I worked with my partner to distribute water and snacks to the community. Unlike my previous fears, most of them were able to interact with each other like normal people. An aunt named Maggie jokingly asked me which China I was from when she found out I was from China because there is a lot of China here (referring to Chinatown), which made me think she was funny. While performing the service, I couldn’t help but start thinking about how people with personalities can keep their humor even when they wander and get into trouble. It made me feel that it is not enough to do giving and receiving activities; we should learn more about the historical stories behind the city.
The homeless problem, at a more deep-rooted level, has to do with the gentrification of LA over the last few decades. In his article “The History of South-Central Los Angeles and Its Struggle with Gentrification,” Mike Sonksen discusses the relationship between South Central Los Angeles and gentrification over the past few decades. The History of South-Central Los Angeles and Its Struggle with Gentrification He also mentions that South Central’s roots go back to the last century when it was once a predominantly African American community, but as gentrification increased, rising property values and lack of food control over rents led to the slow decline of this once African American community.
The most obvious example can be found at my university-USC. The University of Southern California, because of its unique location in South Los Angeles, has also played an essential role in the growing urban gentrification process. In a weekly article titled “Revisiting USC’s Old University Village,” Rachel Will argues that the new USC Village has contributed to the gentrification of the surrounding community. Because these high-end facilities have attracted wealthier people to the neighborhood, they have led to higher rents and indirectly displaced residents. Even though USC has pledged to provide $20 million in grants, the city has taken much of the grant money rather than going directly to the neighborhood residents. This has led to the appreciation of nearby real estate and the increase in interest rates on home loans, which has indirectly led to the displacement of many families who once lived around USC who could not afford to pay for what would have been their defense.
As an international student from USC, traditional community service like Water drop has allowed me the opportunity to be more personally exposed to these homeless people. It has inspired me to think about and need for critical service. While dispelling my inherent stereotypes and prejudices, I also understood the role USC plays in gentrification and how to properly reflect on the deeper reasons behind this phenomenon as its students.
Works Cited
Mitchell, Tania D., and David M. Donahue. “Ideal and Real in Service Learning: Transforming the Ideal Based on the Real.” The Cambridge Handbook of Service Learning and Community Engagement, edited by Corey Dolgon et al., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 458–469. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology.
Mitchell, Tania. “Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring 2008, pp. 50–65.
Rachel Will. “Revisiting USC’s Old ‘University Village”, L.A.TACO , no.1, 2018, pp.1.
