Volunteering.. the right way.
While many are able to recognize the problematic situation of unhoused people, exposed to the elements and extreme violence, many also tend to be unempathetic towards their situation and fail to view them as people. One of the core elements of doing good service is recognizing these assumptions and making efforts towards opening one’s mind and questioning how these assumptions came to be. Thus we are left with the question of how to perform good service that solves the very nature of the crises we are aiding. Although some might believe that you can address structural causes without having direct experience, I argue that the dialogue between direct experience and policy is most effective because direct experience allows you to understand the true needs of a community and translate them into policy.
Prior to this class, my understanding of good service was based on my experience volunteering with a community organization Open Architecture New York. The volunteer work that I was doing was in relation to a local public school, however the only direct communication we had was not with the primary users, rather with the administrative school directors. In efforts to design a space without understanding the users true needs, I was confronted with many issues. I could tell that the requests being made were not driven by the primary users but felt obligated to comply because of the inherent power structures within the school. What I learned from this experience is that even though the community might be open to having the dialogue with the organizations that offer to help, the power structures embedded in their community might hinder this communication.
In order to truly understand the needs of the community direct experience with the community is therefore essential. The presence of a communication driven approach gets at the core of what having direct experience in service with the community looks like, however there are specific elements that we need to consider that will contribute to good service and a meaningful experience. One thing to consider is the time spent communicating should be focused on listening and communicating “person to person”. What I mean by this is not just speaking with another human, but relating to them on experiences common to all humans using an “equal voice”. It is evident that there are certain differences between you and them, however it is important to remember that as humans there is a lot we have in common with one another. Establishing an equal voice entails communicating in a way that is receivable to all ages and social statuses. Going into my volunteering with Water Drop my perspective was that I was going to be able to temporarily help the unhoused people living in Skid Row have water and hopefully get an insight into their life situations. While the service work definitely did provide insight into a lot of people’s lives, living conditions, and issues they were facing, it also provided a very strong opportunity for “person to person” conversation. An example of a conversation that marked me was with a man named Kevin from Bushwick. Upon first meeting him, I asked him how he was doing and if he needed water. He accepted the water and continued to tell me about his work detailing cars as well as the hopes he had when moving from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. We immediately related on both being from Brooklyn and now moving to Los Angeles just like I would with anyone who had undergone a similar trajectory. In that moment we had found common ground and connected with one another. It was also at that moment that I realized that by having these “person to person” conversations I actually learned the most about a person’s situation and could then feel comfortable asking them where they needed the most help.
However, it is important to consider that having these moments of connection where you realize your commonalities does not erase your differences and privileges. This requires, as Tania Mitchell calls it, “foregrounding”, a process that calls on volunteers to alter their personal and world views prior to the service experience to help volunteers understand and work through differences. As much as Kevin and I had related on coming from the same place, it would be insensitive for me to assume that we are the same as we have not had the same life experiences. During my time volunteering, I was reminded of my personal privilege as a woman yelled “Hey, White Girl!” To some, despite my efforts of being understanding and wanting to help, my external appearance did not communicate the same thing. It is therefore important to recognize the difference in experience and lives to more fully empathize and offer help.
The direct experience aspect of service work is what can give the organization hoping to effect change insights into the needs of the community. However, communication is not the only aspect necessary since beyond understanding the needs, implementing the changes and realizing the program is truly what impacts the lives of people in these communities. Through my past experience volunteering, I saw first hand that organization and structure are integral elements to making an initiative reality. The volunteers were all motivated to create change and engage with the community in a respectful manner, however the lack of organization left the efforts we put into the project stay unrealized.
Understanding how to have an impact on systemic issues made me realize that the direct experiences must inevitably be coupled with action on a larger scale. What I mean by action is not only the organizational structural efforts needed to bring these initiatives to life, but also action in terms of addressing the root causes of these issues. O’ Grady argues that “ Responding to individual human needs is important, but if the social policies that create these needs is also not understood and addressed, then the cycle of dependence remains.” By only addressing the temporary issues the underlying problem remains and is perpetuated cross generationally. The solution therefore appears to include an attempt at addressing the structural issues. If we are to entertain the approach that only focuses on the structural side, we can note the positive aspects such as directly targeting root issues and having the possibility to effect change on a large scale. However, it is important to recognize the downside from exclusively embracing this approach. When you only engage on the structural and policy aspect of issues you do not know the true issues that affect the community concerned and your efforts might not actually translate to what is MOST needed but only to what is a need.
In conclusion, good service requires the step of first speaking with the community through direct experience involving engaging in “person to person” conversations and constructive conversations about their needs. The communication aspect then should be followed by going to the structural side to target the issues through policy with a now more precise understanding of the root issues. Finally, to truly engage in good service the approach must be circular and you must return back to the community to ensure the efforts have materialized into actual change in sectors that they need as structural methods can often take time and the support you can offer through personal experience is still needed and necessary.
