One topic that I found interesting in class recently was
what is raised in Professor Talwalker’s article that we read for class called "What Kind of Global Citizen is the Student Volunteer," which discusses how the
positive intentions held by college students can be dampened by the
inefficiencies and the profit-motives of the aid world industry.
Coincidentally, for that week of class I was in a conversation in which a
speech made by Ivan Illich called “To Hell with Good Intentions” was being
discussed, which I would like to present to the class because I think that it
is provocative and worth responding to. This speech even calls into question the
basic premise of volunteer work outside of one’s community (whether national or
international, but particularly internationally), and thus it seems that Illich
would be dismayed by the work that each one of us will be undertaking at our
practice experiences. It seems that Illich would disregard the various positive motivations that Talwalker explains in her articles and that many of us in class have talked about in driving your desire to volunteer.
For those of you that have not read this speech, it was a
critical address given to the 1968 Conference on InterAmerican Student
Projects, which means that he was speaking to a large group of students preparing
to go on mission trips into poor villages in Mexico to partake in voluntary
service. Illich highlights the apparent dangers of paternalism inherent in any
voluntary service activity and particularly in international service
activities. I will attach the link to the full speech at the bottom of this
post, but some highlights of the article are as follows:
- Questioning the persistence that students have to volunteer: “Your insight, your very openness to evaluations of past programs make you hypocrites because you- or at least most of you- have decided to spend this next summer in Mexico, and therefore, you are unwilling to go far enough in your reappraisal of your program.”
- Asking what impact a volunteer will have in a community: “All you will do in a Mexican village is create disorder. At best, you can try and convince Mexican girls that they should marry a young man who is self-made, rich, a consumer, and as disrespectful of tradition as one of you.”
- Criticism on international volunteering: “If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home. Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those whom you speak. And you will know when you fail. If you insist on working with the poor, if this is your vacation, then at least work among the poor that can tell you to go to hell.”
In regards to our class, I am wondering how we could respond
to these arguments that Illich makes. In regards to his first point that I
highlighted, what should we do if we find that, as we conduct our literature
review and criticize the approach taken by our organizations that we should be
willing to give up working with them? Is it unethical to complete the practice
experience for course credit and valuable experience if we really don’t agree
with it? Second, do you think it is possible that you will create “disorder” in
the target population of your practice organization? Lastly, do you agree in
the value that Illich points out in the third argument he makes about getting
feedback from the target population at your practice experience? If they don’t
agree with your presence and actions in their community, what are you going to
do? Do you feel ready?
Here is a link to his whole article: http://www.southwestern.edu/live/files/1158
I think the idea behind a practice experience is to challenge your own beliefs and struggle with opposing ideas. In my opinion, it is not unethical to complete a practice agreement if you don't agree with the work. In fact, I think it can be extremely beneficial-it forces you to confront why you believe a particular perspective, and if you still disagree over time, it can give you a better idea of why. As long as you are receptive and open to different ideas, it is perfectly ethical to challenge your own standing beliefs by engaging with a practice that you may not necessarily agree with (as long as they aren't causing harm to a particular group).
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second point, I think it's definitely possible that you can end up creating disorder in the target population you work in. But taking this risk is what the practice is about. It shouldn't be an uninformed risk, but rather one carefully deliberated on and where cultural context is key. Trying to read and learn as much as possible about the area that you will work in prior to the practice, while maintaining an attitude of openness and humility, will go a long way to ensure that you do not disrupt local communities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulia, I find it really interesting that you tied Ivan Illich’s speech “To Hell with Good Intentions” to Professor Talwalker’s essay because they stand in such stark contrast to each other so as to incite a deep level of critical thinking. The comparison of the two provokes a convoluted analysis insomuch as the main point made in one can both undermine and support the main point made in the other. By this I mean that the main point made in Professor Talwalker’s essay, that positive motivations can be found in student volunteer work, both causes me to find reasons to reject Ivan Illich’s argument as well as highlights reasons why I should agree with it. I want to reject Illich’s argument because it seems that Professor Talwalker has critically analyzed the various possible motivations of student volunteers and has identified valid ones. On the other hand, I want to accept his argument because Professor Talwalker’s essay highlights the typical nature of aid work as having to do with the self more than, or in spite of, the other. This causes me to see how Illich’s points may be more realistic: volunteers may be hypocritical, they may create disorder, and they may lack community responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions that you posed at the end of your post, I think that you ask important questions that do not necessarily have any concrete answers. Nonetheless, I think it is important to think critically about these questions and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability, although I know that my feelings about these matters will be ever-changing as I progress through the course and through my practice experience. For me personally, I know that my views are congruent with those of Breakthrough Collaborative for the most part. If they were not though, I would try to keep in mind that educational inequity is an enormously robust problem that is seemingly impossible to tackle. No approach can be entirely positive; there is always fault that can be found in any approach to a very complex issue. To answer your second question, I do think it is definitely possible to create disorder in a target population, and I think that this is potentially the most common unforeseen consequence of many organizations. Breakthrough does not seem to create disorder, however, by virtue of the fact that it is a summer program. I believe that the summer program actually provides a great structure to the daily routine of 6th-9th grade students who otherwise are likely to waste the summer away (I know I did at that age) and lose important knowledge learned over the academic year. It also helps the parents, especially as many of them are working the majority of the hours in the day, and thus, I do not see how the summer program could create disorder in any way. In regard to the last question, I think Breakthrough does a good job of getting feedback from the target population. However, Breakthrough is not a fully participatory program because it does not have to enforce the changes that the target population seeks, although it often does. I am very excited and ready to engage critically with this experience and bring new perspectives with me that I did not have last summer!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the questions you've brought forward with Illich's speech. Since I found my PE org, I've been trying to keep in mind to be weary of my own intentions because the adage that "good intentions pave the way to hell" mentioned by Illlich has been proven true time and time again. What I'm most looking forward to from my PE is having to face the reflection of my own arrogance inherent in my desire to try to "help the poor." I want to learn how I really feel about poverty alleviation once I'm in the field and have to deal with how messy it can be. In particular, I like the point about putting yourself in situations where you can be told to "go to hell." If the people I'm claiming to try to help won't tell me to "go to hell," no one will and that could mean I end up never really knowing the effects of my actions on the ground. What I mean by all this is not that I am looking for an excuse to discontinue my interest in poverty alleviation - what I mean by it is that I am looking to have my convictions shaken so that I will be forced to re-examine them and see if there is a way to reconcile them with the stark realities of poverty and decide how I can best dedicate myself to poverty action.
ReplyDeleteShould we be willing to give up working with our orgs if we don't 100% agree with their methods? Is it unethical to complete the PE if we don't agree? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say we shouldn't give up working with them because maybe it's important that we learn what it really means to inflict damage in the world so that we can know how not to do it in the future. Maybe that's what being a "double agent" is about. Maybe it will be unethical, but I think that it will be up to each of us to decide how far we're willing to go to learn a lesson about the world. Is it possible that we'll create disorder? I think it definitely is possible - in fact, although he would probably point out the irony with me saying this, I agree with Illich think it's likely that we will create some disorder. But perhaps it's better that we create disorder in a self-aware way as opposed to the way we create disorder in our daily lives by participating in global commodity chains and exploitative market economies without thought to the victims of such systems.
Illich seems to disagree with my belief that we should experience what it means to see the consequences of our actions on the ground is. For him, “The damage which volunteers do willy-nilly is too high a price for the belated insight that they shouldn't have been volunteers in the first place.” But for me it comes down to the discussion from GPP 115 about the dichotomy between the paralysis of cynicism and the consequences of action with good intentions. The reason I talk about continuing poverty action even though you might not be doing the "right thing" is because I've decided that for where I am right now in my journey into poverty alleviation, cynicism is not a good enough excuse for inaction. With this in mind, the only real alternative to inaction is action. But that doesn't mean forgoing the cynicism - to me it means holding on to it, internalizing it, making it your best friend, and treating it as the angel on your left shoulder to counter the devil on your right telling you to engage in poverty action despite what the consequences might be. I think that doing something is better than ignoring the problem and giving up because we can't possibly do anything about poverty - but I think that the interplay between cynicism and action is a critical one that I think we should engage with during our PEs.