In Herzberg’s article, I was not expecting his argument about the difference between social change verses charity. I had never differentiated the two ideas – my view had always been that charity encompasses the entire range of actions one can take when working for or with community members and organizations. But by differentiating the two as Herzberg does, it shows the importance of both aspects. One cannot be productive without the other, because we need to work towards overall change in society as well as a change in the lives of those who need it.
I also agreed with Herzberg’s statements about hegemony. I have always known that everyone who is without a home, job or education did not just simply mess up and get what they deserved. It is evident in people who work tireless low paying jobs that they have the termination, but they just have not been led the right way or given the opportunities based on many factors that are not easy to diagnose. However, it is difficult to look at individuals who have been incarcerated or who have not pushed themselves for an education and remember that it is not their fault that they are in the situation that they are in, because that means that I may not deserve to be in the situation that I am in. It is strange to think that others do not have the mindset that I have about working hard in order to gain what I want.
In Flower’s article, the idea of a “contact zone” was not something that I had not thought of prior to reading her article. She discusses the idea that members of community partner organizations may not see our presence as necessary, even though we are there to help or understand them. It is important to ease into having relationships with people at our community partner sites, because they may feel our presence as an intrusion or that we are judging them. It is important to eliminate the idea of “us verses them” but it comes with time. It is not until this differentiation is eliminated that we can connect with them.
I disagreed with Bickford and Reynold’s statement that activism has an extremely negative connotation. As shown by so many public figures, activism does not just mean angrily protesting outside of corporations or courthouse. It is about making serious changes in a flawed society. It is possible that I am naïve in thinking that most people saw activism as I did, but it is crazy to think that someone would consider activism as “against their beliefs.”
I do agree that, although there is a serious need for donating money and for the interpersonal connection of volunteering, these small things are not successful in the long run if activists do not work to change the bigger issues that have led to a need for donations and volunteering.
1 comment:
I respect your post however I would like to disagree on your second paragraph. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your point but I do not totally agree with your statement that "everyone without a home, job or education did not just simply mess up and get what they deserved." Now, like I said perhaps I am reading into this wrong but I think that is a bold statement. I agree with you for the most part but sometimes people do mess up and the situation that follows is a direct result of that. I do agree with the article in that the way our society is structured there are inconsistencies leading to the discrimination of certain types or classes of people. I feel like you said it best in your summation of the article that it is difficult to see a fault in the system for individuals who have so obviously chosen not to get and education, work, etc.
I would like to add that these two articles coincide well together (as I am sure that is why we read them together). I have worked with people in situations that (drawing from Herzberg's article) were out of their control. However, many times I have been faced with opposition from those people because they did not want help. I specifically remember working with a young woman who said she was comfortable where she was. Not phsycially or environmentally comfortable and not always mentally. But she was comfortable because it was all she knew. I thnk that this is a good example of Flower's article.
Now, as for your last analysis of Bickford's article. Although I see your point that "activism" does not always mean something negative. I have to say that when I think activism I think of something that I am not particularly eager to associate myself with. I agree that not many people would consider activism "against their beliefs" however I do feel that there is a strong correlation between activism and drastic actions associated with crazed pro-'this' and anti-'that' groups that the word does muster some negative thoughts.
Post a Comment