Margaret Babayan

November 9th, 2014

Reflection on What We Dont Talk About When We Talk About Service
This morning while on my weekly grocery run, two different organizations were outside
stores asking for food donations for local food banks. Next to each of these groups stood
homeless folks, also asking for cash or food. I was immediately struck by the inequality, by the
irony oozing from the scene. I felt frustrated, because I recognized that the need from food banks
stems from an unequitable distribution of resources. Students standing outside asking for food
could feel pride, as they were asking for others. Meanwhile, the homeless folks were there out of
necessity, their presence not an act of service, but one of survival. Reading Davis piece could
not have been more appropriately timed given my musings this morning. Moreover, I have been
struggling to articulate my qualms about volunteering and other forms of service without being
attacked as someone too focused on being critical. Nevertheless, service can indeed be good, but
that is only when, as Davis articulates, we are willing to talk about its downfalls.
I was struck most by Davis honesty and gutsiness in comparing service to picking ones
nose or wiping, only to conclude that we cherish inequalityand perhaps we do. I have long
fought with the idea that if I have, another will not, and appreciate Davis frankness in writing
equality is threatening; it might rob my loved ones of their security. I think that this ideal plays
out, even in the smallest of interactions. Take, for instance, giving change to or buying food for
the homeless. I admit to having given change or buying meals for folks, but I also admit to
walking past individuals in need. The tendency to ignore may be accompanied by a thought like
but Ive already spent a lot of money this week and still need to pay rent. In that microsecond,
I, too, think equality is threatening. However, when I do give, I feel better, and that also causes
me to feel anxious. Did I act out of respect, out of guilt, or out of wanting to feel better about

myself? This idea of cherishing inequality because we each benefit from some privileged identity
needs to be talked about, because I think self-awareness is the only way to move beyond feeling
threatened over losing our own privilege.
Working with Amnesty International over the past six years, I learned to think that direct
service was only a Band-Aid to social ailments while activism for policy change would yield
more long-term benefit. Because I was already critical of service, I do not know if this article
will change my role or motivations for working at my site. My motivations for working at my
site are to learn about and from my population. The after-school tutoring program provides a
service that I do not think exasperates inequality, but indeed exists as a consequence of such.
Many of the direct services at CISC are driven by the concept of empowerment. Services are
provided to help clients build skills, and ideally exist to help folks so that they eventually do not
need to use such services anymore. Still, CISC touts over 450 volunteers, and I am sure that most
people there operate under a Service is Good (SIG) paradigm. Most of all, reading this article
reinforced the idea that SIG, only when the server recognizes that service is reciprocal and that
there is much to be learned even from those who are less privileged. Being served is humiliating
when the server gives off an air of I am better than you or I am better because of this, but I
have also come across people who serve to stand in solidarity with populations they serve. The
distinction between pitying those in need of service and respecting their personhood is critical,
and I think that this is something Davis did not acknowledge in his article.
Service can move us closer to equality, but only when it is rooted in reciprocity,
solidarity, and is working in concert with efforts to change the root causes of inequality. Service
can reinforce a dependence on service. For example, if soup kitchen volunteers serve because for
the purpose of bragging about their service and never attempt to understand the population they

serve, then service does in fact move us farther from equality. This is especially true if no one is
working to address larger issues of food insecurity within a community. However, service can
and should do the exact opposite! Consider the following: the same soup kitchen volunteers start
to form bonds with those that they serve. They acknowledge that they can learn from those who
find themselves in times of hardship. They continue to serve with this attitude. These volunteers
may also start to engage in activism and lobby their representatives with those they serve to
address food security issues so that their service is no longer necessary. This multifaceted service
approach, I think, does in fact move us closer to equality. We can reach this point if we serve to
humanize, acknowledge that our service is minuscule in the context of systematic issues, and
work to inform broader societal change. However, this can only be done if we, as Davis suggests,
openly talk about the inherent flaws in service and move away from a service is always good
ideology.