The two readings this week discusses the importance of examining the limitations of service learning and the need to be critical of the services provided by student. Morton criticises the widely used Starfish Hurling story where a young individual attempts to help washed up starfishes. He considers it a miseducative analogy that simplifies the intricacies of human agency or in this case the starfish, who has no voice or say in the matter of being hurled back into the sea. In conclusion, Morton finds more merit in community service and communication between the parties involved, than individual acts of kindness without dialogue between service recipients and providers. Eby reiterates a similar position highlighting that students may learn from the service learning however; he is critical of the effectiveness of the service provided on a structural level. He points to potential negative effects of service learning such as blaming individuals, neglect in mutual communication and autonomy of recipients being compromised. He points out that a good design in service learning would include balancing the agency of the primary stakeholders which consists of the students, faculty, educational institution, service recipients, community agencies and the communities involved.

Firstly, Morton’s piece reminded me of Johnson’s piece on Privilege and Oppression we discussed last week. The one thing that stood out to me was Morton’s criticism of the narrative of individual acts of kindness by the privileged overwhelming the recipient. It alludes to a bigger problem of service learning and volunteering in a broader sense and how one’s egocentricism can overpower the agency of service recipient when we adopt a view that what we do is the right thing, it is good and just. An act of kindness in this case, without discussion or learning from the local members of a community can be self-righteous and even selfish. It is not to say as a student I do not want to feel good about the service and learning aspects but it is important to recognise the service we provide is not centred on our own narratives or our own understanding of what is good and just without consulting the community we intend on serving. It is harmful as it diminishes the autonomy of the service recipients.
Secondly, Eby highlights the concept of McService and happy meal service – quick bit size service that is comparable to putting a band aid on an internal wound. The problem with service approaches is it often times does not take into account affecting change on a structural or policy making level by targeting the root cause of problems in a community. We must be able to be reflective in our service process and extend beyond volunteering but examining social policy implications. It also makes me think about the negative consequences of voluntourism and how it has dire effects on communities it aims to serve, by entering into a community and coming up with short lived responses that require long term resolutions.
Finally, an issue I often grapple with is the idea of disability and individual deficiency. Eby points out that as providers of service we must not blame individuals with “problems”. I find this to be a very important concept that all service providers must understand. Deficiencies much like other concepts are social constructs that are simplified to be easily categorised and understood. This alleviates the need for government intervention if deviations from the norms are due to individual failings or disabilities. I feel that this view can be very ableist. Instead we should consider how our society is built to serve certain people and advantage abled bodies. We must unlearn ideas that reinforce simplistic stereotypes and blaming individuals for how our society is structured for certain categories we deem normal abled bodies. This view is useful in deconstructing not just ableism but race, gender, sexuality and class. Unlearning norms and critically reflecting on the service learning is also not a short term solution, as providers of service it is important that our learning and advocacy is also a life-long process. We must incorporate the idea of structural failings and sociological imagination in our everyday lives to better serve others.