Somewhere in between these poles are other ploys. Religious groups are very good with service, but (as with the LDS two year missions) often turn this into proselytizing (or “evangelism”). Companies that cajole people into “selling” have a point in saying that you should like people enough to want to sell to them, or have enough real responsibility for others that you really have to sell, not just pontificate.
Friday, November 28, 2014
"Service" and "shark tanks"
David Ignatius has an op-ed on p. A21 of the Washington
Post this Black Friday (or “Brown Friday”), “The healing power of service”, or
simply and bluntly “The case for national service” online, link here. (He could call it "the equalizing power of service", as below.) I’ve covered Stanley McChrystal’s call for
national service in the 18-28 age range before, and the Franklin Project, on
the Issues blog Sept. 13. 2014. Needless
to say, it could pose issues for the plans of young people in college now,
including some whom I know. The idea of
some help with tuition or eliminating some student debt in return would make
sense, prospectively (as part of a “service year exchange”, perhaps). Others will say they have to get right to
work, and some are already “independently employed” adults even as
undergraduates if talented and industrious enough.
The idea of service has always been spotty and
mixed. The “unfairness” of the Vietnam
era draft, with the system of student deferments and then the idea that better
educated men were less exposed to combat, is an important theme in all of my
three DADT books (especially Chapter 2 of DADT 1, and the first “fiction” piece
of DADT 3). The male-only aspect, while
ruled constitutional in 1981, says something about the values my generation
grew up with and that today’s more privileged young men seem unaware of. The Iraq war effectively implemented a “back
door” draft with the stop-loss provisions.
The issue was more significant in ending “don’t ask don’t tell” than
most people realize.
The willingness of medical people (Doctors Without Borders)
to serve in Africa and risk their own lives with exposure to Ebola (and other
diseases in the future), and deal at least with the mandatory isolation or
sometimes quarantine says something to. Overseas
service in undeveloped countries will always be challenging, particularly for
LGBT people because many authoritarian countries see LGBT values as culturally
or religiously disruptive (to say the least).
For retired people, it pretty obviously poses
questions, too. The Peace Corps actually
has taken people as old as 80. It’s easy to imagine rhetoric that gives seniors
living on retirement (and on social security which some conservatives say we
should means test now – as in the debt ceiling debate) “something to do”, and
since I’ve already set myself up with my own goals, that can become rather
threatening.
There are two components to all this in my own
mind. First, service can attract
customers and be “good business”, in the thinking style of “Shark Tank”. Many of Donald Trump’s “Apprentice” tasks
were charity drives. In this mode, one’s
efforts at service would be in areas of one’s own interests and talents. That’s why I participated in two “Chess4Charity”
events (Tuesday, Nov. 25 here, and Oct. 20 on Issue blog). Music is the other area. I don’t know how far efforts have gotten to
use music to help patients with dementia (in eldercare environments) or even
autism have gotten, and whether startup companies are getting into this – I will
find out. (The film is “Alive Inside”,
reviewed on the Movies Blog July 26, 2014). Another area is whether more musicians, who
may need income, would perform more at senior centers – I am somewhat familiar
with how that works from the eldercare period I dealt with for my mother. I can look into these more.
The other component, though, is about coercion. It’s about responding to needs as they
appear. That is what I find disruptive
and challenging. But I understand where
it comes from. My mother used to have a
phrase, “getting out of things”. It is
easier to do what you should in life if you believe that others will, too. This kind of thinking sounds a but Maoist, but it has a point: society is more stability if everybody learns to walk in the shoes of others at least sometimes, and shares the common risks (as with the military draft of the past). One does not always get to deploy one’s own talents, and one may wind up experiencing
subservience in a bureaucracy (as I talked about Sept. 30). Of course, one is supposed to connect into a
virtuous circle that brings one into more contact with others. Retired people
may be more in a position where “radical hospitality” could naturally be
expected.
Somewhere in between these poles are other ploys. Religious groups are very good with service, but (as with the LDS two year missions) often turn this into proselytizing (or “evangelism”). Companies that cajole people into “selling” have a point in saying that you should like people enough to want to sell to them, or have enough real responsibility for others that you really have to sell, not just pontificate.
Somewhere in between these poles are other ploys. Religious groups are very good with service, but (as with the LDS two year missions) often turn this into proselytizing (or “evangelism”). Companies that cajole people into “selling” have a point in saying that you should like people enough to want to sell to them, or have enough real responsibility for others that you really have to sell, not just pontificate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment