Essentially this address was presented to myself and my community almost word for word by a man we had not met before, and was presented as his own ideas. Several things were changed and adjusted to make it more directly applicable to our situation as full-time volunteers. A few people had heard it before, and I was not unfamiliar with the argument, having read an article where these ideas were applied as Illich originally intended, to 'mission trips'. I was not quite as taken aback. Some people were caught a little more off guard than others, and it definitely showed.
Not surprisingly, this launched all of us into a rather intense discussion. Some people were more emotionally reactive, and others were a little more contemplative in their responses. At times, people even walked out of the room out of frustration. Responses were all over the place. Most of us posed questions to the presenter to challenge what he was saying to us (that essentially we had no business being here and doing what we were doing, that our work is insulting and offensive to the poor).
I had trouble getting around the idea of staying in our own communities and how the term 'volunteer' actually applied to us when we were working alongside staff in our agencies with the same hours and similar responsibilities. I am not here (in CVV) to 'fix' anything or to 'save' anyone. At best, I can offer some help. I have been provided the resources to help tackle barriers that keep people in poverty, and do what I can to help provide those. Being able to provide $10.50 for a replacement ID or $70 for an expedited birth certificate can mean a whole lot. It's difficult to get a job or a place to live without a birth certificate. But I am merely offering a tool. I am not saying I can save anyone with this. Because I can't. I am simply a mediator between clients and funding because I happen to be a part of the Colorado ID Project and I can tell you off the cuff what you need for what states to get a birth certificate. When I am helping with food distribution I am merely the middle man between groceries that otherwise would be thrown away (literally, we get thousands of pounds of 'grocery rescue' each week) and people who wouldn't otherwise have access to fresh food (produce, bread).
A lot of us had difficulty grappling with the argument about not having a right to do what we were doing because we should stick to our own communities, especially in terms of leaving the 'poor' to help themselves. The varied backgrounds of CVVs makes it difficult to pigeon hole us into one category. Some people grew up as what some may consider 'poor' even if they wouldn't consider themselves that way. I know I didn't grow up anywhere near something that someone might consider 'poor.' But that doesn't mean that those who were given different or fewer opportunities than I can't ever be considered a part of my community. There is a huge housing complex going up across the street from my house that many of our client's will be moving into in the next month or so. I am not sure how there isn't a whole lot of gray area in that situation. Granted, we may not be over there every day becoming best friends with all of our clients. But I don't know what more you need to be considered 'neighbors.' We don't have a whole lot on our street, so they are all we really have in terms of neighbors and other people on the street. We may not be on a housing waiting list and in the same situations as our clients currently, but I think there is a great importance in crossing lines and growing together. Avoiding people because they are 'different' in some categorize-able way seems ridiculous to me. And judgmental. Community lines aren't always clear. Many of our clients have been well-to-do or 'middle class' for most of their lives but have found themselves in much more desperate situations as a result of the economy. Rich and poor are odd terms that mix and match more often than not. In our situation at CVV I think the lines are blurred and crazily drawn. We may not be a part of the communities we serve but we certainly aren't completely separate either.
I think the most difficult challenge that Illich's argument poses is how I consider myself and the work that I do. Do I pat myself on the back for being a 'do-gooder'? Do I present myself as a 'good person' to my family and friends? I think the argument poses a challenge of humility more than anything else. I am not better than the rich or the poor. I don't even necessarily know how to define the terms 'rich' and 'poor' anymore. I think that the work I do is important because it's made clear to me all the time by clients that no one wants to be 'poor' and to have to go and ask for help. And for many people being able to get an ID or actually have food that isn't canned, or to have just a few more cans of food means the rest of the week might be okay. I'm not solving anyones problems by a long shot. And I can't think highly of myself because I choose to work in a non-profit. I don't have to worry about paying bills, and even though I have little spending money, I have a huge house, my own room, and no worries that there will not be food in my fridge. By no means is my year of 'simplicity' a year of poverty. No cable or Internet for the year? Not poverty. I have heat. and a TV room with comfy couches. And a market that gives us free food once a week. Really, I am not giving up much at all this year. I think Illich has helped me remember that I am one simple person. I could truthfully be doing so much more than I am. Just because it looks 'difficult' and 'simple' in comparison to some other ways of life doesn't make me great and special. I just chose something more unconventional. That's all.
In the end they (the presenter and our staff members) revealed that this was an act, that the presenter didn't actually believe anything that he was saying to us. He was reading it as a way to present the argument to us. A lot of people were upset by the deception. They had felt personally attacked in several ways. I did not feel personally attacked and appreciated that different way of approaching the topic. I think it's important to be able to engage with someone instead of just reading an article where you may not be forced to really answer the challenge, whereas when a relationship is established, regardless of the nature of that relationship, the challenge is much more direct and difficult to ignore. I appreciated feeling like I really had to face the questions that were posed. What I didn't appreciate as much was that it seemed like that staff had expectations of our reactions. That is was 'good' that some of us got fired up. Why should we get fired up? What if we are truly struggling with the argument? It was presented to us with the staff intending us to think more about 'why we are here.' I couldn't help but thinking that it was the wrong question. Is my being here really about me? Is that the most important question I should be asking? Why is no one asking me what else I could do? Or how are my actions not necessarily ideal? It should not be about me and what I want and what I think all the time. My intentions and my needs seem to be prioritized over what should be asked of me by God and by the marginalized. I think it's important to reflect on my time and my intentions but it felt like the whole question just came back to me and what I wanted. I think that worrying about the specifics of my intentions is not what I need to worry about. Why are the poor here? Why is there is a need for so many agencies to provide help? Why is TANF not adhering to a 30-day processing period? I don't think it's just about your intentions but about what questions are being asked and why they're being asked.
