Keith (2005, p. 16) explores two sources for the term COMMUNITY. The first "emphasizes shared meanings, bonds, and a sense of belonging." The second "means 'united through service'. This is a minimalist community whose member are linked through reciprocal duties and obligations involving services ..." <== institutionalized service learning (ISL) tend to define the community as organiations such as neighborhood associations, nonprofit agencies, educational organizations like schools, and nongeographic groups who share cultural or value characteristics.../ nonprofit agencies as the proxy for community and the effect of institutionalized service learning on "clients" as the focus of assessment.
1) The Idea of Community in the US
18th century white, Protestant New England, when the concepts of civic engagement and the interdependent community were most prominentISL... reflect that culture with its emphasis on encouraging our mostly white middle and upper middle class students to become engaged in charity work that neither encourages nor supports people who are on the margins--who are of color, are young, and/or are in poverty--to become civically engaged.
mid-19th century - Tocqueville's Democracy in America ==> civic engagement not as a moral obligation but as a self-interested calculation/idea of reciprocity
neoliberalism - zero-sum thinking
1990s - Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society ==> hyper-rationalization extended to ISL by focusing on establishing requirements, standardizing methods etc
2) Theories of Community Reflected in ISL
Communitarian - rights and responsibilities approach; no structured oppressionIn ISL, the practice of reciprocity is based on alienated exchange relationships between people from separate communities who will go their separate ways once the service relationship is ended, straying from communitarian meanings where the reciprocal relationship is between the individuals and their community.
Social capital - networks, norms and trust; weak vs strong ties
Asset-based approaches - ISL treating people in poor communities as "deficient" by default?We just now say that we are doing those things to build poor people's assets. Is that an asset-based approach, or just a needs-based approach wrapped in asset language?
All those three mentioned approaches do not reflect the concept of social structure, assuming that "the good society can be achieved without conflct, and with hard work from individuals integrating themselves to the existing society" ==> apolitical form of civic engagement