Feminist Community Engagement

Achieving Praxis

S. Iverson, J. James, S. Iverson, J. James

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137441102
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Contributors to this volume demonstrate how a feminist approach is strategically necessary for the community engagement movement in higher education to achieve its goals and illustrate the transformative potential of merging feminist theory with social action.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Susan Van Deventer Iverson
and Jennifer Hauver James

Higher education has always been inextricably linked to its communities; yet, it has varied in the degree to which it has engaged and fostered relationships with those communities. Just being present is not synonymous with enacting civic responsibility. Those of us within the academy ought to, we believe, make the most of the opportunities afforded us to be a positive force in our communities, working alongside our partners to take up and address persistent issues of equity and access. This is not easily done. As Hurwitz noted, “Civic engagement in inevitable, but thoughtful and principled political engagement is harder” to facilitate and enact (in Harward, 2012, p. xii).

More and more, universities are calling on faculty to incorporate service-learning, community-based and field experiences in their courses—both as a means of growing students’ civic identities and as a way to have a presence in the local community. Approaches to community engagement (CE) are varied; however, educators grapple with how to design experiential opportunities, develop students’ civic consciousness, cultivate action-taking skills, and facilitate the creativity needed to imagine new solutions to old (and new) sociopolitical problems. Ample debate circulates about what to do and why. These questions are inherently related, as our methods are shaped by the commitments we hold. For those of us who wish for our students to have a “thick sense of justice necessary for the conscious (re)production of an ideal society” (Wheeler-Bell, 2014, p. 464), we are challenged to go beyond isolated, “feel good” acts of charity, the sort that constitute the bulk of CE efforts in the academy (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

Our limited thinking about community engagement (reduced to volunteerism) has, not surprisingly, yielded limited outcomes. Students’ participation in volunteerism is up, but young adults lack civic (i.e., political) knowledge (Galston, 2007). Students feel good about their individual contribution(s) but fail to consider themselves in relation to a larger whole (Galston, 2007). Thus, we argue that we must move beyond charitable approaches to social problems to an examination of root causes. What is needed to shift our perspective from “How am I doing?” (and answering, “I feel good about helping them”) to asking “How are we doing?” (Galston, 2007, p. 638)?

Much theorizing about CE (e.g., Barber & Battistoni, 1994; Butin, 2010) has emerged, in part, as a response to concerns over perceived weakening of civil society and disengagement from democracy (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003). Some question the role of higher education in working toward the common good and CE efforts (Kezar, Chambers, & Burkhardt, 2005). Though the literature on students’ civic learning outcomes is growing (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Lichtenstein, Tombari, Thorme, & Cutforth, 2011), more scholars are beginning to ask what students are not learning (e.g., activism, resistance, capacity to question, participation in social movements) (e.g., Costa & Leong, 2012; Hurtado & DeAngelo, 2012; Wheeler-Bell, 2014). A response to these questions about learning outcomes may be found in critical and feminist perspectives on CE.

This volume aims to pick up this critical conversation by asking (and answering) the question: “What might be gained by bringing a feminist lens to the work of community engagement?” Many educators have brought a feminist lens to bear on their work within communities; these efforts, however, have largely been situated in feminist-identified communities and women’s studies programs. We see the potential for feminist activism to reach beyond women’s studies. We thought the time was ripe to bring a feminist perspective into a broader discussion of CE.

This volume has its origins in a roundtable discussion at the 2011 National Women’s Studies Association annual conference. The panelists at the roundtable represented various disciplinary perspectives, but were seated at a women’s studies conference, talking about “moving beyond the walls of women’s studies with service-learning.” With full appreciation and recognition for this disciplinary history, we want this volume to pollinate beyond the boundaries of women’s studies, to connect with an audience who may (or may not) be affiliated with women’s studies and may (or may not) be steeped in feminist thinking.

We extended our call for chapter proposals to insiders and outsiders of various circles: those within and outside of women’s studies and community engagement. In response, we received proposals from a varied and interesting group of contributors, illuminating the diversity of “who” does CE work. As we molded the volume, we sought to ensure this collection would be intentionally multidisciplinary, in an effort to appeal to a broad audience. Our contributors hail from education, administration, communication, psychology, nutrition, counseling, and women’s studies, among other disciplines. Our chapters chiefly concern community engagement in the United States, although we do include some perspectives from Canada. Our chapters draw primarily on work by White feminists (as we are), although chapters from other perspectives (e.g., the hybridity of feminism with critical race theory) deliberately challenge conventional thinking. Most of our contributors are full-time faculty; however, we also have contributors who are staff, administrators, community partners, and students. All chapters are authored by individuals who hold affiliation with higher education; however, most of our contributors are writing about, and their work is deeply embedded in, their communities. By definition, their community engagement interacts with and honors the work of their partners. Finally, our collection concentrates on issues and activities that are contemporary, but we are cognizant of historical points of reference on which and against which these current concerns and practices can be assessed.

Taken together, the essays in this volume illuminate successes and challenges of feminist community engagement. We have arranged these in two broad categories. Part I includes chapters that provide theoretical considerations, expand our understandings, and cross some (presumed) boundaries in the field of community engagement. Part II describes feminist community engagement as applied and experienced. While we have made this arbitrary division to the chapters, it should be noted that all chapters could arguably be assigned to either section. They are all rooted theoretically in feminism and many offer practical applications for our CE work.

Part I begins with a chapter by Verjee and Butterwick reflecting on their personal encounters with CE work within their institution. Using an autobiographical approach, they “illustrate the interconnection of racism, sexism and classism and how these underpin the dominant charity model of CE” (p. 31). Drawing upon critical race feminist theory and Whiteness Studies, their counter-stories call us to ask questions about who is doing CE work and to consider the differentiated risks in doing this work for women of color versus White women. In Chapter 4, Mena and Vaccaro extend the preceding narrative with their critical ethnographic study of how women of color role model CE. They illustrate the rich learning that can occur when college students observe women of color role models and emulate their community engagement actions. However, their findings also expand our dominant conceptions of community (to include family, religious groups, and neighbors or “fictive kin”). They reveal how CE is an important aspect of identity for women of color and used strategically to promote group survival.

Cunningham and Crandall, in their chapter on social media for social justice, move us away from the embodied experiences of women of color, to “the digital village.” Rooted in their teaching, they draw upon a cyberfeminist lens to critically analyze gender inequities in nonprofits. Specifically, they present two vignettes from their experiences designing and teaching a graduate class, in order to highlight tensions (e.g., the politics of race and gender) involved in engaging CE work with students. In Chapter 6, Bisignani echoes points raised by Cunningham and Crandall, providing a critique of pedagogical models that merely send students into the community as uncritical and temporary volunteers. She advocates instead for an activist-apprentice model of service-learning that crosses not only intellectual borders (meaning to disrupt students’ charitable thinking about their service), but also physical boundaries that separate the classroom within the academy from the surrounding community.

In Part II, authors describe and reflect on their practice. Seher, in the first chapter in this section, is a self-admitted novice to feminist pedagogy. She reflects on her incorporation of Pay It Forward (PIF), a service-learning and student philanthropy initiative, into a senior-level undergraduate community nutrition course. Acknowledging limitations in students learning outcomes, she considers how a feminist lens might push students’ critical consciousness. Moving to the co-curricular, Shaaban-Magaña and Miller describe how one women’s center engaged men in activism campaigns against interpersonal violence. Rooted in the feminist rallying cry of “the personal is political,” these authors describe challenges, tensions, and successes in involving men in CE work through their women’s center.

In Chapter 9, coauthored by a faculty member, student, and community partner, Clark-Taylor, Mitchell, and Rich describe the development of a summer internship in feminist activism. They highlight their successes and challenges as they purposefully shifted an internship in women’s and gender studies from service to activist CE work. Finally, Noel, echoing some points introduced by Bisignani, challenges those involved with CE work to (re)position efforts into communities. She critiques how CE efforts have come to be “located on a university campus, set apart from communities,” and, as such, she argues “they run the risk of overlooking or misunderstanding the challenges communities face as they struggle toward social, economic, cultural, and racial justice” (p. 175). She advances a three-pronged approach that can be utilized to develop sustainable CE programs, and she illuminates this approach with several exemplars.

Readers might recognize several salient themes that undergird this collection. First, this volume aims to cross boundaries or borders that have framed the work of feminism and community engagement. When we consider where this work might happen, we are situated not only in “bricks and mortar” classrooms or the “streets” of our communities, but also in virtual/cyber spaces. Cunningham and Crandall, in their chapter on “social media for social justice,” describe how cyberfeminism can be used to critically analyze gender inequities in nonprofits. Our contributors also move beyond “classrooms,” whether traditional or virtual spaces, to co-curricular places. For instance, the project described by Magaña and Miller is situated in the women’s center; however, it crosses identity boundaries too, by engaging men’s activism. Initial efforts involving men in campaigns against violence evolved into young men’s leadership and mentoring. Finally, Bisignani’s chapter pushes us beyond the classroom and into the community. She argues we must physically transgress boundaries in order to move into more complex ways of thinking and being.

Another theme that cuts across several chapters is that feminist community engagement is relational. It is through observation of and engagement with others that individuals “hone their knowledge and skill, creating an environment of constant renewal of praxis” (Ollis, 216). Bisignani’s chapter describes an activist-apprentice model that engages students with community partners, providing students with practical organizing and activist skills. Mena and Vaccaro too describe the importance of role modeling CE, specifically for women of color. Their work resonates with Magaña and Miller; both demonstrating how critical models, mentors, and authentic relationships are to learning and developing the skills needed for CE, and for collective action.

Consciousness-raising is central to feminism, which demands that we become personal with our subject—whether material studied in class, the communities in which we engage, or ourselves. Several of our contributors reflect on their changing awareness, and the critical importance of this reflexivity to their practice. Reflexivity, the third theme, is a process of reflection in which one examines oneself, her assumptions and preconceptions, and how these affect decisions, experience, and actions (Hertz, 1997; Warren, 2011). The contribution by Verjee and Butterwick illustrates this process through their critical narrative, in which they draw upon critical race feminist theory to illuminate the politics of privilege and exclusion in dominant (charitable) approaches to community engagement. Seher, in her reflexive chapter on her use of PIF, a service-learning and student philanthropy program, considers how a feminist lens could help her to achieve pedagogical goals that move students beyond volunteerism toward social action.

Most, if not all, chapters in this volume illustrate the final theme: disruptive pedagogy. We align with those scholars who assert that community engagement must move beyond its charitable orientation to instead cultivate activist-oriented attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Some feminists, concerned that community engagement has devolved into solely charity service, have abandoned such efforts, concerned they reinforce “the very power inequalities that feminists have worked so diligently to expose and challenge” (Costa & Leong, 2012, p. 171). Yet others are reclaiming and disrupting this field. Bringing an explicitly critical perspective, educators are deploying pedagogical and engagement strategies that “apprentice” activist work (Bisignani, Chapter 6). For instance, Clark-Taylor, Mitchell, and Rich, describing a summer internship offered through the University of Rochester’s Gender and Women’s Studies program, explicitly designed to develop students’ skills in feminist leadership and activism. Others argue for or model through their practices, how to (re)design spaces that can develop activist orientations and are, in turn, disrupting normative assumptions about their communities (e.g., Magaña & Miller, Chapter 8) and practices (e.g., Seher, Chapter 7). Noel (Chapter 10) argues that we must disrupt university-driven (and university-serving) agendas that sustain community engagement efforts in and on campuses. She advocates instead for CE efforts to reposition themselves in the community; in this way CE efforts will attend to issues of power; ensure authentic reciprocity; and empower deeper collective action.

In sum, these themes—boundary-crossing, relational, reflexive, and disruptive—are at the core of what we hope feminist CE has to offer readers. We anticipate faculty will pick up this volume to disrupt their pedagogical practices, and to reflect on how a feminist lens shapes the design of a course, the learning objectives, and the types of CE that students conduct. Administrators and staff in postsecondary institutions can draw from this volume to (re)imagine their CE practices. As institutions increasingly adopt experiential learning requirements in their curriculum, more courses will incorporate experiential approaches, partner with community agencies, and use service-learning. Thus, scholars, educators, and students across disciplines who are interested in experiential learning, service-learning, activism, civic engagement will find value in this text. Finally, having chapters that are coauthored by individuals who are within and outside the academy (i.e., a faculty member and a community partner) and across academic disciplines and administrative units (i.e., a faculty member with campus service unit), suggests this text could be used to spur campus/community, and interdisciplinary and cross-departmental, dialogues. The literature on CE is growing; this volume is unique, however, in its goal to bring a feminist lens to mainstream practices. We hope that your reading will spark fruitful dialogue and intentional action whether you are experienced or new to CE.

References

Battistoni, R. (1997). Service learning and democratic citizenship. Theory into Practice, 36(3), 150–156.

Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York: Palgrave.

Costa, L. M., & Leong, K. J. (2012). Introduction critical community engagement: Feminist pedagogy metes civic engagement. Feminist Teacher, 22(3), 171–180.

Eyler, J., & Giles, Jr., D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Galston, W. A. (2007). Civic knowledge, civic education, and civic engagement: A summary of recent research. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 623–642.

Hertz, R. (Ed.). (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hurtado, S., &am...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Chapter 1  Introduction
• Chapter 2  Feminism and Community Engagement: An Overview
• Part I   Theoretical Considerations
• Part II   Feminist Applications
• List of Contributors
• Index