The kinds of subjects constructed in the service-learning process
6.4 Complicated subjects
6.4.6 The resigned subject
confirmed this construction of her attitude by indicating that becoming stressed and trying to control events had not crossed her mind (“I didn’t even think about it” (line 557)). There was a lot of overlapping speech following Lisa’s turn, which indicated agreement amongst Kate, Mary and Lisa. Lisa also pronounced judgement on Elle’s attitude, proclaiming it as good with “and that’s very nice” (line 551).
Lisa’s talk also indicated that Elle’s current behaviour was different from what may have occurred previously. She emphasised the word “Tuesday” (line 546) to indicate how close in time the event was; she drew on Anna as an ally (“as Anna said” (line 547)) before risking characterising Elle as someone who would previously have been concerned about not being well prepared. This was indicated in her use of the term: “you’d be like freaking out I
haven’t done anything” (line 547). This was further extended by stating “blah blah blah blah blah blah” (line 548) indicating concern with (unnecessary) detail.
The Elle that was constructed in this talk was thus an Elle who had changed from being obsessed with detail and control, to one who was now more relaxed, flexible, accepting and trusting. Lisa joined with being more trusting by using the term “we” (line 545) in relation to this attitude. The turn to trust indicates a more philosophical approach. The other that was the object of this trust was not named, but the phrase “we just have to trust” (line 545) indicated that trusting something bigger and beyond oneself was a necessity (“have to” (line 545) means there is no other option).
The issue of trust is extended to “having faith” in the excerpt below, from session eight, where the students were again discussing departing from their community sites.
Elle: But it’s also with the S*[[teacher network]] (.) like coming to the end of 1181
the year (.) like I so badly wish I could do it next year (.) and then I was just 1182
thinking like (.) I don’t know how I’d be able to do it next year (.) I’m 1183
exhausted 1184
Anna: But that’s why we have to accept that there’s a time for everything in 1185
life and that you actually (.) I think a huge part of it is being able to say okay 1186
well we’ve done what we’ve done (.) now you actually need to let go and have 1187
faith that someone else is going to come along (.) like and have faith that the 1188
connections that we build (.) with N*[[speaker]] (.) with L* [[NGO]] whatever 1189
it may be (.) with Ms M* (.) with E* hospital (.) will even if it’s one person in 1190
the community that we never know of (.) and I think (.) that’s our (.) that’s our 1191
downfall in the sense that we do (.) we want this (.) he he like Mr K*
1192
[[principal of school]] wants to have his pretty library 1193
Carol: [( ) you want to have something to show for your time]
1194
[((Overlapping speech - unclear))]
1195
Anna: We want to show and we want to be like (.) you know we did a good 1196
job 1197
Lisa: Mmm 1198
Anna: Like (.) ( ) on the [shoulder] [((Touches shoulder to indicate something 1199
worn there))]
1200
(Session 8)
In this piece of talk, Elle contrasted her deep desire (“so badly wish” (line 1182)) to continue to be involved in a community-based intervention with her incapacity to continue due to being “exhausted” (line 1184). Anna picked up on this desire to do more and proceeded to counterbalance the need for achievement with the need to have faith. Anna promoted a philosophical approach where “we have to accept” (line 1185) and where there is a “time for everything” (line 1185). She emphasised the need to “have faith” (lines 1186; 1187) twice in this talk. The object of this faith was not made explicit, but she spoke vaguely of
“someone else” (line 1188), or “connections” (line 1189) or even “one person” (line 1190) who may come along. The references to faith and to a “time for everything” (line 1185) have religious connotations, but this is not specified in the talk. Both Elle and Anna pronounced closure on their involvement, but Elle declared herself not able (“I don’t know how I’d be able to do it” (line 1183)), and Anna declared, “we’ve done what we’ve done” (line 1187).
Anna’s talk recognised the limitation of their intervention, and thus there was the need for something else to happen by faith. Despite advocating a philosophical approach, Anna highlighted the students’ need for achievement: “we did a good job” (line 1196) and “( ) on the [shoulder]” (line 1199) [Unfortunately, what she said there was inaudible but in the video she touched her shoulder to indicate something worn there.]
This talk is also significant in that Anna identified with a community member (“Mr K*” (line 1192)) whom the students had previously criticised for wanting to leave a legacy (a functional library) upon his retirement (he was previously referred to as
“that man”). In the excerpt, she referred to him in a light-hearted manner: “we want this (.) he he like Mr K* [[principal of school]] wants to have his pretty library” (lines 1192-1193). Although she identified with him, “we want this” (line 1192) “like Mr
K*” (line 1192), the use of the term “pretty library” (line 1193) minimised Mr K’s desired contribution to something ‘decorative’.
This problematic construction of communities or community members is also evident in the excerpt below, which also took place in the last session. The excerpt starts with Lisa
referring to one of the prescribed readings for the session, and the talk then turns to justifications for why their departure is appropriate.
Lisa: Ja but I found it very nice because (.) you sad that you gonna leave (.) but 63 you leaving with the hope of whatever you’ve done is still gonna continue 64 even though it (.) if it changes it’s fine because it’s the growth and (.) like it’s 65 not (.) they said if you stay (.) and its stagnating
66 Carol: [Yes yes yes]
67 Lisa: [And dependency and stuff] so (.) even though you sad
68 Carol: Ja
69 Mary: It’s actually just [°( )°]
70 Lisa: [And you don’t want] to leave (.) you doing it for a 71 positive like you doing it (.) like (.) with a child if if (.) if the child needs to go to 72 a school and they don’t want to go to school but (.) it’s for their own good
73 Carol: Ja
74 Kate: That’s such a good
75 Anna: Mmm hmm
76 Kate: Example
77 Carol: But is that (.) I mean I did put a question mark here because he says 78 ahrm (.) often we force early endings
79 (Session 8)
Lisa’s talk emphasised the importance of the students leaving their community sites. She explained that, hopefully, the work that the students had started would continue or even transform (“if it changes it’s fine because it’s the growth” (line 65)), but that if they
remained it would result in stagnation or “dependency” (line 68) at the community site. She was careful to emphasise that leaving may be sad (“you sad” (lines 63; 68) is said twice) and that “you don’t want to leave” (line 71), but one is leaving for a good reason. The metaphor she provided was of a child being forced to go to school “for their own good” (line 73). The metaphor is patronising, likening the community site to a reluctant “child” (line 72). The other participants in the talk agree (with yes’s and ja’s and mmm hmm’s), with Kate proclaiming Lisa’s metaphor “such a good example” (lines 75; 77). Although I showed my agreement throughout her explanation, at the end of the excerpt, I inserted a query (“But”
(line 78)), questioning whether in fact the students were forcing an “early ending” (line 79).
In the query, I drew on prescribed reading (“he says” (line 78)) to strengthen the legitimacy of my query.
Lisa’s talk, and the other participants’ agreement, positions the community site as a child who needs to learn to become independent “for their own good” (line 73). Positioning the community sites in this way gives the students permission to depart and helps to ease their consciences about this departure.
Being resigned subjects enables the students to walk away from their work at, and their responsibilities to, their community sites. Adopting a philosophical approach, allows students to shift this responsibility to an unnamed other, or to spiritual processes that are beyond their control (stages of growth or phases of timing that they have no knowledge of).
This allows them to close off the experience and return to their own lives with their guilt absolved and with an acceptance that they are only a small part of a much bigger picture.
The construction of the community in a patronising or paternalistic way serves the same purpose. Here the resigned subject is able to draw on an “own good” (line 73) discourse, justifying that her departure will encourage the further development of communities towards independence.
This section introduced the complicated subjects that were constructed during the sessions, from the enthusiastic and excited subject who was determined to make a difference, to the overwhelmed subject who was stifled by the reality of the community contexts. These included the frustrated subject who grappled with a lack of ownership from community partners, or with dysfunctional systems, as well as the enlightened subject who was
conscientised and liberated through her exposure to the real world. They also included the guilty subject, who once enlightened, became aware of her privilege, and her inability to effect the changes she desired, as well as the resigned subject who adopted a philosophical and possibly patronising approach, which absolved her from that guilt and enabled her to have closure. The subjectivities described provide a framework for depicting the service- learning subject constructed in this course. The next section attempts to provide more detail
by examining the binaries apparent in the data, which served to construct these complicated subject positions.