Research Article

How Do We Inhabit Openness?: Rethinking Volunteerism in the Context of Whole Person Education

John Nguyet Erni
Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejsocial.2021.1.4.106

Read Counter
324

Downloads
436

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2021-07-19
Published 2021-08-20

Read counter = 324 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

— In this paper, I aim to advance a reframing of our understanding of “whole persons” in the well-established paradigm of Whole Person Education. At a time characterized by rising social conflicts and schisms, what would be an appropriate humanistic reimagination of a so-called well-rounded person? Drawing on the work of anthropologist Tim Ingold and using youth volunteerism as an exemplar of social practice, I propose the idea that a whole person, if achievable, is someone who inhabits “the open” as an unfolding, interconnecting, vibrant, and enjoyable horizon. Further, it is suggested that this open horizon moves with, and is moved by, strangers. It is hoped that an epistemology of the open that embraces stranger relationality, in the form of volunteerism or any other related social practices, will help us move toward a new whole personhood.

Keywords: ecological psychology; stranger relationality; whole person education; youth volunteerism

References

  1. T. Ingold, Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description, New York and London: Routledge, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  2. M. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. A. Hofstadter, New York: Harper and Row, 1971.
     Google Scholar
  3. J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
     Google Scholar
  4. VolTra, Annual Report, 2018-19, 2020. Available: https://issuu.com/voltrahk/docs/voltra_annual_report_2018-2019.
     Google Scholar
  5. J. Butler, Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  6. C. Han, “Precarity, precariousness, and vulnerability,” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 331–343, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  7. G. Standing, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  8. V. Amit and P. G. Barber, “Mobility and cosmopolitanism: Complicating the interaction between aspiration and practice,” Identities, vol. 22, issue 5, pp. 543–550, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  9. N. Coren, and T. Gray, “Commodification of volunteer tourism: A comparative study of volunteer tourists in Vietnam and in Thailand,” International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 222–234, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  10. J. N. Erni and D. Leung, “The dilemma of mobility: On the question of youth voluntourism in times of precarity,” Cultural Studies, vol. 33, issue 6, pp. 915-943, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  11. J. Kushner. (22 March 2016). The voluntourist’s dilemma. New York Times [Online]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/magazine/the-voluntourists-dilemma.html.
     Google Scholar
  12. N. G. McGehee, “Oppression, emancipation, and volunteer tourism: Research propositions,” Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 39, issue 1, pp. 84–107, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  13. L. Occhipinti, “Not just tourists: Short-term missionaries and voluntourism,” Society for Applied Anthropology [Online], vol. 75, issue 3, 2016, doi:10.17730/1938-3525-75.3.258.
     Google Scholar
  14. K. Simpson, “‘Doing development’: The gap year, volunteer-tourists and a popular practice of development,” Journal of International Development, vol. 16, issue 5, pp. 681–692, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  15. W. Vrasti, Volunteer Tourism in the Global South: Giving Back in Neoliberal Times. New York: Routledge, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  16. VolTra home page: https://voltrahk.learnworlds.com/home.
     Google Scholar
  17. R. J. Berger, “Disability and the dedicated wheelchair athlete: Beyond the “supercrip” critique,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol, 37, issue 6, pp. 647-678, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  18. Wheel Power Challenge home page: https://wheelpowerchallenge.org.
     Google Scholar
  19. J. N. Erni, “Who needs strangers?: Un-imagining Hong Kong Chineseness,” Chinese Journal of Communication, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 1-10, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  20. S. C-K. Chan, “A Hong Kong critique of identity: Belonging and becoming in the aberrant post-Colony,” Situations, vol. 13. no. 2, pp. 169-197, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  21. N. Ma, “Changing identity politics: The democracy movement in Hong Kong,” Citizenship, Identity and Social Movements in the New Hong Kong, edited by Wai-man Lam and Luke Cooper. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 34-50, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  22. R. Milkman, “A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest,” American Sociological Review, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  23. L-K. Pang, The Appearing Demos: Hong Kong during and after the Umbrella Movement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  24. G. Simmel, “The stranger,” In D.N. Levine (ed.), On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143-150, 1971.
     Google Scholar
  25. G. Simmel, The Problems of the Philosophy of History: An Epistemological Essay, trans, G. Oakes, New York: Free Press, 1977.
     Google Scholar
  26. G. Simmel, Essays on Interpretation in Social Science, trans. G. Oakes, Totowa, NY: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
     Google Scholar
  27. N. Karakayali, “The uses of the stranger: Circulation, arbitration, secrecy, and dirt,” Sociological Theory, vol. 24, issue 4, pp. 312–330, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  28. V. Marotta, “Georg Simmel, the Stranger and the Sociology of Knowledge,” Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 33, pp. 675 – 689, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  29. E. Murphy-Lejeune, Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe: The New Strangers. London: Routledge, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  30. R. Philip, “The return of ‘The Stranger’: Distance, proximity and the representation of identity in domain-specific discourse,” ASp [Online], pp. 53-54, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  31. A. Lingis, The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.
     Google Scholar
  32. B. Bertelsen and T. D. Bøe, “‘He is quirky; He is the world’s greatest psychologist’: On The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 37, issue 3, pp. 367–380, 2016.
     Google Scholar