Readers older than I may recall the Horn and Hardart Automats in New York and Philadelphia in the 1900s. By placing a few coins in a slot a hungry customer could open one of many small glass windows and retrieve a reasonably fresh meal. It was a new concept. Younger folk may recall another novel concept: pumping one’s own gas when gas stations began advertising their ‘self-service’ signs. Now, of course, in a growing number of commercial enterprises self-service is no longer a novelty. It is the norm rather than the exception. Is it a trend? We’ll see. It does, however, raise the question: can service be legitimately referred to as service when it is not addressing the need of another? Is ‘self-service’ an oxymoron?
Before approaching the question, one might reasonably wonder what the future of service is in an increasingly technological world where self-help becomes the norm and cyber connectivity replaces physical community. Will the seemingly omniscient and autogenous Artificial Intelligence be the new ‘Alpha and Omega’? Will the exigencies of our existence be so mechanically satisfied we need no longer rely on the support of each other let alone the ‘sweat of our brow’? Will readers younger than I someday find out. How does such a trend bear on the implied contradiction of ‘self-service’?
‘Self-service’ is an oxymoron. Service – to be authentic – requires that there be an ‘other’ where one party addresses a need in another party. Service acknowledges relationship. Between two parties it assumes a mutual recognition of some desired good. Service is prompted by the shared hope that the desired good will be realized by the service rendered. Without relationship service is not possible. Even when rendered anonymously, service in some way relates and links two parties.
Philanthropy, quintessentially, is service, both in terms of the realization of a mutually desired ‘good’ and in the establishment – or actually discovery – of relationship. While at any given moment a philanthropic impulse may address the need for some specific benefit and strengthen a relationship between two parties, philanthropy generally flows from a sustained awareness of universal goodness. In its ongoing, active response to this awareness philanthropy senses intimations of a universal solidarity.
One might wonder what, if any, role philanthropy would have in a world dominated by ‘self-help-ism’’. Probably none. However, such a world is not in our future. While we pride ourselves in being homo technicus and boast about our technological prowess, we are fundamentally homo sapiens. Accordingly, while supported by technology, we are stirred by the pursuit of truth, by our propensio veritatem. In spite of the numbing speed of its development, technology will not dull but sharpen our understanding that we do not live ‘by bread alone’ and that the truth we seekis found in relationship.
From a Christian perspective this universal relationship is a reflection of the Trinitarian identity of God in whose image and for whose purpose we are created. God is community. Truth is in relationship. Service, genuine service, leads to the discovery of this relationship.
What’s more, beyond providing a mutually desired good and strengthening relationship, the service of philanthropy – as it advances to universal solidarity – lifts the veil that hides the transcendent from the temporal.
What is the appropriate term for self-service? Self-help? If self-service is an oxymoron, ought not self-help be one also. Yet, we are told God helps those you help themselves.
Dana Robinson’s acumen for language and for understanding reality is so refreshing. He moves us toward humanization in a technocratic world. Thank you, Mr. Robinson!