Dreams can lead to real thoughts, who'da known?

I had a weird dream last night, and I felt like I had to write about it.

I was invited to a sort of convention for the poor and homeless. The organizers of the event thought it would be a good idea to invite all these underprivileged people from all over my dream-scape to a 'special' location, one where they would never get a chance to go to otherwise.

The day of the event arrived very quickly, almost 2 seconds after I get the invitation. I suddenly found myself walking through crowds of homeless people, eyes caved in, faces wrinkled and worn by a lack of proper sleep and shelter... they look at me with deep, penetrating stares, and I have trouble shaking off the feeling that one woman, clearly addicted to morphine, has given me by simply making eye contact. Do you look at the homeless when you are awake, do you make eye contact with them as they ask you for crumbs? If so, it was akin to that feeling.

I wonder why everyone is so solemn, the mood is supposed to be cheerful and uplifting at this event. I look around my surroundings, and am quickly answered by what I saw. The location, thought fit for the occasion by the organizers, actually turns out to be Disneyland. I am perplexed by the idea of trying to provide one day to experience what most think to be a 'happy place' to those who simply could never afford to go there ever again.

I woke up thinking all kinds of things about this dream. It made me think of my own situation here in Vietnam, and about developing nations all over the world. Why do we think that we can make the lives of the so-called 'underprivileged' better by giving them tastes of what we can live every day? Where is the charity in having them realize that we do indeed have it better? These raise a greater question: What good can come out of giving someone a taste of a life that is so much better than the reality they will continue to face once that 'taste of the better' is gone?

The people in my dream were miserable, not because of their lives living as homeless refugees from society, but rather because this 'good cause' only caused them to feel even more secluded from the world.

What exactly are we Western volunteers doing in Dev. Nations? We come here, work long hours without reward, show our intent and willingness to participate in the local culture, learn more about the limits of our nature and being, and gain infinitely by adding this experience to our resume. Then, what do we do? We leave. We go home. We leave the hard lives which we have come to experience for the better world which waits for us back home.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a pessimistic view on international volunteering, but I can't shake the feeling that there is something morally ambiguous about the whole thing. Certainly, the most honest intern or volunteer knows that he or she cannot seriously affect the '3rd world' country that they enter... anyone who does is either a fool or a religious zealot. So we leave for our 'experiences', fully knowing that the experiences we will live can only provide us with nothing more than our own 'taste' of another's 'lesser' reality. We know damn well that we're coming back to our privileged worlds, which makes leaving all the easier.

On the other hand, to put a bit of optimism into my own view, I can say that sometimes the help we provide is needed. We can do good, we can make good friendships in foreign countries, and opening our own minds brings us closer to understanding the true plight of people in countries that are seriously in need of our recognition. But to say that we are volunteering for a better world, giving our services in exchange for no 'material good', may be a little misleading and perhaps a bit dishonest...

The word 'volunteer' is described as such by the Webster Dictionary:

"A volunteer is a person who performs or offers to perform a service out of his or her own free will, often without payment."

The term 'free will' comes up in this definition, which I found to be quite interesting primarily because of the implication of choice which comes along with it. People choose to volunteer, usually to help those who need it. Free choice implies an active will to accept the consequences of that choice, but in the end, everyone is simply human. Can a human being 'volunteer' to act in a way that is benefits only others and not themselves?

This raises another very important question: If the volunteer is to represent a symbol of selflessness, yet intrinsically benefits from his or her labours (be it knowingly or sub-consciously, directly or indirectly), can we say that there truly is such a thing as a 'completely selfless act'?

For instance, on Wednesdays I teach English to a class of disabled Vietnamese College students. I go voluntarily, and do not take anything in return for my services. However, I can admit that my reason for going is not even close to being selfless. I go because of the feeling I get during and after a lesson is finished. Teaching and interacting with the students brings me incredible personal joy and satisfaction. I simply love going to this class, I could never get enough of the laughs and lessons that I share with these students, and perhaps I am guilty of selfishly continuing these lessons for myself rather than for the overall benefit of the students.

I'm not going to pretend that I am here in Vietnam on some sort of mission to save the world. I am here to learn about myself, Vietnamese culture, and to open my self and mind to new possibilities. This experience will invariably benefit me in the long run, and I am very aware of this. Because of this, I would like to reconsider the meaning of the term 'volunteer', as it wrongly implies that those doing international volunteer work do so in the name of bettering the world, while knowing that there is always personal gain to be had from their (our) seemingly selfless actions.

ps:
In the future I promise to write more specifically about my observations on Vietnam, rather than focus on meaningless rants about the nonsensical such as I have above!