To Help or to Serve, that is the question

Have you ever been told by an employee in a government office or business establishment that they were only trying to “help” you when you were there seeking a service or product which you have to pay for? How often have you listened to elected politicians say they are there to “help” the people? Is doing a job you’re paid to do “helping” the customer? Why do we call government employees “civil servants”? What is the underlying reason why many people complain about shoddy service on St. Martin and particularly in our hospitality sector? In short, to help or to serve, that for me, is the real question.

In common conversation, we often use the verbs “to help" and "to serve" interchangeably to describe acts of kindness or civic duty. We "help" an elderly neighbor with their groceries, but we "serve" our communities through volunteer work. However, the distinction between "helping" and "serving" is far more than a linguistic quibble; it’s a fundamental shift in how we perceive our place in the world and our relationship to others.

Indeed, beneath this semantic blanket lies a profound psychological and philosophical divide. As the late physician and author Rachel Naomi Remen famously noted, helping and serving are entirely different experiences of the heart. One is an act of inequality, while the other is an act of kinship. Understanding this distinction is crucial, as it fundamentally dictates our social behaviors and the political structures we choose to build.

Helping: A Vertical Relationship

To "help" is frequently to operate from a position of perceived strength toward another person in a position of perceived weakness. When we help, we often—consciously or unconsciously—view the recipient as "needy,” “broken," or "incapable.” This creates a vertical, hierarchical relationship. The helper sits on a pedestal of adequacy, looking down upon the person in need of assistance.

While the intent behind helping is usually noble, the shadow side of helping is paternalism.

Because helping is based on an unequal relationship of power, it can inadvertently strip the recipient of their dignity. It suggests that the helper has the answers and the recipient has the problems. Socially, this manifests as "charity" in its most reductive sense: a one-way street where the giver feels a sense of self-gratification or the “savior complex” and the receiver feels a sense of debt or inferiority.

That is why, where it concerns politics especially, I strongly believe that nobody in office is there to “help” but rather they are there to serve the public. Their professed “love” of the people should be measured not in how they “help” the people but in how they SERVE the people, whether or not they voted for them. They are in “public service,” not “public help.” They are paid - and quite handsomely, too - to serve the people whose tax money pays their salaries.

The Essence of Serving: A Horizontal Relationship

In contrast, to "serve" is to operate from a position of fundamental equality. Service is not about fixing someone; it is about seeing the wholeness in the other and offering one’s own wholeness in return. If helping is a vertical interaction, service is a horizontal one. It is a relationship between equals.

When we serve, we do not see a "broken" person; we see a fellow human being navigating a shared existence. Service requires humility because it acknowledges that the server is just as vulnerable and human as the served. In service, there is no "us" and "them"—there is only "us." As Remen argued, we "fix" broken objects, but we "serve" life. Service is an act of solidarity, where the primary goal is not to solve a problem from the outside, but to walk alongside someone in their journey.

Social Impact: Dependency vs. Empowerment

The distinction between helping and serving has immediate repercussions for our social fabric. A society built on "helping" tends to create a culture of dependency. If the goal is simply to alleviate a temporary deficit, the underlying systems that created the deficit are rarely questioned. Helping provides a fish; it doesn't necessarily concern itself with why the pond is polluted or why the person doesn't have a rod.

This may be why some employees in the hospitality sector see service as servitude and consequently behave in a manner contrary to what that customer service rule prescribes: “Rule #1: The customer is always right. And when that is obviously not the case, apply Rule #1.” An attitude of service places the customer squarely at the center of the relationship.

A society built on "service" fosters empowerment. Because service recognizes the inherent dignity and agency of the individual, it seeks to collaborate rather than dictate. Public service, when practiced correctly, involves listening to the community’s needs rather than assuming what they are. It builds resilience because it treats the community as a partner in its own evolution, rather than a passive recipient of external aid.

Political Implications: Welfare vs. Justice

When we scale these concepts up to the political level, the "Help vs. Serve" dichotomy defines the bridge between welfare and justice.

The Politics of Helping: This often manifests as a "top-down" approach. It views social programs as safety nets designed to catch the "unfortunate." While necessary, this political lens can become patronizing. It focuses on "managing" the poor or the marginalized. Policies are often prescriptive, telling people how to live their lives in exchange for assistance. This approach can lead to political polarization, as those "helping" may eventually feel a sense of resentment or "compassion fatigue," while those being "helped" feel dehumanized.

The Politics of Serving: This is the politics of public service in its truest form. It views the role of the state not as a charitable benefactor, but as a vehicle for the collective will. In this model, the government "serves" the citizenry by ensuring the protection of rights and the equitable distribution of resources. The focus shifts from "fixing" a class of people to "serving" the ideal of justice. This leads to systemic changes—addressing the root causes of inequality rather than just the symptoms. It moves the conversation from "How much can we afford to give them?" to "How do we build a system that honors everyone's contribution?"

Shift in Attitude

The transition from helping to serving requires a rigorous internal inventory. It asks us to abandon our need to be the "expert" or the "rescuer” or “savior”.

To serve, we must be willing to be changed by the person we are interacting with. It requires an attitude of kinship.

If I help you, I can remain separate from you; I can go home and feel good about my "good deed" while you remain in your struggle. If I serve you, your struggle becomes mine. Our fates are intertwined. This shift in attitude is the only thing that can truly heal the social and political fractures of the modern world. It moves us away from a transactional life and toward a relational one.

Conclusion

Ultimately, "helping" can be an act of the ego, while "serving" is an act of the soul. Helping may provide a temporary solution, but service provides a lasting connection. By recognizing that we are all part of the same human tapestry, we can move away from the condescension of "fixing" and toward the liberation of "serving." Whether in our personal lives or in our roles as citizens, choosing to serve rather than help allows us to build a world where dignity is not a gift given by the powerful, but a right recognized in everyone.

When an industry (like tourism) or a system (like government) operates from a place of service, it creates "social capital." People feel seen, respected, and valued. When it operates from a place of helping, it creates "social debt” and dependency. People feel managed, processed, and ultimately, replaceable.

‍