Thanks, John, for an excellent concluding piece in this series--which highlights the groupthink and the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) tyranny underpinning it. The censoriousness that accompanies "rightthink" and being "On the Right Side of History" is very much with us now. In a way, #Critlib has become the new hegemon that can't be questioned in a profession supposedly dedicated to intellectual and academic freedom and freedom to read. #CritLib champions need to question their assumptions about the ethos of librarianship, and likely, their entire worldview.
The young librarian who approached you after your talk at the ALA conference was manifesting "preference falsification" in dealing with his or her colleagues in the workplace. That is, by now, a familiar phenomenon for too many in the field who have reservations, or who want to ask questions, or who have more complicated views, about the idols of #CritLib. A great irony of our times is how the "critical" attached to "CritLib" may not mean "critically reflective" at all, or interest in real critical inquiry, but induction into groupthink itself in order to be part of the socially acceptable group in the field. Independence of thought, whether about the anti-empiricism of either woke Left, or populist Right, now requires summoning a lot of courage and stamina in order to avoid self-censorship, and to ask some of the searching questions you've asked.
Thanks again for writing these courageous and necessary articles.
"John Stuart Mill argues that the tyranny of collective opinion often is more dangerous to intellectual independence than restrictions imposed by political rulers"-- incredibly pertinent.
Thank you for this series, both for your personal candor and your insights into the profession. It's very dispiriting to learn how both Nancy Pearl and yourself were treated, and unfortunately there are many stories like these out there in our field.
My own take on this is that for a long time, most people were pretty happy with their libraries. People who took their children to libraries had fond memories of the libraries of their youth. Library problems were viewed as caused by outside forces, typically. But, suddenly, these people noticed that the libraries were up to no good. They had trusted the libraries their whole lives, and now, suddenly, the libraries have gone weird and they have no idea what to do. So they re-acted, spasmodically. Library Watchers of Greater Lowell tries to give patrons agency and to be pro-active (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556735437296) which is why it should spawn a thousand copies all over the US.
These are good articles. But as with the first article; there is the utterance of too many shibboleths. Many have excellent reason to believe that what killed George Floyd was the drugs he was on. He and Chauvin apparently disliked each other because they had both been bouncers at the same club at one point, so the very personal entered into that interaction. The fact that you still stick with THE NARRATIVE , that you don't seem to be aware that some people believe something radically different than you based on _facts_ has significance when you bring it up in this discussion. That you are aware that there are a few sides to the COVID-related pharmaceutical question is a point in your favor.
I think that there is an epistemological side to this question. "Flat-earthism" v.s. "holocaust denial" doesn't make much sense as antagonists. The problem here is that the question of the roundness or otherwise of the earth is empirically testable, so much so that Aristotle could offer convincing proofs of its roundness which work just fine today. I don't believe that any librarian is putting books that actually espouse a flat earth theory in the geology section. The roundness of the earth is really just a fact, the International Space Station orbits it every 90 minutes. Evolution is actually a theory constructed to explain a whole lot of phenomena; fossils, geologic formations, species. It's a subtle theory and relies on genetics which Charles Darwin had no concept of. I believe that there are books that seek to challenge the standard evolutionary theory shelved in the 500s. I haven't read them, but so long as they do it with science, that seems like the right place for them. Any history is a theory, too, and about facts that may be harder to discover than those on which evolution is based. There are no test tubes for history, no electron microscopes, no core samples. There are no time machines; no one can go back and check for themselves. It's just a bunch of humans, none of whom are us, doing stuff, some time ago, and maybe we have some records. We should recollect that humans lie all the time, unlike fossils and rocks, which are just mute witnesses. It is utter arrogance for any librarian or book reviewer to claim that they know that such and such a book belongs in the "holocaust denial literature" section as opposed to the WWII section, or the Germany in the 30s and 40s section, or such like. That's interjecting their belief into their cataloging, because they can not actually know, and they should have the humility to resist this sort of opinion-based classification, as should the LoC.
Thanks, John, for an excellent concluding piece in this series--which highlights the groupthink and the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) tyranny underpinning it. The censoriousness that accompanies "rightthink" and being "On the Right Side of History" is very much with us now. In a way, #Critlib has become the new hegemon that can't be questioned in a profession supposedly dedicated to intellectual and academic freedom and freedom to read. #CritLib champions need to question their assumptions about the ethos of librarianship, and likely, their entire worldview.
The young librarian who approached you after your talk at the ALA conference was manifesting "preference falsification" in dealing with his or her colleagues in the workplace. That is, by now, a familiar phenomenon for too many in the field who have reservations, or who want to ask questions, or who have more complicated views, about the idols of #CritLib. A great irony of our times is how the "critical" attached to "CritLib" may not mean "critically reflective" at all, or interest in real critical inquiry, but induction into groupthink itself in order to be part of the socially acceptable group in the field. Independence of thought, whether about the anti-empiricism of either woke Left, or populist Right, now requires summoning a lot of courage and stamina in order to avoid self-censorship, and to ask some of the searching questions you've asked.
Thanks again for writing these courageous and necessary articles.
"Conscience and cowardice are really the same things, Basil. Conscience is the trade-name of the firm. That is all."
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890), Chapter 1, Lord Henry Wotton.
Great quote.
"John Stuart Mill argues that the tyranny of collective opinion often is more dangerous to intellectual independence than restrictions imposed by political rulers"-- incredibly pertinent.
Thank you for this series, both for your personal candor and your insights into the profession. It's very dispiriting to learn how both Nancy Pearl and yourself were treated, and unfortunately there are many stories like these out there in our field.
Your mention of Jonathan Israel 's book reminded me again of what a profound effect it had on me.
I think what really sticks in your craw about Pearl is the inescapable image of a fallen hero.
The ALA adheres to no principle; so none of its work can, in fact, be admirable. Library Watchers of Greater Lowell (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556735437296) however, is awesome and highly principled.
My own take on this is that for a long time, most people were pretty happy with their libraries. People who took their children to libraries had fond memories of the libraries of their youth. Library problems were viewed as caused by outside forces, typically. But, suddenly, these people noticed that the libraries were up to no good. They had trusted the libraries their whole lives, and now, suddenly, the libraries have gone weird and they have no idea what to do. So they re-acted, spasmodically. Library Watchers of Greater Lowell tries to give patrons agency and to be pro-active (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556735437296) which is why it should spawn a thousand copies all over the US.
These are good articles. But as with the first article; there is the utterance of too many shibboleths. Many have excellent reason to believe that what killed George Floyd was the drugs he was on. He and Chauvin apparently disliked each other because they had both been bouncers at the same club at one point, so the very personal entered into that interaction. The fact that you still stick with THE NARRATIVE , that you don't seem to be aware that some people believe something radically different than you based on _facts_ has significance when you bring it up in this discussion. That you are aware that there are a few sides to the COVID-related pharmaceutical question is a point in your favor.
I think that there is an epistemological side to this question. "Flat-earthism" v.s. "holocaust denial" doesn't make much sense as antagonists. The problem here is that the question of the roundness or otherwise of the earth is empirically testable, so much so that Aristotle could offer convincing proofs of its roundness which work just fine today. I don't believe that any librarian is putting books that actually espouse a flat earth theory in the geology section. The roundness of the earth is really just a fact, the International Space Station orbits it every 90 minutes. Evolution is actually a theory constructed to explain a whole lot of phenomena; fossils, geologic formations, species. It's a subtle theory and relies on genetics which Charles Darwin had no concept of. I believe that there are books that seek to challenge the standard evolutionary theory shelved in the 500s. I haven't read them, but so long as they do it with science, that seems like the right place for them. Any history is a theory, too, and about facts that may be harder to discover than those on which evolution is based. There are no test tubes for history, no electron microscopes, no core samples. There are no time machines; no one can go back and check for themselves. It's just a bunch of humans, none of whom are us, doing stuff, some time ago, and maybe we have some records. We should recollect that humans lie all the time, unlike fossils and rocks, which are just mute witnesses. It is utter arrogance for any librarian or book reviewer to claim that they know that such and such a book belongs in the "holocaust denial literature" section as opposed to the WWII section, or the Germany in the 30s and 40s section, or such like. That's interjecting their belief into their cataloging, because they can not actually know, and they should have the humility to resist this sort of opinion-based classification, as should the LoC.