A close reading of this influential 2021 book chapter reveals it to be weakened by unwarranted assumptions, unsupported assertions, straw man argumentation, and polarizing rhetoric.
The slippery way they use White Supremacy is the key here. To them, White Supremacy is a numerical outcome. That is, any system that has an end result of flourishing/suffering metrics within that system not being proportionally allocated among groups is a "supremacy" of the group that has the most favorable metrics. It has nothing to do with intent, with hostility, etc. Adolph Reed has of course demolished this dopey way of thinking about White Supremacy as if "Whiteness" is itself an organic living breathing entity that defines a thing rather than just ethic nose-counting. A strange idea that groups themselves, rather then individuals in groups, are units of suffering or flourishing and that every member of a trait group carries around in themselves, regardless of their individual status, the disparate metrics of the group in some metaphysical way. https://nonsite.org/the-trouble-with-disparity/
There are links to her excellent three-part essay series in the show notes. From part 3:
"As it stands, dissidents constitute a breakaway sect refusing the New Normal, and—much like the Amish or a colonised people—we are defined by the dominant culture as backward, anachronistic, recalcitrant, biased, unsophisticated, irrational, stupid, quaint and superstitious. We believe in silly old things like the category of woman, natural limits, personal responsibility, civil liberties, privacy and God. All these notions are incorrigibly passé. We negotiate with institutions rather than being told what to do by a cacophony of unimpeachable ‘experts’, and we view the government as there to serve the people, not the other way around. Laws and policies are not a fait accompli but embedded within democratic institutions."
Thank you, Michael, for all of your work in producing this new format for this substack, and for your focus on the rhetorical strategies most of all, used in this discourse of #CritLib. Of course, I've concluded that the rhetorical strategies are part of the "content" of this worldview, the shape-shifting and imprecision and lack of any proof of claims that are often made. Or the heavily cherry-picked data and evidence to form "narratives". Narratives have their place, but some grounding in reality matters. There's also the facile conflation, and category error, of "white supremacy" made equal with white demographics of the profession. (Brian speaks to the same point here). I know that John McWhorter has also written (as a linguist might) of some of these verbal and performative difficulties that make honest discussion very challenging.
Thank you Craig. Yes it is difficult to distinguish between form and content, between the substance (worldview) and the manner in which it is argued, which made this process both challenging and illuminating.
The idea of vocational awe seems to me to have its roots in "the library faith" that Oliver Garceau articulated in Libraries and the Political Process. Also discussed in Douglas Raber's book, Librarianship and Legitmacy: The Ideology of the Public Library Inquiry. Review here:
You alluded to them and I always like to remember that they hearken back to the PLI. When I first read the lead pipe article I thought immediately of Garceau but I am not sure crt lib people realize that questioning the library faith has a long history.
That's right! I've used your essay in a class. Knowing the literature like you do we build; knowing it catches people off guard as in the essay MD discusses.
It is kind of ironic that books like "Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life" ( Eric Klinenberg, 2018) have been so popular.
He was featured in American Libraries--https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/10/11/newsmaker-eric-klinenberg/
I especially like Klinenberg's "social infrastructure" as an overarching concept for libraries as essential civic institutions--part of an "epistemic commons." Any history of libraries in the U.S. must always include the influence of the Carnegie libraries and their impact in creating a broadly educated public.
Progressive Librarian--on whose editorial board I served-- (all issues are available online)--is an important source of discussions about library norms. I find it strange that the literature in PL is not considered as it was quite robust from about 1990-2022.
Students read articles like this and then launch into tirades against the field. However, there is a growing literature...that I then share and make the point that for quite a long time there has been robust literature. I was glad to share this recently: Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America Volume 116, Number 2 June 2022: Black Bibliography: Traditions and Futures
I think a lit. search will demonstrate that there is a lot of writing that makes this article less powerful.
That's what I'm finding with other CritLib sources I'm working on -- that there's no recognition that progress has been made, but instead authors claim that matters of race have been ignored in LIS, but offer no evidence that any kind of literature search was undertaken. It's just an assertion.
It is disrespectful of the many librarians of color who have done the work to document the history and call for change. There is a historical research reconsidering these leaders such as Renate Chancellor's (2020). E. J. Josey: Transformational Leader of the Modern Library Profession. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
The article under discussion seems to disregard this scholarship.
To some extent the critique of the field may have filtered to the public. Maybe for reverse reasons library boards in some states have disaffiliated with ALA. As ALA diminishes the possibility of change diminishes.
I work in Florida and the State Library has dropped affiliation with both ALA and the Florida Library Association. Florida has a population of 21 million people. The precipitating rational was statements by ALA leadership. FLA did lobby but the state's legislators had become convinced that ALA was not speaking for people of the state. They don't do deep dives--they saw a few statements and decided ALA was no longer a viable affiliation.
Fascinating. I listened all the way through. Thank you for having the patience to take it seriously. I just can't with articles like that. Two paragraphs in, I can tell that they aren't trying to make an argument or maybe they don't know how. They're just stringing together words with attitude. So, why waste my time. But you make a lot of good points by treating it as a genuine effort at scholarship
Me too (just finished). I think ignoring the 50+ years of effort made would create a sense that librarians are awful--but we haven't been. What about JCLC? We just held the 4th one in Florida.
I may be simple. I grew up outside of the town that had a library and could not take out books. I could visit the library and dream that one day I could use it. When I became a librarian, I was part of the efforts to create interlibrary use among libraries and allow anyone --even outside of municipal boundaries-- to have books. It was a lot of work--but we did it. I've been part of efforts to convince municipalities to share beyond their boundaries. We can't assume that financial support for libraries will continue under a new paradigm. I do think the field has done a great deal to make us better in honoring previously unserved groups. This is not new nor has it been ignored. Mary Lou Bundy brought so much of this to national attention with Activism in American Librarianship, 1962-1973; E. J. Josey wrote The Black Librarian in America in 1970; Camila Alire wrote Serving Latino Communities. in 1998; Maurice B. Wheeler wrote. Unfinished Business: Race, Equity, and Diversity in Library and Information Science Education in 2005. I could go on--but there has been significant professional attention to these issues for many years. It didn't begin because people could say "praxis."
I have a lot more. I have long been very much part of the efforts to expand library services. REFORMA is my main affiliation among ethnic affiliates. I look in critical librarianship for an understanding of the work of BCALA, REFORMA, AILA, APAALA, CALA and find little. I think "equity" is a term that is misused and misunderstood. When I have used it in my writing (notably Rocks in the Whirlpool) I meant equitable resource sharing. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED462981
Kathleen - I would like to invite you to please write a piece or create a bibliography that we can share on the substack for interested readers! You can submit a guest post here: https://forms.gle/x9kYoGXRyr6UGhw17
I am so baffled that "Not the Shark, but the Water:" ignores the vast literature--mostly by POC--as if this were a new idea that has not been explored, discussed and well-documented for over 50 years. Some respect for the elders is in order.
That would be a big project as there really is a vast literature. I will add to a list of things to do.
I would like to suggest the issue of Library Trends I edited in 2000. Over 25 years ago each of the ethnic caucuses had a history of focus on the issues considered in the article MD assesses in this podcast. These essays all address issues of equity and equality of opportunity for ethnic
Americans in the field of library and in formation science. Each concludes with a list of references that provides additional opportunity for exploration of the topic.
McCook, Kathleen de la Peña. Ethnic Diversity in Library and Information Science. Champaign: Univ. of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science (Library Trends, vol. 49, no. 1), 2000. 219p.
I think the thing that's really confusing to me about this podcast is that those who are writing about "radical empathy" do not always consider themselves to be part of the "critical librarianship" movement.
I'm still at the beginning of the podcast but I want to commend you for your fair and kind approach. I just went to a library board meeting where the staff put together a great presentation on all the issues they are facing-- violent patrons, declining physical circ/rising digital circ (and the greater expense of digital materials), lack of staff, etc. It reminded me of the good work librarians do in the face of a lot of stress. Having a broad collection and supporting intellectual freedom in itself likely diminishes racism and bigotry; at this point it seems like going beyond that, despite not being part of our mission, is beyond our capacity. In addition to librarians' progressive proclivities, libraries are also embedded within counties/cities or universities in which they may be following larger directives. Perhaps we should reframe the work we already in regard to intellectual freedom as supporting the larger objective to create a more just world.
Looking at cuts to PLs in the UK today. SO essential to recognize that the broad crt lib literature fails to consider variation in acceptance of the library as a public good across local,county, state governments. UK shows us that an institution like libraries can easily be dismantled. But, seems more sexy to tear down and not build from within.
Thank you. As an academic librarian who rarely has to deal with the day-today impact of social problems I really do feel a lot of empathy for those in the public library sector with all they've been asked to take on. So that aspect of the "vocational awe" analysis does resonate.
Yes I should have specified public librarians. About halfway through the podcast now. I always thought the concept of "vocational awe" had merit as far as trying to be all things to all people, but not insofar as upholding the principle of neutrality or the Library Bill of Rights, and I don't understand how refashioning the profession to end racism or other such goals would not also fall under "vocational awe." Also the very fact that the authors can flirt with attacking the foundations of the U.S., such as the First Amendment, is a testament to free speech. Reminds me of Marcuse's concept of "repressive tolerance." Interestingly he began his career in the OSS. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/12/29/herbert-marcuse-1898–1979
So, what of the library faith? Leigh articulates the library faith in a few different ways. Expressed in its most basic or modest form, he sees it as the belief in the virtue of the printed word, especially of the book, the reading of which is held to be good in itself (i.e., reading is good for you). “In its more ambitious form,” Leigh writes that the library faith is “a belief in the power of books to transform common attitudes, to combat evils, or to raise the cultural level.” In this way, the library faith is grounded in a belief that libraries provide an invaluable, albeit intangible, service. And yet, Leigh was not saying this what librarians should believe; he was trying to articulate the core beliefs that guided the profession, based on the research findings. What the Public Library Inquiry findings revealed is that many librarians agreed with objectives about role and importance of libraries but observed a gulf between how things were versus how they should be. In other words, there was a disconnect between the faith and the reality on the ground.
For, alas, libraries are not powered by faith alone. Librarians lamented that the library faith did not translate to sufficient funding, staffing, materials, or infrastructure. Survey respondents indicated a pronounced feeling of always having to do a lot with very little. Their responses also indicated that use was concentrated among a few core users and groups. And that while many of the librarians understood that libraries were appreciated, they saw that appreciation did not guarantee support. As a public good, they saw how positive contributions of libraries were difficult to quantify. Finally, they bemoaned that libraries were seen as less authoritative sources for information compared to mass media. It is this last piece that relates to one of the most compelling suggestions from the Inquiry.
--Contemplating the “Library Faith” in Times of Crisis
The slippery way they use White Supremacy is the key here. To them, White Supremacy is a numerical outcome. That is, any system that has an end result of flourishing/suffering metrics within that system not being proportionally allocated among groups is a "supremacy" of the group that has the most favorable metrics. It has nothing to do with intent, with hostility, etc. Adolph Reed has of course demolished this dopey way of thinking about White Supremacy as if "Whiteness" is itself an organic living breathing entity that defines a thing rather than just ethic nose-counting. A strange idea that groups themselves, rather then individuals in groups, are units of suffering or flourishing and that every member of a trait group carries around in themselves, regardless of their individual status, the disparate metrics of the group in some metaphysical way. https://nonsite.org/the-trouble-with-disparity/
Excited about the new podcast! Will start listening today. It may take a while for comments to generate as people will have to listen first. But on the same topic, I found this to be a fascinating (if somewhat depressing) discussion, in which the guest asserts that we may already be in a "dead culture" and people advocating for free speech, etc., are like the new monks, writing down the old ways on scrolls (Substack?) for future generations to discover: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0FRAtFBrF4GM?fbclid=IwY2xjawFGl5tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHb8GkjhvHUwqnYHemGz-ZTCXlUWimAVuJD8MtbWx5IabIzKlAziS8xexFw_aem_cS37WB27mM3o89VniEw-gQ
There are links to her excellent three-part essay series in the show notes. From part 3:
"As it stands, dissidents constitute a breakaway sect refusing the New Normal, and—much like the Amish or a colonised people—we are defined by the dominant culture as backward, anachronistic, recalcitrant, biased, unsophisticated, irrational, stupid, quaint and superstitious. We believe in silly old things like the category of woman, natural limits, personal responsibility, civil liberties, privacy and God. All these notions are incorrigibly passé. We negotiate with institutions rather than being told what to do by a cacophony of unimpeachable ‘experts’, and we view the government as there to serve the people, not the other way around. Laws and policies are not a fait accompli but embedded within democratic institutions."
Thanks Susan, and for the link!
Thank you, Michael, for all of your work in producing this new format for this substack, and for your focus on the rhetorical strategies most of all, used in this discourse of #CritLib. Of course, I've concluded that the rhetorical strategies are part of the "content" of this worldview, the shape-shifting and imprecision and lack of any proof of claims that are often made. Or the heavily cherry-picked data and evidence to form "narratives". Narratives have their place, but some grounding in reality matters. There's also the facile conflation, and category error, of "white supremacy" made equal with white demographics of the profession. (Brian speaks to the same point here). I know that John McWhorter has also written (as a linguist might) of some of these verbal and performative difficulties that make honest discussion very challenging.
Thank you Craig. Yes it is difficult to distinguish between form and content, between the substance (worldview) and the manner in which it is argued, which made this process both challenging and illuminating.
You mention, "the library faith".
The idea of vocational awe seems to me to have its roots in "the library faith" that Oliver Garceau articulated in Libraries and the Political Process. Also discussed in Douglas Raber's book, Librarianship and Legitmacy: The Ideology of the Public Library Inquiry. Review here:
https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=2277
Thanks Kathleen, I should have cited these!
You alluded to them and I always like to remember that they hearken back to the PLI. When I first read the lead pipe article I thought immediately of Garceau but I am not sure crt lib people realize that questioning the library faith has a long history.
Just gonna leave this here :) https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/contemplating-the-library-faith-in
That's right! I've used your essay in a class. Knowing the literature like you do we build; knowing it catches people off guard as in the essay MD discusses.
It is kind of ironic that books like "Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life" ( Eric Klinenberg, 2018) have been so popular.
He was featured in American Libraries--https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/10/11/newsmaker-eric-klinenberg/
He was keynote this summer at United for Libraries last month: https://www.ala.org/united/events_conferences/virtual/2024/keynote
How do the authors react to him?
I especially like Klinenberg's "social infrastructure" as an overarching concept for libraries as essential civic institutions--part of an "epistemic commons." Any history of libraries in the U.S. must always include the influence of the Carnegie libraries and their impact in creating a broadly educated public.
These are parallel discussions. Klinenberg uplifted by librarians at conferences but crt lib not considering.
Progressive Librarian--on whose editorial board I served-- (all issues are available online)--is an important source of discussions about library norms. I find it strange that the literature in PL is not considered as it was quite robust from about 1990-2022.
http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL_Jnl/jnl_contents.shtml
Students read articles like this and then launch into tirades against the field. However, there is a growing literature...that I then share and make the point that for quite a long time there has been robust literature. I was glad to share this recently: Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America Volume 116, Number 2 June 2022: Black Bibliography: Traditions and Futures
I think a lit. search will demonstrate that there is a lot of writing that makes this article less powerful.
That's what I'm finding with other CritLib sources I'm working on -- that there's no recognition that progress has been made, but instead authors claim that matters of race have been ignored in LIS, but offer no evidence that any kind of literature search was undertaken. It's just an assertion.
It is disrespectful of the many librarians of color who have done the work to document the history and call for change. There is a historical research reconsidering these leaders such as Renate Chancellor's (2020). E. J. Josey: Transformational Leader of the Modern Library Profession. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
The article under discussion seems to disregard this scholarship.
To some extent the critique of the field may have filtered to the public. Maybe for reverse reasons library boards in some states have disaffiliated with ALA. As ALA diminishes the possibility of change diminishes.
That's the other reason I'm pursuing this project: rhetoric and the ideas they are intended to promote and defend have real-world consequences.
I work in Florida and the State Library has dropped affiliation with both ALA and the Florida Library Association. Florida has a population of 21 million people. The precipitating rational was statements by ALA leadership. FLA did lobby but the state's legislators had become convinced that ALA was not speaking for people of the state. They don't do deep dives--they saw a few statements and decided ALA was no longer a viable affiliation.
Fascinating. I listened all the way through. Thank you for having the patience to take it seriously. I just can't with articles like that. Two paragraphs in, I can tell that they aren't trying to make an argument or maybe they don't know how. They're just stringing together words with attitude. So, why waste my time. But you make a lot of good points by treating it as a genuine effort at scholarship
Me too (just finished). I think ignoring the 50+ years of effort made would create a sense that librarians are awful--but we haven't been. What about JCLC? We just held the 4th one in Florida.
Thank you John!
I have a similarly hard time making it though illogical arguments, whatever the topic. My brain just starts shutting down.
I may be simple. I grew up outside of the town that had a library and could not take out books. I could visit the library and dream that one day I could use it. When I became a librarian, I was part of the efforts to create interlibrary use among libraries and allow anyone --even outside of municipal boundaries-- to have books. It was a lot of work--but we did it. I've been part of efforts to convince municipalities to share beyond their boundaries. We can't assume that financial support for libraries will continue under a new paradigm. I do think the field has done a great deal to make us better in honoring previously unserved groups. This is not new nor has it been ignored. Mary Lou Bundy brought so much of this to national attention with Activism in American Librarianship, 1962-1973; E. J. Josey wrote The Black Librarian in America in 1970; Camila Alire wrote Serving Latino Communities. in 1998; Maurice B. Wheeler wrote. Unfinished Business: Race, Equity, and Diversity in Library and Information Science Education in 2005. I could go on--but there has been significant professional attention to these issues for many years. It didn't begin because people could say "praxis."
Thanks again for the great sources, they will be useful as I go forward!
I have a lot more. I have long been very much part of the efforts to expand library services. REFORMA is my main affiliation among ethnic affiliates. I look in critical librarianship for an understanding of the work of BCALA, REFORMA, AILA, APAALA, CALA and find little. I think "equity" is a term that is misused and misunderstood. When I have used it in my writing (notably Rocks in the Whirlpool) I meant equitable resource sharing. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED462981
Kathleen - I would like to invite you to please write a piece or create a bibliography that we can share on the substack for interested readers! You can submit a guest post here: https://forms.gle/x9kYoGXRyr6UGhw17
Great idea!
I am so baffled that "Not the Shark, but the Water:" ignores the vast literature--mostly by POC--as if this were a new idea that has not been explored, discussed and well-documented for over 50 years. Some respect for the elders is in order.
That would be a big project as there really is a vast literature. I will add to a list of things to do.
I would like to suggest the issue of Library Trends I edited in 2000. Over 25 years ago each of the ethnic caucuses had a history of focus on the issues considered in the article MD assesses in this podcast. These essays all address issues of equity and equality of opportunity for ethnic
Americans in the field of library and in formation science. Each concludes with a list of references that provides additional opportunity for exploration of the topic.
McCook, Kathleen de la Peña. Ethnic Diversity in Library and Information Science. Champaign: Univ. of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science (Library Trends, vol. 49, no. 1), 2000. 219p.
I think the thing that's really confusing to me about this podcast is that those who are writing about "radical empathy" do not always consider themselves to be part of the "critical librarianship" movement.
Where does the work of David Lankes fit in these discussions?
Notably The Atlas of New Librarianship ?
https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/people/people-details?PersonID=460
I'm still at the beginning of the podcast but I want to commend you for your fair and kind approach. I just went to a library board meeting where the staff put together a great presentation on all the issues they are facing-- violent patrons, declining physical circ/rising digital circ (and the greater expense of digital materials), lack of staff, etc. It reminded me of the good work librarians do in the face of a lot of stress. Having a broad collection and supporting intellectual freedom in itself likely diminishes racism and bigotry; at this point it seems like going beyond that, despite not being part of our mission, is beyond our capacity. In addition to librarians' progressive proclivities, libraries are also embedded within counties/cities or universities in which they may be following larger directives. Perhaps we should reframe the work we already in regard to intellectual freedom as supporting the larger objective to create a more just world.
Looking at cuts to PLs in the UK today. SO essential to recognize that the broad crt lib literature fails to consider variation in acceptance of the library as a public good across local,county, state governments. UK shows us that an institution like libraries can easily be dismantled. But, seems more sexy to tear down and not build from within.
Thank you. As an academic librarian who rarely has to deal with the day-today impact of social problems I really do feel a lot of empathy for those in the public library sector with all they've been asked to take on. So that aspect of the "vocational awe" analysis does resonate.
Yes I should have specified public librarians. About halfway through the podcast now. I always thought the concept of "vocational awe" had merit as far as trying to be all things to all people, but not insofar as upholding the principle of neutrality or the Library Bill of Rights, and I don't understand how refashioning the profession to end racism or other such goals would not also fall under "vocational awe." Also the very fact that the authors can flirt with attacking the foundations of the U.S., such as the First Amendment, is a testament to free speech. Reminds me of Marcuse's concept of "repressive tolerance." Interestingly he began his career in the OSS. https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/12/29/herbert-marcuse-1898–1979
Caroline on "Library Faith."
The library faith
So, what of the library faith? Leigh articulates the library faith in a few different ways. Expressed in its most basic or modest form, he sees it as the belief in the virtue of the printed word, especially of the book, the reading of which is held to be good in itself (i.e., reading is good for you). “In its more ambitious form,” Leigh writes that the library faith is “a belief in the power of books to transform common attitudes, to combat evils, or to raise the cultural level.” In this way, the library faith is grounded in a belief that libraries provide an invaluable, albeit intangible, service. And yet, Leigh was not saying this what librarians should believe; he was trying to articulate the core beliefs that guided the profession, based on the research findings. What the Public Library Inquiry findings revealed is that many librarians agreed with objectives about role and importance of libraries but observed a gulf between how things were versus how they should be. In other words, there was a disconnect between the faith and the reality on the ground.
For, alas, libraries are not powered by faith alone. Librarians lamented that the library faith did not translate to sufficient funding, staffing, materials, or infrastructure. Survey respondents indicated a pronounced feeling of always having to do a lot with very little. Their responses also indicated that use was concentrated among a few core users and groups. And that while many of the librarians understood that libraries were appreciated, they saw that appreciation did not guarantee support. As a public good, they saw how positive contributions of libraries were difficult to quantify. Finally, they bemoaned that libraries were seen as less authoritative sources for information compared to mass media. It is this last piece that relates to one of the most compelling suggestions from the Inquiry.
--Contemplating the “Library Faith” in Times of Crisis
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/contemplating-the-library-faith-in