Rick, thanks very much for this thoughtful "take" on neutrality--I'm glad to see it again and did read it when it was first published. We've begun discussing pluralism as another way of thinking about libraries' core mission or a guiding set of principles as well--would be interested in your perspective on pluralism and how it might inflect or deepen our understanding of library neutrality, or some of the recent debates about it. In any case, nuance about these complicated matters is always in order. Thanks for this article!
Thanks, Craig! Yes, pluralism is a concept that we need to think and talk much more about in libraries. It becomes a less popular topic as more and more librarians become convinced that their highest goal is to promote particular worldviews. As the window of acceptable perspectives shrinks, the likelihood that pluralism will be a welcome concept in libraries also shrinks. This is something I need to think more about. (I've actually written about pluralism in the Kitchen before, but the context was a lot more narrow -- it was specifically about publishing models [snore]: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/25/will-the-future-of-scholarly-communication-be-pluralistic-and-democratic-or-monolithic-and-authoritarian/)
I just attended a super conference, the Pluralism Summit, sponsored by the Pluralism and Civil Exchange Program at the Mercatus Center, one of the most rewarding ever for me. It was a small conference, first of all, that made it easy to talk to people. And the whole approach was to be inclusive of perspectives, and having the participants talk to each other, to learn from each other, rather than proselytize. These were faculty from various disciplines, artists, publishers, entrepreneurs, and civic initiative activists. These days, that's a welcome change from many library association conferences. Obviously, I'd advocate for librarians become much more aware of pluralism (linked with the principled approach to neutrality written about on this substack before--one that takes into account the nuances you'd addressed). I think the profession will do much better in "updating" itself with a richer understanding of pluralism even if the promotion of particular worldviews is the current order of the day.
In my view, the problem with that approach is that libraries may need to adopt a position of neutrality on issues that are not expressly political as well. For example, it seems to me that every library should offer a balance of perspectives on issues around the nature of gender. (Yes, gender issues have a political dimension, but I'm not talking about a position of neutrality as to what gender-related laws should and shouldn't be passed -- though that's essential too -- but rather neutrality as to what social or scientific views about the nature of gender may be expressed and hosted in the library.)
Perhaps surprisingly, I can get behind this view. One reason I think we should stop talking about neutrality and start talking explicitly about what our commitments actually are, is that neutrality has this slippery polysemy. Relying on the term "neutrality" (as what I call a solving name) makes it harder for us to actually talk about what we are really committed to.
I do go a bit further than Anderson, though, in that I don't think neutrality actually exists in any of the senses mentioned in the article. What looks like neutrality from one perspective (or in one form of language) is always an actual non-neutral commitment from another perspective (or form of language).
Who gets to decide what are commitments actually are? It is possible for us to have a commitment to a nuanced understanding of neutrality? Or pluralism and diversity of thought?
There's never a situation in which someone/group isn't deciding - that's my point. The "who decides" question is too simplistic. If we were to get rid of the notion of neutrality, we could then openly confront the inescapable question of decision instead of pretending we live in some mythical realm in which such decisions aren't already being made.
Libraries typically subscribe to the American Library Association's statements and positions in this regard, including its Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations), which includes important language about pluralism and diversity of thought.
Are libraries under any legal obligation to adopt these positions? No, and the question "who gets to decide what (the library's) commitments actually are?" will vary from library to library, depending in significant part on its mission and its organizational nature. (For example, the academic library of a religious college may answer differently than a public library does.)
Yes, thanks, my point, too, is that commitments themselves will vary, be contextual, be pluralistic. Sometimes they're vague and general enough for everyone to agree to them--the profession-wide or professional association ones, but lots of nuances enter the picture at the local level, at the type of institutional level, and we shouldn't assume a unitary set of "commitments" from everyone, in every library, especially those with a wide range of publics or constituents.
"and we shouldn't assume a unitary set of "commitments" from everyone, in every library, especially those with a wide range of publics or constituents".
I agree with this. But in practice what happens is that library administrators use terms like neutrality and intellectual freedom to impose their own commitments on their staff (because libraries are hierarchical and usually internally authoritarian). I'd prefer we stop hiding our commitments behind terms like that and start being open about where, how, and why we disagree and our commitments don't align, at which point we could actually try to deal with them. This goes for our relationships with our publics as well.
Sure, but the misuse of concepts like "neutrality" and "intellectual freedom" by certain individuals doesn't rob the concepts of their validity. The fact that we have commitments on particular issues doesn't change the fact that we should _not_ have institutional commitments with regard to others. In fact, just the opposite: it's our very commitment to pluralism (about which we should not be institutionally neutral) that should prevent us from taking an institutional stance on say, the question of whom our patrons should vote for (on which we absolutely should be institutionally neutral). Will some librarians and library administrators fail to make that very important distinction? Of course. Does that render the distinction itself void or irrelevant or impossible? Of course not.
This is probably getting too far in the weeds (my own view is that the commonly accepted pluralism itself has real limits that aren't acknowledged or expressed), but thanks for the discussion.
If you're interested, I have a book coming out next year which will dig into my thoughts around the limits of pluralism and the use of terms like neutrality and intellectual freedom as political tools.
I would also note that "hierarchical" and "authoritarian" aren't the same thing although, especially among those with left political commitments, they're often elided. Institutions are usually hierarchical in ways that can facilitate their functioning. Authoritarianism is something else entirely. Are libraries "usually" particularly authoritarian? That seems like a strong claim. I'm not a librarian, but I kind of doubt that's the case. Unless you have a commitment to regarding hierarchy as authoritarian.
I don't want to push back too hard on what is generally a supportive comment (:-)), but I do think we need to be careful in distinguishing between the reality of neutrality and perceptions of neutrality. I believe (maybe optimistically) that a library can adopt a position of neutrality on -- to use an example from my response to another comment -- the question of whether biological gender exists. It can do so by ensuring that voices from multiple perspectives on that issue have the same access to collection space, public speaking opportunities, etc.
Will there be people who see that approach as representing bias in one direction or another on that question? Sure. But will they be right? No, and that really does matter. When it comes to being appropriately neutral, the library's job is to achieve appropriate neutrality, not to make everyone happy.
Thanks Rick. I'm going to leave the gender question aside as too loaded for how I want to respond. What I'm getting at is that even a "neutral" perspective towards the example you used (political candidates) can always be reframed as a non-neutral commitment. "Not endorsing one political candidate over another" can be reframed as "commitment to the integrity of the electoral process", which is a positive commitment that someone who doesn't subscribe to the Canadian or American political system would never recognize as neutral. I think we should *embrace* our positive commitments, perhaps especially when we disagree, so that we can have these arguments openly, without trying to find concepts (like neutrality) by which to order the debate.
Totally agree that there are lots of questions on which the library cannot and should not be neutral. But "the library is committed to the integrity of the electoral process" is not a reframing of "the library is neutral regarding political candidates." It's a response to a different question. The answer to the question "Does the library endorse a political candidate?" is "No: on that question, the library is neutral." The answer to the question "Does the library seek to support integrity of the electoral process?" is "Yes: on the question of electoral integrity, the library is not neutral." Two questions may bear some relation to each other and still be entirely different questions.
>> The answer to the question "Does the library endorse a political candidate?" is "No: on that question, the library is neutral."
is not neutral, because not endorsing a candidate is considered a good. If a library is deliberately opting for a good, then it's not acting in a neutral fashion. I get that my way of looking at it changes the perspective on the question, though. Still another reason (to my mind) to replace the term "neutral" with something easier to grasp.
The library isn't neutral about the necessity of being neutral, but it is being neutral on the question of whom its patrons should vote for. Again: these are two separate questions.
That said: in the context of, say, political candidates, what do you think would be a better word to describe the library's position than "neutral"?
Phrased this way, I would probably use "impartial" over "neutral", but I take your point.
But I think you're right in the article - neutrality is so polysemous (and contested) that we'd be better off *at least* being very specific about what kind of neutrality we mean whenever we use it.
Hi Rick -- thank you for the reference to my Portal essay. I mostly agree with your take. There are important philosophical and political differences that generate the "library neutrality debate," but the word "neutrality" tends to obscure what we are arguing about b/c its meaning depends on the context in which it is used (and the assumptions of the librarian who uses it).
I have been thinking about the fact that "neutrality" is a relatively new term in library discourse. I believe that it wasn't until the late 20th century -- maybe in the 80s or 90s -- that librarians started to use the word. Earlier documents -- for example The Library Bill of Rights (1938), or The Freedom to Read Statement (1953) -- didn't refer to "neutrality" although they focus on themes (intellectual freedom, impartiality) that we think about in 21st century neutrality discussions. I need to do more research, but I think an intellectual history of how and why that word "keeps coming up" now would be useful.
Just out of curiosity: when it comes to an issue like the question of which presidential candidate people should vote for, do you think there’s a better word than “neutral” to describe the appropriate institutional stance for a library?
I don't think that there is a better word, but "non-partisan" or "disinterested" seem equally good. Before 2016, I would have assumed that this was a non-question ...
Rick, thanks very much for this thoughtful "take" on neutrality--I'm glad to see it again and did read it when it was first published. We've begun discussing pluralism as another way of thinking about libraries' core mission or a guiding set of principles as well--would be interested in your perspective on pluralism and how it might inflect or deepen our understanding of library neutrality, or some of the recent debates about it. In any case, nuance about these complicated matters is always in order. Thanks for this article!
Thanks, Craig! Yes, pluralism is a concept that we need to think and talk much more about in libraries. It becomes a less popular topic as more and more librarians become convinced that their highest goal is to promote particular worldviews. As the window of acceptable perspectives shrinks, the likelihood that pluralism will be a welcome concept in libraries also shrinks. This is something I need to think more about. (I've actually written about pluralism in the Kitchen before, but the context was a lot more narrow -- it was specifically about publishing models [snore]: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/02/25/will-the-future-of-scholarly-communication-be-pluralistic-and-democratic-or-monolithic-and-authoritarian/)
I just attended a super conference, the Pluralism Summit, sponsored by the Pluralism and Civil Exchange Program at the Mercatus Center, one of the most rewarding ever for me. It was a small conference, first of all, that made it easy to talk to people. And the whole approach was to be inclusive of perspectives, and having the participants talk to each other, to learn from each other, rather than proselytize. These were faculty from various disciplines, artists, publishers, entrepreneurs, and civic initiative activists. These days, that's a welcome change from many library association conferences. Obviously, I'd advocate for librarians become much more aware of pluralism (linked with the principled approach to neutrality written about on this substack before--one that takes into account the nuances you'd addressed). I think the profession will do much better in "updating" itself with a richer understanding of pluralism even if the promotion of particular worldviews is the current order of the day.
I think this overcomplicates the matter just a bit. This is why I think the word "neutrality" should be prefaced with POLITICAL most of the time in this discussion. "Professional Impartiality" might work, too. It's as close to "settled science" as such a notion can be in some other countries: https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/assets/DirectoryFile/Political-Neutrality-in-the-Public-Service.pdf
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/code-of-conduct-for-crown-entity-board-members/
In my view, the problem with that approach is that libraries may need to adopt a position of neutrality on issues that are not expressly political as well. For example, it seems to me that every library should offer a balance of perspectives on issues around the nature of gender. (Yes, gender issues have a political dimension, but I'm not talking about a position of neutrality as to what gender-related laws should and shouldn't be passed -- though that's essential too -- but rather neutrality as to what social or scientific views about the nature of gender may be expressed and hosted in the library.)
Perhaps surprisingly, I can get behind this view. One reason I think we should stop talking about neutrality and start talking explicitly about what our commitments actually are, is that neutrality has this slippery polysemy. Relying on the term "neutrality" (as what I call a solving name) makes it harder for us to actually talk about what we are really committed to.
I do go a bit further than Anderson, though, in that I don't think neutrality actually exists in any of the senses mentioned in the article. What looks like neutrality from one perspective (or in one form of language) is always an actual non-neutral commitment from another perspective (or form of language).
Who gets to decide what are commitments actually are? It is possible for us to have a commitment to a nuanced understanding of neutrality? Or pluralism and diversity of thought?
There's never a situation in which someone/group isn't deciding - that's my point. The "who decides" question is too simplistic. If we were to get rid of the notion of neutrality, we could then openly confront the inescapable question of decision instead of pretending we live in some mythical realm in which such decisions aren't already being made.
Libraries typically subscribe to the American Library Association's statements and positions in this regard, including its Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations), which includes important language about pluralism and diversity of thought.
Are libraries under any legal obligation to adopt these positions? No, and the question "who gets to decide what (the library's) commitments actually are?" will vary from library to library, depending in significant part on its mission and its organizational nature. (For example, the academic library of a religious college may answer differently than a public library does.)
Yes, thanks, my point, too, is that commitments themselves will vary, be contextual, be pluralistic. Sometimes they're vague and general enough for everyone to agree to them--the profession-wide or professional association ones, but lots of nuances enter the picture at the local level, at the type of institutional level, and we shouldn't assume a unitary set of "commitments" from everyone, in every library, especially those with a wide range of publics or constituents.
Yup, totally agree.
"and we shouldn't assume a unitary set of "commitments" from everyone, in every library, especially those with a wide range of publics or constituents".
I agree with this. But in practice what happens is that library administrators use terms like neutrality and intellectual freedom to impose their own commitments on their staff (because libraries are hierarchical and usually internally authoritarian). I'd prefer we stop hiding our commitments behind terms like that and start being open about where, how, and why we disagree and our commitments don't align, at which point we could actually try to deal with them. This goes for our relationships with our publics as well.
Sure, but the misuse of concepts like "neutrality" and "intellectual freedom" by certain individuals doesn't rob the concepts of their validity. The fact that we have commitments on particular issues doesn't change the fact that we should _not_ have institutional commitments with regard to others. In fact, just the opposite: it's our very commitment to pluralism (about which we should not be institutionally neutral) that should prevent us from taking an institutional stance on say, the question of whom our patrons should vote for (on which we absolutely should be institutionally neutral). Will some librarians and library administrators fail to make that very important distinction? Of course. Does that render the distinction itself void or irrelevant or impossible? Of course not.
This is probably getting too far in the weeds (my own view is that the commonly accepted pluralism itself has real limits that aren't acknowledged or expressed), but thanks for the discussion.
If you're interested, I have a book coming out next year which will dig into my thoughts around the limits of pluralism and the use of terms like neutrality and intellectual freedom as political tools.
I would also note that "hierarchical" and "authoritarian" aren't the same thing although, especially among those with left political commitments, they're often elided. Institutions are usually hierarchical in ways that can facilitate their functioning. Authoritarianism is something else entirely. Are libraries "usually" particularly authoritarian? That seems like a strong claim. I'm not a librarian, but I kind of doubt that's the case. Unless you have a commitment to regarding hierarchy as authoritarian.
I don't want to push back too hard on what is generally a supportive comment (:-)), but I do think we need to be careful in distinguishing between the reality of neutrality and perceptions of neutrality. I believe (maybe optimistically) that a library can adopt a position of neutrality on -- to use an example from my response to another comment -- the question of whether biological gender exists. It can do so by ensuring that voices from multiple perspectives on that issue have the same access to collection space, public speaking opportunities, etc.
Will there be people who see that approach as representing bias in one direction or another on that question? Sure. But will they be right? No, and that really does matter. When it comes to being appropriately neutral, the library's job is to achieve appropriate neutrality, not to make everyone happy.
Thanks Rick. I'm going to leave the gender question aside as too loaded for how I want to respond. What I'm getting at is that even a "neutral" perspective towards the example you used (political candidates) can always be reframed as a non-neutral commitment. "Not endorsing one political candidate over another" can be reframed as "commitment to the integrity of the electoral process", which is a positive commitment that someone who doesn't subscribe to the Canadian or American political system would never recognize as neutral. I think we should *embrace* our positive commitments, perhaps especially when we disagree, so that we can have these arguments openly, without trying to find concepts (like neutrality) by which to order the debate.
Totally agree that there are lots of questions on which the library cannot and should not be neutral. But "the library is committed to the integrity of the electoral process" is not a reframing of "the library is neutral regarding political candidates." It's a response to a different question. The answer to the question "Does the library endorse a political candidate?" is "No: on that question, the library is neutral." The answer to the question "Does the library seek to support integrity of the electoral process?" is "Yes: on the question of electoral integrity, the library is not neutral." Two questions may bear some relation to each other and still be entirely different questions.
I guess for me, this part:
>> The answer to the question "Does the library endorse a political candidate?" is "No: on that question, the library is neutral."
is not neutral, because not endorsing a candidate is considered a good. If a library is deliberately opting for a good, then it's not acting in a neutral fashion. I get that my way of looking at it changes the perspective on the question, though. Still another reason (to my mind) to replace the term "neutral" with something easier to grasp.
The library isn't neutral about the necessity of being neutral, but it is being neutral on the question of whom its patrons should vote for. Again: these are two separate questions.
That said: in the context of, say, political candidates, what do you think would be a better word to describe the library's position than "neutral"?
Now that I think about it, maybe I should have phrased my example differently, like this:
Q: Does the library support a specific political candidate?
A: No. On the question of whom you should vote for, the library maintains a neutral position.
Phrased this way, I would probably use "impartial" over "neutral", but I take your point.
But I think you're right in the article - neutrality is so polysemous (and contested) that we'd be better off *at least* being very specific about what kind of neutrality we mean whenever we use it.
Hi Rick -- thank you for the reference to my Portal essay. I mostly agree with your take. There are important philosophical and political differences that generate the "library neutrality debate," but the word "neutrality" tends to obscure what we are arguing about b/c its meaning depends on the context in which it is used (and the assumptions of the librarian who uses it).
I have been thinking about the fact that "neutrality" is a relatively new term in library discourse. I believe that it wasn't until the late 20th century -- maybe in the 80s or 90s -- that librarians started to use the word. Earlier documents -- for example The Library Bill of Rights (1938), or The Freedom to Read Statement (1953) -- didn't refer to "neutrality" although they focus on themes (intellectual freedom, impartiality) that we think about in 21st century neutrality discussions. I need to do more research, but I think an intellectual history of how and why that word "keeps coming up" now would be useful.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, John.
Just out of curiosity: when it comes to an issue like the question of which presidential candidate people should vote for, do you think there’s a better word than “neutral” to describe the appropriate institutional stance for a library?
I don't think that there is a better word, but "non-partisan" or "disinterested" seem equally good. Before 2016, I would have assumed that this was a non-question ...