Mar 28·edited Mar 28Liked by John Wright, Michael Dudley
Growing up Catholic when the Index still had some influence--it only ended in the mid-1960s (Index of Forbidden Books)--I had a reflexive response to censorship. But to some extent we are back in those days again with a different set of recommenders.
I've been dismayed by writers who profess but don't get on the ground and create a mission creep.. As a life-member of REFORMA the effort has been to obtain books abt Hispanic kids--at all--similar to the Coretta Scott King Awards. I see this as fair and something that needed to be done. But imposing on everyone a template isn't right either. Books aren't selected at all if they don't meet current ethos.
"Some readers, writers, and critics are pushing to draw new lines around what types of books, tropes, and narrative conventions should be seen as permissible and who has the legitimacy, authority, or “right” to write certain stories. At one extreme, some critics are calling for an identity-essentialist approach to literature, holding that writers can only responsibly tell the stories that relate to their own identity and experiences.3 This approach is incompatible with the freedom to imagine that is essential to the creation of literature, and it denies readers the opportunity to experience stories through the eyes of writers offering varied and distinctive lenses. "
I have not read it carefully, but will. THB I have nearly stopped reading current literature because of these limitations. If you look at Notable Books from ALA over the years the shift shows.
Thank you for the summary. You convinced me to download the article (note that the preprint link didn't work for me). Mostly, the argument makes sense to me and clarifies different things that librarians mean when they talk about neutrality. But (perhaps b/c I am American) I have some resistance to the "Guardian State" theory. It reminds me of the guardians in Plato's Republic, and the natural worry of an American is that the guardian state will become a nanny state in which experts want to control what we do and think for our own good. I know that is not what you have in mind. So, I'll read the full article.
You are right, we don't mean a nanny state. Rather one that employs professionals and relues on evidence based policy. The section marking Weberian professionalism covers that.
Yes, but in practice it can be hard to agree on which one you have. Many Americans thought that our Covid policies reflected the professional expertise of a Guardian State; many others thought that our Covid policies reflected the moral righteousness of a Nanny state. In CA, at the start, I thought that our lockdown policies derived from evidence-based expertise. But, by the end, it seemed that claims of professional expertise had become fig-leaves for a desire to impose moral and ideological conformity. At that point, I thought that we needed a lot more democracy and a lot less guardianship.
Thanks, Michael and John!
Growing up Catholic when the Index still had some influence--it only ended in the mid-1960s (Index of Forbidden Books)--I had a reflexive response to censorship. But to some extent we are back in those days again with a different set of recommenders.
I've been dismayed by writers who profess but don't get on the ground and create a mission creep.. As a life-member of REFORMA the effort has been to obtain books abt Hispanic kids--at all--similar to the Coretta Scott King Awards. I see this as fair and something that needed to be done. But imposing on everyone a template isn't right either. Books aren't selected at all if they don't meet current ethos.
Have you seen the PEN report, Booklash?
https://pen.org/report/booklash/
"Some readers, writers, and critics are pushing to draw new lines around what types of books, tropes, and narrative conventions should be seen as permissible and who has the legitimacy, authority, or “right” to write certain stories. At one extreme, some critics are calling for an identity-essentialist approach to literature, holding that writers can only responsibly tell the stories that relate to their own identity and experiences.3 This approach is incompatible with the freedom to imagine that is essential to the creation of literature, and it denies readers the opportunity to experience stories through the eyes of writers offering varied and distinctive lenses. "
I have not read it carefully, but will. THB I have nearly stopped reading current literature because of these limitations. If you look at Notable Books from ALA over the years the shift shows.
CHE today:
Colleges Use His Antisemitism Definition to Censor. He Calls It a ‘Travesty.’
https://www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-use-his-antisemitism-definition-to-censor-he-calls-it-a-travesty?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_9420376_nl_Academe-Today_date_20240328&cid=at
This is excellent work.
Thanks Darryl!
Thanks Darryl
Thank you for the summary. You convinced me to download the article (note that the preprint link didn't work for me). Mostly, the argument makes sense to me and clarifies different things that librarians mean when they talk about neutrality. But (perhaps b/c I am American) I have some resistance to the "Guardian State" theory. It reminds me of the guardians in Plato's Republic, and the natural worry of an American is that the guardian state will become a nanny state in which experts want to control what we do and think for our own good. I know that is not what you have in mind. So, I'll read the full article.
You are right, we don't mean a nanny state. Rather one that employs professionals and relues on evidence based policy. The section marking Weberian professionalism covers that.
Yes, but in practice it can be hard to agree on which one you have. Many Americans thought that our Covid policies reflected the professional expertise of a Guardian State; many others thought that our Covid policies reflected the moral righteousness of a Nanny state. In CA, at the start, I thought that our lockdown policies derived from evidence-based expertise. But, by the end, it seemed that claims of professional expertise had become fig-leaves for a desire to impose moral and ideological conformity. At that point, I thought that we needed a lot more democracy and a lot less guardianship.