Thank you Brian! A much-needed overview of current challenges with #CritLib, or certainly some versions of it, and the impact it's having on the field because of the moral valence it carries, always assumed to be the only morally acceptable perspective, causing censorious attitudes and practices. It sounds as if a few audience members weren't good examples of open-mindedness. Good that you pointed out censorious tendencies coming from the Right as well, just manifested differently.
Thank you very much, Brian, for having the courage to make this presentation at the conference. It's a sad state that neutrality and free speech as fundamental concepts in libraries are nearly taboo at this point. I've been questioned by colleagues about book selections and decisions to not weed certain items (that did not meet standard weeding criteria). I was taken aback, not fully aware at the time of this overall trend in libraries. At the end of your presentation I found myself wondering the same thing as one of the questioners: well, what are we going to do about it? I think there's more of us in the profession who agree with you than you realize, however, we're just afraid to fight back as individuals.
I am ashamed I didn't have a better more hopeful answer to that question - I was pretty nervous as you can imagine. I was trying to walk a line that wouldn't skirt on personal antagonism to the displeased in the room. What I wish I had said is that we need to mentally and strategically separate, to use a religious analogy, the woke methodists from the woke fundamentalist and understand that the latter are not going to change their minds but the former can. But so much of this is an inch deep and a mile wide and made sustainable by people who aren't really down with the ideology exactly, but just, for understandable reasons, don't want to be on the side of the "God hates gays" or the "our racial history doesn't matter at all" people. I think lots of our colleagues might think these woke beliefs are just symbolic beliefs rather than empirical beliefs and are merely stand-ins to express values (much like many non-fundie religious people) and they are the ones we can reach. I think lots of our colleagues have this sort of mental shorthand "Hmm, there is something weird about this idea that, say, transwomen are women or that it is open season by the police on black people, but I don't want to downplay discrimination or associate with these right wingers, so I guess this is the stuff we believe now". Almost like scrolling through a software agreement without reading and clicking "accept" at the end just to get on to the thing you need. I think if we can reach these people and make them see that 1)Civil Rights and decency do not require this noxious ideology or endorsing its claims and 2)That we aren't locked in a "pick one of two teams" battle. and 3)That there is lots of epistemic ignorance about what people actually believe 4)That the woke ideologues are dead serious about these claims being empirical rather than symbolic then we can create a critical mass of small l "liberals" that can then make a principled case for viewpoint diversity that can show good faith in standing up to both left and right authoritarians.
This is why I've attempted to find a substitute for "woke" because it's truly weaponized by the MAGA right and in conservative media. I'm going with CSJ (Critical Social Justice), the acronym, of now, as a shorthand, although it's not totally satisfactory, either. Probably no single descriptor is because it's a bundle of notions and half-truths and under-evidenced beliefs masquerading together, and used for those who espouse them for a variety of motivations. Some of them, probably, for good reasons in their view, and part of it may be just for wanting to be good organizational citizens. But the gravitational pull of CSJ is very strong because all of the preference falsification / self-censorship occurring in our field.
Thanks for your detailed response, Brian! That's an excellent analogy and I've definitely observed the changes of many colleagues along the "methodist" line of thought, which are doubtless the majority, over the past 10 years or so in the profession. It does seem like it's reaching a point where some are having that "okay, wait a minute..." line of self-questioning, but it's a very slow process indeed when just questioning nearly gets you the firing squad, or the dreaded "right wing" label. The link you shared has an access denied error, maybe it needs different permission, but I'd like to read it. Appreciate you!
Thank you Brian! A much-needed overview of current challenges with #CritLib, or certainly some versions of it, and the impact it's having on the field because of the moral valence it carries, always assumed to be the only morally acceptable perspective, causing censorious attitudes and practices. It sounds as if a few audience members weren't good examples of open-mindedness. Good that you pointed out censorious tendencies coming from the Right as well, just manifested differently.
Thank you for this heroic effort, Brian!
Thank you very much, Brian, for having the courage to make this presentation at the conference. It's a sad state that neutrality and free speech as fundamental concepts in libraries are nearly taboo at this point. I've been questioned by colleagues about book selections and decisions to not weed certain items (that did not meet standard weeding criteria). I was taken aback, not fully aware at the time of this overall trend in libraries. At the end of your presentation I found myself wondering the same thing as one of the questioners: well, what are we going to do about it? I think there's more of us in the profession who agree with you than you realize, however, we're just afraid to fight back as individuals.
I am ashamed I didn't have a better more hopeful answer to that question - I was pretty nervous as you can imagine. I was trying to walk a line that wouldn't skirt on personal antagonism to the displeased in the room. What I wish I had said is that we need to mentally and strategically separate, to use a religious analogy, the woke methodists from the woke fundamentalist and understand that the latter are not going to change their minds but the former can. But so much of this is an inch deep and a mile wide and made sustainable by people who aren't really down with the ideology exactly, but just, for understandable reasons, don't want to be on the side of the "God hates gays" or the "our racial history doesn't matter at all" people. I think lots of our colleagues might think these woke beliefs are just symbolic beliefs rather than empirical beliefs and are merely stand-ins to express values (much like many non-fundie religious people) and they are the ones we can reach. I think lots of our colleagues have this sort of mental shorthand "Hmm, there is something weird about this idea that, say, transwomen are women or that it is open season by the police on black people, but I don't want to downplay discrimination or associate with these right wingers, so I guess this is the stuff we believe now". Almost like scrolling through a software agreement without reading and clicking "accept" at the end just to get on to the thing you need. I think if we can reach these people and make them see that 1)Civil Rights and decency do not require this noxious ideology or endorsing its claims and 2)That we aren't locked in a "pick one of two teams" battle. and 3)That there is lots of epistemic ignorance about what people actually believe 4)That the woke ideologues are dead serious about these claims being empirical rather than symbolic then we can create a critical mass of small l "liberals" that can then make a principled case for viewpoint diversity that can show good faith in standing up to both left and right authoritarians.
...I should say I use the term woke here reluctantly since it is so often weaponized to mean tons of things by the Right, but I am using it in the spirit of Freddie DeBoer here (he took this post down as he got tired of it being misused, but I saved a copy to Drive): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m6bMo6qZevYfpVnvf9YVCp3DOenNpdCoO7gbw1BbLVc/edit?usp=sharing
This is why I've attempted to find a substitute for "woke" because it's truly weaponized by the MAGA right and in conservative media. I'm going with CSJ (Critical Social Justice), the acronym, of now, as a shorthand, although it's not totally satisfactory, either. Probably no single descriptor is because it's a bundle of notions and half-truths and under-evidenced beliefs masquerading together, and used for those who espouse them for a variety of motivations. Some of them, probably, for good reasons in their view, and part of it may be just for wanting to be good organizational citizens. But the gravitational pull of CSJ is very strong because all of the preference falsification / self-censorship occurring in our field.
Glad you mentioned there was a second presentation on viewpoint diversity-- that's hopeful!
Thanks for your detailed response, Brian! That's an excellent analogy and I've definitely observed the changes of many colleagues along the "methodist" line of thought, which are doubtless the majority, over the past 10 years or so in the profession. It does seem like it's reaching a point where some are having that "okay, wait a minute..." line of self-questioning, but it's a very slow process indeed when just questioning nearly gets you the firing squad, or the dreaded "right wing" label. The link you shared has an access denied error, maybe it needs different permission, but I'd like to read it. Appreciate you!