Michael, I was one of the speakers on that panel and, respectfully, you have deeply and fundamentally misunderstood my position and that of the other panelists. I am happy to discuss any of these issues with you one-on-one if you are interested in understanding the difference between the position I hold on all of this and the one you are (mis)representing here. I suspect that we hold such very different opinions on social ontology, epistemology, etc, that such a discussion would be fruitless. However, I did want to make a statement here that the positions you have ascribed to us are a complete and total misunderstanding of the bases of our position. I have no problem being criticized, but you should at least ensure you understand what it is you're critiquing.
The Substack welcomes rebuttal pieces: To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).
To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, send an email with the article title, author name, and article document to hxlibsstack@gmail.com. Unless otherwise requested, the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!
Sam - I have read a good deal of your work, including your book so feel I have a solid understanding regarding your views on "taking sides". However if I did misinterpret the intent of these comments on the part of the panelists then I would welcome a chance to hear any correction. As you can see below we welcome rebuttal pieces. Thanks.
Thanks both. I've *already* written a lot on all of these topics, so feel free to refer to any of them. One major misunderstanding is that you continue to portray my stance on taking a side as being opposed to *not* taking a side (neutrality). I have written in many places that, from my perspective and that of many other political and critical theorists, there is no un-committed position, no position which is not always-already taking a side. If you are going to draw conclusions from my stance on taking a side, you have to be explicit about that fundamental basis. I have explored all of these issues on my blog. This particular topic can be found here: https://redlibrarian.github.io/article/2019/02/07/on-innocence.html
I just read your piece. Are you suggesting that librarians make their commitment "explicit" by stating that it is based on the "bromides" of liberalism? Or are you suggesting we switch to other commitments?
The first step is always to be explicit about the existing commitments - which is what I tried to do in my blog and my book. This requires giving up on the idea of neutrality which can only obscure those commitments. That's a necessary prerequisite to deciding on whether those are commitments we want to continue with (I don't think they are) or whether we want to find new ones. Presenting my position as "taking a side" versus some kind of real neutrality serves to make that first step impossible, as well as enabling the portrayal of critics of neutrality as quasi- or crypto-fascists.
Whatever side is taken, the persons on the other side should be treated respectfully and not immediately called names. Library users are quite sensitive to this. Clear explanations w/o name calling works best. A lot of discussion floating around librarian social media provides examples of name-calling w/o context. I had a vegan student who felt he should weed all books that included recipes with meat because of his very ardent beliefs. However, he tried to reason with patrons and did not call them names. I don't think he won them over, but they didn't leave the discussion feeling belittled.
That's quite a story about the student who wanted to weed all books with recipes including meat. It seems like college students are being educated in such a way that they are ill-suited for librarianship.
Sam and Safiya’s judgements both seem to be afflicted by the same error. Neutrality isn’t upheld by people who are ignorant of what that means. They are not innocent. That’s ridiculous. No adult who has graduated from library school and worked in their field would be innocent. Aiming for neutrality is what being neutral is about. The intent is what matters. It allows for an openness to ideas and possibilities. Explicitly taking a side or limiting yourself by saying you are on a side is the first step towards closing yourself off from diverse thoughts and perspectives. Neutrality is a process not a state of being. Library professionals need to commit to the process of neutrality if they want to aid in preserving the democratic process and traditional liberalism. The lens of neutrality is what enables bringing forward useful critiques raised by political and critical theorists while ensuring society doesn’t suffer, as it would if it embraced the critical theorists whole philosophy since the philosophy is limited by being a political ideology.
I teach LIS and avoid characterizing groups of people with whom I disagree as bigots or displaying bigotry. I try my best to explain to students that even if we disagree (personally) with a group, we can work better with them if we do not label them based on our beliefs. There can be common ground and if we start there it is easier to move forward and maybe provide materials and programming that creates more common ground.
Sometimes on these topics I think of Raskolnikov's dream--"Everyone was excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know who to blame, who to justify."
This segment of the Free Expression podcast by the Centre for Constitutional Studies is an excellent argument on why free expression and free speech are not about hegemony but about a timeless human need for expression and access to information that predates any colonialism: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3JqJ7esXi1RLEkrHr0bFlb?si=rFB-AHgMTgOaYi2xnOO3nA&t=2560
Thank you for the introduction to Hollander.
Michael, I was one of the speakers on that panel and, respectfully, you have deeply and fundamentally misunderstood my position and that of the other panelists. I am happy to discuss any of these issues with you one-on-one if you are interested in understanding the difference between the position I hold on all of this and the one you are (mis)representing here. I suspect that we hold such very different opinions on social ontology, epistemology, etc, that such a discussion would be fruitless. However, I did want to make a statement here that the positions you have ascribed to us are a complete and total misunderstanding of the bases of our position. I have no problem being criticized, but you should at least ensure you understand what it is you're critiquing.
The Substack welcomes rebuttal pieces: To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).
To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, send an email with the article title, author name, and article document to hxlibsstack@gmail.com. Unless otherwise requested, the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!
Sam - I have read a good deal of your work, including your book so feel I have a solid understanding regarding your views on "taking sides". However if I did misinterpret the intent of these comments on the part of the panelists then I would welcome a chance to hear any correction. As you can see below we welcome rebuttal pieces. Thanks.
Thanks both. I've *already* written a lot on all of these topics, so feel free to refer to any of them. One major misunderstanding is that you continue to portray my stance on taking a side as being opposed to *not* taking a side (neutrality). I have written in many places that, from my perspective and that of many other political and critical theorists, there is no un-committed position, no position which is not always-already taking a side. If you are going to draw conclusions from my stance on taking a side, you have to be explicit about that fundamental basis. I have explored all of these issues on my blog. This particular topic can be found here: https://redlibrarian.github.io/article/2019/02/07/on-innocence.html
I just read your piece. Are you suggesting that librarians make their commitment "explicit" by stating that it is based on the "bromides" of liberalism? Or are you suggesting we switch to other commitments?
The first step is always to be explicit about the existing commitments - which is what I tried to do in my blog and my book. This requires giving up on the idea of neutrality which can only obscure those commitments. That's a necessary prerequisite to deciding on whether those are commitments we want to continue with (I don't think they are) or whether we want to find new ones. Presenting my position as "taking a side" versus some kind of real neutrality serves to make that first step impossible, as well as enabling the portrayal of critics of neutrality as quasi- or crypto-fascists.
Whatever side is taken, the persons on the other side should be treated respectfully and not immediately called names. Library users are quite sensitive to this. Clear explanations w/o name calling works best. A lot of discussion floating around librarian social media provides examples of name-calling w/o context. I had a vegan student who felt he should weed all books that included recipes with meat because of his very ardent beliefs. However, he tried to reason with patrons and did not call them names. I don't think he won them over, but they didn't leave the discussion feeling belittled.
That's quite a story about the student who wanted to weed all books with recipes including meat. It seems like college students are being educated in such a way that they are ill-suited for librarianship.
Sam and Safiya’s judgements both seem to be afflicted by the same error. Neutrality isn’t upheld by people who are ignorant of what that means. They are not innocent. That’s ridiculous. No adult who has graduated from library school and worked in their field would be innocent. Aiming for neutrality is what being neutral is about. The intent is what matters. It allows for an openness to ideas and possibilities. Explicitly taking a side or limiting yourself by saying you are on a side is the first step towards closing yourself off from diverse thoughts and perspectives. Neutrality is a process not a state of being. Library professionals need to commit to the process of neutrality if they want to aid in preserving the democratic process and traditional liberalism. The lens of neutrality is what enables bringing forward useful critiques raised by political and critical theorists while ensuring society doesn’t suffer, as it would if it embraced the critical theorists whole philosophy since the philosophy is limited by being a political ideology.
Bearing in mind that the article isn't about that panel per se, but used it as a basis for a wider discussion.
I teach LIS and avoid characterizing groups of people with whom I disagree as bigots or displaying bigotry. I try my best to explain to students that even if we disagree (personally) with a group, we can work better with them if we do not label them based on our beliefs. There can be common ground and if we start there it is easier to move forward and maybe provide materials and programming that creates more common ground.
.
Sometimes on these topics I think of Raskolnikov's dream--"Everyone was excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know who to blame, who to justify."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2554/2554-h/2554-h.htm
What a great quote and metaphor, thank you!
This segment of the Free Expression podcast by the Centre for Constitutional Studies is an excellent argument on why free expression and free speech are not about hegemony but about a timeless human need for expression and access to information that predates any colonialism: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3JqJ7esXi1RLEkrHr0bFlb?si=rFB-AHgMTgOaYi2xnOO3nA&t=2560