The neutrality ethos of public librarianship is not dead, it's just being out-shouted at the moment. It will not be undone by the politicized sophistry of the adversary culture in the universities/library schools.
I like to use examples that are not sexual or political. For instance, food preferences. Would a librarian who is vegan be neutral if she removed books with meat recipes?
Sep 19, 2022·edited Sep 20, 2022Liked by S. Anderson
There are who struggle to follow the current narrative and appreciate that discussion is possible. I think it is very helpful to know the evolution of ideas. Prior to Civil Rights Laws southern libraries were segregated and it is only fairly recently that there has been an exploration of that history. If a voter base is conservative being able to explain clearly, not from one's own beliefs is important.
I try to link include a lot of different perspectives in my pieces, even if I don't agree with all of them (which is kind of the point). I also think it demonstrates how much the different political sides have in common, which is usually prevented as... there would be your 99% again. Also by including different perspectives it forces people to think, rather than write off a piece as being part of "the other side."
I'm part of the same cohort -- I attended library school from '91-'93 -- and your experience really resonates with me. I used to espouse radical librarianship and view neutrality with disdain but now I realize both how valuable it is, and how it needs to be properly understood: not as the presumed absence of values, but as the ethical commitment not to impose values on others.
It is such a human trait to want to impose our values on others. Read this book! Watch this film! We have to bring people along, not exhort. Anyone who has raised a child knows how hard it is to get them to do anything we want. Why would one group of people convinced of their own values believe another group of people also convinced of their values just because the first group says they should? It would be great if they did, but it has to be by exposure and discussion.
The neutrality ethos of public librarianship is not dead, it's just being out-shouted at the moment. It will not be undone by the politicized sophistry of the adversary culture in the universities/library schools.
https://apoliticallibrarian.wordpress.com/2022/04/20/no-mere-mechanism-the-library-neutrality-statement/
Great quote by Vonnegut!
we are discussing this issue in my classes this week and I am sharing this link and discussion.
Great, thanks!
Consider excerpts from this. When all you do is hang around people who agree with you, "neutrality" gets perverted. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Your-Bubble-Strategies-Conversations/dp/1433833557
I like to use examples that are not sexual or political. For instance, food preferences. Would a librarian who is vegan be neutral if she removed books with meat recipes?
This was a difficult one for me to write.
There are who struggle to follow the current narrative and appreciate that discussion is possible. I think it is very helpful to know the evolution of ideas. Prior to Civil Rights Laws southern libraries were segregated and it is only fairly recently that there has been an exploration of that history. If a voter base is conservative being able to explain clearly, not from one's own beliefs is important.
I try to link include a lot of different perspectives in my pieces, even if I don't agree with all of them (which is kind of the point). I also think it demonstrates how much the different political sides have in common, which is usually prevented as... there would be your 99% again. Also by including different perspectives it forces people to think, rather than write off a piece as being part of "the other side."
I'm part of the same cohort -- I attended library school from '91-'93 -- and your experience really resonates with me. I used to espouse radical librarianship and view neutrality with disdain but now I realize both how valuable it is, and how it needs to be properly understood: not as the presumed absence of values, but as the ethical commitment not to impose values on others.
I like that definition.
It is such a human trait to want to impose our values on others. Read this book! Watch this film! We have to bring people along, not exhort. Anyone who has raised a child knows how hard it is to get them to do anything we want. Why would one group of people convinced of their own values believe another group of people also convinced of their values just because the first group says they should? It would be great if they did, but it has to be by exposure and discussion.