On the inappropriateness -- and hazards -- of positioning library workers as "radical change agents" in a world of complex problems for which we've been granted no public warrant to address.
Congratulations on the ALP and the summit! I too feel that society functions best when entities stick to their original missions as opposed to turning into "activist" organizations all pursuing the same goals.
I love this, bravo! I would just add that another function of the library that is very much in the public interest is the provision of pleasure. The language of pleasure has been seized by people who mean by it their own fixation on boundary-transgression, but we should not cede it. There is a long history of dour librarianship about the wrong kinds of pleasure that has nothing to do with the history DQSH would like to conjure of puritanism.
It's stuff like considering the Wizard of Oz books too silly even if children like them, or Flashman novels too racist and sexist even if readers enjoy their wit: a long tradition into which the "oppressive tastes" article fits perfectly with its sniffy disapproval of "nonjudgmental book recommendations that satisfy their patrons' aesthetic tastes rather than improve upon them"
The librarians who decide we need to be stuffed with the morality they prefer whether we like it or not are the true heirs to the tradition of Victorian moral treacle, how doth the little busy bee ethics.
Thank you Kathleen. And that's an excellent point! There is a definite irony in the new moralism being like the old moralism that it criticizes. The more recent irony is that the critical literature that condemns the "vocation awe" ethic in the field nonetheless embraces such awe in assuming it can tackle all of these complex social problems.
Yes: "I want to stress that we must not think of ourselves in conflict with those individuals who subscribe to Critical Librarianship. I argue we should recognize that their motivations are admirable, in that they are concerned about pressing social issues such as those related to racism, poverty, and inequality. "
Thank you for saying this. As a former political activist type myself, I can recall truly believing that public libraries should be consciously "stirring the pot," or "elevating consciousness" or "advocating" or taking action in any number of ways, and I can recall in the late 90s/early 00s how we were already aware of how unpopular it would be and how we needed to "work narratives into" our work without spotlighting what we were doing. Looking back it was naive and unethical (as it continues to be), but we believed we were MAKING THINGS BETTER. Those who disagreed were dismissed in all the traditional and uncreative ways.
Related piece about the pivot to social justice at Wikipedia: "Would the site’s community of decentralized, uncompensated editors continue to govern it according to its principles of openness, transparency, and neutrality, or would a handful of highly paid NGO technocrats re-orient Wikipedia toward endorsing and promoting the ever-shifting currents of the Western elite social justice regime? And how would Wikipedia respond to a revolution in American public life that challenged the idea that knowledge should be both neutral and objective as a vestige of white supremacy?" https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-the-regime-captured-wikipedia
Thank you for the Wikipedia reference. I participated in a Wikipedia training earlier this year. It was different than I expected. I definitely perceived a vague left-liberal bias, but it's hard to pin down. There is also this really interesting blog post about a Wikipedia editor: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin
Wow that is a very in-depth blog post-- I had never even heard of that guy. The progression of his politics is fascinating. I wonder if there is money involved there.
What would you think of library boards choosing to hire only ALP members, as a way of ensuring commitment to the neutrality you're defending here? --Mᶜ
ANY institution that relies on tax dollars for a majority of its funding should mandate that those who work for it--and CERTAINLY those who are its executive officers-- must read, agree to and sign principles of institutional political neutrality and any related legal background documents (the Public Accommodation section of the Civil Rights act, for instance) in the execution of any and all duties. It is not unknown in other countries: https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/guidance-understanding-the-code-of-conduct/impartial
Thanks again, Michael, for this superlative piece and the keynote address last week at the ALP meeting.
Thank you Craig!
Congratulations on the ALP and the summit! I too feel that society functions best when entities stick to their original missions as opposed to turning into "activist" organizations all pursuing the same goals.
I am printing this out for everyone at my library to read. Thank you.
Wow, thanks Amy, that's exciting to hear. Hope you get good feedback!
I love this, bravo! I would just add that another function of the library that is very much in the public interest is the provision of pleasure. The language of pleasure has been seized by people who mean by it their own fixation on boundary-transgression, but we should not cede it. There is a long history of dour librarianship about the wrong kinds of pleasure that has nothing to do with the history DQSH would like to conjure of puritanism.
It's stuff like considering the Wizard of Oz books too silly even if children like them, or Flashman novels too racist and sexist even if readers enjoy their wit: a long tradition into which the "oppressive tastes" article fits perfectly with its sniffy disapproval of "nonjudgmental book recommendations that satisfy their patrons' aesthetic tastes rather than improve upon them"
The librarians who decide we need to be stuffed with the morality they prefer whether we like it or not are the true heirs to the tradition of Victorian moral treacle, how doth the little busy bee ethics.
Thank you Kathleen. And that's an excellent point! There is a definite irony in the new moralism being like the old moralism that it criticizes. The more recent irony is that the critical literature that condemns the "vocation awe" ethic in the field nonetheless embraces such awe in assuming it can tackle all of these complex social problems.
Yes: "I want to stress that we must not think of ourselves in conflict with those individuals who subscribe to Critical Librarianship. I argue we should recognize that their motivations are admirable, in that they are concerned about pressing social issues such as those related to racism, poverty, and inequality. "
Thank you for saying this. As a former political activist type myself, I can recall truly believing that public libraries should be consciously "stirring the pot," or "elevating consciousness" or "advocating" or taking action in any number of ways, and I can recall in the late 90s/early 00s how we were already aware of how unpopular it would be and how we needed to "work narratives into" our work without spotlighting what we were doing. Looking back it was naive and unethical (as it continues to be), but we believed we were MAKING THINGS BETTER. Those who disagreed were dismissed in all the traditional and uncreative ways.
You're welcome -- and thank you Darryl, I can relate. I too also naively adopted an activist orientation in the early 2010s.
I'm so dumb that when I wrote an article for "Labor Notes" magazine in 2000, I insisted on my byline saying "LIBRARIAN and activist."
Related piece about the pivot to social justice at Wikipedia: "Would the site’s community of decentralized, uncompensated editors continue to govern it according to its principles of openness, transparency, and neutrality, or would a handful of highly paid NGO technocrats re-orient Wikipedia toward endorsing and promoting the ever-shifting currents of the Western elite social justice regime? And how would Wikipedia respond to a revolution in American public life that challenged the idea that knowledge should be both neutral and objective as a vestige of white supremacy?" https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-the-regime-captured-wikipedia
Thank you for the Wikipedia reference. I participated in a Wikipedia training earlier this year. It was different than I expected. I definitely perceived a vague left-liberal bias, but it's hard to pin down. There is also this really interesting blog post about a Wikipedia editor: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin
Wow that is a very in-depth blog post-- I had never even heard of that guy. The progression of his politics is fascinating. I wonder if there is money involved there.
What would you think of library boards choosing to hire only ALP members, as a way of ensuring commitment to the neutrality you're defending here? --Mᶜ
ANY institution that relies on tax dollars for a majority of its funding should mandate that those who work for it--and CERTAINLY those who are its executive officers-- must read, agree to and sign principles of institutional political neutrality and any related legal background documents (the Public Accommodation section of the Civil Rights act, for instance) in the execution of any and all duties. It is not unknown in other countries: https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/guidance-understanding-the-code-of-conduct/impartial