The future of libraries 2/17/2014
In as much as my e-mails have been sent and/or answered and the snow has been shoveled, this is a brilliant opportunity to provide a summary of recent articles that address the future of libraries. I will provide links in case you’d like to peruse the full article.
The first is a short and wonderfully insightful review of Wayne Bivens-Tatum’s book Libraries and the Enlightenment (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS) dated June 26, 2012, posted by Lane Wilkinson on the Sense and Reference blog. Link: http://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/libraries-and-the-enlightenment-essential-readings-in-the-philosophy-of-lis/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog. (Yes, the book has been ordered!)
There is equal consideration given to the genesis of academic and public libraries and their philosophical antecedents in the Enlightenment, but for the sake of brevity I will focus on the public library aspects. As Bevins argues, and Wilkinson agrees, public libraries developed from the political values of Enlightenment (i.e., equality, education, and other democratic ideals) to the extent that ‘“the belief in the ability of individuals to improve themselves through self-education persists through the history of public libraries”’ (p. 99). Democracy requires an educated and informed citizenry, so libraries were built to educate and inform. This is not an undisputed argument in a library community sensitized to any implication of elitism, exclusivity or didacticism. Referring to a similar argument proffered by Andy Woodworth, (Agnostic Maybe blog) Wilkinson addresses such responses forthrightly, “As you can imagine, more orthodox librarians in the comments jumped all over the suggestion, calling it elitist, snobbish, and condescending. After all, they argued, tastes are subjective, so all books are equally valuable, and it’s elitist and authoritarian to suggest otherwise…librarians should always remain passive, neutral providers. This line of thinking is as stupid as it is cynical, but it’s emblematic of the tension in librarianship between those who view libraries as passive information and entertainment sources and those who want libraries to take on more responsibility for educating their communities.” I am a firm believer in providing access to services and resources that meet the needs of our community, but both Wilkinson in his assessment and Bevins-Tatum in his book reveal a gauntlet that has been dropped before us: “If libraries are to survive the 21st century, we have to decide what role we play in our communities. Are we going to be providers or educators? Providers focus on satisfying patron demands; educators focus on satisfying patron needs. Providers measure gate-counts; educators measure community impact. Providers want patrons to read; educators want them to read well. What Bivens-Tatum offers is a reminder that libraries aren’t just there to satisfy their communities…they are there to improve them, to educate them, to enlighten them.” We are facing a similar dichotomy in planning our future: provider or educator? Despite good intentions there a history of noblesse oblige connected to libraries and their services-Deacon Otis-the eponymous founder of our library- in his modest way, Andrew Carnegie in grand fashion-which I don’t think we wish to emulate. Nonetheless, our commitment to education is integral to our mission. Perhaps the best situation is one in which we carefully assess community need and our mission and resources and determine where the compatibilities lie. We are and should be a center of community activity and that will include activities that require door and program counts, attention to community wishes as well as community needs. I believe we can satisfy our mission without being condescending or didactic or conversely, being passive, neutral providers. We will have to make conscious determines as we plan and weigh whether we are tipping too far in one direction.
Inlandlibrarian 