Most Compelling Sentence: "There are certain eminent philosophers who have emphatically announced that the sole duty of the state is to administer justice" (Quincy, 389).
I assume that Quincy is talking about Thomas Hobbes here (he is, after all, mentioned in the conclusion of the article). I never understood Hobbes very well. Not because he isn't easy to understand, but shouldn't the government (or the Leviathan) want to do something to stimulate his or her people? If whatever the Leviathan says, goes, then why can't the Leviathan grant his people a library?
"A few wealthy men have already seen that there is no surer way of benefiting their neighborhoods than by providing permanent library buildings, capable of giving the pleasure and education which fair forms and beautiful coloring afford" (Quincy, 401).
Can't the Leviathan be a benevolent Leviathan? I've always found Hobbes to be crude and simplistic. He only seemed to understand the worst of men, from the vainglorious soul to the brutal oaf's. J.P. Quincy is one of those who can see more than just a nasty, brutish and short existence, I guess.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Public Library as Dependent Variable
Most Interesting Idea: "Can the library (and librarians) be considered an independent variable that has an effect on its own development? The logical answer is yes. Construction of an explanation supported by empirical evidence, however, is not quite so simple" (Williams, 338).
I can certainly sympathize with that last sentence. Who is more likely to influence the development of the library than the people who work in it? As long as they are not keeping certain factions of people away from their library, I see actual people as shaping the library more than anyone else. Patrons are certainly a huge part of the shaping of libraries as well, however. This would be perhaps more in keeping with the Democratic Tradition Theory.
In keeping with the "Librarians shaped Libraries" theory, I can't help but think about Melvil Dewey. What single person did more to influence what the library would become other than that one man? I don't see any social theory bearing as much weight on the emergence of libraries as we know them than Melvil Dewey. He created the system by which we organize most of human history, and feminized the profession. If he did not become so unpopular within library circles, he would have likely done a lot more to change the profession.
Melvil Dewey was effective theory and action rolled into one. Perhaps there should be a fifth theory entitled "Dewey".
I can certainly sympathize with that last sentence. Who is more likely to influence the development of the library than the people who work in it? As long as they are not keeping certain factions of people away from their library, I see actual people as shaping the library more than anyone else. Patrons are certainly a huge part of the shaping of libraries as well, however. This would be perhaps more in keeping with the Democratic Tradition Theory.
In keeping with the "Librarians shaped Libraries" theory, I can't help but think about Melvil Dewey. What single person did more to influence what the library would become other than that one man? I don't see any social theory bearing as much weight on the emergence of libraries as we know them than Melvil Dewey. He created the system by which we organize most of human history, and feminized the profession. If he did not become so unpopular within library circles, he would have likely done a lot more to change the profession.
Melvil Dewey was effective theory and action rolled into one. Perhaps there should be a fifth theory entitled "Dewey".
How To Make Town Libraries Successful
Most Harris Defusing Sentence: "It is vain to go on the principle of collecting books that people outh to read, and afterwards trying to coax them to read them" (Perkins, 420).
This sentence puts a bit of a damper on the elitist tag that Harris would like to pin on librarianship.
Most "McLibrary-esque" sentence: "The only practical method is to begin by supplying books that people already want to read, and afterwards to do whatever shall be found possible to elevate tehrir reading tastes and habits" (Perkins, 420).
This reminded me of the Baltimore County library debate from later in the semester. I am on the elitist side of this argument, I guess. If you just feed people what they want all the time then they will never learn anything. People need unexpected, serendipitious experiences in order for them to grow into more complete human beings.
Second Most "McLibrary-esque" sentence: "If those who cannot make use of any better reading than novels and stories and jokes are not furnished with these, they will not read at all, and this is a worse alternative" (Perkins, 422).
I can also sympathize with this sentiment, however. Imagine how boring some people would be if they weren't even smart enough to express and have an understanding of what they really like...especially before the wider dissemination of information.
Sentence That Stands Most Starkly in Contrast with the Ditizion Article: "[I]t is vain to expect the solid and permanent success of such institutions without good business management" (Perkins, 419).
This is a little bit different than trying to keep crime off the street. Though business and humanitarian ideals do not necessarily have to be in conflict, the two ideals could not sound more separate than they do here.
This sentence puts a bit of a damper on the elitist tag that Harris would like to pin on librarianship.
Most "McLibrary-esque" sentence: "The only practical method is to begin by supplying books that people already want to read, and afterwards to do whatever shall be found possible to elevate tehrir reading tastes and habits" (Perkins, 420).
This reminded me of the Baltimore County library debate from later in the semester. I am on the elitist side of this argument, I guess. If you just feed people what they want all the time then they will never learn anything. People need unexpected, serendipitious experiences in order for them to grow into more complete human beings.
Second Most "McLibrary-esque" sentence: "If those who cannot make use of any better reading than novels and stories and jokes are not furnished with these, they will not read at all, and this is a worse alternative" (Perkins, 422).
I can also sympathize with this sentiment, however. Imagine how boring some people would be if they weren't even smart enough to express and have an understanding of what they really like...especially before the wider dissemination of information.
Sentence That Stands Most Starkly in Contrast with the Ditizion Article: "[I]t is vain to expect the solid and permanent success of such institutions without good business management" (Perkins, 419).
This is a little bit different than trying to keep crime off the street. Though business and humanitarian ideals do not necessarily have to be in conflict, the two ideals could not sound more separate than they do here.
The Humanitarian Idea
Most Idealistic Sentence(s): "The social evils which humanitarian agencies under private auspices set out to combat were also the special targets of public library enterprise. Both were equally armed to drive immoral literature off the market, to put saloons out of business by supplanting them with the pleasures of reading, and to save money normally devoted to the suppression of crime" (Ditzion, 102).
I would not go so far as to describe this sentence as "elitist," but it certainly sounds like an agenda. I do think that it is interesting that a librarian would want so dearly to change the life of a patron. It certainly validates the views of Michael Harris a little bit. The librarians described in this article don't seem to necessarily want you to read a good book...they sound like they want you off the street!
The idea of the librarian as humanitarian has not necessarily faded away entirely, either. In some ways, progressing toward a job in the library industry seems to be a bit akin to some kind of social work. Certainly, the librarian is still seen as a more caring figure relative to most other jobs.
"It is of no great consequence wheter all library promoters who used this idea were motivated by these humane and reformist aims. What is important is the convincing quality of this rationale when it was used to enlist the aid of community leaders" (Ditzion, 191).
I would not go so far as to describe this sentence as "elitist," but it certainly sounds like an agenda. I do think that it is interesting that a librarian would want so dearly to change the life of a patron. It certainly validates the views of Michael Harris a little bit. The librarians described in this article don't seem to necessarily want you to read a good book...they sound like they want you off the street!
The idea of the librarian as humanitarian has not necessarily faded away entirely, either. In some ways, progressing toward a job in the library industry seems to be a bit akin to some kind of social work. Certainly, the librarian is still seen as a more caring figure relative to most other jobs.
"It is of no great consequence wheter all library promoters who used this idea were motivated by these humane and reformist aims. What is important is the convincing quality of this rationale when it was used to enlist the aid of community leaders" (Ditzion, 191).
The Purpose of the American Library
An Inane Sentence: "George Ticknor [the liberal in a conservative family] was the son of a learned and prosperous father who sent his precocious boy to Dartmouth, Harvard, etc." (Harris, 2510).
Though I can appreciate that Harris is just trying to start a debate, I find it tiring to listen to him when he tries to slam historical characters he really could never know that much about. He himself admitted that he wrote the article without having all the facts. The significance of this article, more than anything else, was that it seems to have created some welcomed drama in the library field. It made for some pleasant conversation, and some lovely refutations from all sorts of well-known librarians, including our own Christine Pawley if I remember correctly.
It really just reminds me of the politics of personal destruction as we came to know them 1960-present. If Michael Harris was using incomplete evidence, then that is the intellectual equivalent of throwing some stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. In the end, if immigrants triumphed in the face of elitism in librarianship, then it's hard to say just what Harris was trying to accomplish (besides the feather rustling).
Though I can appreciate that Harris is just trying to start a debate, I find it tiring to listen to him when he tries to slam historical characters he really could never know that much about. He himself admitted that he wrote the article without having all the facts. The significance of this article, more than anything else, was that it seems to have created some welcomed drama in the library field. It made for some pleasant conversation, and some lovely refutations from all sorts of well-known librarians, including our own Christine Pawley if I remember correctly.
It really just reminds me of the politics of personal destruction as we came to know them 1960-present. If Michael Harris was using incomplete evidence, then that is the intellectual equivalent of throwing some stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. In the end, if immigrants triumphed in the face of elitism in librarianship, then it's hard to say just what Harris was trying to accomplish (besides the feather rustling).
Ambivalence and Paradox
Most Interesting Question: "Can the public libraries' failure to reach great masses of people be attributed so readily to the assumed elitist character of libraries and librarians?" (Dain, 265).
This is an idea I have never bought into. Whether or not you walk into a library is your choice. Even if I was a poor immigrant, I would not allow supposed elitism to prevent me from learning (if that is indeed what I felt like doing at the time). Even if libraries were unpopular among the working class (as evidenced by Free For All), if I do not let my life be dictated by social pressures now, I do not really see how you could blame an elitist streak on a public institution or its librarians. "They [the librarians] were imperfect, class ridden, unphilosophical, pragmatic human beings who seldom thought through their own ideological positions and who had mixed feelings and motives" (Dain, 264). I can certainly sympathize with that.
As for Harris's idea that librarians abandoned their neutrality, who said that they necessarily had to have neutrality? Harris has a right to make trouble if he wants, but he does not make a lot of sense. If the immigrants made "good use of library" in spite of the supposedly elitist librarians, then it's hard for me to really see much of a problem with that. In the end, I suppose I appreciate Harris's muckracking as the library profession does seem to be a bit too innocuous relative to other professions.
This is an idea I have never bought into. Whether or not you walk into a library is your choice. Even if I was a poor immigrant, I would not allow supposed elitism to prevent me from learning (if that is indeed what I felt like doing at the time). Even if libraries were unpopular among the working class (as evidenced by Free For All), if I do not let my life be dictated by social pressures now, I do not really see how you could blame an elitist streak on a public institution or its librarians. "They [the librarians] were imperfect, class ridden, unphilosophical, pragmatic human beings who seldom thought through their own ideological positions and who had mixed feelings and motives" (Dain, 264). I can certainly sympathize with that.
As for Harris's idea that librarians abandoned their neutrality, who said that they necessarily had to have neutrality? Harris has a right to make trouble if he wants, but he does not make a lot of sense. If the immigrants made "good use of library" in spite of the supposedly elitist librarians, then it's hard for me to really see much of a problem with that. In the end, I suppose I appreciate Harris's muckracking as the library profession does seem to be a bit too innocuous relative to other professions.
Manners and Morals in the Public Library
Most Interesting Sentence: "[W]e find Harris condemning the public library as a rigid, cold, moralistic and elitist enterprise while Garrison fumes about it as too homey, passive and suppliant" (Fain, 99).
While I know that librarianship is not perfect, I am among the many that thinks that Michael Harris is just overreacting in order to spark a debate in library circles. Obviously, libraries and librarians have not always been perfect, and they have not always behaved in the ways that we would have liked them to behave. Librarians have not always been brave when it comes to matters of race, but I also do not believe that librarians were out to mold society in the image of American elites, either.
I find Garrison's argument much more compelling (perhaps because I am a man). I would much prefer that a library would look like the Seattle Public Library than That Library That Looks Like My Aunt's Rec Room. In the future, I would like to see libraries become like information meccas. Even my favorite libraries have a "homey" feel as described by Garrison. At the same time, I do appreciate a friendly and helpful librarian.
The distinction that Garrison draws between school teachers and librarians is an interesting one. Perhaps if the library had a "tougher" image, it would not be so odd for me, the male of the species, to express interest in this profession.
While I know that librarianship is not perfect, I am among the many that thinks that Michael Harris is just overreacting in order to spark a debate in library circles. Obviously, libraries and librarians have not always been perfect, and they have not always behaved in the ways that we would have liked them to behave. Librarians have not always been brave when it comes to matters of race, but I also do not believe that librarians were out to mold society in the image of American elites, either.
I find Garrison's argument much more compelling (perhaps because I am a man). I would much prefer that a library would look like the Seattle Public Library than That Library That Looks Like My Aunt's Rec Room. In the future, I would like to see libraries become like information meccas. Even my favorite libraries have a "homey" feel as described by Garrison. At the same time, I do appreciate a friendly and helpful librarian.
The distinction that Garrison draws between school teachers and librarians is an interesting one. Perhaps if the library had a "tougher" image, it would not be so odd for me, the male of the species, to express interest in this profession.
Books for New Citizens
An Interesting Sentence (or two): "To reach the foreign-born and their children, who in 1900 comprised two-thirds of the city's population, considerable effort was put into what today would be called outreach services. Books were placed in mills, factories, fire stations, stores, schools (public, private, parochial, and Sunday), settlements, churches, syagogues, playgrounds, and homes" (Fain, 259).
While you can accuse librarians and corporate titans alike of manipulating immigrants into Americanization, I would simply describe this as an incredible educational effort the likes of which we just do not see in America anymore. Why doesn't America invest in its education anymore? Those that do take the time to invest in such an education end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for their educations and end up saddled with debt, and those who do not make less and less money every year when you adjust for inflation. If you ask me, a little bit of Carnegie approved "indoctrination" in order to shock this country out of its educational slumber.
If I was in someone else's country for an extended period of time (let's just say, America), I would not feel like I was being "Americanized". I would appreciate the education, and additionally when in Rome, I would speak Italian (if I could). I would never feel slighted by how I was being educated.
The foundation for the American century was a populous that wanted to be educated. Those who were not, could still afford decent paying jobs. Once the educated class started to shrink, the benefits seen by so-called Americanized immigrants began to fade into history.
While you can accuse librarians and corporate titans alike of manipulating immigrants into Americanization, I would simply describe this as an incredible educational effort the likes of which we just do not see in America anymore. Why doesn't America invest in its education anymore? Those that do take the time to invest in such an education end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for their educations and end up saddled with debt, and those who do not make less and less money every year when you adjust for inflation. If you ask me, a little bit of Carnegie approved "indoctrination" in order to shock this country out of its educational slumber.
If I was in someone else's country for an extended period of time (let's just say, America), I would not feel like I was being "Americanized". I would appreciate the education, and additionally when in Rome, I would speak Italian (if I could). I would never feel slighted by how I was being educated.
The foundation for the American century was a populous that wanted to be educated. Those who were not, could still afford decent paying jobs. Once the educated class started to shrink, the benefits seen by so-called Americanized immigrants began to fade into history.
Lutie Stearns
Most Important Sentence: "[A]n examination of Stearns's writing and activities suggests that it was the third strand that was preeminent in her personal philosophy; the other two were largely means to this end. This dominant strand emphasized the rights of citizens to equal information access as a public good. Stearns was, above all, an advocate for access" (Pawley, 435).
This advocate of access, Lutie Stearns was thrown into the thick of Wisconsin progressive politics around the turn of the century. Such an environment, no doubt, helped further her library crusade. "Between 1896 and 1914, Stearns helped establish 150 free public libraries, 1,400 traveling libraries, and 14 county traveling library systems" (Pawley, 437). These are accomplishments of the sort that would make Melvil Dewey himself blush.
Access to the printed word for Wisconsin rural areas at the turn of the century was important. People who lived in rural Wisconsin areas often had to walk for several miles just to pick up their mail. You can imagine that they likely would not get out to the library very much. As an advocate of access, Stearns also made sure that foreign works in languages common to Wisconsin at the time were also made available.
Though pluralistic politics were necessary for Lutie Stearns to be as successful as she was, she never forgot what the meaning behind her crusade actually was. She knew that access to information was vital to the improvement of Wisconsin society. Her motivations never seemed to be about personal power or even personal vanity. Her crusade appears to have been reward enough in and of itself.
This advocate of access, Lutie Stearns was thrown into the thick of Wisconsin progressive politics around the turn of the century. Such an environment, no doubt, helped further her library crusade. "Between 1896 and 1914, Stearns helped establish 150 free public libraries, 1,400 traveling libraries, and 14 county traveling library systems" (Pawley, 437). These are accomplishments of the sort that would make Melvil Dewey himself blush.
Access to the printed word for Wisconsin rural areas at the turn of the century was important. People who lived in rural Wisconsin areas often had to walk for several miles just to pick up their mail. You can imagine that they likely would not get out to the library very much. As an advocate of access, Stearns also made sure that foreign works in languages common to Wisconsin at the time were also made available.
Though pluralistic politics were necessary for Lutie Stearns to be as successful as she was, she never forgot what the meaning behind her crusade actually was. She knew that access to information was vital to the improvement of Wisconsin society. Her motivations never seemed to be about personal power or even personal vanity. Her crusade appears to have been reward enough in and of itself.
The Mission: Consensus and Contradiction
Most Interesting Conflict: "A 1990 essay in the New Republic suggested another coinage to be added to Ritzer's list--McLibraries. Expressing his displeasure at the conversion of libraries into merchandise marts, its author, himself a librarian, urged a return to the traditional balance between the public library's function as a leisure activity and its role as an educational resource" (Molz & Dain, 32).
The conflict expressed in this sentence is a conflict that rears its ugly head often in the library profession. Should librarians serve as gatekeepers to "quality" knowledge, or should libraries try to appeal to more patrons by being more "fun" and letting the public consume the lowest common denominators that a given library has to offer?
George Ritzer urges a compromise. I would probably advocate a more "elitist" position, but such a position is not set in stone on my part. Ritzer does not want the library to be all serious or all entertainment. According to Ritzer, you should have both. In my own experience, this can be nice. I can recall checking out technical books on music while also renting a fun DVD. When I was younger, the library also had a very good CD collection. I appreciated what fine taste some of those librarians had as I got older.
If the library compromises, then you can make your own choices. You can go to the library to be entertained, or you can you it for more traditional, studious purposes. Sometimes a horrible Roger Moore 007 film is just what one needs to take the edge off...but I'm still not sure that Moonraker should be in the library.
The conflict expressed in this sentence is a conflict that rears its ugly head often in the library profession. Should librarians serve as gatekeepers to "quality" knowledge, or should libraries try to appeal to more patrons by being more "fun" and letting the public consume the lowest common denominators that a given library has to offer?
George Ritzer urges a compromise. I would probably advocate a more "elitist" position, but such a position is not set in stone on my part. Ritzer does not want the library to be all serious or all entertainment. According to Ritzer, you should have both. In my own experience, this can be nice. I can recall checking out technical books on music while also renting a fun DVD. When I was younger, the library also had a very good CD collection. I appreciated what fine taste some of those librarians had as I got older.
If the library compromises, then you can make your own choices. You can go to the library to be entertained, or you can you it for more traditional, studious purposes. Sometimes a horrible Roger Moore 007 film is just what one needs to take the edge off...but I'm still not sure that Moonraker should be in the library.
In Service To the State
Wayne Wiegand's war article pertains specifically to Wisconsin during World War I which is a unique choice within the war articles we read for this week.
Most Interesting Sentence: "While the U.S. was a belligerent power in World War I, American public librarians in general, and Wisconsin public librarians in particular, entertained no thought of channeling wartime energies away from their institutions" (Wiegand, 199). While I do not question the patriotism and good intentions of these librarians, I do find it amusing that many of them would see the war as a fantastic publicity stunt on behalf of libraries. The poster opposite page 199 is a clear illustration of this desire to wrap libraries into national wartime fervor.
I was also intrigued to see that certain shipments of books simply stopped before America got into the war. One has to hand it to Britain for winning the propaganda war. The lack of German books imported into America certainly must have helped the English, however subtly. I wonder if such information could be stopped now like it was back then. Would people willingly abandon such texts in the Internet age? I doubt it, but in a post-Freedom Fries universe, it would not surprise me, either.
Wisconsin's fear that it was being perceived as having a lack of patriotism seemed quaint at first until I realized that such concerns intensely dictated the political climate as recently as 2004. Such fervor as seemed to die off a bit by mid-2005, but once again, history repeats itself.
Most Interesting Sentence: "While the U.S. was a belligerent power in World War I, American public librarians in general, and Wisconsin public librarians in particular, entertained no thought of channeling wartime energies away from their institutions" (Wiegand, 199). While I do not question the patriotism and good intentions of these librarians, I do find it amusing that many of them would see the war as a fantastic publicity stunt on behalf of libraries. The poster opposite page 199 is a clear illustration of this desire to wrap libraries into national wartime fervor.
I was also intrigued to see that certain shipments of books simply stopped before America got into the war. One has to hand it to Britain for winning the propaganda war. The lack of German books imported into America certainly must have helped the English, however subtly. I wonder if such information could be stopped now like it was back then. Would people willingly abandon such texts in the Internet age? I doubt it, but in a post-Freedom Fries universe, it would not surprise me, either.
Wisconsin's fear that it was being perceived as having a lack of patriotism seemed quaint at first until I realized that such concerns intensely dictated the political climate as recently as 2004. Such fervor as seemed to die off a bit by mid-2005, but once again, history repeats itself.
To Meet the Needs of a Nation at War
When the American people mobilize for war, the library time and time again has mobilized on the home front. In Chicago, war maps were put up in the library, which helped citizens on the home front to feel involved in the war. Reading materials in Madison changed to reflect the violent, unpredictable times. "Film forums" helped keep Americans updated on happenings over in Europe and the Pacific.
During World War II, the ALA worked in tandem with the United States Information Service. This service was all to happy to have small libraries all over the country at its disposal, and the ALA was pleased at a chance to help its country. The USIS also helped to get smaller, rural libraries more attention from the ALA.
The Office of Civilian Defense declared "'America's libraries are to become arsenals of defense information'" (Becker, 88). The ALA was more than willing to fulfill this position.
My question pertains as to whether or not the ALA ever openly refuses to support a war. If the library's resonsibility is to its patrons, then must the library cater to their needs without question? Perhaps this is a case where the masses do not know well-enough for themselves, and must depend on the library to teach them the truth about an unjust, wasteful war. In patriotic America, what kind of reaction could such librarians expect from such open hostility to war?
During World War II, the ALA worked in tandem with the United States Information Service. This service was all to happy to have small libraries all over the country at its disposal, and the ALA was pleased at a chance to help its country. The USIS also helped to get smaller, rural libraries more attention from the ALA.
The Office of Civilian Defense declared "'America's libraries are to become arsenals of defense information'" (Becker, 88). The ALA was more than willing to fulfill this position.
My question pertains as to whether or not the ALA ever openly refuses to support a war. If the library's resonsibility is to its patrons, then must the library cater to their needs without question? Perhaps this is a case where the masses do not know well-enough for themselves, and must depend on the library to teach them the truth about an unjust, wasteful war. In patriotic America, what kind of reaction could such librarians expect from such open hostility to war?
In Time of War
In the face of war time crises, libraries often play the role of a sort of public parent on the behalf of the public. With attention focused on winning a war, libraries often find themselves reflecting their environment (i.e. - teaching an anxious public about the war) and shouldering additional burdens in order to help the war effort. These burdens are often heavy loads as well. During wartime, funding for public libraries tends to be neglected. This would seem to indicate that society regards the library as a sort of fringe benefit for being a citizen of the United States, as opposed to the library as being an important public institution.
Libraries during wartime also face problems of censorship. Books with useful war information are generally taken off shelves during such times. Books about bomb making for example are not en vogue during a time of national crisis.
In the past, libraries during wartime were also the place where the public learned about the war. Maps, troop movements, and important news could all be found at the library.
In the aftermath of September 11th, librarians reacted to war in the way that they so often do. The prominent material displayed had to do with better understanding our potential enemies as well as providing an escape from horror through fiction.
The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act has raised some particularly difficult questions for librarians and library users. What will happen when a librarian is interrogated about the library use of one of his or her patrons? In the face of a supercharged government, what recourse would a librarian have other than to submit to Big Brother?
Libraries during wartime also face problems of censorship. Books with useful war information are generally taken off shelves during such times. Books about bomb making for example are not en vogue during a time of national crisis.
In the past, libraries during wartime were also the place where the public learned about the war. Maps, troop movements, and important news could all be found at the library.
In the aftermath of September 11th, librarians reacted to war in the way that they so often do. The prominent material displayed had to do with better understanding our potential enemies as well as providing an escape from horror through fiction.
The U.S.A. PATRIOT Act has raised some particularly difficult questions for librarians and library users. What will happen when a librarian is interrogated about the library use of one of his or her patrons? In the face of a supercharged government, what recourse would a librarian have other than to submit to Big Brother?
Errors of Omission and Cultural Destruction in Iraq
Most Interesting Sentence: "When they were asked to protect the National Library, U.S. soldiers informed the librarians that 'our orders do not extend to protecting this facility' and that 'we are soldiers, not policemen'" (Knuth, 204).
I find this quote ironic seeing as in 2008, American soldiers are most certainly just heavily armed policemen hoping to quell endless violence in Iraq, but that is neither here nor there.
The point of this article is that when confronted with protecting the precious history and documents of Iraqi museums (and in this case, the National Library), American soldiers simply turned away. I do not believe that this is their fault, however. The Bush Administration took responsibility for Iraq back in 2003 under false pretenses, and never actually took responsibility for it in the process.
One of the greatest achievements in the history of Western Civilization was the preservation of, well, its history. It was translated and shared, and it formed the basis of our education via Aristotle for a great number of years. As with so many things in the Iraq War, the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to the destruction and looting of history.
While I know that the author of this article is controversial and has even printed a retraction of sorts in the past (I even found a glaring typo without even trying), that does not change the simple fact that with prior warning from the academic community, nothing was done to protect treasures that were not just important to Iraq, but the world.
I find this quote ironic seeing as in 2008, American soldiers are most certainly just heavily armed policemen hoping to quell endless violence in Iraq, but that is neither here nor there.
The point of this article is that when confronted with protecting the precious history and documents of Iraqi museums (and in this case, the National Library), American soldiers simply turned away. I do not believe that this is their fault, however. The Bush Administration took responsibility for Iraq back in 2003 under false pretenses, and never actually took responsibility for it in the process.
One of the greatest achievements in the history of Western Civilization was the preservation of, well, its history. It was translated and shared, and it formed the basis of our education via Aristotle for a great number of years. As with so many things in the Iraq War, the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to the destruction and looting of history.
While I know that the author of this article is controversial and has even printed a retraction of sorts in the past (I even found a glaring typo without even trying), that does not change the simple fact that with prior warning from the academic community, nothing was done to protect treasures that were not just important to Iraq, but the world.
The Direction of Development
Most Important Sentence: "Nevertheless, the otherall difference between the public library performing a general function and performing a special function on behalf of out-of-school enlightenment is worth maintaining" (Leigh, 225).
One major argument of this article is this: should libraries just give the tax payers what they want, or should libraries exist to further one's education? (especially once a person is out of the hallowed halls of school).
Another important distinction the article makes is between small, local, rural sorts of isolated libraries versus larger libraries that network with one another. The author seems to feel that the smaller libraries that need tax payer initiative taken in order for them to succeed often do not. "As long as the libraries remain small and isolated from each other these limitations are inevitable" (Leigh, 232). When libraries work together, however, through programs like inter-library loan, the larger operations have seen success. With more of a selection to choose from, it is not too hard to see how this is possible.
On page 234, Leigh (in summary) asks the question of what kinds of materials to get for one's library? It seems to me that while a library with more limited resources should reflect the will of the community, simply reflecting the community will not teach the community in question much new information. Perhaps this is a dangerously elitist view, and my library would fail. What good is a library however, without serendipitous experiences for its patrons?
One major argument of this article is this: should libraries just give the tax payers what they want, or should libraries exist to further one's education? (especially once a person is out of the hallowed halls of school).
Another important distinction the article makes is between small, local, rural sorts of isolated libraries versus larger libraries that network with one another. The author seems to feel that the smaller libraries that need tax payer initiative taken in order for them to succeed often do not. "As long as the libraries remain small and isolated from each other these limitations are inevitable" (Leigh, 232). When libraries work together, however, through programs like inter-library loan, the larger operations have seen success. With more of a selection to choose from, it is not too hard to see how this is possible.
On page 234, Leigh (in summary) asks the question of what kinds of materials to get for one's library? It seems to me that while a library with more limited resources should reflect the will of the community, simply reflecting the community will not teach the community in question much new information. Perhaps this is a dangerously elitist view, and my library would fail. What good is a library however, without serendipitous experiences for its patrons?
As We May Think
This famous article by Vannevar Bush can be pretty hard to picture at times. "One can now picture a future investigator in his laboratory. His hands are free, and he is not anchored. As he moves about and observes, he photographs and comments. Time is automatically recorded to tie the two records together" (Bush, 4). Actually, no I cannot picture that investigator, but I do think I know what Mr. Bush is talking about. He is talking about an Internet that we are interacting with as we literally go through our days. Our "links" are ours to make as we walk about, like some sort of informational Jedi.
What is most important about this article however, is that Vannevar Bush describes his famous fictional memex. As more and more information is rummaged through on the tiny memex cards, tiny links are created between seemingly disparate ideas. These are familiar to the links that we have on the Internet today. The cards he describes are sort of like the Internet pages of the present day.
One could make an argument against the significance of Bush's Memex. It's not like Vannevar Bush delivered "The Mother of All Demos" or anything earth-shattering like that. He simply had a great idea that ended up proving to blend into traits of our present Internet.
What is most important about this article however, is that Vannevar Bush describes his famous fictional memex. As more and more information is rummaged through on the tiny memex cards, tiny links are created between seemingly disparate ideas. These are familiar to the links that we have on the Internet today. The cards he describes are sort of like the Internet pages of the present day.
One could make an argument against the significance of Bush's Memex. It's not like Vannevar Bush delivered "The Mother of All Demos" or anything earth-shattering like that. He simply had a great idea that ended up proving to blend into traits of our present Internet.
Representation of Books and Libraries in the Future
Cool Sentence: "Almost all of them [librarian authors] envision a library that plays multiple roles as part of its status as a cultural center. Being a book repository is often the least of its purposes" (Pennavaria, 240).
I guess I have been spending a little too much time thinking about Double Fold as I think about these articles once again. So often science fiction ends up reflecting future truths. That has me frightened of clinging to my notion that the book itself will make a comeback within the context of libraries. One sci-fi librarian pictured a "'utopian universal catalog'" (I guess that's right). Another librarian predicted that future libraries would have a more open space plan with fewer permanent walls. I suppose that is true, too. Perhaps Philip McDevitt's prediction that the librarian "'will be a person of greatly enhanced status'" in the future gives my depository dreams some hope as of yet.
This article also details the now famous Memex as detailed by Vannevar Bush (another of this week's authors). The imaginary Memex desk that never came to be is now seen as the great-grandaddy of what we now know as the Internet. Granted, I should reiterate that the Memex was a strictly imaginary idea, but it is one of the first times the ideas of information trails and linking come into play in the library lexicon.
As for what the future thinks of us? It is obviously best not to think about it. After all, such perceptions seem to always be serendipitous in nature. Otherwise, why would Vannevar Bush be so often remembered while Paul Otlet is relegated to obscurity?
I guess I have been spending a little too much time thinking about Double Fold as I think about these articles once again. So often science fiction ends up reflecting future truths. That has me frightened of clinging to my notion that the book itself will make a comeback within the context of libraries. One sci-fi librarian pictured a "'utopian universal catalog'" (I guess that's right). Another librarian predicted that future libraries would have a more open space plan with fewer permanent walls. I suppose that is true, too. Perhaps Philip McDevitt's prediction that the librarian "'will be a person of greatly enhanced status'" in the future gives my depository dreams some hope as of yet.
This article also details the now famous Memex as detailed by Vannevar Bush (another of this week's authors). The imaginary Memex desk that never came to be is now seen as the great-grandaddy of what we now know as the Internet. Granted, I should reiterate that the Memex was a strictly imaginary idea, but it is one of the first times the ideas of information trails and linking come into play in the library lexicon.
As for what the future thinks of us? It is obviously best not to think about it. After all, such perceptions seem to always be serendipitous in nature. Otherwise, why would Vannevar Bush be so often remembered while Paul Otlet is relegated to obscurity?
Early Visions of Future Leadership
Most Relevant Sentence (even if it's a bit of a vague cop-out on my part): "Society was changing; technology was changing; and along with these changes, the very nature of information was changing" (Sapp, xix).
Yep, things were changing all right. This article more or less sums up the entire course as well as compliments the other readings from this week nice and neatly. Let me take you through a bit of what we already know, (as reaffirmed by this article):
*Melvil Dewey plays a huge role in founding the ALA in 1876. Perhaps, even more importantly than Dewey, the ALA was formed during the first period specified by Greg Sapp. At this early point, Dewey already thinks that women are the future of libraries. It should be noted that Dewey is an enormous fan of women in general. Most libraries also end up adopting the Dewey Decimal System...if not right away, then certainly not too long after that.
*After the turn of the century though World War II, the ALA turns out to be a celebrated organization. The ALA sent about four million books and five million magazines to Europe for soldiers at war. Bully! Buoyed by the euphoria of winning a world war, the ALA creates a bold agenda with all the effectiveness of the Kellogg-Briand Pact that fell at around the same time. That is to say, this agenda was all hype. Librarians helped to keep morale up during the Great Depression. During WWII, the library system devoted much of its time trying to contribute in its own way to the defeat of fascism. Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think" is published.
*The campaign against paper gets underway during the next period. Alarmist bells over book deterioration are ringing in no short supply. For example, "Licklider began by stating that the physicality of printed books makes them intrinsically inefficient means for storing, organizing, and retrieving information" (Sapp, xxviii). MARC and the OCLC also came into play during this period.
This is only a tiny taste of what went on during nineteenth/twentiethy century librarianship (as we all well know).
Yep, things were changing all right. This article more or less sums up the entire course as well as compliments the other readings from this week nice and neatly. Let me take you through a bit of what we already know, (as reaffirmed by this article):
*Melvil Dewey plays a huge role in founding the ALA in 1876. Perhaps, even more importantly than Dewey, the ALA was formed during the first period specified by Greg Sapp. At this early point, Dewey already thinks that women are the future of libraries. It should be noted that Dewey is an enormous fan of women in general. Most libraries also end up adopting the Dewey Decimal System...if not right away, then certainly not too long after that.
*After the turn of the century though World War II, the ALA turns out to be a celebrated organization. The ALA sent about four million books and five million magazines to Europe for soldiers at war. Bully! Buoyed by the euphoria of winning a world war, the ALA creates a bold agenda with all the effectiveness of the Kellogg-Briand Pact that fell at around the same time. That is to say, this agenda was all hype. Librarians helped to keep morale up during the Great Depression. During WWII, the library system devoted much of its time trying to contribute in its own way to the defeat of fascism. Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think" is published.
*The campaign against paper gets underway during the next period. Alarmist bells over book deterioration are ringing in no short supply. For example, "Licklider began by stating that the physicality of printed books makes them intrinsically inefficient means for storing, organizing, and retrieving information" (Sapp, xxviii). MARC and the OCLC also came into play during this period.
This is only a tiny taste of what went on during nineteenth/twentiethy century librarianship (as we all well know).
ALL APRIL 1ST READINGS LISTED HERE (Taken from my entry on the class blog)
In the six articles we read for this week, I came to relate the articles to one another through two main questions. First and foremost, is the manner in which libraries are used determined by the society that frequents them, or do libraries shape the way that society uses them? Second is the question of the degree to which the ALA is guilty or not guilty of bad behavior over the years as described as Michael Harris--that is to say, are libraries merely tools of elitist suppression and assimiliation...and is this necessarily always a bad thing if it is true?
Article 1: The Use of Library and Educational Facilities by Russian-Jewish Immigrants in New York City, 1880-1914: The Impact of Culture
In this article, author Nelson R. Beck exposes a glaring flaw in Michael Harris's controversial revisionist history. While the author maintains that many of Harris's critiques of formative library culture ring true, he criticizes Harris's own selective use of facts, as well as Harris's own elitism. Beck admits that assimilation into American culture was the goal of many top-down organizations that intended to educate immigrants of all walks of life. "Indeed, Edward G. Hartmann contends that the Educational Alliance, the Aguilar Free Library, the Baron de Hirsch Fund, and the older Americanized Jewish population all worked for the assimilation and Americanization of the Russian Jews" (133). Another signal of top-down manipulation came in the form of librarians denying Russian Jew children material in their native languages (of course, some of this appears to have stemmed from demand for such material from adult users). In the end however, it appears (at least according to Beck) that immigrant Russian Jews shaped the use of the library to according to their own needs and because of a desire to be educated due to the conditions prescribed by their native culture--a direct assault on Harris's own assertion that immigrants did not care to be educated. "In spite of slaughter and destruction, the Russian Jews maintained an educational system that reflected and perpetuated their religion and culture. Central to this education was moral training through the home and Synagogue. The scripturers and the Talmud demanded education" (131). For many immigrants, "Americanization" was a voluntary process as since education was important to Russian Jews, they wanted to learn English. Libraries often reflected what their immigrant patrons wanted in the library. There was no shortage of periodicals in the Aguilar Libraries related to Jewish topics, and Jews in New York City started up at least eleven different newspapers. At the end of the article, the author admits that this is merely one case study, and that while Harris's own elitism and "historical tunnel vision" may have been misguided, in order for his vision to be fully refuted, many more immigrant populations' educational habits would have to be examined.
Questions:
1) To what extent did top-down assimilation strategies succeed? For example, did libraries succeed in creating a generational divide between young Russian Jews and their parents? Did libraries do anything that may have reinforced such a divide?
2) What are some of the ways in which Russian Jews had an impact on the institutions that helped educate them besides some of the reasons mentioned above?
3) Did Jewish culture have an effect on libraries more than libraries impacted Russian Jewish culture as Beck suggests? Is there a way to refute such a claim in favor of a top-down explanation?
Article 2: White Privilege in Library Land
This article proved a bit troublesome for me, because I could only answer half of the twelve "white privilege" questions with an unequivocal "yes." While I would not deny that I benefit from white privilege, I had to question if the twelve questions were indeed fair to the reader. In looking at the numbers provided by John D. Berry, the racial numbers regarding librarians who received higher education library degrees did not change in very significant ways over time--which is self-evidently significant in its own right. Perhaps we have not come as far racially as Americans as we would like to think we have since 1973. The only number that really evolved over this period is the massive growth in the percentage of females receiving upper level library degrees over their male counterparts.
Questions:
1) Is the growth in females receiving high level degrees (and hence, leadership positions) in librarianship a boon for women's equality, or does it only serve to reinforce irritating gender-related stereotypes within the library field?
2) How many of the questions provided by Barry did you answer "yes" to? Does this number vary depending on where you have worked in the past? Where does Wisconsin generally fit into this twelve question equation?
Article 3: Toward a Multicultural American Public Library History
"If historians choose to see libraries as earlier forms of communication and information technologies, then it might be possible to look for ways in which libraries and their constituents engaged in similar struggles against restrictions, sometimes on the same side and sometimes not" (78-79). This quote lies at the center of the question that I would like to address today. As Cheryl Knott Malone addresses in her essay, a study of library history and culture tends to focus on leaders--the movers and shakers in libraries from the top down. In our own studies of Apostles of Culture and The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown, we have often seen this to be true. By this time, we know the names of all sorts of prestigious librarians in our field today, as well as many of the prestigious librarians of history. Malone asserts that bottom-up activity holds plenty of sway on the library as well. She cites the impact of Polish and Russian Jewish people on library culture in America, for example. She claims that creating a multicultural library history would involve a study of use, users, and nonusers. In creating a multicultural history of Chicago, Malone suggests leaving no ethnic stone unturned in piecing together a bottom-up epic. As Malone cites, "Takaki asserts that only by recovering different pasts, told from divergent perspectives, can a full appreciation of the complexity of United States history can be reached." Too often, such histories are only told from the top-down instead of the bottom-up--a shift to the latter would be helpful in telling a more complete story with respect to any history.
1) If libraries are an earlier form of communication like the article suggests, what parallels can be drawn between the way the library is shaped and the way later communication technologies were shaped (think bottom-up vs. top-down, think technological determinism vs. social shaping of technology perspective)?
2) What are some reasons that historical stories always tend to be told from the top-down? Is it so difficult to imagine a world in which such stories are all told from a bottom-up perspective and the top-down point-of-view is neglected?
3) Why has such close attention been paid to black-white relations in library history as opposed to more focus on American immigrant history?
Article 4: The Ugly Side of Librarianship
This is an article in which Michael Harris's distaste for ALA self-aggrandizement seems to be warranted. While the ALA took responsibilty for immigrants (a widly diverse group), African-Americans were dismissed as being a problem too wildly divergent between various American regions. Such hypocrisy appears to be impossibly thick-headed for a supposedly progressive institution--at least on the surface. Hatred towards black people was intense enough in the South that librarians did not want to alienate their white patrons by admitting black people to their libraries. Again in American history, separate but "equal" was thought to be the only solution. Librarians such as Rachel Harris celebrated the existence of ANY library that catered to the African-American population, even employing the writings of W.E.B. DuBois to back up her position. After all, the library did indeed offer education for those for whom it was lacking. In fact, the opportunities provided by the Louisville Free Public Library (Eastern Colored Branch) allowed some African-Americans to become college students, medical students, or university professors. Through 1950, virtually no library in the South was truly "'unrestricted'" (86). Northern libraries weren't terribly accomodating, either. The ALA was a complicit partner in American racism.
1) Would integration in American libraries circa 1900-1950 have been asking for too much, too fast? Could libraries as well as society as a whole expect to see a backlash from forced integration too early? In matters of racism, is there ever any room for compromise--even though racism is wrong?
2) Why did immigrants receive special attention from the ALA and not black people? Could it be that Michael Harris is right?...that the ALA and other interested parties wanted to assimilate immigrants into American culture?...perhaps African-Americans were deliberately excluded from such assimilation?
Article 5: Breaking the Color Barrier: Regina Andrews and the New York Public Library
The story of Regina Andrews might be considered a story of "middle-up-and-down" as opposed to top down. She was a member of her Harlem community--an active participant in the Harlem Renaissance. From her position within the NYPL, she fought her superiors alongside W.E.B. DuBois for equal pay. Still, this is a bit of a top-down sort of act (while also fighting from the bottom-up)...she was a "mover and shaker" within the library, and eventually came to hold a position of prominence. Regina Andrews invited controversial topics into her library with open arms, but also was in charge of more mundane Family Night at the Library program, a program that died with her retirement.
1) "Perhaps, though, the very ethnic background that at first impeded her progress also gave her the strength to ultimately succeed" (419). Please relate this to Louise Robbins's discussion of Barack Obama and Geraldine Ferraro from last week.
2) Is this story more of a top-down or bottom-up affair? Please explain your answer.
Aricle 6: Gays in Library Land: The Gay and Lesbian Task Force of the American Library Association: The First Sixteen Years
While the ALA has been cowardly in taking a stand against discrimination in the past, there is an instance of forward thinking that might give Michael Harris reason to pause and take notice. In 1970, the ALA recognized the Task Force on Gay Liberation of the American Library Association. This group was responsible for such successes as the Gay Bibliography, the Gay Kissing Booth, and the Gay Book Award. Though "[their] job was as much to unsettle ALA over gay issues as to settle into the ALA fabric," the branch was still nonetheless approved by the ALA and its SRRT. The TGFL had its share of failures too, however. Their Gays in Hollywood Film project, AIDS Awareness Project, and a discrimination survey were all busts.
1) "And I think it was more than chance that ALA was the first professional organization to be liberated by gay activists. Librarians are after all committed to inquiry, the open mind, and dissemination of information" (92). Has it been your experience that this is entirely true of libraries? What about from 1970 to the present day?
2) Could such promotion of LGBT culture be considered top-down indoctrinating elitism as defined by Michael Harris?...or would this be a step foward according to Harris?
Article 1: The Use of Library and Educational Facilities by Russian-Jewish Immigrants in New York City, 1880-1914: The Impact of Culture
In this article, author Nelson R. Beck exposes a glaring flaw in Michael Harris's controversial revisionist history. While the author maintains that many of Harris's critiques of formative library culture ring true, he criticizes Harris's own selective use of facts, as well as Harris's own elitism. Beck admits that assimilation into American culture was the goal of many top-down organizations that intended to educate immigrants of all walks of life. "Indeed, Edward G. Hartmann contends that the Educational Alliance, the Aguilar Free Library, the Baron de Hirsch Fund, and the older Americanized Jewish population all worked for the assimilation and Americanization of the Russian Jews" (133). Another signal of top-down manipulation came in the form of librarians denying Russian Jew children material in their native languages (of course, some of this appears to have stemmed from demand for such material from adult users). In the end however, it appears (at least according to Beck) that immigrant Russian Jews shaped the use of the library to according to their own needs and because of a desire to be educated due to the conditions prescribed by their native culture--a direct assault on Harris's own assertion that immigrants did not care to be educated. "In spite of slaughter and destruction, the Russian Jews maintained an educational system that reflected and perpetuated their religion and culture. Central to this education was moral training through the home and Synagogue. The scripturers and the Talmud demanded education" (131). For many immigrants, "Americanization" was a voluntary process as since education was important to Russian Jews, they wanted to learn English. Libraries often reflected what their immigrant patrons wanted in the library. There was no shortage of periodicals in the Aguilar Libraries related to Jewish topics, and Jews in New York City started up at least eleven different newspapers. At the end of the article, the author admits that this is merely one case study, and that while Harris's own elitism and "historical tunnel vision" may have been misguided, in order for his vision to be fully refuted, many more immigrant populations' educational habits would have to be examined.
Questions:
1) To what extent did top-down assimilation strategies succeed? For example, did libraries succeed in creating a generational divide between young Russian Jews and their parents? Did libraries do anything that may have reinforced such a divide?
2) What are some of the ways in which Russian Jews had an impact on the institutions that helped educate them besides some of the reasons mentioned above?
3) Did Jewish culture have an effect on libraries more than libraries impacted Russian Jewish culture as Beck suggests? Is there a way to refute such a claim in favor of a top-down explanation?
Article 2: White Privilege in Library Land
This article proved a bit troublesome for me, because I could only answer half of the twelve "white privilege" questions with an unequivocal "yes." While I would not deny that I benefit from white privilege, I had to question if the twelve questions were indeed fair to the reader. In looking at the numbers provided by John D. Berry, the racial numbers regarding librarians who received higher education library degrees did not change in very significant ways over time--which is self-evidently significant in its own right. Perhaps we have not come as far racially as Americans as we would like to think we have since 1973. The only number that really evolved over this period is the massive growth in the percentage of females receiving upper level library degrees over their male counterparts.
Questions:
1) Is the growth in females receiving high level degrees (and hence, leadership positions) in librarianship a boon for women's equality, or does it only serve to reinforce irritating gender-related stereotypes within the library field?
2) How many of the questions provided by Barry did you answer "yes" to? Does this number vary depending on where you have worked in the past? Where does Wisconsin generally fit into this twelve question equation?
Article 3: Toward a Multicultural American Public Library History
"If historians choose to see libraries as earlier forms of communication and information technologies, then it might be possible to look for ways in which libraries and their constituents engaged in similar struggles against restrictions, sometimes on the same side and sometimes not" (78-79). This quote lies at the center of the question that I would like to address today. As Cheryl Knott Malone addresses in her essay, a study of library history and culture tends to focus on leaders--the movers and shakers in libraries from the top down. In our own studies of Apostles of Culture and The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown, we have often seen this to be true. By this time, we know the names of all sorts of prestigious librarians in our field today, as well as many of the prestigious librarians of history. Malone asserts that bottom-up activity holds plenty of sway on the library as well. She cites the impact of Polish and Russian Jewish people on library culture in America, for example. She claims that creating a multicultural library history would involve a study of use, users, and nonusers. In creating a multicultural history of Chicago, Malone suggests leaving no ethnic stone unturned in piecing together a bottom-up epic. As Malone cites, "Takaki asserts that only by recovering different pasts, told from divergent perspectives, can a full appreciation of the complexity of United States history can be reached." Too often, such histories are only told from the top-down instead of the bottom-up--a shift to the latter would be helpful in telling a more complete story with respect to any history.
1) If libraries are an earlier form of communication like the article suggests, what parallels can be drawn between the way the library is shaped and the way later communication technologies were shaped (think bottom-up vs. top-down, think technological determinism vs. social shaping of technology perspective)?
2) What are some reasons that historical stories always tend to be told from the top-down? Is it so difficult to imagine a world in which such stories are all told from a bottom-up perspective and the top-down point-of-view is neglected?
3) Why has such close attention been paid to black-white relations in library history as opposed to more focus on American immigrant history?
Article 4: The Ugly Side of Librarianship
This is an article in which Michael Harris's distaste for ALA self-aggrandizement seems to be warranted. While the ALA took responsibilty for immigrants (a widly diverse group), African-Americans were dismissed as being a problem too wildly divergent between various American regions. Such hypocrisy appears to be impossibly thick-headed for a supposedly progressive institution--at least on the surface. Hatred towards black people was intense enough in the South that librarians did not want to alienate their white patrons by admitting black people to their libraries. Again in American history, separate but "equal" was thought to be the only solution. Librarians such as Rachel Harris celebrated the existence of ANY library that catered to the African-American population, even employing the writings of W.E.B. DuBois to back up her position. After all, the library did indeed offer education for those for whom it was lacking. In fact, the opportunities provided by the Louisville Free Public Library (Eastern Colored Branch) allowed some African-Americans to become college students, medical students, or university professors. Through 1950, virtually no library in the South was truly "'unrestricted'" (86). Northern libraries weren't terribly accomodating, either. The ALA was a complicit partner in American racism.
1) Would integration in American libraries circa 1900-1950 have been asking for too much, too fast? Could libraries as well as society as a whole expect to see a backlash from forced integration too early? In matters of racism, is there ever any room for compromise--even though racism is wrong?
2) Why did immigrants receive special attention from the ALA and not black people? Could it be that Michael Harris is right?...that the ALA and other interested parties wanted to assimilate immigrants into American culture?...perhaps African-Americans were deliberately excluded from such assimilation?
Article 5: Breaking the Color Barrier: Regina Andrews and the New York Public Library
The story of Regina Andrews might be considered a story of "middle-up-and-down" as opposed to top down. She was a member of her Harlem community--an active participant in the Harlem Renaissance. From her position within the NYPL, she fought her superiors alongside W.E.B. DuBois for equal pay. Still, this is a bit of a top-down sort of act (while also fighting from the bottom-up)...she was a "mover and shaker" within the library, and eventually came to hold a position of prominence. Regina Andrews invited controversial topics into her library with open arms, but also was in charge of more mundane Family Night at the Library program, a program that died with her retirement.
1) "Perhaps, though, the very ethnic background that at first impeded her progress also gave her the strength to ultimately succeed" (419). Please relate this to Louise Robbins's discussion of Barack Obama and Geraldine Ferraro from last week.
2) Is this story more of a top-down or bottom-up affair? Please explain your answer.
Aricle 6: Gays in Library Land: The Gay and Lesbian Task Force of the American Library Association: The First Sixteen Years
While the ALA has been cowardly in taking a stand against discrimination in the past, there is an instance of forward thinking that might give Michael Harris reason to pause and take notice. In 1970, the ALA recognized the Task Force on Gay Liberation of the American Library Association. This group was responsible for such successes as the Gay Bibliography, the Gay Kissing Booth, and the Gay Book Award. Though "[their] job was as much to unsettle ALA over gay issues as to settle into the ALA fabric," the branch was still nonetheless approved by the ALA and its SRRT. The TGFL had its share of failures too, however. Their Gays in Hollywood Film project, AIDS Awareness Project, and a discrimination survey were all busts.
1) "And I think it was more than chance that ALA was the first professional organization to be liberated by gay activists. Librarians are after all committed to inquiry, the open mind, and dissemination of information" (92). Has it been your experience that this is entirely true of libraries? What about from 1970 to the present day?
2) Could such promotion of LGBT culture be considered top-down indoctrinating elitism as defined by Michael Harris?...or would this be a step foward according to Harris?
Libraries To the People
Most Far Out Sentence: "The library profession long ago adopted a Bill of Rights that enjoins librarians to stock material covering all possible political and other view points. Yet the library in question no doubt typifieds actual practice-namely to offer its readers only safe, orthodox, Establishment-type literature" (Berman, 1).
Sanford Berman attacks the stated neutrality of librarians from straight out of the gate. He believes that in order for libraries to start carrying materials with "alternative" points of view from the "underground," pressure will need to come from the alienated population that creates alternative press, as well as from within libraries.
Berman goes on to rage against sterotypes of all kinds: classes, races, gays, and women are all treated unfairly by "neutral" libraries. All in all, despite "fairness" and "neutrality" certain groups remained uncatered to within library culture according to Berman.
A question for Sanford Berman, though: when does the alternative press become mainstream? Was Soviet Russia Today mainstream because Ruth Brown chose to keep it in a library, or would that be considered "alternative press"?
In conclusion, social responsibility as a library movement was all well and good, but I thought that Berman's piece went a little too far.
Sanford Berman attacks the stated neutrality of librarians from straight out of the gate. He believes that in order for libraries to start carrying materials with "alternative" points of view from the "underground," pressure will need to come from the alienated population that creates alternative press, as well as from within libraries.
Berman goes on to rage against sterotypes of all kinds: classes, races, gays, and women are all treated unfairly by "neutral" libraries. All in all, despite "fairness" and "neutrality" certain groups remained uncatered to within library culture according to Berman.
A question for Sanford Berman, though: when does the alternative press become mainstream? Was Soviet Russia Today mainstream because Ruth Brown chose to keep it in a library, or would that be considered "alternative press"?
In conclusion, social responsibility as a library movement was all well and good, but I thought that Berman's piece went a little too far.
Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility in American Librarianship, 1967-1974
Most Interesting Sentence: "Despite the pressure to conform, librarians in favor of social responsibility in the 1960s rebelled against the notion of professional 'neutrality'" (Samek, 9).
Neutrality is a confusing and misleading term. Can't someone be technically aggressive by maintaining neutrality? Didn't John Edwards indirectly (but deliberately) meddle in the affairs of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by remaining neutral for so long? Was America really neutral in World War I when it was shipping arms to both the Allies and the Triple Entente? Similarly, with libraries, such supposed neutrality seems impossible to me. With limited resources at almost any library's disposal, at some point, actual choices must be made about the choice of material. Even if you choose a pro-Iranian and an anti-Iranian book, you're still not being truly neutral if you're making choices. Similarly, the choice to either house or ignore the alternative press of the day agitates the neutrality debate.
When librarians violated this supposed neutrality by attacking the library establishment, they were accused of violating the neutral principles the library supposedly stood for. I personally think that the social responsibility movement was a very positive one, because neutrality is an unattainable ideal. People come to libraries in order to learn, and in order to learn, librarians must choose materials from a wide variety of voices and sources. In the end, this sort of thing requires a librarian to make some kind of decision...and there's nothing "neutral" about that.
Neutrality is a confusing and misleading term. Can't someone be technically aggressive by maintaining neutrality? Didn't John Edwards indirectly (but deliberately) meddle in the affairs of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by remaining neutral for so long? Was America really neutral in World War I when it was shipping arms to both the Allies and the Triple Entente? Similarly, with libraries, such supposed neutrality seems impossible to me. With limited resources at almost any library's disposal, at some point, actual choices must be made about the choice of material. Even if you choose a pro-Iranian and an anti-Iranian book, you're still not being truly neutral if you're making choices. Similarly, the choice to either house or ignore the alternative press of the day agitates the neutrality debate.
When librarians violated this supposed neutrality by attacking the library establishment, they were accused of violating the neutral principles the library supposedly stood for. I personally think that the social responsibility movement was a very positive one, because neutrality is an unattainable ideal. People come to libraries in order to learn, and in order to learn, librarians must choose materials from a wide variety of voices and sources. In the end, this sort of thing requires a librarian to make some kind of decision...and there's nothing "neutral" about that.
Shopping For Community
Most Thought Provoking Sentence: "Large corporations can additionally not be trusted to remain in a community, but could pull up stakes whenever it is profitable to do so. The independent [bookstore], on the other hand, is believed to have roots deep enough in a community to stay for the long haul" (Miller, 397).
Libraries and independent bookstores are not so different from one another in this way. Libraries are reflections of their communities. In a poor, socially conservative town, the library may not be so well-funded, and the collection may not be very large. Similarly, a given community may not want its librarians to host what would be considered to be controversial material on its shelves. The library and/or independent bookstore grows and reflects the nature of the community around it.
In contrast, the corporate bookstore plays the opposite role. In this case, a Borders Books and Music or a Barnes & Noble puts up shop in a town, and these stores serve to homogenize the entire country. The Barnes & Noble in Chicago, Illinois is not terribly different from the Barnes & Noble in rural South Carolina. I can tell you this, because I have been to both. They both sell reasonably priced books and perhaps unreasonably priced coffee.
While the super chain bookstore can attempt to become a center of community activity, the fact that any one of those stores could just pull up shop as mentioned in the quote above changes the matter. Even if the chain store invites the community in, the chain store does more to homogenize and shape the community than the community shapes the nature of the chain store.
Libraries and independent bookstores are not so different from one another in this way. Libraries are reflections of their communities. In a poor, socially conservative town, the library may not be so well-funded, and the collection may not be very large. Similarly, a given community may not want its librarians to host what would be considered to be controversial material on its shelves. The library and/or independent bookstore grows and reflects the nature of the community around it.
In contrast, the corporate bookstore plays the opposite role. In this case, a Borders Books and Music or a Barnes & Noble puts up shop in a town, and these stores serve to homogenize the entire country. The Barnes & Noble in Chicago, Illinois is not terribly different from the Barnes & Noble in rural South Carolina. I can tell you this, because I have been to both. They both sell reasonably priced books and perhaps unreasonably priced coffee.
While the super chain bookstore can attempt to become a center of community activity, the fact that any one of those stores could just pull up shop as mentioned in the quote above changes the matter. Even if the chain store invites the community in, the chain store does more to homogenize and shape the community than the community shapes the nature of the chain store.
On Customer-Driven Librarianship
Most Compelling Sentence: "Recently, a small cottage industry within librarianship has developed in the form of articles on the 'discovery' of the success of plush, superchain bookstore outlets (like Barnes & Noble) as a place to browse for and read books" (Buschman, 113).
For me, this quote brings me to the question of what is the role of the library? What are the jobs and services that can be provided by a library and its staff? As we can see in our very own College Library (Helen C. White), the services provided by a library can be vast. College Library has its own coffee shop, you can borrow a Nintendo Wii, the computer lab is extensive. So, College Library has positioned itself as a different sort of library. To define your library in a much different way from the stereotype of the quiet, dusty, library of old is a bold gesture. Like corporations, libraries can position themselves in different ways in order to jockey for patronage.
As discussed in class, how does this change how the library views the library user? Even the nomenclature can become different depending on your library's goals. In the case of the library that positions itself similarly to a modern bookstore, users could literally become "customers". Perhaps in the quiet and musty library referenced above, library users remain patrons. Certainly though, such language and attitudes towards libraries must be a sign of the times. Ever since the Reagan years, America has moved more and more towards privatization and commercialization. Moving the library toward the realm of a marketable sort of business is in keeping with this trend.
For me, this quote brings me to the question of what is the role of the library? What are the jobs and services that can be provided by a library and its staff? As we can see in our very own College Library (Helen C. White), the services provided by a library can be vast. College Library has its own coffee shop, you can borrow a Nintendo Wii, the computer lab is extensive. So, College Library has positioned itself as a different sort of library. To define your library in a much different way from the stereotype of the quiet, dusty, library of old is a bold gesture. Like corporations, libraries can position themselves in different ways in order to jockey for patronage.
As discussed in class, how does this change how the library views the library user? Even the nomenclature can become different depending on your library's goals. In the case of the library that positions itself similarly to a modern bookstore, users could literally become "customers". Perhaps in the quiet and musty library referenced above, library users remain patrons. Certainly though, such language and attitudes towards libraries must be a sign of the times. Ever since the Reagan years, America has moved more and more towards privatization and commercialization. Moving the library toward the realm of a marketable sort of business is in keeping with this trend.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
A History of Computer Applications in Libraries
Most Important Sentence: "When existing library technologies begin to break down under economic, social, and bibliographical pressures emerging in the late 1950s and early 1960s and librarians began seeking relief in automation, the introduction of automation involved profound misunderstandings between librarians and early systems developers about the nature and professional knowledge and traditions of librarianship on the one hand and of the capabilities of the new technology and what was required for its implementation on the other" (Rayward, 6).
One interesting aspect of library cataloging during this time that illustrates the conflicts within library organization was the dictionary catalog. One the one hand, the dictionary catalog was based on a simple premise. If you knew how the dictionary worked, it was not so much different from a printed dictionary in which the reader understands the "rules". Then again, the dictionary catalog developed over years and years of librarianship, and was therefore also a complex tool. Using the dictionary catalog "was at times extremely difficult" (Rayward, 9). With a system like this, it is not hard to imagine how outsiders might become confused during the rise of library automation.
"Both groups, librarians and technologists alike, I suspect, were caught up in the early days of automation in what might be described as a kind of eschatological discourse filled with promises and prospects of salvation and of disappointed expectations" (Rayward, 12). As a result of miscommunication in the face of a changing information environment, it's no wonder libraries and librarians are still catching up with progress in the age of the Internet.
One interesting aspect of library cataloging during this time that illustrates the conflicts within library organization was the dictionary catalog. One the one hand, the dictionary catalog was based on a simple premise. If you knew how the dictionary worked, it was not so much different from a printed dictionary in which the reader understands the "rules". Then again, the dictionary catalog developed over years and years of librarianship, and was therefore also a complex tool. Using the dictionary catalog "was at times extremely difficult" (Rayward, 9). With a system like this, it is not hard to imagine how outsiders might become confused during the rise of library automation.
"Both groups, librarians and technologists alike, I suspect, were caught up in the early days of automation in what might be described as a kind of eschatological discourse filled with promises and prospects of salvation and of disappointed expectations" (Rayward, 12). As a result of miscommunication in the face of a changing information environment, it's no wonder libraries and librarians are still catching up with progress in the age of the Internet.
The Librarian and the Univac
I enjoyed this article a great deal. The Univac at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair appears to have been the library equivalent of Disneyworld's "The House of Tomorrow".
The bibliographic information provided by the Univac was comically incomplete. What good was such a complicated and enormous toy without a more complete database on which to draw? It is difficult to imagine librarians of the future slaving over the sort of Univac job killer as portrayed by the movie Desk Set. I do not understand why so many librarians would volunteer their time for such a bizarre exhibit. As far as library technology is concerned, I have enjoyed reading stories of Ed Wood-esque ambition and enthusiasm throughout this course.
In the end, well-thought out "competitors" like Google and Amazon may be just the kick in the pants that the library profession needed. Within the profession, librarians came up with wild ideas like LIBRARY-21. With something to react against, the future of libraries seems more clear. With private giants like Google and Amazon dominating the informational landscape, libraries are in a better position to think about the library's place in the world. Since the success of Google and Amazon is now long established, positioning the library profession relative to such organizations seems like a quality investment.
The bibliographic information provided by the Univac was comically incomplete. What good was such a complicated and enormous toy without a more complete database on which to draw? It is difficult to imagine librarians of the future slaving over the sort of Univac job killer as portrayed by the movie Desk Set. I do not understand why so many librarians would volunteer their time for such a bizarre exhibit. As far as library technology is concerned, I have enjoyed reading stories of Ed Wood-esque ambition and enthusiasm throughout this course.
In the end, well-thought out "competitors" like Google and Amazon may be just the kick in the pants that the library profession needed. Within the profession, librarians came up with wild ideas like LIBRARY-21. With something to react against, the future of libraries seems more clear. With private giants like Google and Amazon dominating the informational landscape, libraries are in a better position to think about the library's place in the world. Since the success of Google and Amazon is now long established, positioning the library profession relative to such organizations seems like a quality investment.
Most Interesting Sentence (from the National Science Foundation): "The limits of what can be communicated by printing, mailing, storing, and retrieving piees of paper may be at hand" (Lancaster, 346).
While this may have been true, with the dawn of the digitization of our society, it could be that the librarian's original role of someone in charge of books may become all the more important in the future as people become more and more content to only temporarily obtain their information in a virtual space. Though F. Wilfrid Lancaster paints a "gloomy picture" in her estimation, now that everyday life has been digitized to an alarming degree, there is reason to believe that a "reactionary" and protectionist view of books may be warranted. As books become more scarce, someone has to carry the torch for the volumes upon volumes upon warehouses of printed information still within the jurisdiction of librarians everywhere.
"I suggest that the primary publication of primary literature in the year 2000 may in fact be a more or less direct analog of the present system" (Lancaster, 353). While this may be true, not all information has been digitized (and likely never can be). The librarian's original paper-based role may become more pertinent with time.
"We are moving rather rapidly and quite inevitably toward a paperless society" (Lancaster, 356). While this 1977 prediction has proved to be quite true, there is no reason that librarians cannot become masters of a paperless world...likewise, who will be better positioned to be the protectors of all things paper?
While this may have been true, with the dawn of the digitization of our society, it could be that the librarian's original role of someone in charge of books may become all the more important in the future as people become more and more content to only temporarily obtain their information in a virtual space. Though F. Wilfrid Lancaster paints a "gloomy picture" in her estimation, now that everyday life has been digitized to an alarming degree, there is reason to believe that a "reactionary" and protectionist view of books may be warranted. As books become more scarce, someone has to carry the torch for the volumes upon volumes upon warehouses of printed information still within the jurisdiction of librarians everywhere.
"I suggest that the primary publication of primary literature in the year 2000 may in fact be a more or less direct analog of the present system" (Lancaster, 353). While this may be true, not all information has been digitized (and likely never can be). The librarian's original paper-based role may become more pertinent with time.
"We are moving rather rapidly and quite inevitably toward a paperless society" (Lancaster, 356). While this 1977 prediction has proved to be quite true, there is no reason that librarians cannot become masters of a paperless world...likewise, who will be better positioned to be the protectors of all things paper?
From Automation To Transformation
Most Interesting Sentence: "Libraries were forced to REACT to developments in information technology (and their cultural and economic consequences) rather than methodically exploiting them" (Lynch, 62).
In trying to control and predict the future of information game for so long, libraries were thrown for a loop when they had to adjust to an information paradigm that was forced upon them. Novel machines such as those described in the Downey article were certainly fascinating and thought provoking, but it was ultimately the world outside of libraries that changed libraries from inside. According to this article, libraries are still trying to find their place in a WWW world.
One way in which libraries were prepared for the Internet was through computerizing their card catalogs. "As the Internet began to grow, library catalogs were connected to the Net so that they could be consulted remotely from anywhere in the world" (Lynch, 63). The library still seemed unprepared for the prospect of valuable, yet free, information populating the Internet. What is the role of a library when you can find a recipe for turtle soup from Ask Jeeves?
One of the more interesting predictions Lynch makes is that librarians of the future will become de facto information "teachers". In a world full of information, who should be better suited to contextualize its many forms than a librarian? (see the sixth bullet point on page 67).
In trying to control and predict the future of information game for so long, libraries were thrown for a loop when they had to adjust to an information paradigm that was forced upon them. Novel machines such as those described in the Downey article were certainly fascinating and thought provoking, but it was ultimately the world outside of libraries that changed libraries from inside. According to this article, libraries are still trying to find their place in a WWW world.
One way in which libraries were prepared for the Internet was through computerizing their card catalogs. "As the Internet began to grow, library catalogs were connected to the Net so that they could be consulted remotely from anywhere in the world" (Lynch, 63). The library still seemed unprepared for the prospect of valuable, yet free, information populating the Internet. What is the role of a library when you can find a recipe for turtle soup from Ask Jeeves?
One of the more interesting predictions Lynch makes is that librarians of the future will become de facto information "teachers". In a world full of information, who should be better suited to contextualize its many forms than a librarian? (see the sixth bullet point on page 67).
Automating the Library
Most Compelling Sentence: "Reinvention is necessary because the library no longer has a lock on information resources" (Marcum, 11).
While one has to break a few eggs in order to eventually achieve positive results, in the case of men like Haas, Clapp, and Cole, they were simply too radical before a time that radicalization as shaped by technology could lead librarianship in the proper direction.
"Some of the work CLR backed (microfilm gadgets and Project Intrex) had gone astray or been too expensive to continue" (Marcum, 9). The men mentioned above were men of action at a time when the most effective path was unclear. The revelation that was the Internet was a trail yet to be blazed, so they wasted money trying to discover what the future of the library should be. Microfilm and Intrex were "closed" projects that seemed to try to implement themselves at the wrong time. According to the article, CLR may have just gotten lucky with respect to furthering library automation of the library.
The library game now appears to have been realized. "The most interesting questions are connected to the role of the paper-based "artifact" in the new environment, the legal and organizational requirements of preserving digital information, and the preparation of a new cadre of professionals technically and intellectually equipped to be tomorrow's stewards of and guides to information resources" (Marcum, 12).
These [Haas, Clapp, Cole] do not appear to have been men who were ahead of their time so much as they were men floundering around in a future that never came to pass.
While one has to break a few eggs in order to eventually achieve positive results, in the case of men like Haas, Clapp, and Cole, they were simply too radical before a time that radicalization as shaped by technology could lead librarianship in the proper direction.
"Some of the work CLR backed (microfilm gadgets and Project Intrex) had gone astray or been too expensive to continue" (Marcum, 9). The men mentioned above were men of action at a time when the most effective path was unclear. The revelation that was the Internet was a trail yet to be blazed, so they wasted money trying to discover what the future of the library should be. Microfilm and Intrex were "closed" projects that seemed to try to implement themselves at the wrong time. According to the article, CLR may have just gotten lucky with respect to furthering library automation of the library.
The library game now appears to have been realized. "The most interesting questions are connected to the role of the paper-based "artifact" in the new environment, the legal and organizational requirements of preserving digital information, and the preparation of a new cadre of professionals technically and intellectually equipped to be tomorrow's stewards of and guides to information resources" (Marcum, 12).
These [Haas, Clapp, Cole] do not appear to have been men who were ahead of their time so much as they were men floundering around in a future that never came to pass.
The Web That Wasn't
Most Interesting Sentence: "In Otlet's world each user would leave an imprint, a trail, which would then become part of the explicit history of each document" (Wright, 190).
Early in this article, Wright explains that the World Wide Web might not necessarily have "a happy ending" and that the work of Paul Otlet went from being celebrated to destroyed by the Nazis around the time he died (1944). Indeed, this was not a happy ending for a man such as Otlet who was so ahead of his time.
Such an incident speaks to the social shaping of technology. This theory implies that it is not technology that changes the world, but rather real world events and people that shape and change technology. In this case, Otlet was just unlucky. Names like Vannevar Bush and Tim Berners-Lee are the names that are remembered, and another man of daunting intellect was left to rot in the annals of history despite being a prophet of the Internet age. The work of Eugene Garfield, for example, was capitalized upon by the founders of Google. His page rank algorithm lives on within the Internet's single most prominent entity, while the name of Garfield is largely forgotten (for now).
While technology (the Internet) may have a major impact on the library, it is important to remember that it is the Ted Nelsons and Douglas Engelbarts that are ultimately the ones to put the ball in motion.
Early in this article, Wright explains that the World Wide Web might not necessarily have "a happy ending" and that the work of Paul Otlet went from being celebrated to destroyed by the Nazis around the time he died (1944). Indeed, this was not a happy ending for a man such as Otlet who was so ahead of his time.
Such an incident speaks to the social shaping of technology. This theory implies that it is not technology that changes the world, but rather real world events and people that shape and change technology. In this case, Otlet was just unlucky. Names like Vannevar Bush and Tim Berners-Lee are the names that are remembered, and another man of daunting intellect was left to rot in the annals of history despite being a prophet of the Internet age. The work of Eugene Garfield, for example, was capitalized upon by the founders of Google. His page rank algorithm lives on within the Internet's single most prominent entity, while the name of Garfield is largely forgotten (for now).
While technology (the Internet) may have a major impact on the library, it is important to remember that it is the Ted Nelsons and Douglas Engelbarts that are ultimately the ones to put the ball in motion.
The Impact of the Internet on Public Library Use
Most Obvious Question: "'In this age of the Internet, will we still need libraries?'" (Various authors, 1).
Though I think that most educated librarians would probably answer "yes" to this question (perhaps while pulling at their collars), it is certainly still a valid (if ubiquitous) question within the field. At the beginning of the study, the authors suggest three possible scenarios for future librarianship--it will either 1) stay the same, 2) evolve with the Internet, 3) be rended obsolete.
While graphs, surveys, and statistics contained within the survey are all well and good, some basic facts should be remembered. 1) Not everybody used the public library before the age of the Internet. 2) People who frequented the library most frequently in the first place used it for a variety of reasons. a) For example, the library could be a public meeting space. b) The library of the future will likely have texts that can't simply be found on JSTOR, Google, and the like.
It seems to me that once librarians fully comprehend the role of the library in this new information paradigm, they will see how important it is to preserve honest-to-goodness books. When an information revolution occurs, it tends to focus the most effective uses of a given medium. Radio, for example, became most widely used in the car...you certainly can't watch television while driving. In the future, I think the strengths of the library will be more clear to librarians, and the profession will become more focused on its role in society (likely leading to fewer microfilm-esque delusions and mistakes).
Though I think that most educated librarians would probably answer "yes" to this question (perhaps while pulling at their collars), it is certainly still a valid (if ubiquitous) question within the field. At the beginning of the study, the authors suggest three possible scenarios for future librarianship--it will either 1) stay the same, 2) evolve with the Internet, 3) be rended obsolete.
While graphs, surveys, and statistics contained within the survey are all well and good, some basic facts should be remembered. 1) Not everybody used the public library before the age of the Internet. 2) People who frequented the library most frequently in the first place used it for a variety of reasons. a) For example, the library could be a public meeting space. b) The library of the future will likely have texts that can't simply be found on JSTOR, Google, and the like.
It seems to me that once librarians fully comprehend the role of the library in this new information paradigm, they will see how important it is to preserve honest-to-goodness books. When an information revolution occurs, it tends to focus the most effective uses of a given medium. Radio, for example, became most widely used in the car...you certainly can't watch television while driving. In the future, I think the strengths of the library will be more clear to librarians, and the profession will become more focused on its role in society (likely leading to fewer microfilm-esque delusions and mistakes).
Most Interesting Quote: "'It's a fascinating time, and very confusing,' Mr. Verba said of the copyright controversy. 'And if you ask me if I have a clear view of fair use, the answer is no. It's all up in the air'" (Hafner, 2).
This article has to do with the Google Book Search Library Project and the copyright infringement problems that go hand in hand with said project. Patricia Schroeder is not necessarily anti-Google Book Project, but she does have a problem with Google uploading texts without permission. She makes the argument that authors should have more of a say in what does and does not get uploaded.
Creative Commons is looking to upend the notion of copyright altogether with their own more complicated but specific idea: copyleft. "Copyleft" is an idea meant to confront the problems of living in the age of the Internet. When so many people can easily access legally confusing content, what are copyright lawyers to do? Copyleft would allow authors to "copyleft" works in very specific ways, which would allow people to freely use certain materials within boundaries that are not outlined by copyright.
Sidney Verba is ultimately pro-Google because he thought it was important to preserve information in new and different ways. He understands the arguments of the pro-copyright people, but it is his opinion that the dissemination and preservation of information is ultimately more important than matters of copyright (or he would not have signed the Harvard U. Library up for the project).
This article has to do with the Google Book Search Library Project and the copyright infringement problems that go hand in hand with said project. Patricia Schroeder is not necessarily anti-Google Book Project, but she does have a problem with Google uploading texts without permission. She makes the argument that authors should have more of a say in what does and does not get uploaded.
Creative Commons is looking to upend the notion of copyright altogether with their own more complicated but specific idea: copyleft. "Copyleft" is an idea meant to confront the problems of living in the age of the Internet. When so many people can easily access legally confusing content, what are copyright lawyers to do? Copyleft would allow authors to "copyleft" works in very specific ways, which would allow people to freely use certain materials within boundaries that are not outlined by copyright.
Sidney Verba is ultimately pro-Google because he thought it was important to preserve information in new and different ways. He understands the arguments of the pro-copyright people, but it is his opinion that the dissemination and preservation of information is ultimately more important than matters of copyright (or he would not have signed the Harvard U. Library up for the project).
Future Reading
Most Compelling Sentence: "But scholars have had to deal with too much information for millennia, and in periods when information resources were multiplying especially fast they devised ingenious ways to control the floods" (Grafton, 2).
Anthony Grafton in his article proves yet again that history always repeats itself. The multi-faceted term "information overload" is currently en vogue, and it is easy to see why. Not only is there more information available right now than ever, but it is available in more forms than ever. Everything from a receipt that you receive at the grocery store to an online .pdf about incorporating railroads competes for attention (and conservation). The question becomes, what do you keep and what can librarians overlook?
From Renaissance information specialists such as Jeremias Drexel (he taught students how to "arrange the contents of literature by headings"), to Fremont Rider in the 1940s (he was in some ways the most significant champion of microfilm), everyone through time has been paranoid that there is too much to know, and that the madness must be properly organized and preserved.
Grafton goes on to explain how the Google Book Project, while flawed, is well-situated to serve the information needs of the public. While it has a number of issues (copyright, the sheer amount of historical text to be put online), it is not nearly as limited as microfilm. Anyone with a computer can pull up a text on Google Book Search. In conclusion, Grafton explains that while Google's intentions are positive for the dissemination of information, an inquiring mind will ultimately need to visit the library once in a while due to the limitations of ALL mediums to possess ALL of history.
Anthony Grafton in his article proves yet again that history always repeats itself. The multi-faceted term "information overload" is currently en vogue, and it is easy to see why. Not only is there more information available right now than ever, but it is available in more forms than ever. Everything from a receipt that you receive at the grocery store to an online .pdf about incorporating railroads competes for attention (and conservation). The question becomes, what do you keep and what can librarians overlook?
From Renaissance information specialists such as Jeremias Drexel (he taught students how to "arrange the contents of literature by headings"), to Fremont Rider in the 1940s (he was in some ways the most significant champion of microfilm), everyone through time has been paranoid that there is too much to know, and that the madness must be properly organized and preserved.
Grafton goes on to explain how the Google Book Project, while flawed, is well-situated to serve the information needs of the public. While it has a number of issues (copyright, the sheer amount of historical text to be put online), it is not nearly as limited as microfilm. Anyone with a computer can pull up a text on Google Book Search. In conclusion, Grafton explains that while Google's intentions are positive for the dissemination of information, an inquiring mind will ultimately need to visit the library once in a while due to the limitations of ALL mediums to possess ALL of history.
The Ultimate Internet Cafe
Most Compelling Sentence: "But even if we imagine that, with time, more and more reader will be habituated to the online book--in part because they become accustomed to the technology and in part because the technology platform of the online book is more ergonomically designed--we can still safely predict that research libraries will continue to be needed because they are our repositories of precious documents: manuscripts, rare books, and similar materials" (44).
I found this sentence very interesting because I read Double Fold by Nicholson Baker for my final book review. In Double Fold, Baker details the destruction of books in the name of creating microfilm, online journals, and online books that will be preserved in the future. If we continue to destroy the printed word in favor of preserving information in different forms, then the unique role of libraries will be lost, according to Bernard Frischer. If libraries do not take care of the past, included "outmoded" mediums such as books, then the library has no place in Frischer's future, either.
With books, all there is, is the reader and the printed word. When our information appears in the guise of microfilm or, in this case, the digital book, the purity of the experience is infringed upon. According to Frischer, the library in the digital age will be valuable due to the quality of the experience one has at the library. Books are not cold and sterile like microfilm, or reading a tome on a computer screen. Libraries must remember that they originally existed to house books. To lose sight of the library's past would mean to lose sight of its future.
It is Frischer's opinion that the book is actually doing quite well at the moment. If the tradition of the printed word is as strong now as Frischer claims, then the library's role remains unthreatened. If librarians and unforeseen Acts of God threaten the book, however, then the future of libraries is up in the air.
I found this sentence very interesting because I read Double Fold by Nicholson Baker for my final book review. In Double Fold, Baker details the destruction of books in the name of creating microfilm, online journals, and online books that will be preserved in the future. If we continue to destroy the printed word in favor of preserving information in different forms, then the unique role of libraries will be lost, according to Bernard Frischer. If libraries do not take care of the past, included "outmoded" mediums such as books, then the library has no place in Frischer's future, either.
With books, all there is, is the reader and the printed word. When our information appears in the guise of microfilm or, in this case, the digital book, the purity of the experience is infringed upon. According to Frischer, the library in the digital age will be valuable due to the quality of the experience one has at the library. Books are not cold and sterile like microfilm, or reading a tome on a computer screen. Libraries must remember that they originally existed to house books. To lose sight of the library's past would mean to lose sight of its future.
It is Frischer's opinion that the book is actually doing quite well at the moment. If the tradition of the printed word is as strong now as Frischer claims, then the library's role remains unthreatened. If librarians and unforeseen Acts of God threaten the book, however, then the future of libraries is up in the air.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Apostles of Culture
Apostles of Culture proved to be an interesting read (despite the devilishly small print contained within its pages). Such print size is easily overlooked however, when one remembers that Apostles of Culture is the seminal document of Library History. Here, contained within its pages, is everything from the founding of the ALA (The American Library Association) to the "mad genius" of Melvil Dewey, who was so independent minded as to spell his words with his own (supposedly) more simple system. After reading this book, it is no wonder to me that the man died of a cerebal hemorrage.
The most important person featured in this book was clearly Melvil Dewey. Not only may he be the single most important person in library history thus far, he, in and of himself, proved to be a sort of event as well. Certainly, Dewey was the meteor in the ALA's move toward standardization. "His dreams and projects were superhuman. To fulfill any one of them would have required the span of ten lifetimes" (Garrison, 105). Certainly, he is the only famous librarian whose name is readily recognized outside of the field (See: The Dewey Decimal System). Dewey was clearly obsessive-compulsive as evidenced by a journal that he forced himself to write in despite the fact that he often professed to not even wanting to. Dewey's myriad of accomplishments taking the initiative to found the ALA in 1876, as well as using the convention to popularize and spread his idea for his Dewey Decimal System. "The Dewey Decimal System, which allowed for cooperative cataloguing ventures and provided the capability for indefinite, accurate grown, seemed amazingly useful. Probably many librarians agreed with Lloyd P. Smith of Philadelphia that the system devised by Dewey, and printed in the government report, was the most valuable idea they carried home from the convention of 1876. By 1927, 96 per cent of public libraries in the United States had adopted Dewey's classification; in a real way the esoteric knowledge it represented helped to bring solidarity to the newly emerging profession" (Garrison, 5).
In 1887, Dewey took the important step of creating the first library school at Columbia University. His first class contained seventeen women, and the university did not even provide Dewey with proper desks. According to Garrison, the story of Dewey's determination to make the school work is now fabled lore within library heritage.
Dewey, however, did not always succeed in his endless humanitarian crusade on behalf of libraries and their patrons. "There was one far-reaching reform idea that Dewey could not persuade others to accept. He hoped to make the library into a true people's university by the creation of a system whereby any citizen could earn any degree, from an elementary school certificate through the doctorate, by studying at home and passing a regents' exam" (Garrison, 139). Dewey had grown arrogant at this point in time, and other librarians would not allow Dewey to get his way once again.
Speaking of other librarians, I would have liked to hear more about them. I found the character of John Dana to be compelling, but not much time is devoted to him. This lack of serious attention to other librarians is understandable: "burning zeal can carry one very far. Dewey's contributions to library development are unequalled by one man, and his personal drive and unflinching faith in his mission will long be admired" (Garrison, 192).
The most important person featured in this book was clearly Melvil Dewey. Not only may he be the single most important person in library history thus far, he, in and of himself, proved to be a sort of event as well. Certainly, Dewey was the meteor in the ALA's move toward standardization. "His dreams and projects were superhuman. To fulfill any one of them would have required the span of ten lifetimes" (Garrison, 105). Certainly, he is the only famous librarian whose name is readily recognized outside of the field (See: The Dewey Decimal System). Dewey was clearly obsessive-compulsive as evidenced by a journal that he forced himself to write in despite the fact that he often professed to not even wanting to. Dewey's myriad of accomplishments taking the initiative to found the ALA in 1876, as well as using the convention to popularize and spread his idea for his Dewey Decimal System. "The Dewey Decimal System, which allowed for cooperative cataloguing ventures and provided the capability for indefinite, accurate grown, seemed amazingly useful. Probably many librarians agreed with Lloyd P. Smith of Philadelphia that the system devised by Dewey, and printed in the government report, was the most valuable idea they carried home from the convention of 1876. By 1927, 96 per cent of public libraries in the United States had adopted Dewey's classification; in a real way the esoteric knowledge it represented helped to bring solidarity to the newly emerging profession" (Garrison, 5).
In 1887, Dewey took the important step of creating the first library school at Columbia University. His first class contained seventeen women, and the university did not even provide Dewey with proper desks. According to Garrison, the story of Dewey's determination to make the school work is now fabled lore within library heritage.
Dewey, however, did not always succeed in his endless humanitarian crusade on behalf of libraries and their patrons. "There was one far-reaching reform idea that Dewey could not persuade others to accept. He hoped to make the library into a true people's university by the creation of a system whereby any citizen could earn any degree, from an elementary school certificate through the doctorate, by studying at home and passing a regents' exam" (Garrison, 139). Dewey had grown arrogant at this point in time, and other librarians would not allow Dewey to get his way once again.
Speaking of other librarians, I would have liked to hear more about them. I found the character of John Dana to be compelling, but not much time is devoted to him. This lack of serious attention to other librarians is understandable: "burning zeal can carry one very far. Dewey's contributions to library development are unequalled by one man, and his personal drive and unflinching faith in his mission will long be admired" (Garrison, 192).
Free To All
Abigail A. Van Sylck's book, Free To All is an exhaustive (if not exhausting) look at the the slew of libraries,and how they were accepted and used by patrons, donated by Andrew Carnegie between the years 1886-1920. The book is divided into six sections, each of which has its own unique and important story to tell. Two vital themes to emerge in the book are the politics involved in giving, and how patrons interacted with different public library spaces.
One problem I had with the book, though it may have been my own problem, was that it was difficult to understand how people actually interacted with these spaces, and how the improper space was often detrimental to both librarians and patrons. There are so many diagrams of library floor plans in Free To All that it is difficult to process them all properly. How were reading rooms and posture related photographs supposed to encourage "middle-class behavior"? Questions like this still confuse me. Such libraries were built under the presumption that Andrew Carnegie wanted to give penniless stiffs the opportunity to pull themselves up from their social standing and rise as he once did. I am still unsure how designs that were supposedly aesthetically unfriendly to the working class would keep them out without an outright ban on people who do not earn much money. While I understand that certain collections were often kept out of the general stacks, I do not see how library design could truly discourage the working class from taking advantage of "palatial" spaces. Overall, the tone and subjects depicted in the book seem somewhat fractured in nature, and could likely have been made into a number of different works.
One of the most interesting, illuminating, and relevant topics in the book has to do with the social meaning of libraries between 1890-1920. In Detroit, when Andrew Carnegie tried to provide the city with a central library and several neighborhood branches, the public erupted in opposition. While originally proposed in 1901, public opposition to the libraries was so great that the resolution was not passed until 1910. "In 'Joy on the Golf Links,' Carnegie was depicted in full highland dress, approaching the walls of the city with a library building in hand. While the response of Detroit's taxpayers is not shown, Carnegie's arrival prompts four of Detroit's millionaires (one of whom bears a strong resemblance to Henry Ford) to dance with glee near their suburban estates. The implication is clear; the animosity towards Carnegie's offer was fueled by concerns that the institution would be shaped by the agenda of the cultural elite" (Slyck, 77). This quote neatly sums up the conflict presented through most of the first half of the book: elites vs. the lower classes. While there may have been working class opposition to elitist rule, it reminds me of arguments made by Bill Cosby--that it is not "black" to pick up a book and read it. I'm sure plenty of working class people were appreciative of the opportunity to use a public library, just as there are plenty of African-American students who are eager to read books. Elitism versus the working class has been the central political debate of the last decade. The last three American presidential elections (including the 2008 contest) have been based upon this concept's relevance or irrelevance.
Another interesting subject in Slyck's book is the topic of the feminization of the library profession. Such feminization was favored by prominent librarians such as John Dana and Melvil Dewey. Their attitudes were based on the stereotypes of the female disposition, but they were influential stereotypes all the same. The library boom that Carnegie funded served to accelerate this trend. "Most important, perhaps, his philanthropy augmented the conditions that supported the entry of women into librarianship. By funding a dramatic increase in the number of public libraries in the United States, the Carnegie program amplified the demand for quality library staff" (165). After the book explains at length how changing desks supposedly made the library into an efficient book exchanging space, it also explains how desks were somehow feminized. While I understand that the desks of men and women were engineered to be for either sex according to early twentieth-century standards, I do not fully buy into the concept. Even the caption in the primary source photograph on page 171 remains gender neutral. While I do not think such gender-centric claims are false, they do seem to me to be a bit of a stretch.
Abagail Van Slyck's book makes many claims that I found controversial and deserve further exploration, but it is ultimately a well-researched tome that provides analysis of how various people and areas interacted with libraries. The book goes on to detail how children interacted with library spaces (For example, libraries made some rural children nervous, while urban immigrant children saw the library as a refuge). It details the difference in the significance of libraries to large urban and small local communities. All in all, Slyck's book is a highly detailed, challenging read, even if it raises claims that occasionally raise eyebrows.
One problem I had with the book, though it may have been my own problem, was that it was difficult to understand how people actually interacted with these spaces, and how the improper space was often detrimental to both librarians and patrons. There are so many diagrams of library floor plans in Free To All that it is difficult to process them all properly. How were reading rooms and posture related photographs supposed to encourage "middle-class behavior"? Questions like this still confuse me. Such libraries were built under the presumption that Andrew Carnegie wanted to give penniless stiffs the opportunity to pull themselves up from their social standing and rise as he once did. I am still unsure how designs that were supposedly aesthetically unfriendly to the working class would keep them out without an outright ban on people who do not earn much money. While I understand that certain collections were often kept out of the general stacks, I do not see how library design could truly discourage the working class from taking advantage of "palatial" spaces. Overall, the tone and subjects depicted in the book seem somewhat fractured in nature, and could likely have been made into a number of different works.
One of the most interesting, illuminating, and relevant topics in the book has to do with the social meaning of libraries between 1890-1920. In Detroit, when Andrew Carnegie tried to provide the city with a central library and several neighborhood branches, the public erupted in opposition. While originally proposed in 1901, public opposition to the libraries was so great that the resolution was not passed until 1910. "In 'Joy on the Golf Links,' Carnegie was depicted in full highland dress, approaching the walls of the city with a library building in hand. While the response of Detroit's taxpayers is not shown, Carnegie's arrival prompts four of Detroit's millionaires (one of whom bears a strong resemblance to Henry Ford) to dance with glee near their suburban estates. The implication is clear; the animosity towards Carnegie's offer was fueled by concerns that the institution would be shaped by the agenda of the cultural elite" (Slyck, 77). This quote neatly sums up the conflict presented through most of the first half of the book: elites vs. the lower classes. While there may have been working class opposition to elitist rule, it reminds me of arguments made by Bill Cosby--that it is not "black" to pick up a book and read it. I'm sure plenty of working class people were appreciative of the opportunity to use a public library, just as there are plenty of African-American students who are eager to read books. Elitism versus the working class has been the central political debate of the last decade. The last three American presidential elections (including the 2008 contest) have been based upon this concept's relevance or irrelevance.
Another interesting subject in Slyck's book is the topic of the feminization of the library profession. Such feminization was favored by prominent librarians such as John Dana and Melvil Dewey. Their attitudes were based on the stereotypes of the female disposition, but they were influential stereotypes all the same. The library boom that Carnegie funded served to accelerate this trend. "Most important, perhaps, his philanthropy augmented the conditions that supported the entry of women into librarianship. By funding a dramatic increase in the number of public libraries in the United States, the Carnegie program amplified the demand for quality library staff" (165). After the book explains at length how changing desks supposedly made the library into an efficient book exchanging space, it also explains how desks were somehow feminized. While I understand that the desks of men and women were engineered to be for either sex according to early twentieth-century standards, I do not fully buy into the concept. Even the caption in the primary source photograph on page 171 remains gender neutral. While I do not think such gender-centric claims are false, they do seem to me to be a bit of a stretch.
Abagail Van Slyck's book makes many claims that I found controversial and deserve further exploration, but it is ultimately a well-researched tome that provides analysis of how various people and areas interacted with libraries. The book goes on to detail how children interacted with library spaces (For example, libraries made some rural children nervous, while urban immigrant children saw the library as a refuge). It details the difference in the significance of libraries to large urban and small local communities. All in all, Slyck's book is a highly detailed, challenging read, even if it raises claims that occasionally raise eyebrows.
The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown
While the story of Miss Ruth Brown as presented by Louise S. Robbins unfolds like a typical biography, the central event of the book revolves around her dismissal from the public library in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. While the book tells the story of a small town (its residents and way of life) as well as the story of a librarian who became slowly radicalized over time, this book remains just that--a story. While you can extract arguments and questions from Louise S. Robbins's research, Ms. Robbins own judgments and interpretations are secondary to telling the story correctly. She merely expands upon a little known history with as much accuracy as that history's participants allowed. According to Robbins, the morals of the story must be extracted on your own. The epilogue of the book states that "[t]he most important questions I must ask myself-and the reader must ask of my story-are those of integrity and rigorousness" (Robbins, 177). The most valuable aspect of the book is the story of the dismissal itself. What is valuable is what this confrontation meant about living in Cold War America and the role of its information specialists. Ruth Brown was smeared via her profession largely for an incident that had nothing to do with her performance as head librarian. While some largely negligible decisions Ruth Brown made as head librarian provided an excuse for her eventual firing, the dismissal itself reveals that during a witch hunt, there is not much that one can do to protect himself/herself from the will of the mob (at least during the heat of the moment).
While Oklahoma is not commonly thought of as being a part of the Deep South, Robbins's exploration of Oklahoman history shows that race relations in Oklahoma were every bit as complicated at the "traditional" Southern states'. Native Americans in Oklahoma actually owned black people, so that added another level of convoluted racial hierarchy not dealt with in the South. In 1910, Oklahoma stripped black people of the vote. The Klan, a powerful organization in the 1920s, had a wide reaching, visible presence throughout the state. In 1921, racial hatred and rumors of a lynching led to riots and a fire bombing that left sixty-eight black Tulsans dead. Bartlesville is very close to Tulsa, and its blacks were understandably alarmed by the riots. Doctors could not openly treat black patients, and by the time Ruth Brown was dismissed from her job, black and white schools were strictly segregated. While it is unclear what caused Ruth Brown to become an active campaigner on behalf of civil rights, these are the conditions under which she served as a librarian in Bartlesville.
After approximately thirty years of service as a Bartlesville librarian, Ruth Brown decided to up her commitment to racial justice by sitting in a restaurant with two black women. Once Joe McCarthy arrived on the scene, the civil rights movement was lumped in with any number of supposed communist plots to subvert the American way of life. Around this time, Ruth Brown also had civil rights activist Bayard Rustin speak in Bartlesville. All this did not play well in the town that oil magnate Frank Phillips had built. Eventually, all of this activism cascaded into a movement to remove Ruth Brown as head librarian. Staged photographic propaganda also served to undermine Ruth Brown's credibility (see the picture of Nations and New Republics with a book called "The Russians" on top [page 60]).
What is most valuable in in this story for librarians is the theoretical argument over the role of libraries in American society. While communist and racial tensions led to this debate, Ruth Brown's and her detractors' positions are central to what we librarians should take away from this debate. As E.S. Dunway proclaimed, "'[the library] should be a place where our youth will be thoroughly indoctrinated with the principles of Americanism, and where they will be protected from the teachings of subversive doctrines'" (Robbins, 58). Particularly by 1950, Ruth Brown took the position that as many people should be reading from as many different sources as possible. While she had no communist sympathies herself, she still retained such publications as Soviet Russia Today (though she found this particular journal to be a bore).
The question over censorship is never ending. This makes Ruth Brown's story particularly relevant to librarians today in the wake of September 11th, 2001. Who should be reading books? What kind of material should be in the library? How do you deal with budgetary and space constraints? The rest of the book continues the story of Ruth Brown's independent streak up to her death. The book goes on to detail the efforts of Ruth Brown's many friends to defend her good name. Louise Robbins's story is also a story of racial healing. In the epilogue, one black Bartlesville resident proclaims, "[a]ll we have taught them [younger generations] is our rage" (Robbins, 166). Robbins seems to demonstrate that talking about our past helps us to better understand our future.
The only question really left by Louise Robbins for us to answer is the question of what went on in Ruth Brown's head. She [Brown] was not close to a great many people, so this makes the story of the origins of her independence streak a bit more vague. Not all patrons of the library thought that Ruth Brown was necessarily a beacon of racial equality from the beginning of her tenure (though by the end, her sympathies were apparent to all).
While Oklahoma is not commonly thought of as being a part of the Deep South, Robbins's exploration of Oklahoman history shows that race relations in Oklahoma were every bit as complicated at the "traditional" Southern states'. Native Americans in Oklahoma actually owned black people, so that added another level of convoluted racial hierarchy not dealt with in the South. In 1910, Oklahoma stripped black people of the vote. The Klan, a powerful organization in the 1920s, had a wide reaching, visible presence throughout the state. In 1921, racial hatred and rumors of a lynching led to riots and a fire bombing that left sixty-eight black Tulsans dead. Bartlesville is very close to Tulsa, and its blacks were understandably alarmed by the riots. Doctors could not openly treat black patients, and by the time Ruth Brown was dismissed from her job, black and white schools were strictly segregated. While it is unclear what caused Ruth Brown to become an active campaigner on behalf of civil rights, these are the conditions under which she served as a librarian in Bartlesville.
After approximately thirty years of service as a Bartlesville librarian, Ruth Brown decided to up her commitment to racial justice by sitting in a restaurant with two black women. Once Joe McCarthy arrived on the scene, the civil rights movement was lumped in with any number of supposed communist plots to subvert the American way of life. Around this time, Ruth Brown also had civil rights activist Bayard Rustin speak in Bartlesville. All this did not play well in the town that oil magnate Frank Phillips had built. Eventually, all of this activism cascaded into a movement to remove Ruth Brown as head librarian. Staged photographic propaganda also served to undermine Ruth Brown's credibility (see the picture of Nations and New Republics with a book called "The Russians" on top [page 60]).
What is most valuable in in this story for librarians is the theoretical argument over the role of libraries in American society. While communist and racial tensions led to this debate, Ruth Brown's and her detractors' positions are central to what we librarians should take away from this debate. As E.S. Dunway proclaimed, "'[the library] should be a place where our youth will be thoroughly indoctrinated with the principles of Americanism, and where they will be protected from the teachings of subversive doctrines'" (Robbins, 58). Particularly by 1950, Ruth Brown took the position that as many people should be reading from as many different sources as possible. While she had no communist sympathies herself, she still retained such publications as Soviet Russia Today (though she found this particular journal to be a bore).
The question over censorship is never ending. This makes Ruth Brown's story particularly relevant to librarians today in the wake of September 11th, 2001. Who should be reading books? What kind of material should be in the library? How do you deal with budgetary and space constraints? The rest of the book continues the story of Ruth Brown's independent streak up to her death. The book goes on to detail the efforts of Ruth Brown's many friends to defend her good name. Louise Robbins's story is also a story of racial healing. In the epilogue, one black Bartlesville resident proclaims, "[a]ll we have taught them [younger generations] is our rage" (Robbins, 166). Robbins seems to demonstrate that talking about our past helps us to better understand our future.
The only question really left by Louise Robbins for us to answer is the question of what went on in Ruth Brown's head. She [Brown] was not close to a great many people, so this makes the story of the origins of her independence streak a bit more vague. Not all patrons of the library thought that Ruth Brown was necessarily a beacon of racial equality from the beginning of her tenure (though by the end, her sympathies were apparent to all).
The Search (The Google book).
"As Arthur C. Clarke once observed, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'" (Battelle, 129). Indeed, Google does come off as being magical in countless ways. From the search process itself, to the rise of this celebrated and exclusive company, Google appears on the surface to be a fantasy come to life. From the outside looking in, it would seem that Google makes only the most intelligent of smart moves. The book's author, John Battelle reveals, however, that despite the facade of perfection that Google would like to exude, there is still trouble within this projected paradise. While Battelle seems to be ultimately enthusiastic about Google (specifically, "the search"), he does not shy away from the company's flaws. The Great Firewall of China, the Playboy interview given on the eve of Google going public, disgruntled Google employees complaining about how the company is run, PATRIOT Act-related matters of privacy, are all topics of discussion within this book. Despite such discussions (discussions that likely ruffled feathers within Google), this book is first and foremost a revealing look at Google's past, present, and future--as well as the stories of Google's predecessors and competitors.
The beginning of the book leaves no illusions as to where the author stands on Google. John Battelle was clearly fascinated with Google ever since the dot com bust of the late '90s-early '00s. For him, Google represented the Internet in terms of what it would become after its first real business model imploded. "My God, I thought, Google knows what our culture wants!" (Battelle, 2). While the first two chapters focus on the concepts outlined in the book as well as "The Search" itself, the book primarily ends up being about the story of Google's creation, rise, and innovations. Particularly during the post-dot com bust, Google shaped what it meant to make the Internet work for an individual or company. "Back in 1996, it was nobody's goal to be indexed by a search engine; a request to download the entire content of a site was often seen as tantamount to trespass" (Battelle, 79). Today, to be at the top of a Google search page is a desirable position. When viral-Internet star Tay Zonday chose his moniker, for example, he chose it because he wanted his identity to be completely unique in "The Search" as explored by John Battelle's book. The ranking system created by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin turned out to be approximately ten years ahead of its time, and currently shapes the way online entities compete for publicity.
The book goes on to detail how Google rose to the top of "The Search Economy". The valuable and interesting thing about this rise as chronicled by Battelle details for the reader just how Google rose to the top. Google's unique, text-only, query-relevant, side bar advertising technique flourished due both to the social shaping of technology (NASDAQ crashed), and because Google decided to rely on its own, unique, AdWords service. Google also saved money by not marketing in the aftermath of the dot com crash. The press provided a lot of the exposure that Google craved.
Google does have its share of problems despite becoming the Internet's most prominent entity. Even though the company's mantra is "Don't Be Evil," it is not too hard to imagine boogeymen lurking just around the corner, waiting to strike. Founder Sergey Brin claimed not to have even read the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. Google still has plenty of opportunities to backtrack and "be evil". Google, according to the book, has yet to deal with China, for example. If Google wants to gain from China's burgeoning economic fortune, Google would have to suspend some of its principles in the name of making money. China heavily censors its Internet service to its citizens, and in dealing with the country via Google News, Google has already proved that it will allow free information to be censored. Battelle makes the argument that being evil might be necessary in order to be successful. "Google could not afford to sit on the sidelines as competitors charged into the region. Yahoo, Microsoft, and others had already made their peace with the China question" (Battelle, 207). As evidenced by Google News's "blink" as described by Battelle, the story of "the search" is not relegated simply to the realm of Google. The story of "the search" is also a story of business competition.
If there is a question John Battelle has left for the reader, it is the question of the future of the Internet search and the future of Google. "I recall writing the final chapter of the hardcover, "Perfect Search" as one of the most difficult tasks I have ever tackled. As I reflect on an extraordinarily eventful year since the first version of this book went to press, I once again feel that sense of dread: who can predict the future when the present is such a moving target?" (Battelle, 299). More importantly for this class, how does the future of the aforementioned subjects affect libraries and librarians? If Google can overcome a mountain of copyright issues, will the institution of the library be threatened? If publishers can remove their books from Google at any time as detailed in the bonus chapter, then it seems that the standing of libraries in our society will be unthreatened. If Google can make the Google book project work for publishers, however, perhaps libraries and librarians are in trouble. There is an endless discussion one can wage concerning the future of Google and the library, but the point is that predicting the future of technology is an impossible task. While Google has benefited a nearly perfect track record with respect to its business practices, the book also reveals that Google's initial success was bolstered by a case of serendipity. Due to an infinite number of "ifs" in the equation, no one, including John Battelle, can predict the future of libraries. Anyone who makes a correct prediction concerning the future of the Internet search or libraries will be a beneficiary of what got Google off the ground--dumb luck.
The beginning of the book leaves no illusions as to where the author stands on Google. John Battelle was clearly fascinated with Google ever since the dot com bust of the late '90s-early '00s. For him, Google represented the Internet in terms of what it would become after its first real business model imploded. "My God, I thought, Google knows what our culture wants!" (Battelle, 2). While the first two chapters focus on the concepts outlined in the book as well as "The Search" itself, the book primarily ends up being about the story of Google's creation, rise, and innovations. Particularly during the post-dot com bust, Google shaped what it meant to make the Internet work for an individual or company. "Back in 1996, it was nobody's goal to be indexed by a search engine; a request to download the entire content of a site was often seen as tantamount to trespass" (Battelle, 79). Today, to be at the top of a Google search page is a desirable position. When viral-Internet star Tay Zonday chose his moniker, for example, he chose it because he wanted his identity to be completely unique in "The Search" as explored by John Battelle's book. The ranking system created by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin turned out to be approximately ten years ahead of its time, and currently shapes the way online entities compete for publicity.
The book goes on to detail how Google rose to the top of "The Search Economy". The valuable and interesting thing about this rise as chronicled by Battelle details for the reader just how Google rose to the top. Google's unique, text-only, query-relevant, side bar advertising technique flourished due both to the social shaping of technology (NASDAQ crashed), and because Google decided to rely on its own, unique, AdWords service. Google also saved money by not marketing in the aftermath of the dot com crash. The press provided a lot of the exposure that Google craved.
Google does have its share of problems despite becoming the Internet's most prominent entity. Even though the company's mantra is "Don't Be Evil," it is not too hard to imagine boogeymen lurking just around the corner, waiting to strike. Founder Sergey Brin claimed not to have even read the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. Google still has plenty of opportunities to backtrack and "be evil". Google, according to the book, has yet to deal with China, for example. If Google wants to gain from China's burgeoning economic fortune, Google would have to suspend some of its principles in the name of making money. China heavily censors its Internet service to its citizens, and in dealing with the country via Google News, Google has already proved that it will allow free information to be censored. Battelle makes the argument that being evil might be necessary in order to be successful. "Google could not afford to sit on the sidelines as competitors charged into the region. Yahoo, Microsoft, and others had already made their peace with the China question" (Battelle, 207). As evidenced by Google News's "blink" as described by Battelle, the story of "the search" is not relegated simply to the realm of Google. The story of "the search" is also a story of business competition.
If there is a question John Battelle has left for the reader, it is the question of the future of the Internet search and the future of Google. "I recall writing the final chapter of the hardcover, "Perfect Search" as one of the most difficult tasks I have ever tackled. As I reflect on an extraordinarily eventful year since the first version of this book went to press, I once again feel that sense of dread: who can predict the future when the present is such a moving target?" (Battelle, 299). More importantly for this class, how does the future of the aforementioned subjects affect libraries and librarians? If Google can overcome a mountain of copyright issues, will the institution of the library be threatened? If publishers can remove their books from Google at any time as detailed in the bonus chapter, then it seems that the standing of libraries in our society will be unthreatened. If Google can make the Google book project work for publishers, however, perhaps libraries and librarians are in trouble. There is an endless discussion one can wage concerning the future of Google and the library, but the point is that predicting the future of technology is an impossible task. While Google has benefited a nearly perfect track record with respect to its business practices, the book also reveals that Google's initial success was bolstered by a case of serendipity. Due to an infinite number of "ifs" in the equation, no one, including John Battelle, can predict the future of libraries. Anyone who makes a correct prediction concerning the future of the Internet search or libraries will be a beneficiary of what got Google off the ground--dumb luck.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)