Week 9: Teaching Literacies

Deborah Brandt Literacy in American Lives
As I was reading through this book, one particularly fresh idea struck me and then stuck with me, overshadowing how I read the rest of the chapters. Brandt poses a question early on: “What might we gain by approaching learning disturbances in reading and writing not as individual difficulties but as the perpetual condition in which all of us are forced to function?” (p.44). This made me consider multiple dimensions to literacy that seem so natural now, and yet had never occurred to me. I think this represents a very important shift from blaming the individual who has not acquired literacy to placing the fault on society, as literacy or illiteracy become social responsibilities. Obviously literacy is a personal endeavor; however, people become literate in any sense of the meaning in order to keep up with and contribute to society. Naturally, society should pick up the slack and provide additional resources to help teach the people struggling to read or write. Not only does this take the spotlight of the person attempting to learn, who is often ostracized for their lack of literate abilities, but also it more actively incorporates the social pressures that are shaping the meaning of literacy anyway.

I believe this means there must be significant changes to the way literacy is currently taught, enabling a closer final learning of literacy to what society will demand of the individual when they are considered literate. In a world of constant technological development, the practicality of individual literacy is also constantly shifting. However, the social institutions in place, like schools and their curricula, are not being correspondingly updated to address the new demands society will place on younger generations to handle new problems. The idea of illiteracy/literacy as a social function is very interesting, and has serious yet very sensible ramifications for society as a whole. We will be able to reap the benefits of more members actively contributing to the direction our society takes if we could increase the level of practical, relevant literacy amongst those currently marginalize by their traditional or technological illiteracy; but, these benefits will need to be cultivated first through new social programs or realignment of current social institutions to meet the changing demands people will be forced to confront in the working, real world.

Week 8: Articulating Values

Redmond Kathleen Molz and Phyllis Dain “Introduction” & “The Mission…”
In recapping on some of the more notable events in library history, Redmond and Dain take a gross liberty in glossing over the more troubled eras and the raunchy underbelly of librarianship. In talking about the theoretical principle of universal access to public libraries (p. 4), there is only one little clause about the decades of excluding African Americans: “All adult residents…[were] welcome in public libraries, except until our own time African-Americans or other minorities subject to legal segregation or excluded by custom or inhibition”. Maybe I’m just overly sensitive to this vague mention of such an ugly time in history as a result of last week’s extensive readings on stereotypes, but this seems to be unreasonably nondescript and thus neglects to give due awareness to how exclusive and elitist the majority of early twentieth century librarians were, in practice not theory. It’s striking to me because the article takes a historical approach to understanding the modern library yet skims over a substantial chunk of time and social situations. Likewise a few pages later, the authors tiptoe around how libraries fared the WWI years. They casually note that the library profession was morally and politically liberalizing in general, with “…egregious lapses during World War I” (p.7). That’s it; no explanation of what happened in public libraries during wartime, although most likely it involved censors and censoring public materials. Overall, this article seems to make bounding leaps over seemingly important historical events, and that makes me wonder if I’m getting an accurate account of how the modern library came to be. Like most mainstream information, one must always consider the source and from what perspective (or maybe more appropriately from who’s perspective) the information comes from; this seems to be a selective telling. What else has been glossed over, tucked away in the middle of a sentence, and hoped not to be pointed out as a hole?
However, I looked up who Scylla and Charybdis and thought that was a very effective allusion to describe the public libraries current struggle between a popular culture collection and one that promotes greater intellectual thoughts. It came from a nineteenth century librarian (p. 42). Redmond and Dain identify a modern challenge for public libraries, nonetheless, existing between integrating interactive media into a book-oriented culture and bridging the gap between the technological ‘haves and have-nots’ (p. 42) in our society.

Michael Gorman “Human Values…”
Gorman presents insightful spins on current issues facing our modern society, but more importantly the public library as an instrument for social improvement and intellectual freedom. Recently, a big concern for the future is whether or not there will even be a need or a place for a library with its print collection in a digital, paperless world. Gorman argues that it isn’t necessarily a question of mutual exclusivity and states that the thriving of electronic journals, for example, are only a by-product of a successful print journal industry (p. 8). In light of all the pessimistic predictions of the death of the book and print culture, Gorman’s contention was a welcome opportunity to think less fatalistically about technological change. He restores some hope that librarians are capable of influencing the future and not just holding our collective breath to see if we’re all allocated a library space in the future. In an argument reminiscent of Nardi and O’Day, Gorman spends some time attempting to convince us that technology should be used to enhance service to our patrons, to enhance society and our existence. Technology does not have to be used just because it’s there; in fact, Gorman confronts this mentality by asking whether technology is the “tool or master” (p. 9). I think this is a very humanistic and encouraging point, and I hope it can be true in the future. Although, will libraries be able to keep afloat in a sea of other information market competitors who push the latest gizmo in everyone’s face? Just look at the iPod to see how certain technology seeps into every facet of our waking life; if public libraries refrain from competing for popular attention, which seems predominately focused on technology in the last few decades, won’t they begin to fade away into the background and eventually disappear altogether? Molz and Dain may have been on to something when they were discussing the idea of selling the library to the public in a similar convention to big bookstores. At least that method would compete for attention and support for public libraries.


Siva Vaidhyanathan “Why Thomas Jefferson Would Love Napster”
So America’s founding fathers debated, compromised, and put copyright laws in place to stimulate creative thought, to encourage enlightened discourse from an informed society of citizens did they? I’ve read this before, and I have to admit that seems like a truly noble idea. How tragic then, that people today actively fence in their creative thoughts with legal barriers all in the name of profit. Not that authors and inventors shouldn’t turn a profit from their creations—they should!—but when have consumers paid enough for their contribution? Like Vaidhyanathan stated, Thomas Jefferson wanted a time limit to ensure people wouldn’t confuse creative integrity and license with property rights over ideas in the public domain. It seems to me that’s the main problem; now people are so concerned about making sure they always have the financial safety net of royalties underneath them that they no longer create things for the benefits society will harvest from said creation. Most recently, I think of the massive music industry and all the federal restrictions on sharing digital music. Does anyone else remember when you could exchange music with your friends and not have to pay the ridiculous mark up on a CD? I remember hearing that CDs can be produced for under $1; in fact, I heard it was something like $.25. Why then do we pay $15 for a CD? So pop culture wonders like Britney Spears will be encouraged to continue to create ageless musical masterpieces? I can’t help but feel a bit exploited by those who have the weight of the federal government’s authority at their disposal in the form of copyright titles, mostly because it’s not relative to production costs or any other reasonable anchor. A lot of more independent artists, to stay focused on the music industry, said they did not care if their fans shared their music. They were still making money from their contracts after all, and they were happy that more people were listening to their albums. This sentiment seems more in tune with the original purpose of copyrights: it ensures the artists/authors/creators profit from their works, yet the public is allowed to enjoy them without paying endless dues. Maybe someday the scale will tip back to level, with original thoughts being justly compensated and with the rest of us, who these thoughts are suppose to benefit, being able to finally pay off our debt for enjoying them.

Steven R. Harris “Discourse and Censorship”
As time continues, as life progresses, and as values change, it is easy to lose track of all the different factors that make up the present situation. Over the decades librarians have picked up many noteworthy ideals, as listed in the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statement, yet recent studies show we have not been very successful at implementing all these lofty ideas into practice. Harris, amongst others, cite one of the causes of this disparity on the desire to establish librarianship’s professional autonomy, which may have meant compromising some the profession’s underpinnings along the way. Without ensuring there will be librarians in the future, I wonder, how will the work librarians do continue to be an option? One of the fundamental flaws I find in this argument is that the author oversimplifies the role of the librarian. Harris focuses on the institution of the library as a collection of print materials and how that collection was intended to benefit members of society through intellectual enlightenment. Good. Great. For some people the libraries do work that way; did the ALA study find it was 18% of the community that will actually use their library? However, just because someone does not come into the library space does not mean they do not benefit from the existence of the institution. Think of how many outreach librarians there are who actively extend library services beyond library walls. Think of how many librarians teach classes on topics or work with community centers to further awareness of important, ubiquitous social issues. For example, I work in a law library and my former boss used to do a monthly awareness topic, often resulting in giving a speech outside of the City County Building for anyone who would listen. Exercising her right to the freedom of speech, she would extend the knowledge contained within our library far beyond its physical space; even if only 50 or 100 people heard her, it was that many more people than would’ve received that information. It underestimates the role of librarians to look only at the library as a representation of all that we do. Harris’ final suggestions are very provocative, and I like his idea of seeking out publishers that truly promote intellectual freedom by not buying into conglomerate media distribution. As a final note, I can’t help but think of the gobbling Google masterminds who just purchased YouTube.com amongst other independent websites who began to break out. If the media is popular, like Google, does it matter if it’s a massive aggregate distributor of information? I certain think so, and I hope others got the same wake up call I did from this article.

Week 7: Defining a Profession

***This week I read the assigned articles in reversed order, which I think altered my overall impression yet it didn’t interfere with the global theme of stereotypes. I started with a more light-hearted comparison between librarian and party girl, moved on to a depressing analysis of the deprofessionalization of my career choice compounded with the racial biases of librarians’ in the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, it was the US Department of Labor that gave me hope once again that librarianship is not a sinking boat, that there is a place in the near future (and hopefully much longer!) for librarians, but that the librarian of the future will not be the same as the librarian of the last century. Overall, these readings were bittersweet at best, but I feel optimistic for the next wave of librarians who can proactively change society’s conception of librarians and the role of the library in society through awareness and professional evolution.

Gary and Marie Radford “Librarians and the Party Girls”
This article effectively illustrates how alive the stereotype of the female librarian as cold matriarch remains in our modern society, as even recent films prey on these characteristics. When I began telling friends and family that I would be starting library school, the majority of people reacted the same: so you want to learn the Dewey Decimal System right? Do libraries still use the Dewey Decimal System? How do you feel about the Dewey System? That particular system of cataloging is so pervasive that people completely unaffiliated with libraries (people I would generously label infrequent library users) know Dewey as a catch phrase for library professionals, as Mary experiences from her friends. Once people got the Dewey Decimal System quips out of their system, the second most common question was whether or not I’d be getting more practical shoes now, possibly a hanging chain for my glasses (which I don’t even wear), or how tight I would be winding the librarian bun on my head. I still get these comments; I was shopping with a friend and she lovingly pointed out “the most librarian of outfits you could get”. It was a dress with a long pleated skirt, high neckline like a turtleneck, and long blouse sleeves. I remember telling her that what she picked out was everything I was actively avoiding in terms of image, and how I planned to breath a little life into the profession. Not only with my meager sense of trendy fashion, but more importantly, I will try to integrate modern ideals of a changing library world with an outdated popular construction of who a librarian is and what a librarian does. This article provides a solid starting point, not only by calling attention to the main character’s transformation through stereotypes, but also by showing how LIS can benefit from an interdisciplinary analysis of its professional and academic scope. In order to switch gears from traditional library paradigms to more modern views of librarians in a technological society, future librarians will need to be educated with a well-rounded knowledge of LIS matters in addition to related fields, like computer science, psychology to further understand users, or cultural studies. Only by expanding the librarian’s functions out of the stacks and into the developing information markets can we hope to update how librarians are seen by the techno-savvy library users of tomorrow.

Roma Harris “Information technology and the de-skilling of librarians”
The author’s pessimistic analysis of how automation is changing librarianship made me wonder whether I have decided to pursue the wrong profession. With all the quotes she incorporates on how librarians of the past won’t have a place in the future, I wondered if I had just bought a last minute ticket for the Titanic. After only a few moments of despair, I realized that is truly the attitude of a quitter, not to sound like a middle school coach. With society’s growing emphasis on digital information and the development of new information management software, databases, and web-based programs, it seems to me librarians will need to adapt, evolve, and flourish to avoid being phased out of various information agencies. Harris claims that even new labels will be created, like “information consultants” to mimic new responsibilities like a “for-profit version of traditional library reference service” (7). That sounds to me like one very exciting opportunity, to be able to efficiently and thoroughly help users because I will only be focusing on a few. However, Harris’ idea of the commodification of information certainly made me reconsider the traditional values of our society as upheld by public libraries, in particular how access to materials should be provided for everyone, not just those who can pay for it. In the future, I see a split in librarianship. There will be those who engage in private practice, working as said information consultants or personal reference assistants, within a natural progression of specialized or corporate libraries. Maybe some librarians will be fortunate enough to stake out their own firm or business, self-employed and taking on clients with the same prestige and autonomy as say an attorney or other intimate consultant. Concurrently, some librarians will hold fast to the public institutions, but with their increased knowledge in new information management technology these ‘librarians’ (who may be called something else in the context of a digital library) will provide an invaluable service to society by educating those people who are most susceptible to being marginalized by information with a cost. Even though capitalistic momentum seems to be headed towards privatizing access to information, like Internet hook-ups with a monthly fee or database access only with privileged student status acquired at the price of tuition, it would be a sad, sad day if we as a society were to lose sight of all the benefits that come from the work of public and school librarians. Furthermore, how would librarians function without a library space equipped with the necessary resources to compete with other information markets if we do not continue to value their work and thus provide adequate funding? In light of privatization, we must always remember to value that which betters all of society, or all too soon we will feel the negative consequences of letting free access to information slip away.

Klaus Musmann “The ugly side of librarianship”
It’s unfortunate that such an article as this had to be written. It gives me hope to look back over the history of just the last few decades and see how far society has progressed, but it is also critical to acknowledge how many more changes still need to be implemented. One of the most striking parts of this article for me was the paradoxical status quo that librarians, administrators, and others in positions of authority during the 1920/30s rested on in good conscience. Musmann documents how African Americans were rarely if ever able to find employment in libraries; in Kansas City the “librarian at the African American branch was white since the library has ‘never found an efficient colored one’ (90). However, Musmann also details how even Kansas City, which ranked high in public library access for African Americans relative to the rest of the country, failed to provide equal access to library training programs since the school system was segregated. Isn’t that a convenient circular arrangement to prevent any upheaval of the current power structure in place? Certainly an untrained African American could not compete for employment with all the other applicants who had finished a professional program; who could? The playing field could not conceivably be rendered any more unleveled. In light of this gross inequality, I was also surprised to learn that the ALA did not take a more active stance to help African American librarians find a foothold; they wouldn’t even grant a permanent round table allowance on the topic at their annual meeting. Fortunate are we all that exceptionally valiant people come along, like Ernestine Rose, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Margaret Sanger, and Susan B. Anthony to name but a select few, who set a brilliant example of the greatness of which we are all capable.

US Dept. of Labor “Occupational Outlook Handbook—Librarians”
As I stated earlier, though this was the first assigned reading on the syllabus, I chose to read in reverse order, and I am glad I did. This publication on the outlook of librarianship as a profession seems to be optimistic for the next wave of librarians, at least in the sense that no end is yet in sight. In the future, however, libraries will need to adjust their infrastructure considerably in order to stay competitive with other information providers like Google and their online, universally accessible format. There may also be serious changes to the traditional perception of a librarian. Not only will we have to consistently keep up with if not ahead of new technology and with how to effectively integrate it, but will also need to evolve into personal information consultants or risk obsolescence. Though I do not see the public library disintegrating in light of the Internet, more people will find the information they need online, and so they will need guidance more than an actual locale. As the older generation gets ready to retire, the newer generations of librarians will need to face the challenges of faster, newer technology head on, designing a new model for the library and its transforming role in the lives of its users.

Week 6: Manipulating Documents

David M. Levy Scrolling Forward
After finishing this book, my mind was awhirl with all the questions pondering life, human existence, and written works that Levy raises. Throughout the book Levy incorporates a religious overtone to his analysis of the printed document in the modern era; he concludes that he would “go a step further and suggest that all our documents have a sacred quality about them, that all of them are religious in nature” (p. 194). At first I was really put off by this idea, but I think it makes a lot of sense in a more philosophical interpretation of religion’s place in human history. Obviously lots of written documents have been generated in the name of religious posterity, as the author repeatedly makes mention of the Bible, scriptures, and other religious artifacts, for example. However, it’s the more enrapturing quality of these (and secular) printed materials that comes across to me as their most important function. Even if the printed document is not the only means of preserving information anymore, there’s something so wonderful and fulfilling about reading from a book, like Wallace Steven’s reader (p.114). There’s the total experience of delving into a specific, purposefully organized collection of information, laid out by the author to take you through a new subject in a set way. Though books face the natural limit of being static, unlike web pages that can change, having limitless links to other pages with additional information on any topic, I think it is this static quality that is so alluring to me. As a reader, I can always decide to find further materials on a topic, but I enjoy reading a book, cover to cover, and taking in the information as the author intended. I feel that I often follow links online that are relevant in the beginning, and then before I know it, I’m only a few clicks from home but on an entirely different topic. Online, it’s easy to lose one’s way and be overwhelmed by the vast amount of information at your fingertips. When you’re reading a book or an article compiled by an expert, there’s a logic pattern and argument to guide you through the uncharted territory of this new topic. When you’re exploring the boundary-less expanse of the Internet, there’s a freedom of choice to any information you deem adequate or worthy, but at the same time, there’s no guarantee of ending up with a comprehensive tutorial on your subject, like a book’s aptitude. In the end, I hope it’s the successful partnership of traditionally bound physical printings and the new technology of digital stockpiles that will guide us on in the future, and not the annihilation of one medium for the proliferation of the other. Together, print and digital will provide a more aggregate understanding of the world around us; at least that’s what I’d like to see in the years to come.