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.
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.
posted by lwinkle at 5:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home