Recently, David Lankes has argued that
librarians must be political. That is they must be aware of politics, aid their members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political process.
With the recent media attention given to the various Occupy Movement libraries, Lankes’s sentiment seems to fit in with the current library zeitgeist. Reading is empowerment! Knowledge is power! Libraries are the arsenal of democracy! (That last one may be a mixed metaphor.) And, you know, there’s something to be said for approaching librarianship as a political activity. It’s compelling to think of libraries as change-agents and of librarians as some sort of 21st Century salonnières fomenting revolution in the streets. An informed public is necessary in a flourishing, progressive republic and, as a nexus for information, libraries serve a vital political role. But, it’s one thing for libraries to serve a valuable socio-politcal function (which they certainly do), and quite another thing to treat librarianship as inherently political.
It should be noted that Lankes is advocating a political, not partisan, librarianship, and he is careful to distinguish the two. Political librarianship is most certainly not about picking teams. Instead, it is about playing an active role in the political process as advocates for informed and open political participation. Or, at least, that’s part of it. Lankes gives three criteria for political librarianship: the political librarian “must be aware of politics, aid their members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political process.” These three criteria are intended to be guided by the principles of fairness, neutrality, and intellectual honesty. It certainly sounds compelling, so, what’s the problem? Well, we can look at two overarching issues, one descriptive and one normative. First, it isn’t clear that librarians are inherently political already and, second, it isn’t clear that they should be political, either.
Is librarianship political?
Two things are offered in proof of the political nature of librarianship: that “libraries are enmeshed into the larger concept of democracy” and that librarians empower their community members as informed political participants. As to the former, it’s true that libraries play in enormously influential and important role in society as places where any and all citizens are free to access trustworthy information. I’m not even going to waste your time proving it because, really, the sociopolitical value of the library is self-evident. The problem is that what is true of the library is not necessarily true of the librarian, and vice-versa. Lankes argues that “libraries are political entities, and librarians are political creatures.” But, this common type of reasoning is also known as a fallacy of division, and though some librarians may, in fact, be political creatures, that’s not because libraries are political institutions. Put another way, the fact that libraries are political by nature does not by itself entail that librarians are political by nature. Libraries are made of brick and mortar, but that doesn’t mean librarians are. Your library has a $5 million budget, but that doesn’t mean that you do. Libraries have a role in the political process, but that doesn’t prove that librarians do.
Moreover, the mere fact that librarians (sometimes) empower political participation is insufficient evidence that we are already political activists. The problem here is that the vast majority of what we do has nothing to do with political empowerment. From helping a student find sources for a paper on King Lear, to helping a patron cite a source in APA, to locating the Chilton Guide for an ’84 Dodge Aries, the majority of our work is apolitical. Children’s libraries have nothing to do with politics, nor should they, ElmoPAC be damned. Readers’ advisory can’t always end with Das Kapital. And even though the Hewlett-Packard lobbyists are a powerful force, clearing another damned printer jam is not a political statement.
Yes, sometimes we help patrons find information about how to write a grant for government funding, write a petition to city council, or understand a current policy debate (to name just a few things I’ve done in the past month). But, this no more makes me inherently political than today’s research consultation with a chemistry student makes me inherently a chemist. Librarians are not defined by the nature of the questions they are asked. In fact, even if…hold up…what’s that tapping? Are you furiously typing an objection? Are you about to argue that “EVERYTHING is political!” Are you going to tell me that every little thing we do to improve the library or to help educate our students is a means of empowering them as more knowledgeable political actors, hence a political activity? Sorry, dude or dudette, it’s just not true. If we take the “everything is political” angle, we only cheapen the meaning of the word “political” to the point where it becomes a useless, watered-down abstraction. Not everything is political. Claiming that everything from early childhood literacy programming to e-book lending is “political” doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Besides, I have good evidence that everything is philosophy instead. (For an excellent rebuttal of the “everything is political” line of thinking in academia, check out this article by Stanley Fish.)
So, librarianship is not inherently a political profession. Sure, there are politically active librarians, and that’s a good thing. But, there are also bridge-playing librarians, and we can’t say that librarianship is inherently about playing bridge. Of course, if librarianship is not already political, perhaps it should be…
Should librarianship be political?
I think the real question is whether librarians should be political, if we aren’t already. Should we “be aware of politics, aid [our] members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political process”? Well, the first is incontestable. Librarians should be aware of a lot of things, from politics to business to culture to technology and more. But, what about the other two? I think the answer is a lot less clear.
For all of the accolades poured upon the People’s Library at Occupy Wall Street (and rightly so, I might add), one thing is certain: they didn’t have official library sponsorship. You see, there’s this little thing called the Hatch Act that places limits on the political activities of federal employees. Most states have drafted similar restrictions and you can read a nice little rundown of librarians and political speech in this handy article from the ALA. Apparently, there are limits to using taxpayer-funded resources for political activities. Shocking, right?! I mean, who knew!? Who would have ever guessed that you probably can’t use public resources to “actively participate in the political process”? Sure, you absolutely can (and should) be politically active as a citizen. We just can’t do it in an official capacity unless the nature of the political activity falls under one of the narrowly circumscribed, acceptable venues for libraries (i.e., library advocacy, though Lankes explicitly argues that he is talking about more than “politics related directly to the library”). Put another way, we absolutely should be advocates for nuanced and informed political expression, but the duty to take an active role in the political process arises because we are citizens, not because we are librarians. Every citizen has the same duty to abide by intellectual honesty and fairness, librarian or not.
Well, if being politically aware is a gimme, and our duty to participate in politics isn’t really a duty of librarianship, then what about the idea of aiding patrons in political pursuits? I guess it depends on how much we aid our patrons. In one sense, aiding patrons in political pursuits entails that we provide multiple points of view on controversial subjects, we adhere to principles of intellectual honesty, and we serve all patrons who need help, without judgment. Basically, it’s about being advocates for intellectual freedom. The thing is, we’re supposed to be advocates for intellectual honesty regardless of how political we are. We’re supposed to help patrons fairly and honestly no matter what their needs are. It’s even written in the danged Library Bill of Rights: “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.” But if, on the other hand, aiding patrons in political pursuits entails going above and beyond how we help with other information needs, then it’s unclear (1) how we’re supposed to justify giving more attention to political needs than to other patron needs and (2) how we’re supposed to do that in light of the restrictions on campaigning, protesting, circulating petitions, and other political activities.
At this point I can’t see any reason to embrace a political librarianship. Either ‘political’ is interpreted to mean “fair, honest, offering multiple viewpoints, etc.”, in which case that’s no different from what we’ve always been obligated to do. Or, ‘political’ is interpreted in a stronger sense, meaning “a duty to actively engage in political activities” in which case we’ll need to make a librarian exception to the various laws following the Hatch Act, and we’ll need to explain how that duty is peculiar to librarianship and not founded in the more properly basic citizenship. Or, we could go with door number three…
Apolitical librarianship
I’m just going to throw this out there: rather than being political, the values inherent in librarianship are apolitical. The library qua institution has political power precisely because it is apolitical, it “rises above the fray”, so to speak. I think Andromeda Yelton hit the nail on the head when she recently wrote that the power of libraries is in their role as “safe spaces” for questioning political authority and testing new ideas. And the librarians working in those safe spaces are already prohibited (both morally and legally) from political involvement. As Wayne Bivens-Tatum explains in a great post on the subject of politicized reference questions, “librarians aren’t supposed to take sides in a debate when helping readers find information, or refuse to help find information on topics they disagree with.” And that includes taking the patron’s or reader’s side. Actually, now that I think about, that just sounds like the fairness and intellectual honesty that supposedly makes librarians necessary in politics. Hmmm…librarianship is political because it’s apolitical? Sounds like a walking contradiction to me (cue the Green Day).
So, “political librarianship” is either inconsistent, incoherent, redundant, or self-contradictory. We can’t be political librarians, but we can politically active citizens who are also librarians. Sorry it took 1700 words to say it; I tend to ramble sometimes. Anyway, I’d love to hear what you think. Is there a way to be a political librarian in the strong sense? Should we show preference to political needs over other information needs? Is librarianship fundamentally about speaking truth to power? Go ahead and cast your ballot. (Just don’t do it from the reference desk.)
Great post! One of my early mentors taught me that within the context of meeting someone’s information need, they should not be able to figure out the librarian’s view. This because if the view is opposite that of the patron, it could impact the interaction in a negative way. This is something I’ve taken to heart and still try to adhere to.
So I totally agree: “We can’t be political librarians, but we can politically active citizens who are also librarians.”
[…] The Pitfalls of Political Librarianship Recently, David Lankes has argued that librarians must be political. That is they must be aware of politics, aid their members in political pursuits, and actively participate in the political pro… Source: senseandreference.wordpress.com […]
Lane you always keep my writing honest. I agree with much that is here, but a few points. The first is the line “So libraries are political entities, and librarians are political creatures” is not a “therefore” argument, it is in fact two separate statements. The logic comes not from this post but a larger push (advocacy) on my part for social action. I’ll admit that is not clear in the post, so good call.
The larger point is that both of us keep stating what librarianship is, implying that there is some objective definition of the field, instead of being honest and arguing for what the field should be. Even in light of our stances on constructivism, I think we can both agree that the profession is a social institution defined by those in the profession and interacting with it.
There is a sort of first mover principle here. You call it being apolitical, and I call it being nonpartisan, but are we both also advocating (a real not rhetorical question) for a way that librarians can lead to a more informed and civl governance system? What I want to avoid is librarians walking away from all of these issues or being blind to the reality that services we offer will have consequences in a political arena.
In any case, as always I VERY much appreciate the conversation.
Hi David. I was worried my post would sound accusatory, and I’m glad it didn’t; thanks for taking the time to reply.
As for the line about librarians as political creatures, I confess I was a bit quick there, but I was thinking of your larger argument in the Atlas.
As to the larger point, I agree that there is no acceptable Socratic definition of librarianship along the lines of “here are the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for being a librarian.” But, even as we look for new paths for librarianship and new ways of interpreting our work, I think it’s important to have a baseline description of what we do for a living. We’ve got to know where we are if we want to know where we’re going.
And, as to the apolitical/nonpartisan distinction, I still don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. I’m actually against advocating for a way that librarians can lead to a more informed and civil system. I think that librarians should advocate for intellectual freedom, culture, knowledge, truth, etc. as goods in themselves, not as means to an end. It’s a really good thing that intellectual freedom can lead to a a more just society, and I desperately want a more just and progressive society, but as a librarian I value intellectual freedom and freedom of expression above and independent of political ends. Of course we shouldn’t walk away from thorny issues, I’m with you there. Neither should we be blind to the consequences of our actions. But, if librarians are responsible for the consequences their services have in the political arena, then librarians would have to be equally responsible if a patron uses the information we’ve provided to build a bomb, cook meth, or hot-wire a car. The information we make freely accessible can lead to any number of consequences, both good and bad, and if we go down the road of looking at the consequences and instrumental utility of intellectual freedom, we’re setting ourselves up for both high praise as well as damning blame.
Thanks for the conversation!
[…] admired many posts this past week from those who have, including this from Andromeda Yelton and this from Lane […]
I think there is a political dimension to librarianship, at least in academic libraries, but it’s not necessarily one that would lead to a specific political program. If we consider intellectual freedom a core value of librarianship, then we would also have to consider other values upon which it depends or which it implies: the freedom to read, the right to free inquiry, the right to make decisions for ourselves, the right to publicize the results of our inquiry or decisions through speech or writing, etc. Supporting those rights are the entire Enlightenment scientific enterprise providing the foundation for the modern research university. The world is a place to be examined and investigated, no topic is off limits to rational investigation, and we follow the evidence where it leads. We also don’t use inappropriate criteria to make decisions, such as basing our beliefs about scientific questions on the opinions of politicians or priests. From this perspective, librarianship is a product and pillar of a liberal society of some sort. However, making the move from there to a specific political agenda is a difficult step. My post on neutrality was trying to show how I thought that commitment to intellectual freedom, and perhaps ultimately to liberalism broadly conceived (i.e., NOT the program of a particular political party, but liberalism as a political philosophy that unites figures as disparate as Rawls and Hayek) plays out in research consultations. I remain professionally neutral on substance, but not on method. However, the commitment to a particular method—free unbiased inquiry, examination of various positions of debate, a rational consideration of the evidence, publishing the results of investigation along with rational argument and evidence for a thesis—already implies a political commitment to something like the scientific method of inquiry in a free society. Nevertheless, while this form of inquiry might exclude certain beliefs supported by little or no evidence, which people will nevertheless continue to believe, it doesn’t lead to a specific political program. People of good faith committed to free inquiry in a free society can still radically disagree on what freedom means.
Hi Wayne, thanks for jumping in!
I see where you’re coming from, and perhaps I should have been clearer: Intellectual freedom and associated values (which I’ll abbreviate as IFAVs) are well within the scope of librarianship. However, I should have drawn out the distinction between political rights and natural rights, to the effect that I would prefer we view IFAVs as natural rights, and let the political rights follow. If we focus on IFAVs solely as a political activity (as political librarianship seems to ask) then I worry that we are getting into instrumentalism and I’m not an instrumentalist with respect to basic epistemic rights.
Also, even if we treat IFAVs as political (or human) rights, political rights are essentially entitlements and/or duties to refrain. As in, the freedom to read describes the perfect duty a government has to refrain from censoring your reading. This is different from the political librarianship Lankes advocates, wherein political librarianship includes a perfect duty to act. I agree that librarianship entails imperfect duties to uphold intellectual freedom, as you seem to suggest, but that’s a much less radical sense of “political”.
In any event, as I wrote, I think that IFAVs are squarely within the scope of librarianship without the need for a distinctly “political” librarianship. It’s the suggestion that librarianship should go beyond IFAVs into community activism that I’m against.
Lane, I thought I was agreeing with your post! While I think there are political actions that could be defended from the liberal values implicit in the profession, I also don’t see how a given political action could be defended and not some opposing action, especially once we get out of the domain of libraries and information. I don’t see book challenges as a dangerous attack on our freedom to read, but I can see how defending library books against challenge is a political act easily defended by library values. I went on the record supporting the Occupy Wall Street Library (and implicitly portions of the movement itself), but I don’t see how being a librarian as such made it necessary for me to do so. (I’m not a public employee, so some of the above objections don’t count for me.) The same would be true for all sorts of more or less liberal political positions that might be taken. Librarians as librarians should defend the political positions relevant to their profession–the freedom to read, access to information, etc.–but as librarians they’re not obligated to oppose or support gun control, abortion, or capital punishment.
And I agree defending the method of scientific or rational inquiry in a free society is far from being political in the sense you imply Lankes meant (sorry, I haven’t read his book, so I’ll try to be neutral). I believe that ultimately support for this way of life requires strong political beliefs and perhaps at times political action, and those beliefs and actions are going to be “liberal” in some sense, but instead of acting on those beliefs and values because one is a librarian, it makes more sense that one is a librarian because one accepts those beliefs and values. Librarianship in an instance of the political and scientific principles of the Enlightenment in the domain of information. Thus, one might act on those same principles outside the domain of information and libraries, but the actions are based on the larger principles rather than on the application of those principles within librarianship.
This is getting complicated and might need a post of its own. And now I’m starting to think I need to revise a couple of paragraphs in my forthcoming book.
Reading the second comment makes it clear that we are pretty much in agreement. But, I don’t want to suggest a straw-man: Lankes also agrees that we shouldn’t take partisan sides on controversial issues. If it seemed like I was implying that, mea culpa (I was trying to be extra careful not to).
What I take issue with is the suggestion that we should interpret what we do as librarians through a political (though nonpartisan) framework, or that political empowerment is the name of the game in librarianship. I like what you write about the Enlightenment-era principles embodied in librarianship, though I still think librarianship is apolitical. The political atmosphere of the Enlightenment was about building political systems based on reason and evidence. Librarianship is targeted at reason and evidence, not the political systems that are ultimately created. (And I’m looking forward to reading your book! Congratulations!)
I really enjoyed this post and the comments following. One thing that struck me, as someone who has lived outside the U.S., is that the idea of political librarianship underscores how much Americans identify with their jobs. I know that’s a little sideways thinking but it occurs to me that the debate would probably not even exist if our culture didn’t put so much emphasis on equating our occupations with our selves. I am a very political person, but very much separate from my job, because I think of my beliefs and values as being a part of me, even if I never work in a library again.
I didn’t think about the way we tend to equate our occupations with ourselves, but I think you’re definitely on to something. I wonder if, like Smith, Baker, or Cooper, “Librarian” is destined to become an occupational surname? And I’m with you, my political values are the same regardless of whether I’m in a library or not: I didn’t learn my values through librarianship, I became a librarian because it matched my values.
[…] jQuery("#errors*").hide(); window.location= data.themeInternalUrl; } }); } senseandreference.wordpress.com (via @smclibrary) – Today, 7:25 […]
I’m a schoolteacher, myself, but this struck a chord with me (as my wife, a public librarian, thought it would when she recommended it!) It reminds me a bit about some of the stuff that educators I respect have written about the inherently political nature of teaching. I think it’s basically the same logic for teachers and for librarians…
My take is that both have a role in cultural reproduction, which is itself a political act, and we should be aware of that while we do it. For those of us who are progressives, there’s a moral duty attached which has to do with fostering diversity (in this case, diversity of political perspective), which is a bit delicate: we want to enhance access to ideas, and we need to be careful to not promote our own ideas over other people’s ideas.
As it happens, a lot of teachers and librarians are progressives… but this balancing act is, in large part, what I think helps conservatives to paint progressives as being weak (because we don’t just stand up and fight for our ideas, we fight for the IDEA of having ideas…)
Hi James! My concern is with treating librarianship as *inherently* political. Sure, things we do may (will?) have political consequences, and there are some (limited) issues we can advocate under the aegis of our profession. But, I don’t like the idea of making politics the centerpiece of the profession.
As to progressivism, I think you’re spot on the money about the way conservatives are winning the rhetorical debate. But, I think an equally problematic contributing factor to the relative weakness of contemporary progressivism is the anti-progressivism prevalent in a lot of contemporary, reactionary liberalism. I’m thinking of the postmodern emphasis on narrative and subjectivity that has turned its back on reason and objectivity (though there are other contributing factors of course.)
Great discussion, Lane. I very much agree with you that librarianship should be apolitical. I just can’t see David Lankes’s argument for librarianship being essentially political, or that it SHOULD be essentially political. Personally, I think there is some essence or core concept to librarianship, and if we are to talk of what librarianship is or should be, we must be guided by that core concept. I think intellectual freedom is part of this concept. Another part of this concept may imply an advocacy for literacy. So, public libraries may have more of an obligation than the ordinary person on the street to advocate for literacy. Hence, summer reading programs or other literacy programs are justified as being part of a library’s activities. Also, libraries might have more of an obligation than the person on the street to advocate for education or life-long learning. Both of these ideas already go beyond just providing information or information access for members of the library’s community, but these consequences of the core values or concept of librarianship fall well short of advocating for a wider political awareness or involvement in the political process of the kind that Lankes supports. I don’t see any more reason for libraries to push for political awareness or involvement than they have to push for better health practices or understanding of business principles or plumbing, though advocating for all these things may well help to improve people’s lives. If there were a librarian-like institution that, say, provided free access to exercise equipment, I could understand such an institution actively promoting good health practices. I think this is similar to libraries promoting literacy. But I just don’t see any connection between libraries and advocacy of political involvement. About the only thing I could see as supporting this connection is the idea that funding for libraries partially comes from the government, and the government is providing these funds partly for the express purpose of enabling the citizenry to be engaged in informed political involvement. This may indeed have been one of the reasons for the original creation of public libraries. But I’m not sure this is still the case, and, barring some argument like this, I just don’t see where Lankes is coming from on the connection between libraries and politics. (I have to confess, I haven’t read Lankes’s book, so my views on his argument are very ill-informed. On the other hand, I’m encouraged by the fact that you’ve read Lankes’s book and seem to be dubious about his argument for this connection as well.)
Hi Paul. You know, you may be on to something with your hypothetical argument from government funding. If we could somehow show that the primary reason that government funds libraries is to create a more engaged polity, then we might be able to agree with Lankes. But, like you say, it’s a tenuous argument at best.
And, if you can believe, I’ve read his book twice now. I had to read it a second time because after I first started writing about it, I kept saying to myself, “there’s no way I actually read that!”
Hi there SI647! I see this post is an assigned reading on your syllabus. Wow! That’s a hell of an honor!
If you’ve got questions or comments, I’m all ears (err…eyes?). I’d love to know what you think.
Hi Lane! I picked this post for our 647 class discussion today, so I’ll encourage everyone to visit and weigh in if they like. I’ll try to post an update, too, with some general thoughts and reactions from the class. I think it should be a great discussion! Thanks for the shout out!
[…] They generally deal with philosophical issues related to the practice of librarianship, such as whether libraries and librarians are political entities, ethical reference service, the role of Wikipedia, and the phasing out of old technologies for new […]
Why Does EVERYTHING have to be so POLITICAL> You make a point in just how far politics has gone. Not everyone has this cookie cutter mind set. If libraries welcome everyone does that mean every librarian has to be political.Let me remind you that staying neutral while working as an librarian is more empowering than opening my big to anyone who doesn’t agree with me. God help us all!