As someone with a masters and phd in library science fields but not actually working a library, some of the sentiment described here always came across, to me, as librarians (understandably) trying to make themselves relevant in a world where their relevance is increasingly easy to disregard. The enthusiasm they feel for their profession has always seemed extremely high as a result.
I have felt libraries and librarians becoming more and more relevant as time goes forward. This goes along with the job creep in the article, too - tending to 3D printers and administering drugs during overdoses isn't classical librarianship.
As long as democracy and free speech are relevant, libraries will be relevant.
I think if you understand the job creep, or like yourself if you understand the role they can play in democracy and free speech, the relevance will be understood. A surface level 'why do I need libraries I can just google', which I (possibly wrongly) assume many people have, might cause the questioning.
Then again, often when municipal libraries are threatened in some way, there does seem to be an earnest community outpouring of support for them. Perhaps the understanding and appreciation is there, but just quiet.
yah, we need more awareness that librarians are super-googlers, but that would mean an ego hit to a bunch of us via indirectly admitting we're not all hip and in-the-know, which is the currency of social (and regular) media these days. librarians unfortunately lose to public oneupsmanship.
First of all, I'm glad to have discovered this journal. What a fun name!
I have spent tons of time in libraries, particularly in Toronto's Innovation Hubs. 3D printing at the reference library was an almost daily joy for me, and I loved helping people - everyone showed up with an interesting story and mission of some kind.
The library system is underfunded for its mandate and the staff are underpaid, overworked, and overmanaged. Library 'leadership' constantly make insanely boneheaded decisions, like destroying Toronto's Maker Festival with bureaucratic bunk.
Despite these challenges, our libraries are one of the only public pure spaces. Where else can anyone access the internet for free? Access to information is foundational to our society and democracy.
Corrupt and anti-democratic forces are constantly working against the library. Like this ridiculous defunding of one of the most effective institutions in our society, cutting funding IN HALF: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-library-servi...
Without the mythology being railed against in this article, we wouldn't have the dedicated librarian staff that make the system work. I have tried to work with library management and leadership before, and it was so abrasive and painful that I gave up.
How can we keep libraries sustainable into the future?
We need them, our free society needs them. What can we do?
It's not just about funding, it's also about control.
Without fixing our political apparatus and dismantling our colonial infrastructure first (a looong project), how can we bolster and strengthen our library systems? How can we protect them against bad actors? I'm seriously asking, let's please talk about it.
Do we need a private citizen's direct funding initiative a la Benjamin Franklin? I'm ready to pay! I'm ready to work! What can we do to keep our most important institution?
I am a big proponent of public spaces, and I definitely agree we should expand them, make them more accessible, and publicize and fund them better... so I agree with most of your comment. But still, I don't agree that "Without the mythology being railed against in this article, we wouldn't have the dedicated librarian staff that make the system work". This only slows the death of the system, it doesn't fix it. Maybe if it was completely gone we would see more clearly how necessary it is. But in the current state, and except in some big cities like the example you cite, the system doesn't work. I think there's too much symbolism, the "book" is a symbol with too much weight for culture, and defending that symbolism (this is the kind of culture I see from librarians most often, though that might also be mediatized), only distances the debate from the really important issues. Sometimes that's accidentally obviated by those that are too close to the problem, but I really believe we are lacking truly conscious debate in this area. The most important institution is not the library, it is the public space. I think this is a more sensible way to frame and try to communicate the problem.
> "The most important institution is not the library, it is the public space."
That's interesting. The only public space I actually feel comfortable in is the library. The public square in front of city hall is patrolled by police, I wouldn't dare spend time there having real discussions. All the malls are actually private spaces, coffee shops as well. The universities, likewise, are 'private property' and unsuited to real discussion.
Public parks stand out as great public spaces, but they don't have bathrooms or computers. Libraries are places you can actually get some work done.
> "Maybe if it was completely gone we would see more clearly how necessary it is."
Our society would just degrade and decay.
Imagine trying to found a library today!
> "except in some big cities like the example you cite, the system doesn't work"
I'm curious about what would work. What does a reimagined library look like?
> public square in front of city hall is patrolled by police
Yeah, I wrote this in a comment a couple days ago: "public spaces are treated like private spaces by local governments: "we don't want problems in our land" is the default attitude". Improving public spaces means solving these kinds of problems. Streets are not accessible to social interaction. As Ivan Illich wrote: "police protection [is mistaken] for safety, military poise for national security [...]". So yes, everything is a private space, very disappointingly. Then we complain about kids getting addicted to videogames. What else did we leave to them? If we take away public spaces and try to structure all their time with extracurricular activities and whatever. Parks are nice to walk through, but rarely stay and do something. You usually want a roof, power sockets and light, somewhere decent to sit, etc. But we are sadly more into hostile architecture [0].
About reimagined libraries... the combination of bookshelves, the layout of the corridors and the silence really create a mystical space, something quite unique. Like the architecture of some cathedrals. I'm very in favor of unique spaces, and we shouldn't understimate silence either. Libraries can easily inspire us and give us this feeling that there are so many unexplored paths that we can explore... it's a whole adventure, if you are into that kind of adventures. But there are a million other options to create new unique spaces and adventures, I don't think we need to reimagine libraries to monopolize all those possibilities. Books, corridors and silence seem just fine to me for libraries. We can put computers and internet access somewhere else. That's why I think it's interesting to just focus on public spaces. People is very different and they will enjoy very different spaces. For example, a library for kids could be completely different to a library for adults.
Somewhat tangentially, one piece that has baffled me (though perhaps less so now thanks to this article) is the relative absence of support (or even dialogue) between "librarianship" as it is used here, and online efforts such as LibGen and SciHub.
I understand that the latter is legally questionable -- but not only is there not an open partnership -- it feels as if the possibility of dialogue or comparison never even comes up, despite having similar, if not identical, stated goals.
Libgen and SciHub are key parts of open access and free society, thank you for bringing them up!
The 'illegitimate' library work is extremely important to protect - heroes like Rogue Archivist Carl Malamud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Malamud trying to keep our laws readable are protecting the foundations of our freedom.
Librarians are often hamstrung by their employing institutions into respecting copyright. That means that while they are on the clock, they cannot recommend LibGen to patrons, show them how to use it, etc. Loads of librarians are aware of LibGen and Sci-hub, and it isn’t their fault that they must ignore it.
we see this vocational awe with other professions where the number of folks who want to do it wildly exceeds the amount of funding (public or private) available for the work.
and it's self-fufilling, to some extent. you grow up and hear about how $profession is so wonderful, and you're a bit more likely to go into it. now there's just a few more people trained for it than necessary. supply and demand drops wages a bit, mythologizing increases to make the workers feel better, another slight increase in folks wanting to go into the field, process repeats.
does anybody know if google employs many librarians?
because as far as I can tell, google's old public goal of organizing the world's information overlaps a lot with a librarian's basic goal of organizing their library? (but I might be wrong)
