Articles for 5 Feb

Articles for 5 Feb

Perkins
I found this article absolutely fascinating, truly a first-hand account glimpse into the past and what library science truly used to be like. Reading this article with its time period in mind – such as the elite, condescending tone – further pushes the argument made in last week’s article by Christine Pawley. Perkins brings up (intentionally or unintentionally) the metaphor of a business in relating it to the library, which seems to hold to the library start-up quite well. In trying to organize the early bureaucracy and operations the library truly had to take on a task oriented around business procedures.
In the first part of the article, Perkins seems to dive deeply into the moral importance within literature. Bringing his condescending tone to a new height, he seems to disdain other cultures and nationalities for their impurity in literature – the English Christians or modern French. The librarian, therefore, has the utmost responsibility to prevent dirtying literature from “befouling” the minds of the public and “define the line beyond which readers must not be indulged.” His critique here brings out the class nature of the early library. They were trying to reach “the masses” to further educate them, yet at the same time acted so superior that it is no wonder these “masses” of people felt uncomfortable or unworthy of utilizing the public library. Literature itself was put into a hierarchy, reflecting the rigid – and at times threatening – hierarchy of classes that existed within late 19th century society. He brings back the business metaphor in the next section discussing management, but there is no escaping the tone that remains, noting the “helpless nuisances” that might come in unsure of what they want to find.
Nevertheless, looking at the facts of the material, Perkins helps readers develop an idea of the early library foundations, and can see important elements that still make up the library today – seeking grants and public funding, issuance of library cards, etc. This article truly helps readers gain insight not only though the text, but by what one finds between the lines.

Ditzion
It was interesting to read a historical account of an earlier history. The social welfare and humanitarian aid (supposedly) provided by the public library seems to fit in well to the elite, superior sentiment of the library that seemed to exist in the previous Perkins article. The ideology behind the public library in the progressive movement makes sense – this probably refers to the positivist sentiment Wiegand spoke of in last week’s readings – yet in terms of practicality it seemed to reach far less people. Books acting as an escape from the difficulties of life seems hard to enact when librarians were so authoritative in what books would be permitted into the library’s circulation in the first place. Therefore, I would question how effective the library was at providing teens with books instead of gangs and drugs they could find on the street. If the library were to act as an alternate, respectable temptation, one would think the librarians should seem more welcoming and inviting than previous articles made them seem. The amount of “good” the library was supposed to bring through involvement with various organizations and groups is astounding – many different causes used the library approach to advance their cause, from temperance to pernicious literature. Still, I see where Wiegand made a point of the lack of diverse ideology within the library field if this seems to be the general consensus. Ditzion in her last paragraph at least notes the tendency of the library to overrate its own role. To say the least, the library certainly meant well, but just did not realize effective means of completing their intentions.

Harris
Harris makes an interesting note of the library’s superficial dedication to the common man. As “rigid inflexibility and arrogant authoritarianism” became rampant within the public library, it is no doubt that people became suspicious and turned off from the library supposedly aimed to help them. In Perkins’ article he too promotes the idea of the library as a humanitarian institution, yet through his tone and rhetoric contemporary readers get a sense of what Harris is talking about – the sheer authoritarian element of public libraries. Even librarians had to notice the shattering of their “social uplift” theory as the users who did come to the library did not advance from mundane fiction to more scholarly works. Within this realization, Harris makes an interesting point about immigrants not yet seen in other articles – they threat they posed. The turn of the century was a period when immigrants came to America in huge numbers, creating a hierarchy even within the “white” ethnicity – from British Anglo-Saxon descendents to Eastern Europeans to Jewish immigrants. The library, therefore, took part in this issue and rose to the challenge of eliminating this threat by “Americanizing” the newly arrived immigrant. Interestingly, as Harris points out, the immigrants were in fact the ones that demanded the library’s attention more than the librarian’s “conscious attitude” to help foreigners. Library history, particularly in its developing stages, seems to be full of dichotomies of contradictions like this. I think this will be something important to keep in mind as we read different authors – context of the article itself is a key factor in analyzing these articles.

Dain
I do not mean to focus so much on Christine Pawley’s article from last week, but again I think Dain’s article shows the strength of Pawley’s call for history within the LIS curriculum and field in general. Dain even admits in the beginning of her article that “library history has had too few useful facts as well as too little interpretations and that the sparsity of both is interrelated.” Indeed, a lack of solid fact on library history has led to decreased interpretations of it and therefore there are not many critical analyses within the field. Instead of necessarily disproving Harris’ argument, which seemed to be her foremost purpose, Dain shows Harris’ lack of supporting evidence and the necessity to look into historical context.
Dain notes that while Ticknor may not have been the liberal democrat some historical accounts have made him out to be, it certainly makes him “something other than a simple reactionary.” He chose the public library as a means of opening opportunities for the masses, instead of closing them in true aristocratic fashion. Furthermore, nobody is to say that governing library boards would necessarily have been more productive if more representative of the public, especially since the masses did not have time to organize and establish a library system – the elite were the only ones really able to take on the task. Her points are valid, but still they don’t disprove Harris’; they simply weaken his credibility. The bigger, underlying issue here is a lack of historical and contextual analysis within the realm of public library history. More studies and writings need to be around to present narrowed research on these key points. Consideration of the historical contexts in which these events took place would provide further analysis for these authors, such as when Dain argues that the rules and regulations of the library were not very steep in comparison to other institutions of the time. Scrutiny like this is essential to understanding the library in its developmental process and therefore its existence today. Perhaps the World Wars and the Depression were external factors diminishing library patronage instead of the librarians themselves, but merely suggesting this and not following through with detailed research on it is not enough. Dain does right by history by bringing up these points, but these points must be explored in further detail – either by Dain or others within the LIS field.

Fain
Fain points out the two divergent – and rather opposite – paths to explain the development of the public library. After reading the previous articles for this class, this seems almost reassuring, as it indicates the existence of multiple views/perspectives in regard to library history, something that previous articles made seem scarce. The fact that these multiple perspectives exist, and moreover that people are being critical of both, ensures a promising future for library scholarship.
Fain criticizes Harris’ excessive interpretations and extrapolations from texts that seem to be stretching the facts, “drawing conclusions… too sweeping for the slender bits of data on which they rest.” Granted, Harris’ response to Fain’s criticism seems more like a politician’s response – vague and avoiding the issue without responding to most direct criticisms yet maintaining the convention of remaining cordial and appreciative of the criticizing author. Still, as previous readings have suggested, there is a lack of research and information into library history, so new research must rely on interpretations of the facts. No doubt, the genteel class and the female gender had a large and shaping impact on the public library, and it is important to explore these factors. In concluding her rejoinder, Garrison makes an important argument about the importance of interpretation, noting that without interpretation, history is meaningless. Discourse and argumentation within the field is essential to developing scholarship, and this (collection of) article(s) is encouraging in that regard.
Garrison also makes an interesting note of a dissent within the gender roles of the library, suggesting that women’s social objectives were more closely related to reform efforts of conservatives in the “social purity” organizations of the era instead of social work as many have suggested. Her theory really does go hand in hand with Harris’ suggestion of elitist and authoritarian control over library development. The two diverge, however, as Harris asserts that authoritarianism never left the library while Garrison suggests a gradual energy shift inward where librarians focused more on “a quest for technical competence.” One of the great things about history, though, is that multiple – seemingly opposing – interpretations can all be accurate, simply from different perspectives. After having read the more pessimistic articles on library scholarship, this article seems a bit more optimistic in that regard.