Articles for 8 April

Nyquist
Nyquist brings up an interesting point in the beginning of his article that relates well in the rest of his piece as well as other literature we have read about library history. He notes the “gaping distance between our professed, historical belief in equality of access to educational opportunity for all our children and youth… and our actual provision…” (81). The juxtaposition of the ideal vs. the reality is not an uncommon one in American history. After all, the nation that professed all men being created equal designated African-American slaves as only three-fifths of a person. However, when such an idealistic proclamation exists, people are apt to accept it because they want to believe that it is true. When in reality it is not, they either turn a blind eye and embrace the message anyway, or like many in early American history, they are simply apathetic. Nyquist points out that both of these reactions are taking place, leaving the disadvantaged in a “vicious circle of diminishing support and deterioration in quality.” It is not enough to simply go through the process of desegregation, he claims; rather, change must come through all sorts of angles to achieve true integration. In other articles we have read, the same dichotomy exists. For example, the early library founders/librarians saw themselves as saviors of society who will come in and make the “bad” man great again. Nyquist exemplifies this issue through the myth of the library as a “poor man’s university.” Although the rhetoric of his article seems like the lone abolitionist back in the 19th century speaking of hope and change to a group unwilling to bring it about, Nyquist offers empirical evidence that such change is taking place on a small scale so that it can therefore take place on the large scale… if we only make the effort. His message urges outreach, but if he’s speaking to a crowd so apathetic and hesitant to change as he describes in the opening of his article, one questions if that change will be realized.
Still, the steps taken in New York offer hope and promise in the library field. Nyquist’s article structure lends itself to an effective organization for persuasion. He first sets up four problems facing the library, then offers solutions that have proven effective and can be taken by any library, and finishes off giving tips to libraries interested in creating change. His overall solution – active outreach and acceptance by the libraries – could be effective (as he proves in New York), so long as it does not fall on unwilling ears satisfied with the status quo.

Berman
Not surprisingly, the previously mentioned dichotomy of the “ideal vs. reality” comes up immediately in Berman’s article as well, only he notes it explicitly: “Yet the library in question no doubt typifies the actual [original emphasis] practice…” The library that proclaims the importance of stocking all possible political and other viewpoints in reality sticks with the safe “Establishment-type” literature. Berman concludes his article nothing that “LIBRARIES TO THE PEOPLE!” is nothing more than a slogan. But it is not just the selection that is the problem among the library; in fact, the library is helping to “subtly reinforce age-old, utterly pernicious stereotypes.” I thought this was a fascinating point that Berman brings up, particularly because it is one that no author has made before. A lot of the articles we read touch on common problems in the library and offer their own take on them. While Berman does do this to some extent as well (intellectual freedom), he makes innovative and original points that once again reinforce the ideal/reality disconnect – instead of the equal-opportunity library welcoming everyone with open arms… they are contributing to prejudices through their card catalog! I do not know Berman’s background, but he seems like someone outside of the library-sphere, which brings fresh new ideas to his writing – ideas that closer model other disciplines at the time. Immigration historians often note the “permanent foreignness” of different races even when they were actually U.S. citizens – the Chinese, for example. Berman picks up on this and notes how the card catalog identifies “Japanese in the U.S.” when in reality those Japanese are in fact Americans. These subtle attitudes and embedded racism only make permanent these inaccurate views of permanent foreignness.
Another interesting and notable aspect of Berman’s article is his rhetoric. Instead of an academic, expository diction that speaks to the library community, Berman speaks to his audience – those outside the library. By not sounding like someone on the inside who promotes the “Establishment” library, Berman embraces his audience and makes it more likely that they will listen to what he has to say. Just as the power of rhetoric was powerful in the subtle card catalog, so too is it in reaching out to Berman’s targeted readers. His active rhetoric sweeps readers in, building their outrage, making the call for action seem more urgent than ever.

Samek
One of the most striking features for me of this article was the ALA’s lack of or slowness to act on important issues – even issues in which they claimed to play a significant role. To start, Samek discusses the issue of professional neutrality within the library, something that seems almost impossible, and he even makes a direct reference to the tensions between the “ideal vision” and the actual “day-to-day workings” of the library. Libraries advocated only one side of the issues, really, but interestingly not through active (per se) choice. Rather, by neglecting to offer viable and visible alternatives, the library advocated the mainstream or status quo. Whether this reflected the library’s true desire is questionable, but either way it was the end result. Silence on the issue of providing multiple viewpoints formed a political stance, intended or not. In fact, Samek cites Mary Lee Bundy’s assertion that “all acts of omissions… promote the interest of groups that wish to perpetuate the status quo.” The ALA adopted the Library’s Bill of Rights that condemned censorship in the library, yet their repeated failure to act when the issue actually came to the forefront raises suspicion as to their true stance. Librarians pushed the ALA for almost a decade to stand up against the Grapes of Wrath controversy before even seeing any rhetorical action like the BOR adoption. In many issues faced by the ALA, it seems they take credit for a so-called solution, but in actuality are very slow to act on it; aside from the censorship issue this can also be seen in discrimination against b lacks in the library around the same time. Without question, the ALA’s rhetoric did not match their actions.

Miller
Overall, I do not buy (no pun intended) Miller’s argument in support of the independent bookstore. Moreover, her interview sample of just 37 bookstore customers seems not to be a very representative sample, but I’ll let the political poll-reader side of me go for this article. For most of the article, she seems to advocate the independent bookstore over the chain/superstore, although at the end she does place the independent bookstore a bit less favorably in its genuine service to the community. Her argument regarding American culture and the bookstore’s role in it, however, seems perfectly valid – Americans do desire the ideal of a common identity, purpose, and shared history. Independent booksellers want to claim they are showing a sensitivity to community needs and providing a friendly place to go, but at the end of the day the independent bookseller and superstore alike are seeking business to make a profit. If one wanted to purport the notion of a cultural center interested in the community and intellectual development, we would be talking about the public library, not the independent bookstore.

Additionally, Miller includes the independent seller’s perspective on community, yet fails to offer the other side of the argument after laying out the independents’ claim. While she quickly sums up the problems with their argument at the end, it comes too late and is too short. She does include what critics have argued, but does not make her own evaluation of the information and leaves her position somewhat ambiguous. As a result, a reader may easily perceive her as taking one side – often the side they oppose – simply because they do not find any evidence to the contrary… until the very end. The critics’ responses do not go very in depth in terms of rebuttal, so it seems to be given an unfair voice.

Regardless, the issues Miller brings up are important. The sense of community in American culture is an important one, and I do not feel the small, independent bookstore does a better job at promoting it than does the retail chain. In fact, just in Madison itself, there are many small, independent bookstores I do not feel comfortable walking in to. As Miller cites Marion Young, these bookstores tend to “exclude those with whom the group does not identify.” There is nothing “communal” about exclusion of those not sharing your point of view. They do not embrace their opposition and therefore fail at the community level. The specific store in Madison which I am talking about will remain nameless, but when I go in asking for Book X and get the response, “we don’t carry that kind of crap,” I immediately long for the big chain store where nobody will outright judge me and claim they do not carry the book I want. If they don’t carry it, they’ll order it for me without use of the word “crap.” Moreover, I do not buy the claim that the independent bookstore – simply by nature of not being a chain – automatically cares more about the community than do the large chains. The workers at the chain bookstore live within the community as well, and are trained to be kind to customers (without calling their reading preferences crap).

I’ll take the chain superstore or the public library any day.

Buschman
In these past articles any emphasis given on “pleasing the customer/patron” seems to be shot down and insulted by the authors. Having a new perspective of library as customer does not seem like such a downfall to humanity as this article makes it seem. One can claim that the library is not in the business of attracting customers, but at the same time if patronage started to become dangerously low, attracting residents in the community would be an obvious step. Who is to say that offering a coffee shop is inferior to simply posing bulletins about library collections? By implementing some degree of this model, libraries have not sworn off previous library tradition to remain loyal only to a complete business model of accountability and profit. Nor should they. Such a dramatic conversion very well could lead to the destruction that Buschman alludes to, but simply adding elements of such a model could actually prove beneficial. So the coffee-shop is only concerned with bringing foot-traffic into the library, but that does not mean it results in an automatic disregard for more quality aspects.
Personally, I will often choose to go to College Library over Memorial Library simply because I can go grab coffee, or a soda, and that’s totally okay. It is more conducive and welcoming to people, and the library should not be scrutinized for that. The Chicago Public Library recently announced applications for a Brand Coffee Shop to be built into the first floor of the library. Besides just attracting numbers, it may also keep people already in the library in the library. Instead of having to leave to go grab coffee or lunch somewhere, they can just go downstairs then head right back up to the collections once they are done. Moreover, the world no longer is in the 19th century – “customer needs and convenience” are a way of operation today. Perhaps it is unfortunate that public institutions like the library would have to resort to such means, but simply complaining about it and losing patronage doesn’t seem to make much sense. Our public institutions SHOULD have some kind of accountability by its patrons. We cannot simply choose not to pay taxes, so this would be one way of getting that accountability back. Without question, the library should not become Starbucks, but one cannot deny how the two have been merging over the past decade. Students increasingly go to Starbucks to study – draining business resources by only buying one cup of coffee yet staying there for hours – and the library has increasingly added elements of the coffee-shop to its walls.