Public Library Purposes

The readings for this week focus on “Public Library purposes”. F.B. Perkins writes from the perspective of the smaller library, while Michael Harris decries the supposed elitism of the larger library. Dain refutes the main points of Harris’s arguments and Ditzion examines the rise of the library based on the culture of the Northeastern United States.

F.B. Perkins, writing in 1876 on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, writes about the need for the consideration of business models when establishing new libraries. He notes that collection choices, similar to merchandise choices must be made in consideration of the patrons of the library. While he vehemently comes out against pulp novels, he suggests that there is a gulf between the idealized serious reading librarians envision for their space, and the actual, more recreational reading that will take place within most libraries. A full 75% of the circulation is “light reading” according to Perkins (p.422).

In making such suggestions, Perkins goes on to provide an early model for accessions records, and catalogues of the library’s contents. While these ideas seem practical and rational, other ideas such as his sexist remarks with regards to women as being particularly catty in the workplace seem passé. However, he does provide some clear insight into his philosophy about librarianship when he suggests that “the library should do whatever is asked of it (p. 428).

Ditzion’s “The Humanitarian Idea” focuses on the early marketing and promotion of libraries in America and abroad. The author suggests that early library funding appeals were based on the library’s perceived ability to preserve morals and cure perceived social ills.

Rising out of the same era that would see the formation of the Y.M.C.A. movement, the library movement flourished in such places that catered to women working in the factories of the day. The formation of such libraries would eventually lead to larger libraries, such as the Boston Public Library and eventually, the New York Public Library.

Coinciding with the rise of public education the mission of these new public libraries was not only social uplift, but social up-keep. In this era, a librarian wasn’t merely a librarian; he\she was also a guardian of moral standards by as judged by the books that were allowed to circulate within her\his domain. Reading was thought to be a salve for social ills so much that book distribution programs were established in prisons of the day. Many of the early leaders of the library movement were also leaders in the temperance movement. As a consequence of this connection, many books, such as Swiss Family Robinson that are now considered classics were banned from the Temperance Society libraries for their references to the demon drink.

As is noted in the Conclusions section, the war against alcohol was not won in the early libraries. The author of the text, and this author are both doubtful of the ability of librarians to cajole people into choosing not to drink when even the most qualified doctor has a high failure rate in such efforts.

Yet, even as that rationale proved to be a pipe-dream, the library did\ does provide a place for the working person to study trades, and gain job skills.

Ever the contrarian, Michael Harris writes with the tone of Rush Limbaugh, and an eye towards revisionist history (sans a comprehensive perspective about his subject). No one in their right mind would pretend that the world of 1800’s America was a utopia, Harris insists that this is the world view that library historians have taken. My own experience studying librarianship alone disproves his theory, given my exposure to the horrifying racism of Dewey and my knowledge of segregation as it relates to Libraries in 20^th Century America. He pretends that everyone is rosy-eyed about the past of librarianship by focusing on narrow examples of “authoritarian” librarians who practiced “censorship” negating to mention the cultural climate at the time. To critique in such a way as he does calls into question his own views on equality, such is his mocking. Rather than offering insights he offers sly condemnation that removes his own responsibility as a student of the craft, and places the blame on others. The name dropping of Hitler and fascism further renders his critique amateurish and devoid of serious inquiry.

Phyllis Dain exposes Michael Harris’s essay as being “without rigorous analysis, solid verification or appreciation of complexity.” Furthermore she states that it rest on “incomplete evidence” and is “too emphatic” based on such limited evidence (Dain, P. 261).

She suggest that leaders such as Ticknor were not mere liberals or conservatives, but rather complex individuals dedicated to raising morals while at the same time providing for the poor. While some might question the stated purpose of early libraries, Dain suggests that the purposes provided a rationale for funding that was less dynamic than the actual purpose of the library in an effort to secure support.

Dain questions the basis for Harris’s conclusions given the relative few works in the Library History genre. She questions his claims of elitism based on her knowledge of the way in which people described as “bookish” typically find themselves employed – in studies of the word.

Furthermore, she couches the claims of elitism in collection development with her knowledge of the early librarian’s desire for professionalism akin to lawyers and doctors. Just as a doctor cannot attain status without prescribing serious remedies, so too can a librarian not attain status without looking after the best needs of their readership, and their community at large. Furthermore, such moves towards morals were not merely the work of librarians, but were, and still are, a function of Puritanical forces within the communities of service.

Dain notes that Harris rests his critique of the library’s usefulness to the community on the spurious statistic of static circulation numbers (while providing no evidence for such statistics). However, just as a patron can leave a store without buying anything, but still find value in what is observed (possibly enticing future purchases\visits for books or programs), circulation numbers do not tell the full story of the value of the library to the patron, or to the community. Is a police station valuable only for the numbers of murders it solves, or is it valuable for those it prevents, and other services provided? Just as the police are an essential community service, functioning in dynamic ways that defy statistics, so too is the same true for the modern library.

The work of Elaine Fain in her article “Manners and Morals in the Public Library: A Glance at Some New History”, points out where Michael Harris has further missed the mark. She contrasts his work with that of Dee Garrison who focuses on the “feminization” of the library (Fain, p.99). Garrison claims that the profession has become feminized, where Harris complains that the library has become in effect, unopinionated about the books it collects and circulates. Harris finds nothing but ill in the situation, where Garrison finds it fits the description of the domesticization of the library, as women recast the library as a “homelike”, inviting atmosphere. According to Fain, Such emphasis can be explained in the fact of Harris’s focus on the larger libraries, and Garrison’s focus on smaller libraries, as noted by the bibliography of each article (Fain, p.103).

READINGS FOR WEEK 2

Free libraries as referenced by J.P. Quincy, Jesse Shera, and Robert V. Williams have a long and storied history in America. All three articles discuss the various motives for the establishment of libraries and the successes and failures of various efforts over time.

Quincy suggests that moral regulation provided reasoning for the opening of many libraries. Libraries it was thought were an improvement on the pubs and taverns of the day. Given this regulatory role, Quincy thought that libraries needed to be selective about the materials they collected such that “sensational fiction” not find its way into the impressionable mind of workers, or children (Quincy p.393).

Furthermore, he acknowledges the fact of the time that most libraries were established by wealthy benefactors, and it was therefore their responsibility as members of the upper-class to guard the morality of the lower-classes. He observed that it was often the case that the lower-classes were fed dime novels rather than works of history or industry.

He suggested that such works could lead to violence, as was the case with one particular youth, known as Pomeroy (p.396). Thusly he thought it best that libraries avoid being purveyors of popularity and instead become institutions of inquiry. Knowledge and recreational reading are not assumed to be analogous in an era when the public library was the public university for the common man.

Yet even as a library should avoid collecting works of low-brow fiction, it was thought that libraries had a role as a cradle of democracy. Therefore, it was suggested that each library make an effort to cultivate works on every side of the serious questions of the day, in an effort that a young democracy not become an “oratory of aristocracy “ in the words of Hobbs (p. 402)

Shera’s work from 1949 suggests many factors for the founding of the early American libraries in New England. Among the reasons suggested are 1) the rise of public education 2) the rise of worker’s education 3) the rise of a sense of morality and philanthropy (the idea of “the native son”) (p.202)

As industrialization swept New England, increasing the concentration of wealth, the wealthy began to sow back into their communities. This in part led to the establishment of libraries. In a time of increase intellectual work, the library seemed a logical way of giving back but also establishing one’s name. At times libraries were established even though the public did not demand them.

Yet, as society developed from more religiously motivated inquiry to a science based frame of mind, the library became a tool of inquiry for the new questions being asked. The 1800’s saw a growing awareness of national history, as the new nation thought about preservation of historical artifacts. This lead to the formation of historical societies and the Library of Congress.

The collection of rare documents gave rise to the notion of a non-circulating collection within some libraries as in the 1840’s many libraries were thinking about ways to preserve documents in their care.

In terms of mission, the library at this time began to realize its role in the education of the masses. The schools of the time were sorely lacking, even as compulsory education became the law of the land. The library then it was thought could be a supplement for the education of the young and a common university for the perfecting of man.

The work of Robert V. Williams further expands upon the reasoning for the establishment of libraries. Williams dismisses the idea that one single theory can explain the rise of libraries in the 1800’s. Neither the rise of democratic participation nor the “social conditions” of religion, vocational aspirations and economic factors can fully explain the rise of the library according to Williams. Many other variables present at the time are left unconsidered by these theories. Often times, the writers fall back on tropes of history – religious Puritanism, education of the poor, and other suspected causes, without, according to Williams, giving hard facts to back up these theories of causation.

Williams notes that question of the library itself being an independent variable in the rise of the library is often left unanswered. Certainly one could make the argument that not only do librarians have an impact on the rise of libraries, but also the influence European libraries gave rise to the desire for great American libraries.

Williams does not question that there are theoretical answers to the rise of libraries; he merely asks that the variables within the theories be fully tested before we make conclusions about our past that exclude key elements, rendering the theories incomplete.

Week 1 Readings

This blog entry, concerning the readings from Tuesday Jan. 22 2008, deals with the way in which the future of the library was envisioned and the issues that are at the forefront of modern dilemmas. “The Once and Future Library” of Nicholas Basbanes, the theoretical analysis of Wayne Wiegand and the educational perspective of Christine Pawley – each provides an insight into where we have been as a profession and the implications of current practices on where we are headed.

“The Once and Future Library” touches on the issue of digitization by way a story about the San Francisco Public Library. In this situation, the library management all but removed books from the plan for the space, and instead focused on space itself. In the place of books, newspapers and other public records stood grand architecture and named meeting spaces. Yet, what is a named meeting space if the original purpose for the building itself is all but lost to marketing. What use will the groups have for a space that holds nothing but other spaces?

Some within the library establishment alleged interference from “Library Activists”. This alleged activism attracted the attention of Nicholson Baker, a noted print culture scholar, most famous for the American Newspaper Repository. He spearheaded a movement to save documents and to challenge the status quo. While his efforts were dynamic in this area, one key concentration of his efforts, focusing on the preservation of the card catalogue deserves mention. The preservation of this documentation preserves historical information not found in the electronic records according to some.

Wayne Wiegand’s “American Library History Literature: 1947-1997 Theoretical Perspectives?” examines the various types of library history literature during the titular time period. Of particular note is the way in which the library has operated as an agency of social control, inculcating the working classes with ideas that are deemed acceptable by members of the upper class, which have historically dictated what is and is not acceptable in society.

Wiegand focuses on the way in which the library leadership is out of touch with what mainstream audiences want. They deliver the classics when the mainstream wants to read tabloids and romance. It is akin to the formative years of television when soap operas competed with actual operas, and light comedies competed with Shakespearian comedies.

Wiegand notes that bibliographic works are of particular interest to scholars in this area due to the vast numbers of unpublished histories. Other sources of information include Master’s and doctoral thesis, dissertations and seminar papers. Wiegand examines the available work on such library leaders as Melville Dewey who has been covered by multiple authors due to his life and his work.

Pawley’s work explores the rationale for the inclusion of library history within the wider body of library scholarship. According to the American Historical Association’s website, Peter Stern’s articulates the idea that such scholarship increases the understanding of people and the wider systems in which they operate. Furthermore, Stern articulates three benefits for studying history – “moral understanding, fostering identity and good citizenship “(Pawley p.227.)

According to Pawley, the goal creating a more historical perspective within librarianship can be accomplished by starting at the point where future librarians receive their education. Using this focus in practice means that both current and previous trends should be made a part of each course. To facilitate this broadening of focus, Wayne Wiegand in particular has called for collaboration with innovative scholarly areas such as American Studies departments, which have a reputation for exploring literature within a wider context of both historical and modern stances. Furthermore, Pawley notes, growth in scholarly discussion of library history could be spurred by greater collaboration amongst LIS scholars around this topic.