I have often been intrigued by Modern technology and contemporaneous technology.
I have a few friends who are very interested in the theories of Jacques Ellul. One of these friends wrote a MA thesis in regard to technology, Ellul, and Theodor Adorno.
Ellul criticizes Modern technology. He worried that technologly would ultimate destroy our humanity:
"What is at issue here is evaluating the danger of what might happen to our humanity in the present half-century, and distinguishing between what we want to keep and what we are ready to lose, between what we can welcome as legitimate human development and what we should reject with our last ounce of strength as dehumanization. I cannot think that choices of this kind are unimportant."
Adoro, too, criticizes technology:
"Not only is technical progress distorted by the requirements of capitalist control, but
the —universe of discourse, public and eventually even private speech and thought,
limit themselves to the posing and resolving of technical problems with the double
constraints of the simultaneous interest in technical advance and domination that
characterizes capitalist rationality. . . The universalization of technical modes of
thought changes the cultural conditions presupposed by the Marxian theory of
emancipatory struggle. There is no place for critical consciousness in this world: it is
—one-dimensional."
And what follows thoughts on Modern technology...
After reading Ellul and falling in love with Adorno (and Habermas), I must admit that I have also fallen in love with Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri. In a world riddled with, often, disembodied technology how can one dislike D and G's thoughts? They're contemporaries of Adorno and here is a quote by Deleuze:
"We can only imagine that the control mechanisms of today's society will increase. It is not just science fiction that we might imagine ourselves with an electronic collar. A computer could be made to track our every position and effect a universal modulation of our behavior. But, we are just at the beginning of this new form of control... Neverthless, paradoxically, many young people boast of being motivated by these new changes. They request apprenticeships and permanent training -- and thus the new era is launched."
What is there to say about these predecessors of ours? Perhaps we have something to learn from intellectual and compassionate thinkers that have something to say about technology. I find that contemporary librarians, especially NextGEN librarians, are quick to jump at the advances of technology. Technology does have much to offer in forms of global communication and information access. But, we should not make simple assumptions about these things (Are we even making assumptions at al.?). We ought to discuss the global and local impact of technology. We must speak about the way technology is affecting, both for the good and for the bad, our social practices. Modern technology (industrialization/capitalism) may have created more issues than it solved. Yes, technology is beneficial... But it must also have limits... Even with regard to communication and information. The ways that information is dealt with directly affects/effects our surroundings, both locally and globally.
Everything we do, including the ways we involve technology in our institutions and libraries must be sincerely critiqued.
Perhaps we should keep the words of another (anti-technology/capitalization) contemporary in our hearts as we make decisions, remembering where we have come from and where we are going:
"We clasp the hands of those that go before us, And the hands of those who come after us. We enter the little circle of each other's arms And the larger circle of lovers, Whose hands are joined in a dance, And the larger circle of all creatures, Passing in and out of life, Who move also in a dance, To a music so subtle and vast that no ear hears it Except in fragments." (Wendell Berry)
(Perhaps I will touch more on the above poem in my next entry).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
ENFJ
Extrovert - Establishing Relationships - Introvert
Sensing - Generating Information - Intuitive
Thinking - Making Decisions - Feeling
Judgmental - Choosing Priorities - Perceptive
E - 24 I - 10
S - 14 N - 26
T - 8 F - 32
J - 24 P - 11
Sensing - Generating Information - Intuitive
Thinking - Making Decisions - Feeling
Judgmental - Choosing Priorities - Perceptive
E - 24 I - 10
S - 14 N - 26
T - 8 F - 32
J - 24 P - 11
Communist Practices in Relation to Administration
I have always been interested in Communism/Socialism. I studied a lot of Marx and Engels' theories in undergrad. And, in grad school I focused on early 20th century Socialism is Germany. I wrote my MA thesis on Rosa Luxemburg. And, as a grad. student I was involved in two Communist affiliated organizations. (Keep in mind, I went to school in Canada where a Communist party actually exists).
As a LISP student I am finding that I am interested in Communist practices and resources as they are related to the library. And, certain Communist practices may also be related to this class...
Certain administrative and managerial practices were well established in the Soviet Union through the 1930s. But, political campaigning destroyed many of their scientific management theories and practices. During the period of the Russian Civil War heavy industrialization was nationalized (At the abolishment of private enterprises). After the war, struggling to regain its economy, Lenin, Trotsky, and others clung to industrialization and modernization as the threshold of life for the nation. And, beginning in 1921, Western ideas were adopted to facilitate economic development; including work habits inspired by Ford and Taylor's scientific management theories. In 1921 Gastev established the Central Institute of Labor (With the approval of Lenin and Trotsky) and put forth the idea of the "Mechanized Man," or, the perfect industrial worker.
But, the country was undergoing many and significant political changes. The period of relative intellectual and scientific freedsom was coming to an end. Trotsky was defeated in 1928 and Stalin seized power to eventually build an isolated and totalitarian society. Five-Year Plans were implemented to control economic methods, science, and education.
It's interesting to see the ways in which administrative and managerial practices move within a time period and society. As someone who valued the work of Rosa Luxemburg I often wonder if Western European industrial and Communist practices would have been different had she not been murdered. If male tendencies of centralization and opportunism did not have the proper environment to foster would the time period of the early 1900's have been shaped differently? If so, one wonders what routes the U.S. may have taken in its own industrialist period; and, where would Capitalism have led, or... Would it have led at all? It's presumptuous to ask such questions. We can only move forward toward more Socialistic practices in our world, beyond strict Capitalism and manipulation. Perhaps the library can be a driving force in such efforts... Indeed, the library as institute is the forefunner of freedom and justice... Isn't it?
Sources:
Fulp-Miller, R. (1962). The mind and face of Bolshevism: An examination of cultural life in Soviet Russia. New York: Harper and Row.
Lieberstein, S. (1975). Techonology, work, and sociology in the USSR: The NOT movement. Technology and Culture, 16, 48-66.
Merkle, J.A. (1980). Management and ideology: The legacy of the international scientific movement. Berkley: University of California Press.
Smith, S. (1983). Taylorism rules OK?: Bolshevism, Taylorism and the technical intelligentsia in the Soviet Union, 1917-41. Radical Science, 13, 3-27.
As a LISP student I am finding that I am interested in Communist practices and resources as they are related to the library. And, certain Communist practices may also be related to this class...
Certain administrative and managerial practices were well established in the Soviet Union through the 1930s. But, political campaigning destroyed many of their scientific management theories and practices. During the period of the Russian Civil War heavy industrialization was nationalized (At the abolishment of private enterprises). After the war, struggling to regain its economy, Lenin, Trotsky, and others clung to industrialization and modernization as the threshold of life for the nation. And, beginning in 1921, Western ideas were adopted to facilitate economic development; including work habits inspired by Ford and Taylor's scientific management theories. In 1921 Gastev established the Central Institute of Labor (With the approval of Lenin and Trotsky) and put forth the idea of the "Mechanized Man," or, the perfect industrial worker.
But, the country was undergoing many and significant political changes. The period of relative intellectual and scientific freedsom was coming to an end. Trotsky was defeated in 1928 and Stalin seized power to eventually build an isolated and totalitarian society. Five-Year Plans were implemented to control economic methods, science, and education.
It's interesting to see the ways in which administrative and managerial practices move within a time period and society. As someone who valued the work of Rosa Luxemburg I often wonder if Western European industrial and Communist practices would have been different had she not been murdered. If male tendencies of centralization and opportunism did not have the proper environment to foster would the time period of the early 1900's have been shaped differently? If so, one wonders what routes the U.S. may have taken in its own industrialist period; and, where would Capitalism have led, or... Would it have led at all? It's presumptuous to ask such questions. We can only move forward toward more Socialistic practices in our world, beyond strict Capitalism and manipulation. Perhaps the library can be a driving force in such efforts... Indeed, the library as institute is the forefunner of freedom and justice... Isn't it?
Sources:
Fulp-Miller, R. (1962). The mind and face of Bolshevism: An examination of cultural life in Soviet Russia. New York: Harper and Row.
Lieberstein, S. (1975). Techonology, work, and sociology in the USSR: The NOT movement. Technology and Culture, 16, 48-66.
Merkle, J.A. (1980). Management and ideology: The legacy of the international scientific movement. Berkley: University of California Press.
Smith, S. (1983). Taylorism rules OK?: Bolshevism, Taylorism and the technical intelligentsia in the Soviet Union, 1917-41. Radical Science, 13, 3-27.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Strategic Planning Beyond the Walls: An Instance
In Duke University's strategic plan, globalization and community is taken into account. Their attention to globalization, to some extent catches my attention. The global and the local are both interests of mine. And, I believe that the library plays a role in both our local and global communities. Therefore, we, librarians included, must take into account the current and hopeful situation of the democratic state.
I recently read Hauke Brunkhorst's book, Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community.
Brunkhorst puts forward a thesis statement that defends democracy. The sort of democracy that Brunkhorst defends, though, takes into account globalization and the concept of solidarity. He proposes that a “globalization of democratic solidarity” will aid in solving contemporaneous problems of the modern nation-states. (For instance, Brunkhorst hopes to address problems of inclusion that “have massive exclusion effects”).
Brunkhorst begins by highlighting the concept of solidarity. Although a modern egalitarian and democratic concept, he points out that solidarity has Latin and Roman origins. In Latin (Haftungsgenossenschaft) solidarity refers to “cooperative liability within civil law.” Similarly, in Rome (Gesamthaftung) solidarity signifies “joint liability.” Both uses of solidarity, then, imply common obligation. Brunkhorst goes on to point out that the concept of solidarity derives from two main sources (beyond Roman law), “One arises from pagan-republican harmony and civic friendship, the other from Christian brotherliness and love of neighbor.” To move forward, Brunkhorst recognizes that the concept of solidarity goes through a transition in the “modern constitutional revolution.” The concept of solidarity as signifying the common good (of the polis), in modern society, evolves to refer to “the democratic realization of individual freedom.” What though, is the foundation and guide for this transition? Brunkhorst writes, “If the classic republican formula of the common good refers to an objectively recognizable collective good, “solidarity” has from the start an individualistic quality.” In the modern constitutional nation-state, therefore, the common good and autonomy meet. With this in mind, Brunkhorst views solidarity as central to the democratic state—Democracy assumes that “self-legislation is a right of each and every person,” while, at the same time, rejecting “any domination of some people over others.” He says, “In democracy, all those subject to the law should be the authors of the law and thereby autonomous subjects.” He believes that solidarity is an “inherent element of society” and that it, concurrently, “dialectically combines opposites, contradictions, and differences.”
Brunkhorst does not stop here, though, to praise the contemporary state of democracy. In light of mass communication, Brunkhorst criticizes the role of democracy within and between nation-states. He believes that there are two problems that we face today (And, that, historically have also been faced before the overwhelming explosion of global interaction). First, the exclusion of individuals and second, “the social exclusion of the market-dependent classes of society.” He thinks that the “globalization of power, law, and money” is leading (again) to greater “mass poverty, proletarianization, and alienation.” For instance, he writes, “The one-sided, system-integrative development of globalization is bringing about the return at the ‘global level’ of both of the inclusion problems that had once plunged Europe into crises and disasters.” Brunkhorst laments that there is a weak cosmopolitan democracy. Yet, he finds hope in “a global protest movement [that] has expressed itself for the first time in the language of a new human-right patriotism.” Hence, Brunkhorst’s call for a “globalization of democratic solidarity.”
Brunkhorst addresses the concept of (solidarity in the framework of) friendship. He specifically focuses on the notions of harmony and friendship in the ancient and late-medieval world. Here, friendship is the glue in the civic bond of city life. He writes, “Friendship as an end in itself is part of performatively carrying out the political life.” He uses the examples of Plato and Aristotle to point out the crucial link between friendship and polity. For instance, Aristotle’s concept of friendship is based on relationships that are not strictly bound to kin and tribal obligations. Civic friendship, that is, the “free” relationships and networking between various peoples, becomes the bonds of harmony.
The bond of harmony created through friendships is the political stabilizer. Because friendship is political, it also becomes public and legal. The common good becomes the reference point for accountability. Brunkhorst writes, “To recognize and to love the common good in the perfect form of male friendship is precisely what virtue is. That is the final end toward which every human striving for pleasure and utility, for a good and satisfied existence is directed. Virtue is not just some good, but the unparalleled best that one can achieve—as a man and as a prosperous citizen.” Hence, no friendship is “contrary to the civic world and the ethos of civic life.”
The concept of friendship and ultimately solidarity during this time, though, is exclusionary. To be a friend was not possible amidst social and class stratification; therefore, friendships were left only between those in the upper class. Hence, the “common good” turns out to be what makes the ruling class (of men) happy. Subsequently, the majority of the people are left voiceless, oppressed, and unhappy. For instance, slaves and women, because they lacked political involvement, were not considered citizens and, therefore, were not (supposedly) involved in (“true”) friendships (That is, the network of friendship). “Only among equals at the top of a hierarchy of the wealthy and the good is true friendship possible.” Logically, this leads to “justice” only amongst the upper class (of men). Brunkhorst writes, “The great idea of a just equality appears here, only to disappear again quickly into the class society. For those who do not show enough ‘in common’ (equality) with the rulers, there could be no justice.” Brunkhorst laments that classic humanism presupposes unequal rights in favour of the elite. Many people are not regarded as citizens and become tools in the sphere of labor.
Beyond his concerns though, Brunkhorst points out positive aspects of the republican ideal (that surpass “the mere ideology of a ruling class). First, republican civil solidarity endorses “mutual freedom;” second, “free affection” goes beyond the previous dominations of blood relations; third, the core concept of intimate friendship is “generalized toward civic friendship;” and four, “within the network of free civic friendship, the universal essence of man is realized. According to his potentiality, as a member of the species, each man is a political being.”
One important theme that Brunkhorst brings up is the issue of “exclusion.” He refers to Plato’s theories on civic life when he writes, “Everyone gets what they deserve. Plato writes, “and we surely haven’t forgotten that the city was just because each of the three classes in it was doing its own work.’” So, there is “no justice for inanimate tools, animals, and slaves.” The majority of the people become tools at the service of those who do not work. A republic remains running based on the master-slave relationship. This is why, “In practical terms, it is true of democracy in Athens that it ‘would have survived not one month without mass-slavery.’”
Certainly, I lament with Brunkhorst. The issue of exclusion (and alienation) has consistently been a hot topic in the realm of philosophy (especially in the field of social and political theory). Brunkhorst’s assessment of exclusion in classic republics is important because it points out that an ideology that claims to support free relationships (friendships), inclusion, and a common good, is, in all actuality, only in support of the select few that are prestigious enough to voice such a masked ideology at all. Such an ideology allows a few men to live happily while not feeling guilty. Rationalization masks actual human conditions, and instead of supporting human (heterogeneous) obligation, it purports a false understanding of “obligation” and “duty” toward a forged “common good.” Surely, I hope that our current philosophic ideologies do not support (mass?) exclusion (How, though, do we address “delinquents” or “terrorists,” for example?). Yet, how do we understand obligation? In a world that is globalized, we are not physically or communicatively bound to a specific city. We are in constant contact (and often conflict) with other peoples, traditions, and ideologies (For example, recent “religious” (or capitalist?) wars). How do we decipher differing obligatory “calls?” Toward whom, or what, do we and should we direct our obligation(s)? How are different groups reflecting/using solidarity in light of the current global situation (i.e. Peace groups, militant groups, big businesses)? How should we understand solidarity in relationship to obligation in the current world order?
As librarians we must recognize the role of libraries in exclusionary practices. We must be committed to providing open doors, resources, and programs to people groups that might be alienated in our societies. Most prevalent, today, may be the transexual and transgender subgroups. As librarians we must develop collections that recognize and empower people in our communities that may not, regularly, have access to materials that they need (e.g. resources on transgender legal issues, medical texts relating to sex change, resources to aid children with their feelings of gender placement, etc.).
The second theme that I will touch upon is this: Brunkhorst brings up the issue concerning the role of philosophy and the philosopher. In ancient city cultures, “Philosophia is friendship or love that, in the communally practiced wisdom, consisted in the perfection of a life devoted to theory. In sociological terms, it is a form of ‘ascetic flight from the world.’” He writes, “Hannah Arendt criticized the philosophers for that reason: because they simply slip out of public affairs in order to live outside the gates of the city like ‘idiots.’” Brunkhorst’s concern here is the disjoint between theory and practice. He questions the “removed” philosopher’s practicality. Perhaps, one can parallel this with monastic life, or, (as in the case of Thoreau’s Walden) the life of a “hermit.” More specifically, the problem arises when these removed people are asserting theories (Or, in the case of the religious recluse, theological assertions) that others ought to live by. Not only is the removed philosopher living impractically, is he also, perhaps, purporting “impractical” (or out-of-touch, or out-of-this-world) theories? I don’t have a firm stance concerning this issue (Or, perhaps, maybe I am too apprehensive to state them here instead of over a couple of bottles of wine); however, I do think the issue is important. What is the philosopher’s role within the city-state? And today, beyond the gates of the city-state? Subsequently, what is the prescriptive role of philosophy and what is the descriptive role of philosophy in a globalized world without gates? And, more specifically, what do we support primarily (or first)? Philosophical (dialectic?) evolution or (political) revolution? Are they complementary? (I believe, this question is important and necessary. This was a main issue in early twentieth century questions of nationalism (socialism). Perhaps it is just as important today in our increasingly “inter-national” world).
In the past the librarian was understood and known as the gate-keeper. Today, librarians still remain sources of knowledge. Librarians may learn lessons from Brunkhorst. Of instance, librarians must be astutely aware of their positions in society. Librarians should not be solely focused on what goes on inside the walls of her own library. What goes on inside the library must always be related to what goes on outside of the library as well. Librarians should not just go along with trends (as discussed in class), but librarians must be revolutionary-- Especially in a globalized world plagued with misinformation and confusion.
Inline with my first two entries, in general, I believe that the role of the librarian and teams of librarians is not exclusively business-like and is not exclusive to a particular library. The role of administration and management is not about goals, objectives, and plans that echo the business world. The role of libraries' administration and management is about goals, objective, and plans that echo, pursue, and revolutionize a world rooted in the love of wisdom.
Overall, I am interested in the role of pragmatism in library administration and management-- Including pragmatism's historic role in the library as institution, it's current role, and it's role (if any) in the future.
I recently read Hauke Brunkhorst's book, Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community.
Brunkhorst puts forward a thesis statement that defends democracy. The sort of democracy that Brunkhorst defends, though, takes into account globalization and the concept of solidarity. He proposes that a “globalization of democratic solidarity” will aid in solving contemporaneous problems of the modern nation-states. (For instance, Brunkhorst hopes to address problems of inclusion that “have massive exclusion effects”).
Brunkhorst begins by highlighting the concept of solidarity. Although a modern egalitarian and democratic concept, he points out that solidarity has Latin and Roman origins. In Latin (Haftungsgenossenschaft) solidarity refers to “cooperative liability within civil law.” Similarly, in Rome (Gesamthaftung) solidarity signifies “joint liability.” Both uses of solidarity, then, imply common obligation. Brunkhorst goes on to point out that the concept of solidarity derives from two main sources (beyond Roman law), “One arises from pagan-republican harmony and civic friendship, the other from Christian brotherliness and love of neighbor.” To move forward, Brunkhorst recognizes that the concept of solidarity goes through a transition in the “modern constitutional revolution.” The concept of solidarity as signifying the common good (of the polis), in modern society, evolves to refer to “the democratic realization of individual freedom.” What though, is the foundation and guide for this transition? Brunkhorst writes, “If the classic republican formula of the common good refers to an objectively recognizable collective good, “solidarity” has from the start an individualistic quality.” In the modern constitutional nation-state, therefore, the common good and autonomy meet. With this in mind, Brunkhorst views solidarity as central to the democratic state—Democracy assumes that “self-legislation is a right of each and every person,” while, at the same time, rejecting “any domination of some people over others.” He says, “In democracy, all those subject to the law should be the authors of the law and thereby autonomous subjects.” He believes that solidarity is an “inherent element of society” and that it, concurrently, “dialectically combines opposites, contradictions, and differences.”
Brunkhorst does not stop here, though, to praise the contemporary state of democracy. In light of mass communication, Brunkhorst criticizes the role of democracy within and between nation-states. He believes that there are two problems that we face today (And, that, historically have also been faced before the overwhelming explosion of global interaction). First, the exclusion of individuals and second, “the social exclusion of the market-dependent classes of society.” He thinks that the “globalization of power, law, and money” is leading (again) to greater “mass poverty, proletarianization, and alienation.” For instance, he writes, “The one-sided, system-integrative development of globalization is bringing about the return at the ‘global level’ of both of the inclusion problems that had once plunged Europe into crises and disasters.” Brunkhorst laments that there is a weak cosmopolitan democracy. Yet, he finds hope in “a global protest movement [that] has expressed itself for the first time in the language of a new human-right patriotism.” Hence, Brunkhorst’s call for a “globalization of democratic solidarity.”
Brunkhorst addresses the concept of (solidarity in the framework of) friendship. He specifically focuses on the notions of harmony and friendship in the ancient and late-medieval world. Here, friendship is the glue in the civic bond of city life. He writes, “Friendship as an end in itself is part of performatively carrying out the political life.” He uses the examples of Plato and Aristotle to point out the crucial link between friendship and polity. For instance, Aristotle’s concept of friendship is based on relationships that are not strictly bound to kin and tribal obligations. Civic friendship, that is, the “free” relationships and networking between various peoples, becomes the bonds of harmony.
The bond of harmony created through friendships is the political stabilizer. Because friendship is political, it also becomes public and legal. The common good becomes the reference point for accountability. Brunkhorst writes, “To recognize and to love the common good in the perfect form of male friendship is precisely what virtue is. That is the final end toward which every human striving for pleasure and utility, for a good and satisfied existence is directed. Virtue is not just some good, but the unparalleled best that one can achieve—as a man and as a prosperous citizen.” Hence, no friendship is “contrary to the civic world and the ethos of civic life.”
The concept of friendship and ultimately solidarity during this time, though, is exclusionary. To be a friend was not possible amidst social and class stratification; therefore, friendships were left only between those in the upper class. Hence, the “common good” turns out to be what makes the ruling class (of men) happy. Subsequently, the majority of the people are left voiceless, oppressed, and unhappy. For instance, slaves and women, because they lacked political involvement, were not considered citizens and, therefore, were not (supposedly) involved in (“true”) friendships (That is, the network of friendship). “Only among equals at the top of a hierarchy of the wealthy and the good is true friendship possible.” Logically, this leads to “justice” only amongst the upper class (of men). Brunkhorst writes, “The great idea of a just equality appears here, only to disappear again quickly into the class society. For those who do not show enough ‘in common’ (equality) with the rulers, there could be no justice.” Brunkhorst laments that classic humanism presupposes unequal rights in favour of the elite. Many people are not regarded as citizens and become tools in the sphere of labor.
Beyond his concerns though, Brunkhorst points out positive aspects of the republican ideal (that surpass “the mere ideology of a ruling class). First, republican civil solidarity endorses “mutual freedom;” second, “free affection” goes beyond the previous dominations of blood relations; third, the core concept of intimate friendship is “generalized toward civic friendship;” and four, “within the network of free civic friendship, the universal essence of man is realized. According to his potentiality, as a member of the species, each man is a political being.”
One important theme that Brunkhorst brings up is the issue of “exclusion.” He refers to Plato’s theories on civic life when he writes, “Everyone gets what they deserve. Plato writes, “and we surely haven’t forgotten that the city was just because each of the three classes in it was doing its own work.’” So, there is “no justice for inanimate tools, animals, and slaves.” The majority of the people become tools at the service of those who do not work. A republic remains running based on the master-slave relationship. This is why, “In practical terms, it is true of democracy in Athens that it ‘would have survived not one month without mass-slavery.’”
Certainly, I lament with Brunkhorst. The issue of exclusion (and alienation) has consistently been a hot topic in the realm of philosophy (especially in the field of social and political theory). Brunkhorst’s assessment of exclusion in classic republics is important because it points out that an ideology that claims to support free relationships (friendships), inclusion, and a common good, is, in all actuality, only in support of the select few that are prestigious enough to voice such a masked ideology at all. Such an ideology allows a few men to live happily while not feeling guilty. Rationalization masks actual human conditions, and instead of supporting human (heterogeneous) obligation, it purports a false understanding of “obligation” and “duty” toward a forged “common good.” Surely, I hope that our current philosophic ideologies do not support (mass?) exclusion (How, though, do we address “delinquents” or “terrorists,” for example?). Yet, how do we understand obligation? In a world that is globalized, we are not physically or communicatively bound to a specific city. We are in constant contact (and often conflict) with other peoples, traditions, and ideologies (For example, recent “religious” (or capitalist?) wars). How do we decipher differing obligatory “calls?” Toward whom, or what, do we and should we direct our obligation(s)? How are different groups reflecting/using solidarity in light of the current global situation (i.e. Peace groups, militant groups, big businesses)? How should we understand solidarity in relationship to obligation in the current world order?
As librarians we must recognize the role of libraries in exclusionary practices. We must be committed to providing open doors, resources, and programs to people groups that might be alienated in our societies. Most prevalent, today, may be the transexual and transgender subgroups. As librarians we must develop collections that recognize and empower people in our communities that may not, regularly, have access to materials that they need (e.g. resources on transgender legal issues, medical texts relating to sex change, resources to aid children with their feelings of gender placement, etc.).
The second theme that I will touch upon is this: Brunkhorst brings up the issue concerning the role of philosophy and the philosopher. In ancient city cultures, “Philosophia is friendship or love that, in the communally practiced wisdom, consisted in the perfection of a life devoted to theory. In sociological terms, it is a form of ‘ascetic flight from the world.’” He writes, “Hannah Arendt criticized the philosophers for that reason: because they simply slip out of public affairs in order to live outside the gates of the city like ‘idiots.’” Brunkhorst’s concern here is the disjoint between theory and practice. He questions the “removed” philosopher’s practicality. Perhaps, one can parallel this with monastic life, or, (as in the case of Thoreau’s Walden) the life of a “hermit.” More specifically, the problem arises when these removed people are asserting theories (Or, in the case of the religious recluse, theological assertions) that others ought to live by. Not only is the removed philosopher living impractically, is he also, perhaps, purporting “impractical” (or out-of-touch, or out-of-this-world) theories? I don’t have a firm stance concerning this issue (Or, perhaps, maybe I am too apprehensive to state them here instead of over a couple of bottles of wine); however, I do think the issue is important. What is the philosopher’s role within the city-state? And today, beyond the gates of the city-state? Subsequently, what is the prescriptive role of philosophy and what is the descriptive role of philosophy in a globalized world without gates? And, more specifically, what do we support primarily (or first)? Philosophical (dialectic?) evolution or (political) revolution? Are they complementary? (I believe, this question is important and necessary. This was a main issue in early twentieth century questions of nationalism (socialism). Perhaps it is just as important today in our increasingly “inter-national” world).
In the past the librarian was understood and known as the gate-keeper. Today, librarians still remain sources of knowledge. Librarians may learn lessons from Brunkhorst. Of instance, librarians must be astutely aware of their positions in society. Librarians should not be solely focused on what goes on inside the walls of her own library. What goes on inside the library must always be related to what goes on outside of the library as well. Librarians should not just go along with trends (as discussed in class), but librarians must be revolutionary-- Especially in a globalized world plagued with misinformation and confusion.
Inline with my first two entries, in general, I believe that the role of the librarian and teams of librarians is not exclusively business-like and is not exclusive to a particular library. The role of administration and management is not about goals, objectives, and plans that echo the business world. The role of libraries' administration and management is about goals, objective, and plans that echo, pursue, and revolutionize a world rooted in the love of wisdom.
Overall, I am interested in the role of pragmatism in library administration and management-- Including pragmatism's historic role in the library as institution, it's current role, and it's role (if any) in the future.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The Rhetoric of an "Institution"
Like other businesses, organizations, and institutions; the library, both in particular and in general, is a business, an organization, and an institution. For the purposes of this entry, though, let us take the third term, "institution," and reflect upon the library as an institution and how this relates to library administration and management.
In our contemporary society institution is often seen as a confining word; in the case of a mental institution bearing four walls and no doors out, or in the case of a juvenile institution where young "inmates" are sequestered. But, the heart of an institution is neither of these. To be a part of an institution is to be a part of a viewpoint. An instution, large or small, brings together people that share simliar opinions with regard to promoting a particular cause.
But, the rhetoric of public support for libraries is often at odds with the institution's committment to intellectual freedoms and social responsibilities; and it seems to be becoming harder for particular libraries to talk about their social function. We cannot tell boards of trustees, government commissions, and the like, that our funtion is to stir things up or to make society feel guilty. We cannot say that taxpayers (or tuition-payers) employ us to make sure that their children will think differently than they do. Somewhere, deep down, everybody (the librarian, the average taxpayer, the typical high-schooler) knows that that is what libraries and shelves of books are for. But nobody can afford to make this fully explicit and public (anymore). In front of trustees and funding agencies librarians must remain "objective" and "unbiased." But any librarian who has read and been impressed by antiessentialists must either become cynical or put forth our own constructions.
With regard to library administration and library management libraries must hire individuals that will uphold the library's values. And, strategic planning and goal-setting must be managerial tasks that take into account funding and budget. At the same time, however, libraries must also hire individuals that uphold the value of the library as institution, librarians that uphold the community's values but that are also willing to confront heretical values that renounce certain intellectual freedoms. The organization of a library must be taken seriously as both a business and as an organization, but the library as institution should not be forsaken at the hands of the former-- When this happens, the library is no longer a library... The library becomes a cog in the machine of capitalism.
Well-intended librarians have attempted to understand and manage the institution. The point, however, is to keep the library indefinable and unmanageable; and this requires intellectual freedom.
In our contemporary society institution is often seen as a confining word; in the case of a mental institution bearing four walls and no doors out, or in the case of a juvenile institution where young "inmates" are sequestered. But, the heart of an institution is neither of these. To be a part of an institution is to be a part of a viewpoint. An instution, large or small, brings together people that share simliar opinions with regard to promoting a particular cause.
But, the rhetoric of public support for libraries is often at odds with the institution's committment to intellectual freedoms and social responsibilities; and it seems to be becoming harder for particular libraries to talk about their social function. We cannot tell boards of trustees, government commissions, and the like, that our funtion is to stir things up or to make society feel guilty. We cannot say that taxpayers (or tuition-payers) employ us to make sure that their children will think differently than they do. Somewhere, deep down, everybody (the librarian, the average taxpayer, the typical high-schooler) knows that that is what libraries and shelves of books are for. But nobody can afford to make this fully explicit and public (anymore). In front of trustees and funding agencies librarians must remain "objective" and "unbiased." But any librarian who has read and been impressed by antiessentialists must either become cynical or put forth our own constructions.
With regard to library administration and library management libraries must hire individuals that will uphold the library's values. And, strategic planning and goal-setting must be managerial tasks that take into account funding and budget. At the same time, however, libraries must also hire individuals that uphold the value of the library as institution, librarians that uphold the community's values but that are also willing to confront heretical values that renounce certain intellectual freedoms. The organization of a library must be taken seriously as both a business and as an organization, but the library as institution should not be forsaken at the hands of the former-- When this happens, the library is no longer a library... The library becomes a cog in the machine of capitalism.
Well-intended librarians have attempted to understand and manage the institution. The point, however, is to keep the library indefinable and unmanageable; and this requires intellectual freedom.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Organizational Behavior and the Consumer Gods
1-27-2007
It is interesting to note the use of organizational behavior (Or, industrial organizational psychology) in libraries. Most often, libraries are thought of as independent organizations that are a part of a larger institution of knowledge. Still, intense organizational and managerial aspects go into sustaining individual libraries, in particular, and the institution of librarianship, at large.
It is important to accept and embrace change (Especially in our contemporary rapidly changing world). And, this change must be accompanied by proactive organizational practices. One ought not to be apathetic to change, scared of change, or simply content; still, one must not fully want to accept and embrace all the changes that may come our way—Including change in the field of information access and librarianship.
In a world that is rapidly changing, we must be aware of what we are being changed by. More often than not, we are not being changed by the wisdoms of our ancestors, nor are we changing our behaviors based on the futures of our children’s children. Instead, we find our attitudes and actions changed by materialism, consumerism, and hurried behaviors.
Libraries are sacred grounds and libraries should not be eaten alive by the consumer gods. Because I am interested in academic libraries, allow me to suggest, for instance, that if universities aid students to see that the local/national and global/international narrative which socialization has centered is an open-ended one, then it follows that academic libraries ought to be the stimulus of such thoughts. Academic libraries, because they are, by their very nature, the hub of a vast amount of intellectual activity, point toward the need for socialization but, more importantly, to the need to remove the barriers that socialization inevitably imposes. Library faculties are not instrumentalities that can be ordered to a purpose. Instead, the task of the library, in general, and librarians, in particular, should be to enact freedom before the very eyes of students. Institutions and individuals, in a liberal society, move forward, not through strict socialization, but via relationships that foster self-creation and communal-creation.
I agree with Amanda Cain in Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too, when she describes academic libraries as “Slipping Sanctuaries.” She writes at length:
In its history, the university—with its classical, monastic, or natured settings—has always served as a quintessential space for thought. Expressly, it has been an ivory tower where a student might look up and look down, alone, and take his or her bearing on the universe. But this function is slighted more and more in an age that demands material results: the utilitarian, the legislated, the countable, the visible, the noisiest in the bustle and stir. Mankind’s future does not beg for hasty and showy improvements, however. If new generations are to arrive at new perspectives and realize better realities, they must face the future with the ability to cultivate long-standing love and deep-rooted wisdom. Developing abilities for untrammeled and full-capacity thinking and imagining is the primary duty of a university; all other university activities should grow out of this enterprise (2003, 11).
Libraries are full of books, and books are read in order to enlarge the sense of what is important and possible for individuals and for society. The libraries social function, then, is not necessarily teaching, research, or the latest fad. It is not necessarily the communication of knowledge. It’s role takes shape in stirring things up. The role of the librarian is not to direct students into a particular frame of thought. The role of the librarian is to instill doubts into students’ own self-images and the society to which they belong. After all, the moral consciousness of each new generation is always up for grabs.
Still, there remains a tension between public rhetoric and a private sense of mission. So, there are gaps between strict socialization and self/communal-creation. How then, in a liberal society, does an academic librarian address information needs? First, students ought to have access to common reference points with people and thoughts from previous generations and in other social classes and regions of the world. Second, academic librarians should be able to relate, to students, the books that have shaped and inspired them. The first need brings together individuals across both generations and geographical boundaries through similar historical accounts and through similar narratives. The second need addresses individuals and communities at a relational level that goes beyond paper and pen, extending, further, into the realm of intellectual imagination and curiosity.
This entry has not addressed management, per se. However, it does address the concern of change and the library’s role in a rapidly changing world. Our understandings of management and organizational behavior will be deeply persuaded by the ways we understand and view the changes that are happening around us. The ways in which we view change will shape the ways in which we accept and advance change in our libraries. One should not swear off any and all change. Instead, condoning positive change should be pursued-- Change that does not forsake our past for false wisdoms. This entry condones change that embraces our past, our present, and our future. In a Western world that is too quick too follow prescription fads, perhaps we ought not forget Michael Moore’s confession, “I really didn’t realize the librarians were, you know, such a dangerous group…They are subversive. You think they’re just sitting at the desk, all quiet and everything. They’re like plotting the revolution, man. I wouldn’t mess with them” (Raish 2003, 124).
Sources:
Raish, Martin H (Ed.). (2003). Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too: Essays on Academic Librarianship. Lanham, Maryland and Oxford: The Scarecrow Press.
It is interesting to note the use of organizational behavior (Or, industrial organizational psychology) in libraries. Most often, libraries are thought of as independent organizations that are a part of a larger institution of knowledge. Still, intense organizational and managerial aspects go into sustaining individual libraries, in particular, and the institution of librarianship, at large.
It is important to accept and embrace change (Especially in our contemporary rapidly changing world). And, this change must be accompanied by proactive organizational practices. One ought not to be apathetic to change, scared of change, or simply content; still, one must not fully want to accept and embrace all the changes that may come our way—Including change in the field of information access and librarianship.
In a world that is rapidly changing, we must be aware of what we are being changed by. More often than not, we are not being changed by the wisdoms of our ancestors, nor are we changing our behaviors based on the futures of our children’s children. Instead, we find our attitudes and actions changed by materialism, consumerism, and hurried behaviors.
Libraries are sacred grounds and libraries should not be eaten alive by the consumer gods. Because I am interested in academic libraries, allow me to suggest, for instance, that if universities aid students to see that the local/national and global/international narrative which socialization has centered is an open-ended one, then it follows that academic libraries ought to be the stimulus of such thoughts. Academic libraries, because they are, by their very nature, the hub of a vast amount of intellectual activity, point toward the need for socialization but, more importantly, to the need to remove the barriers that socialization inevitably imposes. Library faculties are not instrumentalities that can be ordered to a purpose. Instead, the task of the library, in general, and librarians, in particular, should be to enact freedom before the very eyes of students. Institutions and individuals, in a liberal society, move forward, not through strict socialization, but via relationships that foster self-creation and communal-creation.
I agree with Amanda Cain in Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too, when she describes academic libraries as “Slipping Sanctuaries.” She writes at length:
In its history, the university—with its classical, monastic, or natured settings—has always served as a quintessential space for thought. Expressly, it has been an ivory tower where a student might look up and look down, alone, and take his or her bearing on the universe. But this function is slighted more and more in an age that demands material results: the utilitarian, the legislated, the countable, the visible, the noisiest in the bustle and stir. Mankind’s future does not beg for hasty and showy improvements, however. If new generations are to arrive at new perspectives and realize better realities, they must face the future with the ability to cultivate long-standing love and deep-rooted wisdom. Developing abilities for untrammeled and full-capacity thinking and imagining is the primary duty of a university; all other university activities should grow out of this enterprise (2003, 11).
Libraries are full of books, and books are read in order to enlarge the sense of what is important and possible for individuals and for society. The libraries social function, then, is not necessarily teaching, research, or the latest fad. It is not necessarily the communication of knowledge. It’s role takes shape in stirring things up. The role of the librarian is not to direct students into a particular frame of thought. The role of the librarian is to instill doubts into students’ own self-images and the society to which they belong. After all, the moral consciousness of each new generation is always up for grabs.
Still, there remains a tension between public rhetoric and a private sense of mission. So, there are gaps between strict socialization and self/communal-creation. How then, in a liberal society, does an academic librarian address information needs? First, students ought to have access to common reference points with people and thoughts from previous generations and in other social classes and regions of the world. Second, academic librarians should be able to relate, to students, the books that have shaped and inspired them. The first need brings together individuals across both generations and geographical boundaries through similar historical accounts and through similar narratives. The second need addresses individuals and communities at a relational level that goes beyond paper and pen, extending, further, into the realm of intellectual imagination and curiosity.
This entry has not addressed management, per se. However, it does address the concern of change and the library’s role in a rapidly changing world. Our understandings of management and organizational behavior will be deeply persuaded by the ways we understand and view the changes that are happening around us. The ways in which we view change will shape the ways in which we accept and advance change in our libraries. One should not swear off any and all change. Instead, condoning positive change should be pursued-- Change that does not forsake our past for false wisdoms. This entry condones change that embraces our past, our present, and our future. In a Western world that is too quick too follow prescription fads, perhaps we ought not forget Michael Moore’s confession, “I really didn’t realize the librarians were, you know, such a dangerous group…They are subversive. You think they’re just sitting at the desk, all quiet and everything. They’re like plotting the revolution, man. I wouldn’t mess with them” (Raish 2003, 124).
Sources:
Raish, Martin H (Ed.). (2003). Musings, Meanderings, and Monsters, Too: Essays on Academic Librarianship. Lanham, Maryland and Oxford: The Scarecrow Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)