James Weinheimer wrote :
> I thought I knew how libraries worked (I had a master's degree
> by then) and in library school, I realized I didn't understand
> much at all.
I too thought I knew how libraries worked ( I had a doctor's
degree and years as a faculty member by then ), but subsequently,
in and after library school, I realized that my understanding had
been essentially more or less correct -- except that the reality of
how they worked was less sophisticated and savvy than I had
secretly hoped. ( Quite a disappointment, but I wasn't one to
complain ; and anyway, it was too late. )
But all of this in itself is really neither here nor there.
The point is not that people know how libraries work, or ought to
know how libraries work, or should as widely as possible learn,
or be encouraged to learn, how libraries work.
[ If that were so, then we'd be talking here less about what's
in people's or society's or say a university's interest than about
what's in the interest of the traditional library establishment. ]
The point is that libraries know how people work. And until that
becomes the guiding principle of everything that librarians do
and think, no amount of (self-)acclaim as truth experts, guides
to truth-finding, trainers in truth-seeking, "objective 'truth'"
( as John put it ) specialists, experts in critical thinking,
indispensable selectors, or yes even "philosophers" ( David's
description ) is going to help the least bit ( except in terms
of their own ego-boosting ).
The frame of mind that leads to such formulations deserves,
for my part, to be called "patronizing" ( and I believe that e.g.
Rettig, whom I mentioned, would not disagree ). But for my
part, and if anybody feels offended or that his or her soul is
being stepped on, let us just refrain from using that particular
word. "Pointless", "futile", and "counterproductive" are more
accurate characterizations anyway.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
Received on Thu May 26 2011 - 11:43:12 EDT