The Role of Multidimensional Library Neutrality in Advancing Social Justice: Adapting Theoretical Foundations from Political Science and Urban Planning

Michael Quinn Dudley, John Wright

Abstract


There is an ongoing, polarizing debate in the library profession and scholarship regarding the perceived incompatibility between library neutrality (embedded in the profession through the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights), and social justice goals. This article asserts that the growing antipathy on the part of some library practitioners and scholars towards neutrality and intellectual freedom is owed at least in part to the profession and scholarship having never articulated an adequate definition of what is meant by neutrality. As a result, the profession lacks a theoretical framework situating the library and library staff as political actors within a multicultural and largely urban society. We argue that such a framework may be drawn from the literatures of political science and urban planning. By positioning libraries and library workers within the context of liberal-democratic institutions – as is the case for urban planners in their theoretical literature – LIS theory can find more durable foundations for its core values. Stressing planning’s commitments to the participation of multiple publics, to dialogue, mediation and to consensus-building through liberal institutions, we develop a multidimensional understanding of neutrality premised on values, stakeholders, processes and goals which we then apply to these planning modes. Finally, we propose a model of “Communicative Librarianship” as best exemplifying these four dimensions of neutrality and their attendant democratic commitments.


Full Text:

HTML PDF

References


American Library Association. 1999. “Libraries: An American Value.” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/americanvalue.

American Library Association. 2019a. “Core Values of Librarianship.” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/corevalues.

American Library Association. 2019b. “Meeting Rooms, Exhibit Spaces, and Pograms.” https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/spaces.

American Library Association. 2021. “Resolution to Condemn White Supremacy and Fascism as Antithetical to Library Work.” https://tinyurl.com/yr4z9e8x.

Berninghausen, D. 1972. “Social Responsibility vs. the Library Bill of Rights.” Library Journal 118 no. 15 (1972/1993): S1.

“Berninghausen Debate, The.” 1973. Library Journal 98: 25–41.

Burgess, John T. F. 2016. “Reconciling Social Responsibility and Neutrality in LIS Professional Ethics: A Virtue Ethics Approach.” In Information Cultures in the Digital Age, 161–72. Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Campbell, H., and R. Marshall. 2002. “Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning.” Planning Theory 1 no. 2: 163–87.

Canadian Association of Professional Academic Librarians (CAPAL). 2019. “CAPAL Statement on the Toronto Public Library’s October 29, 2019 Meghan Murphy Event.” https://capalibrarians.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CAPAL-TPL-Statement-6-November-2019-1.pdf.

Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Davidoff, P. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 no. 4: 331–38.

Dunleavy, P., and B. O’Leary. 1987. Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy. London: Macmillan.

Emran, Shahram Ahmadi Nasab. 2015. “The Four-Principle Formulation of Common Morality is at the Core of Bioethics Mediation Method.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal 18 no. 3: 371–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9612-7.

Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkely: University of California Press.

Freidson, E. 1999. “Theory of Professionalism: Method and Substance.” International Review of Sociology 9 no. 1: 117–29.

Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Gardner, Gabriel J. 2022. “Intellectual Freedom and Alternative Priorities in Library and Information Science Research: A Longitudinal Study.” IFLA Journal (January): https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211061176.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. “An Alternative Way Out of the Philosophy of the Subject: Communicative Versus Subject-centered Reason.” The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 294–326.

Harper, T. L., and S. M. Stein. 1995. “Out of the Postmodern Abyss: Preserving the Rationale for Liberal Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, no. 4: 233–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400401.

Harper. T. and S. Stein. 2006. Dialogical Planning in a Fragmented Society: Critically Liberal, Pragmatic, Incremental. Edison, NJ: CUPR/Transaction.

Hartman-Caverly, S. 2022. “A Librarian, a Priest, and a Prison Warden Walk Into a Bar.” Heteroodoxy in the Stacks. July 21.

Healey, P. 1992. “Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” The Town Planning Review 63, no. 2: 143–62.

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Jacobs, J. 1961/1992. The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1st Vintage Books). New York: Vintage Book.

Khachaturian, R. 2019. “Bringing What State Back In? Neo-Marxism and the Origin of the Committee on States and Social Structures.” Political Research Quarterly 72, no. 3: 714–26.

Knowles, E. C. 2018. “Can Libraries be Neutral? Should They Strive to be Neutral?” BCALA News 45 no. 2: 28–30.

Knox, E. J. M. 2020. “Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice: Tensions Between Core Values in American Librarianship.” Open Information Science 4, no. 1: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2020-0001.

Lewis, A. M. 2008. Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Lindblom, C. E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through.’” Public Administration Review 19: 79–88.

Lind, E. 2010. “Distributive Justice.” In Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, edited by J. M. Levine and M. A. Hogg, 218–19. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Litwin, R. 2018. “SRRT Action Council Statement on Hate Speech and Libraries.” Litwin Books and Library Juice Press. August 15. https://litwinbooks.com/srrt-action-council-statement-on-hate-speech-and-libraries/.

Mäntysalo, Raine. 2005. “Approaches to Participation in Urban Planning Theories.” Rehabilitation of Suburban Areas–Brozzi and Le Piagge Neighbourhoods: 23–38.

Meiklejohn, A. 1948. Free Speech and its Relation to Self-government. New York: Harper.

Minow, M., and T. Lipinski. 2002. Library’s Legal Answer Book. Chicago: ALA Editions.

Mill, J. S. 2011. On Liberty. Luton, England: Andrews UK.

Owens, M. R., and M. R. Braverman. 1974. The Public Library and Advocacy: Information for Survival: A Commissioned Paper Under the Commissioned Papers Project, Teachers College, Columbia University (Ser. Ed 098 991). New York: Columbia University.

Popowich, S. 2019. Confronting the Democratic Discourse of Librarianship: A Marxist Approach. Sacramento, CA: Library Juice Press.

Popowich, S. 2020. “The Antinomies of Academic Freedom.” Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianship 6: 1–28.

Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism (Ser. The John Dewey Essays in Philosophy, no. 4). New York: Columbia University Press.

Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1972. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning (Ser. Working paper, no. 194). Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.

Saks, M. A. 2016. “Review of Theories of Professions, Organizations and Society: The Case for Neo-Weberianism, Neo-institutionalism and Eclecticism.” Journal of Professions and Organization 3: 170–87.

Samek, T. 2001. Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility in American Librarianship, 1967–1974. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sandercock, L. 1999. “Planning’s Radical Project: What’s the Pedagogy?” Planner’s Network. January. https://www.plannersnetwork.org/1999/01/plannings-radical-project-whats-the-pedagogy/.

Schrader, A. 2019. “Can Public Libraries Maintain Their Commitment to Intellectual Freedom in the Face of Outrage Over Unpopular Speakers?” The Centre for Free Expression, August 15. https://tinyurl.com/h7zke977.

Schrader, A. 2020. “Should Public Library Boards Embrace Intellectual Freedom as Their Institutional Soul?” Centre for Free Expression. April 27. https://tinyurl.com/yd4nz85p.

Seeberg, M. 2012. “Democracy and the Limits of Self-government by Adam Przeworski.” Acta Polit 47: 327–31.

Silver, E., and J. Iceland. 2021. “Disputes Over DEI Depend on How You Define Fairness.” Heterodox: The Blog. June 1. https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/disputes-over-dei-depend-on-how-you-define-fairness/.

Simon, H. A. 1945/1976. Administrative behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

Sparanese, A. 2008. “Activist Librarianship: Heritage or Heresy?” In Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian, edited by A. Lewis, 67–81. New York: Library Juice Press.

Wenzler, J. 2019. “Neutrality and Its Discontents: An Essay on the Ethics of Librarianship.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 19, no. 1: 55–78.

Wiegand, Wayne A. 2015. Part of Our Lives: A People’s History of the American Public Library. Oxford: Oxford University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/jifp.v7i3.7840

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




ALA Privacy Policy

© 2023 OIF