Submission Type
Paper Abstract Submission
Symposium Selection
Equity, diversity, and inclusion
Keywords
Public libraries, public sphere, accessibility, antagonistic politics, democracy, Fraser
Abstract
In library policies and library and information studies Habermas concept of public sphere is often used to highlight the public library as a place promoting democracy and inclusion by enabling interpersonal meetings between people with different lifestyles and background. Libraries are then conceived as accessible to all bridging social, economic, and cultural gaps, and promoting a perception of shared values between users (Aabø et al. 2010). I argue that vulnerable and excluded groups thereby may be hindered to form their own identity and to make their voices heard.
Accessibility and participation are core concepts when analysing libraries democratic potential. However, the meanings of these concepts are seldom defined. At the moment, I investigate how accessibility and participation are used in Swedish library policies and illuminate the vagueness of the concepts. Some policies portray the library as already accessible to all, while others divide the library users into “regular users” (simply referred to as users) and “users with specific needs”. For example, some arrangements are described as improving accessibility in general, even though some users are unable to benefit from them. Other arrangements, such as installing an audio induction loop, are put forth as special adjustments to accommodate a specific need. Thereby, users in need of hearing aid are not included when policies refer to “all users”.
This exemplifies that inequalities, exclusion and inaccessibility are prevalent issues at public libraries. Nancy Fraser (1990) critiques Habermas notion of public sphere since it put differences between participants in brackets, as if they were social equals. However, factors such as gender, disabilities and socio-economic factors have always excluded persons from the public sphere. In addition, Fraser emphasize that the public sphere neither historically nor today consist of a single unified sphere, but many.
I consider Fraser’s critique crucial for understanding libraries democratic potential. Rather than focusing on libraries role to promote shared values and identity, it can be seen as a place open for a diversity of users and a plurality of social identities. Instead of striving for consensus, conflicts could be accommodated within the library and practiced as struggles between adversaries – and not enemies (Mouffe 2013). In library policies, a pluralistic approach should therefore be promoted, and issues of exclusion and inequalities addressed.
In this conceptual paper I draw on my empirical research on accessibility and participation and investigate the library’s role as a place that enables multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power. Instead of bridging the borders by absorbing the less powerful into a unified hegemonic identity, borders can then be transgressed when diverse people interact and debate dissimilar views.
References
Aabø, S., Audunson, R., & Vårheim, A. (2010). How do public libraries function as meeting places? Library and Information Science Research, 32(1), 16–26. https://doi-org.ludwig.lub.lu.se/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.008
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social text, 25/26, 56-80.
Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London, Verso.
Included in
Libraries as pluralistic public spheres: Acknowledging conflict to promote democratic discourse
In library policies and library and information studies Habermas concept of public sphere is often used to highlight the public library as a place promoting democracy and inclusion by enabling interpersonal meetings between people with different lifestyles and background. Libraries are then conceived as accessible to all bridging social, economic, and cultural gaps, and promoting a perception of shared values between users (Aabø et al. 2010). I argue that vulnerable and excluded groups thereby may be hindered to form their own identity and to make their voices heard.
Accessibility and participation are core concepts when analysing libraries democratic potential. However, the meanings of these concepts are seldom defined. At the moment, I investigate how accessibility and participation are used in Swedish library policies and illuminate the vagueness of the concepts. Some policies portray the library as already accessible to all, while others divide the library users into “regular users” (simply referred to as users) and “users with specific needs”. For example, some arrangements are described as improving accessibility in general, even though some users are unable to benefit from them. Other arrangements, such as installing an audio induction loop, are put forth as special adjustments to accommodate a specific need. Thereby, users in need of hearing aid are not included when policies refer to “all users”.
This exemplifies that inequalities, exclusion and inaccessibility are prevalent issues at public libraries. Nancy Fraser (1990) critiques Habermas notion of public sphere since it put differences between participants in brackets, as if they were social equals. However, factors such as gender, disabilities and socio-economic factors have always excluded persons from the public sphere. In addition, Fraser emphasize that the public sphere neither historically nor today consist of a single unified sphere, but many.
I consider Fraser’s critique crucial for understanding libraries democratic potential. Rather than focusing on libraries role to promote shared values and identity, it can be seen as a place open for a diversity of users and a plurality of social identities. Instead of striving for consensus, conflicts could be accommodated within the library and practiced as struggles between adversaries – and not enemies (Mouffe 2013). In library policies, a pluralistic approach should therefore be promoted, and issues of exclusion and inequalities addressed.
In this conceptual paper I draw on my empirical research on accessibility and participation and investigate the library’s role as a place that enables multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power. Instead of bridging the borders by absorbing the less powerful into a unified hegemonic identity, borders can then be transgressed when diverse people interact and debate dissimilar views.
References
Aabø, S., Audunson, R., & Vårheim, A. (2010). How do public libraries function as meeting places? Library and Information Science Research, 32(1), 16–26. https://doi-org.ludwig.lub.lu.se/10.1016/j.lisr.2009.07.008
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social text, 25/26, 56-80.
Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London, Verso.