Submission Type
Paper Abstract Submission
Symposium Selection
Post-neutrality librarianship
Abstract
Public libraries have often been viewed as integral parts of the Habermasian public sphere and arenas for democratic dialogue. At the same time, they are also frequently declared safe spaces for marginalized groups, almost as a given. Situated in the specific context of Norwegian public libraries and with a focus on LGBTQIA+ users, I will examine tensions between these two theoretical approaches to the public library space.
Visibility across differences is a common thread running through the Nordic literature on libraries and the public sphere. Ragnar Audunson writes, for example, that libraries are low-intensive meeting places “with a potential of making us visible to one another across social, ethnic, generational and value-based boundaries" (2005, p. 436). This visibility is primarily framed in terms of the majority experience — “we” develop tolerance through exposure to the Other, which in turn benefits all and the democratic process. But what does this mean for marginalized library users in general, and queer users in particular?
Often described as part of an 'invisible minority', queer users are less satisfied with public libraries overall, feel less safe and welcome in the library space, and experience more frequent negative interactions with both library staff and other patrons (the author, 2021). In my recent thesis work, I asked over 900 respondents — 642 of them LGBTQIA+ — to rate their agreement with the statement “I always feel that I can be completely myself at the library”. This (among other questions) was aimed at uncovering whether freedom of expression, inclusivity, and disregard of status — institutional criteria necessary for the emergence of a functioning public sphere — are present in Norwegian public libraries. Only 23% of transgender and nonbinary library users strongly agreed with the statement, in comparison with 41% of cisgender LGBQA+ users and 67% av cisgender, heterosexual respondents. Additionally, In regions where cisgender, heterosexual respondents felt more free to be themselves at the library, queer users felt correspondingly less free to do so. What can be said about the library as a safe space in light of these findings? Can libraries fulfill their role as low-intensive meeting places and egalitarian arenas for public discourse when those of us belonging to marginalized user groups do not feel wholly included or able to express our full selves?
It seems clear that libraries cannot be either effective drivers of democratic deliberation or truly safe spaces without the stewardship of librarians committed to these decidedly non-neutral values. But even with a post-neutrality approach, is it possible for libraries to be both? Social justice-oriented praxis and post-neutrality librarianship are in their nacense in the Norwegian library sector. With this contribution, I aim primarily to articulate questions that may serve to prompt a necessary conversation about how librarians can work to reconcile these two views of the library as public space.
References:
Alexander, J. C. (2001). Theorizing the “Modes of Incorporation”: Assimilation, Hyphenation, and Multiculturalism as Varieties of Civil Participation. Sociological Theory, 19(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00139
Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61(3), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510598562
Aycock, A. (2018). Libraries as Safe Spaces for LGBT+ Patrons. Information Today, 35(3), 6-7.
Bohman, J. and William Rehg, W. (2017). "Jürgen Habermas", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/
Campbell, D. G., & Cowan, S. R. (2016). The Paradox of Privacy: Revisiting a Core Library Value in an Age of Big Data and Linked Data. Library Trends, 64(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0006
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, p. 56-80. https://jstor.org/stable/466240
Klatran, H. K. (2019). «Jeg prøver å fremstå så mandig som jeg kan». Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 43(03), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-1781-2019-03-06
Larsen, H. (2020). The public sphere and Habermas: reflections on the current state of theory in public library research. Journal of Documentation, 77(1), p. 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0075
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Newman, J. (2007). RE-MAPPING THE PUBLIC: Public libraries and the public sphere. Cultural Studies, 21(6), 887–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380701470916
Public sphere institutions or safe spaces — can libraries be both?
Public libraries have often been viewed as integral parts of the Habermasian public sphere and arenas for democratic dialogue. At the same time, they are also frequently declared safe spaces for marginalized groups, almost as a given. Situated in the specific context of Norwegian public libraries and with a focus on LGBTQIA+ users, I will examine tensions between these two theoretical approaches to the public library space.
Visibility across differences is a common thread running through the Nordic literature on libraries and the public sphere. Ragnar Audunson writes, for example, that libraries are low-intensive meeting places “with a potential of making us visible to one another across social, ethnic, generational and value-based boundaries" (2005, p. 436). This visibility is primarily framed in terms of the majority experience — “we” develop tolerance through exposure to the Other, which in turn benefits all and the democratic process. But what does this mean for marginalized library users in general, and queer users in particular?
Often described as part of an 'invisible minority', queer users are less satisfied with public libraries overall, feel less safe and welcome in the library space, and experience more frequent negative interactions with both library staff and other patrons (the author, 2021). In my recent thesis work, I asked over 900 respondents — 642 of them LGBTQIA+ — to rate their agreement with the statement “I always feel that I can be completely myself at the library”. This (among other questions) was aimed at uncovering whether freedom of expression, inclusivity, and disregard of status — institutional criteria necessary for the emergence of a functioning public sphere — are present in Norwegian public libraries. Only 23% of transgender and nonbinary library users strongly agreed with the statement, in comparison with 41% of cisgender LGBQA+ users and 67% av cisgender, heterosexual respondents. Additionally, In regions where cisgender, heterosexual respondents felt more free to be themselves at the library, queer users felt correspondingly less free to do so. What can be said about the library as a safe space in light of these findings? Can libraries fulfill their role as low-intensive meeting places and egalitarian arenas for public discourse when those of us belonging to marginalized user groups do not feel wholly included or able to express our full selves?
It seems clear that libraries cannot be either effective drivers of democratic deliberation or truly safe spaces without the stewardship of librarians committed to these decidedly non-neutral values. But even with a post-neutrality approach, is it possible for libraries to be both? Social justice-oriented praxis and post-neutrality librarianship are in their nacense in the Norwegian library sector. With this contribution, I aim primarily to articulate questions that may serve to prompt a necessary conversation about how librarians can work to reconcile these two views of the library as public space.
References:
Alexander, J. C. (2001). Theorizing the “Modes of Incorporation”: Assimilation, Hyphenation, and Multiculturalism as Varieties of Civil Participation. Sociological Theory, 19(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00139
Audunson, R. (2005). The public library as a meeting-place in a multicultural and digital context: The necessity of low-intensive meeting-places. Journal of Documentation, 61(3), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510598562
Aycock, A. (2018). Libraries as Safe Spaces for LGBT+ Patrons. Information Today, 35(3), 6-7.
Bohman, J. and William Rehg, W. (2017). "Jürgen Habermas", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/
Campbell, D. G., & Cowan, S. R. (2016). The Paradox of Privacy: Revisiting a Core Library Value in an Age of Big Data and Linked Data. Library Trends, 64(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0006
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Social Text, 25/26, p. 56-80. https://jstor.org/stable/466240
Klatran, H. K. (2019). «Jeg prøver å fremstå så mandig som jeg kan». Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning, 43(03), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-1781-2019-03-06
Larsen, H. (2020). The public sphere and Habermas: reflections on the current state of theory in public library research. Journal of Documentation, 77(1), p. 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0075
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Newman, J. (2007). RE-MAPPING THE PUBLIC: Public libraries and the public sphere. Cultural Studies, 21(6), 887–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380701470916