Education and public libraries — Remarks on a dilemma.

Introduction.

The central problem for public libraries, in their present and future place in US public services, is not the libraries themselves; with their characteristic plans for services and education; the values that might be related, in short form, to those of Jeffersonian democracy. This problem concerns their context, our socio-economic control system. This system is called democratic, but the perpetuation, for example, of obvious radical inequality in many forms makes this a very questionable label. The social control mechanisms conceal many things. There is much propaganda directed to accepting (or simply ignoring) what we see. But the dilemma for the public libraries, again, is not what they are or might be – their adaptability in a more digital future.

The dilemma, expressed in a too-short form: libraries often present their “Jeffersonian” plans and values to a Machiavellian socio-economic power structure. The complexity of the US, its pluralism or social fragmentation, should not keep us from recognizing this stark contrast; or think we might avoid the greatly unwanted implications the contrast holds.

The objective here is to discuss this dilemma, which is in part reducible to contrasting values. These values and associated ideas are reduced further to two characteristic patterns. Comprehensive treatment is not intended. Describing such essential features frames an important part of a critical debate for public libraries and their national setting. The term national setting indicates that broad contextual ideas are discussed, but again through stressing key elements. These elements provide structure for the contrast and dilemma, but not fullness or detail.

The structural elements are the following: (1) a characteristic value/objective group drawn from sources like the ALA, with emphasis on democratic education; (2) similar key features/objectives of the predominant US socio-economic system — our neoliberal control system; (3) and finally, with noting key features of each group, a discussion of the conflict; thus limited reflections on certain aspects of this dilemma. A primary intention of this design, again, is to stress an unfortunate conflict for the public libraries in the present. The point is to pursue clarity, and help to cultivate greater cooperation in the future; not to foster division. But if libraries intend to maintain greater independence, and hold their key values, a decided effort is needed to confront, as possible, the groups that threaten them in this effort.

The era of US neoliberalism.

There appears to be a need, strangely enough, as one begins to introduce the US context for purposes here, to stress the idea the US has been overtaken by the ideas of neoliberalism. Strange, as this is held by countless writers as obvious, like green grass and blue skies; yet it is still not clear this is generally recognized in the US – the true center of the events. This is not just a matter of terminology; it appears many citizens do not see the totalizing pattern of the influence of economics on their political structure; and in practically every area beyond. Yet it is not part of our scope to address this strange issue, the lack of awareness; but note this as a baseline interpretive feature: we live in the era of neoliberalism.

One acknowledges neoliberalism is not a monolithic idea pattern. It is so widespread, and has taken so many forms, perhaps a starting description is in order. The following is from “Criticism of Neoliberalism”,* by Butterwegge, Lösch, Ptak, and Engartner:

“Criticism of Neoliberalism. Introduction. “Neoliberalism“ refers to a doctrine developed since the 1930s that positions the market as an absolute or unrestricted control mechanism for social development and decision making processes. It concerns a broad intellectual stream with different historical and country-specific adaptations, strategy types, and practices. One should really say (then) “neoliberalisms“, based on developing various theoretical premises and ideas. As a sociopolitical project neoliberalism strives for capitalism without social welfare system/state limitations.

 Most representatives of neoliberalism do not use this term to describe themselves, because it is seen as derisive or intended for political attack. Among its critics also, the influence and activity potential (options) of neoliberalism are disputed: Some saw its endpoint reached, even before it achieved great political and social power in Germany. Yet to the present [in Germany], neoliberalism determines (public) policy, Mass Media, and broad public awareness more strongly than any other world view.” (…)

“Neoliberal thought has expanded into almost every area of life and its hegemony, that is, the public opinion leadership of market radicalism, is very difficult to break through. Despite this protest is more frequent, because the internal contradictions of neoliberalism are more apparent and its negative consequences for society, the social welfare system, and democracy cannot be overlooked.” (…)

“Whoever – as with many neoliberal proponents – positions the capitalistic economy as absolute, fundamentally negates democratic politics and representative democracy, for both require majority decision making — and not private ownership of the means of production – as the central point of social development processes.” [Emphasis added.]

*[„Kritik des Neoliberalismus“. Christoph Butterwegge, Bettina Lösch, Ralf Ptak; Unter Mitarbeit von Tim Engartner 1. Auflage 2007 © VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007.]

With this a word about mental compartments – with iron clad ideas of “the left” or “the right wing”: at this late date, with the full triumph of this movement, it is less useful to fix too much attention on partisan labels; no doubt neoliberalism in early phases was a social/political project of certain parties, but it is now so pervasive (and controlling), it has transcended these early boundaries. The movement has become our national environment. Therefore criticism (here) is directed to the body of ideas and their consequences, not toward a particular party in the US. It becomes misleading to assign the discussion to a partisan “mental box” – as a pretext for dismissal, or to overlook the obvious pervasive character the ideas show in the present.

This pervasive aspect is suggested also by the ALA’s recent “National Policy Agenda for Libraries”:

“The baseline economic outlook includes the assumption that the trend of increasing commercial influence and control over the public’s access and engagement with information will continue. Other trends such as widening income disparity and shifts in demographics also are assumed to continue.”

(ALA. “A National Policy Agenda for Libraries. The Policy Revolution! Initiative. p.1-2. From here, noted as ALA NPA.) (http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/pdfs/NPAforLibraries1.pdf)

There is not a reference to neoliberalism, just the acknowledgement of expected national conditions. “Increasing commercial influence” (in key areas) and “widening income disparity” are simply expected. The features and trends are anticipated without noting their historical origin, or more distinct ideological conditions. Considering the pervasiveness and influence of neoliberal ideas, this view is understandable. It reflects a kind of institutional pragmatism for their policy program.

The discussion pursued here is not a direct part of a program or agenda. It is not about tactics or strategy for funding. The concern rather, ultimately, is the comparison of different sets of values, of key ideas. This suggests a different interpretive project. How ideas treated here might fit into a program to present “to decision makers and influencers in the coming two to five years” (ALA NPA, p.2) is taken as largely outside the present scope. Yet there is strong agreement that “increasing commercial influence” and “widening income disparity” will only continue – as these aspects reflect the neoliberal system in firm control.

+++++++

A “Sidebar”.

First. When private enterprise overtakes the government, then speaking against “business” becomes a kind of thought crime. (Welcome to 1984.) One sees (absurd) extremism, criticizes this quality – and becomes unpatriotic.

Second. From John Jay (1745–1829), First US Supreme Court Justice: “The people who own the country ought to govern it.”

This is certainly what we see. But there are many citizens who do not accept a system that automatically gives them second class status (or worse) — based solely on wealth. The structural force or “violence” for this system does not have to be overt: “democracy” at the end of the rifle. Passive acceptance of ideology is enough. This is certainly what we see.

+++++++

Although “increasing commercial influence” and highly negative social results are characteristic of neoliberal systems, describing the system itself in a concise way has its pitfalls. Restrictions must be noted. The neoliberal systems have developed for several decades, in a wide range of countries. As Harvey and others note, the implementing of key ideas and policies has evolved considerably within these countries. As the economic events around 2008 show, there are also “before and after” conditions for crises, as well as more gradual or evolutionary changes to be noted for any kind of overview. A short-form description of the full range of material is clearly not feasible, and should not be asserted.

A more reasonable short-form approach is to describe a neoliberal system in the sense of characteristic features. The intention will be to convey something essential about its history and more current aspects. The focus is the US, but the international scale is noteworthy. There is a large potential literature with many useful treatments of the neoliberal system(s); yet two were chosen for the purposes here: “A Brief History of Neoliberalism”* by David Harvey, and Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism”. The Harvey text has a more international scope. Wolin’s discussion centers on the US, and political theory issues. The sources are complimentary in these ways. A selective combination from these (and other) sources offers a group of characteristic features. Initially, the features are more listed than structured, but a more analytical form will be given in moving to the interpretive areas that follow. Presenting a neoliberal system idea provides a larger context for these more interpretive sections.

*[“A Brief History of Neoliberalism”, by David Harvey. Oxford University Press Inc., NY. 2005. Kindle Edition.]

Also, for clarity, brief additions are needed about the scope of a neoliberal system idea. As given before, the US, our socio-economic system, is the main arena of discussion: this is the system, or group of characteristic elements used, to convey this “idea”. Thus we note our socio-economic system is only part of a (possible) short list of institutions under neoliberal influence:

  1. The US national government, and other governmental levels
  2. Private corporations
  3. The “amalgamation” of 1 and 2 (as from Wolin)
  4. Neoliberalism as related to globalization: neoliberal globalization as a category, referring to international level corporate and governmental institutional forms, etc.
  5. Other institutions and areas, such as cultural institutions

The emphasis for our purposes, for discussing public library services in the US context, refers mainly to listed areas 1-3. For this, the next section will focus on Harvey’s chapter “The Neoliberal State”, which suggests an independent governing entity. Yet this independence is misleading: a complex institutional form has emerged in the US, more “neoliberal corporation” than state; at least according to many skeptics. Noting characteristic features suggests, in any case, that the neoliberal influence on the US has been immense, and decisive.

The neoliberal state

The material treated here from Harvey’s discussion of the neoliberal state (Chapter 3) emphasizes theory, practice, and various problems; especially “tensions and contradictions”. The comparison of the first and second categories leads almost inevitably to the third, for as he says with typical reserve, after 30 years of effects, the “neoliberal state may be an unstable and contradictory form”. (p.64) He leaves little doubt, eventually, that both problems are clearly true. A more extended excerpt from his text is given first, followed by selected central points:

“The Neoliberal State in Theory.”        [Emphasis added.]

  • “According to theory, the neoliberal state should favour strong individual private property rights, the rule of law, and the institutions of freely functioning markets and free trade.1 These are the institutional arrangements considered essential to guarantee individual freedoms. The legal framework is that of freely negotiated contractual obligations between juridical individuals in the marketplace. The sanctity of contracts and the individual right to freedom of action, expression, and choice must be protected. The state must therefore use its monopoly of the means of violence to preserve these freedoms at all costs. By extension, the freedom of businesses and corporations (legally regarded as individuals) to operate within this institutional framework of free markets and free trade is regarded as a fundamental good. Private enterprise and entrepreneurial initiative are seen as the keys to innovation and wealth creation. Intellectual property rights are protected (for example through patents) so as to encourage technological changes. Continuous increases in productivity should then deliver higher living standards to everyone.” (p.64)
  • “Neoliberals are particularly assiduous in seeking the privatization of assets. … Sectors formerly run or regulated by the state must be turned over to the private sphere and be deregulated (freed from any state interference).” (p.65)
  • “Competition––between individuals, between firms, between territorial entities (cities, regions, nations, regional groupings)––is held to be a primary virtue.” (p.65)
  • Reform. “The neoliberal state should persistently seek out internal reorganizations and new institutional arrangements that improve its competitive position as an entity vis-à-vis other states in the global market.” (p.65)
  • Individual “responsibility” (burden) – never social conditions. “While personal and individual freedom in the marketplace is guaranteed, each individual is held responsible and accountable for his or her own actions and well-being. This principle extends into the realms of welfare, education, health care, and even pensions …  Individual success or failure are interpreted in terms of entrepreneurial virtues or personal failings … rather than being attributed to any systemic property … ” (p.65-66)
  • “The free mobility of capital between sectors, regions, and countries is regarded as crucial. All barriers to that free movement (such as tariffs, punitive taxation arrangements, planning and environmental controls, or other locational impediments) have to be removed, except in those areas crucial to ‘the national interest’, however that is defined. State sovereignty over commodity and capital movements is willingly surrendered to the global market.” (p.66)
  • “International agreements between states guaranteeing the rule of law and freedoms of trade, such as those now incorporated in the World Trade Organization agreements, are critical to the advancement of the neoliberal project on the global stage.” (p.66)
  • “Neoliberal theorists are, however, profoundly suspicious of democracy. Governance by majority rule is seen as a potential threat to individual rights and constitutional liberties.” (p.66)

 

Again, this is a very selective list of features. We note also, especially, that the longer initial quote offers a mild and clear exposition, full of pleasant abstractions. Other features are at times more pointed, in particular the phrase “suspicious of democracy”. Yet the mild and moderate tone should not cause one to overlook ideas (provided earlier) from the “Criticism of Neoliberalism” text: there is a strong subtext of extremism; as the market is positioned as the absolute center of “social development”. The implications of this are clearly immense: it implies a conception of state function and policy initiatives for shifting a great deal of power and control to private enterprise/institutions and toward “private” principles. There is a great (theoretical) subservience of the state and citizens to these institutions and ideas. The inclusion of democratic terms such as individual freedom should not cause one to miss that this is “freedom” largely redefined or limited to market freedom – not at all an encouragement of any political freedom – for individuals – that might disrupt economic activity. The extremism is in evidence, even with this selective list of theoretical features.

Put differently, the quality of extremism can be more latent than (simply) overt; this is partly the “absolute” market idea from the “Criticism of Neoliberalism” text, what is more implied in theory and then demonstrated in practice. There are also “tensions and contradictions” in the theory, as noted by Harvey. Experience provides vivid examples, but the problems are also “internal” or conceptual.

Chief among Harvey’s contradiction questions are monopoly, market failure, and “equal information” in markets. Markets are in theory self-regulating, to be left open, free. Yet the state role is to act, too: to “preserve” these conditions, foster them. Thus there is an immediate contradiction between an intervening and non-intervening state.

In the case of monopoly, this is a problem; as Harvey notes, we often find that “stronger firms drive out [the] weaker”. (p.67) (Do we need more vivid examples than Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google?) Theoretical purity calls for less intervention, but are monopolized markets open?

Another contradiction comes from market failure. Even writing in 2005, thus before the 2008 crisis, Harvey notes that state intervention in such situations is theoretically problematic. (p.67)

The theoretical presumption of “equal information” deserves mention as well. This knowledge fiction between market actors seems entirely out of touch with real conditions. For an example, not from his text, concerning users of Facebook: how many people have knowledge parity in this sort of circumstance? What is known about the vast store of trade secrets and technology involved? Is the nature of the transaction with using this “free” service generally known? This is of course a living example, of practice; yet it illustrates the emptiness of “perfect information” as a meaningful presumption (or principle). (p.68)

With considering certain theoretical problems, we turn to the neoliberal state in practice, drawing very briefly on this extensive section from Harvey’s work. Two points emphasized there plus remarks will suffice.

“The Neoliberal State in Practice.” [Emphasis added.]

“There are two arenas in particular where the drive to restore class power twists and in some respects even reverses neoliberal theory in its practice. The first of these arises out of the need to create a ‘good business or investment climate’ for capitalistic endeavours. While there are some conditions, such as political stability or full respect for the law and even-handedness in its application, that might plausibly be considered ‘class neutral’, there are others that are manifestly biased. The biases arise in particular out of the treatment of labour and the environment as mere commodities. In the event of a conflict, the typical neoliberal state will tend to side with a good business climate as opposed to either the collective rights (and quality of life) of labour or the capacity of the environment to regenerate itself. The second arena of bias arises because, in the event of a conflict, neoliberal states typically favour the integrity of the financial system and the solvency of financial institutions over the well-being of the population or environmental quality. (p.70-71)

Contemporary practices with respect to finance capital and financial institutions are perhaps the most difficult of all to reconcile with neoliberal orthodoxy. Neoliberal states typically facilitate the diffusion of influence of financial institutions through deregulation, but then they also all too often guarantee the integrity and solvency of financial institutions at no matter what cost. This commitment in part derives (legitimately in some versions of neoliberal theory) from reliance upon monetarism as the basis of state policy––the integrity and soundness of money is a central pinion of that policy. But this paradoxically means that the neoliberal state cannot tolerate any massive financial defaults even when it is the financial institutions that have made the bad decisions. (p.72-73)

The issue of state intervention was noted first in the area of contradictions and theory. Here we find added, in particular, a bias for intervention that favors the “business climate”, and against the environment and labor if a choice must be made. This priority is expected for support of financial institutions as well. Both interventions are said to reflect a “drive to restore class power”, even in conflict with neoliberal theory. (p.70-71)

Harvey’s point concerning the theory and practice gap is not minor. Although one point of many in his text, it is arguably quite central. It tells us something essential about the neoliberal state, about a neoliberal system “idea”. As he is nearing the chapter’s end, a related summary statement is given:

“At the heart of the problem lies a burgeoning disparity between the declared public aims of neoliberalism––the well-being of all––and its actual consequences––the restoration of class power”. (p.79-81)

Even this short-form description can suggest the seriousness of this central problem. Theoretical points given above: privatization, competition, institutional reform, individual “responsibility” – even a partial list – indicate both areas of “serious” discussion, and of rhetoric for public or mass consumption: the “declared public aims” for neoliberalism. The rhetoric of the “well-being of all”, compared with practice and “actual consequences”, Harvey offers, suggest rather different projects. These projects do not have to be mutually exclusive. His point, rather, is that the real priority is to advance the interests of a comparatively small political/financial group. This is a primary function of the neoliberal state. The rhetoric for the public or masses is largely misleading – yet apparently effective. Meanwhile, the accumulation of power and control for a limited group continues. In turning to Wolin’s text we find similar views, although with different terms: the US as “Democracy Incorporated”.*

[To be continued.]

*[“Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism”. By Sheldon Wolin. 2008. Princeton University Press. New edition, with an introduction by Chris Hedges, 2017. Kindle Edition.]