Remarks on an autonomous model for public libraries, part 2.
Contents:
- Introduction.
- The US context.
- A potential response for public libraries.
- Knowledge equality and inequality.
- A different knowledge standard for education and library services.
- Translation of “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”. (The Beutelsbach Consensus).
- Indoctrination, or an informed citizenry?
- Bernays and propaganda.
- Conclusion.
Key areas and ideas:
- Public libraries. Reference and information services.
- Knowledge. Information. Education. Citizenship.
- Democratic ideals. Power relationships. Equality and inequality.
- Autonomy. Self-determination. Intellectual independence.
- Social control systems. Indoctrination. Bureaucracy. Management systems.
- Self-Interest. Public interest. Common good.
Introduction.
These remarks further explore ideas noted in “A sketch for a public library model, part 1”: essentially, on autonomy for citizens and public libraries. This is a delicate issue in the US, as historical materials clearly show a mixed picture for this area. Along with much vaunted democratic values, sometimes found in institutions, there are other ideologies at work, clearly against central values like equality and citizen’s autonomy.
The US context.
We have social conditions dominated by corporate-bureaucratic (control) structures. In these conditions, there is a dominant model — the commodification of everything — so everything can function in a market, in commerce, and thus regulated (controlled) in this system. Public services, including public library information services are obviously subject to this pervasive influence, to the leading ideas behind commercialization.
Despite the importance of commercialization, or pervasiveness of neoliberal ideas, describing this situation is not the object of these comments. We note the context to stress the need to resist these powerful influences, to make a contrast clear.
A potential response for public libraries.
In contrast to this dominant system, we can offer an equality-centered democratic model for information services – based on values of autonomous citizenship, on education, knowledge, or information for this model. There is a strong implication of maintaining a separate area of activity, to cultivate other democratic and educational ideas.
Citizens in a library are patrons, not customers or consumers. There is, arguably, another separate role related to public interest, the common good, and a (higher) standard for knowledge (or information services) to go with this conceptual separation. Obviously self-interest has its place, but knowledge and education do not have to be reduced to this level – there are conceptual alternatives to self-interest.
Knowledge equality as part of maintaining a separate area of public library services.
- Foster the individual citizen, forms of equality for democratic participation, and popular sovereignty. A central idea for this is knowledge equality. This implies active support in various areas. Certainly public education is a primary area for this. As possible, this is a universal (equal) project. The intention is therefore also collective. Expanding equality is a primary goal.
2. The dominant US model has little place for popular sovereignty. Corporate/bureaucratic hierarchies are the rule, in many senses, which reveals a particular stress on knowledge inequality. Knowledge inequality is a tool for exclusion; a way of maintaining power and advantage over others. Clearly this takes many forms, thus it is not only political. This model against equality and popular sovereignty is systematic.
Thus in the present US, a main objective is to diminish equality for “elite” sovereignty — or at the least, to maintain established inequalities. The average person, masses, etc. are pre-judged incapable of significant democratic participation. The rhetorical tradition for this prejudice goes back to Hamilton and Madison.
A different knowledge standard for education and library services.
For those questioning the US as under the control of a managing (political-economic) elite, close attention to public education and its objectives should answer their skepticism. If the US had any sort of broad, serious educational intentions for popular sovereignty, there would be evidence of this in the schools; and there would be credible institutions for substantive citizenship beyond this as well.
A careful reading of the following ideas on democratic education , the “Beutelsbach Consensus”, should provide a stark contrast with US educational practices, and by extension, the actual or effective intellectual character of our political institutions (beyond public schooling). These ideas suggest also a beginning point for an education and knowledge model – separate from the system in place; a group of interrelated ideas for composing a democratic knowledge standard (in support of citizens and equality).
These guidelines for political instruction in German schools emerged from meetings in the Fall of 1976. The intention was to resolve conflicts about instructional content and bias. (“What is the Beutelsbach Consensus” by Irina Schumacher. http://www.politische-bildung-bayern.net/fachbeitraege/item/248-was-ist-der-beutelsbacher-konsens).
Translation of “Der Beutelsbacher Konsens”, (1976).
Prohibition on exerting pressure. It is not permitted – by any means – to pressure students into accepting a given opinion, and thereby preventing them from developing their own views. This marks exactly the difference between political education and indoctrination. Indoctrination is unacceptable for the teacher’s role in a democratic society, and for the uniformly accepted goal of developing student’s independence and maturity of judgment.
Controversial political and scholarly issues should be presented as such to students. This requirement is closely tied to the previous statements, for if a variety of views are not presented, (key) options may be lost, with remaining alternatives harder to place and assess. This can contribute to indoctrination. The question arises whether the instructor even has a corrective role here, meaning whether contrasting views in particular need development; so that students, and other participants in political instruction events, are provided with views differing from those of their respective social and political backgrounds.
It is clear then, that in giving these two basic principles, why the teacher’s personal point of view – either as academic/theoretical perspective or political opinion – becomes comparatively uninteresting. To restate the example: the teacher’s view of democratic ideas presents no problem, because opposing views are also fairly presented.
Students must be instructed in such a way as to comprehend their own interests and a given political situation. This is understood to include ways and means for exerting influence in a political circumstance, in accord with their perceived interests. Such goals include then a considerable stress on skills for personal involvement, taken as a logical consequence of the previous main principles.
(Original German text: http://www.didactics.eu/fileadmin/pdf/beutelsbacherkonsens.pdf )
Indoctrination?
The “Consensus” text raises many important educational issues. One in particular is stressed here. There is an unfortunate implication in considering the (US) vocational narrowness, and the (related) lack of attention to materials for autonomy and citizenship in education: an implied indoctrination in the US. (One assumes there are exceptions to this, too.) Indoctrination is a somewhat harsh term, but one must remember this is not just a matter of what is taught, but what is omitted; and also, a conclusion from taking a hard look at intended results. The schools reflect the larger political system they work in. This explains, but does not exactly exempt them from their problems in this domain. Alternatives are available. The project of an “informed citizenry” appears to be optional. The ALA stresses the importance of an informed citizenry for a democracy, as a core value:
“Core Values of Librarianship. Democracy. A democracy presupposes an informed citizenry. The First Amendment mandates the right of all persons to free expression, and the corollary right to receive the constitutionally protected expression of others. The publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of the community the library serves.” (ALA). [Emphasis added.]
The ALA excerpt stresses collections and access for the library role, rather than a larger educational process per se. But the value of democracy is linked with the idea of an informed citizenry. Certainly the library role is understood to be part of this larger process.
“Controversial political and scholarly issues should be presented as such to students”. The extreme influence and role of certain economic principles, commonly called neoliberalism, are a major political and ideological force in the current US. It is also highly controversial, and almost certainly our guiding general social pattern. To not teach this along with alternatives, cast in a responsible historical frame, is a clear attempt to merely assimilate – indoctrinate – students to/in this system. Is there a serious public education effort to teach this material and its alternatives? The main answer, unfortunately, is this is not permissible by those in charge; it would undermine the effectiveness of the control system.
This example of seriously presenting controversial ideas shows, as well, what knowledge equality and a higher knowledge standard can mean. To actively pursue these knowledge goals in the library, however, shows libraries working in a separate and more autonomous way.
Bernays and propaganda — and the democratic public.
It is not an entirely pleasant undertaking to add examples to stress why this special effort for library autonomy is needed. Yet libraries must contend with actual US conditions, not ignore them. In part, these conditions can be related in a brief look at the issues of propaganda and the manipulation of public opinion. This area is complex, and no claim for thoroughness is made here. In the interest of knowledge equality, a higher knowledge standard, and the public library role for these, however, a brief look is entirely appropriate.
In his recent preface to Bernay’s (1928) “Propaganda”, titled “Edward Bernays and the invention of ‘invisible government’ “, Normand Baillargeon offers a brief history of the rise of Bernays and public relations.* The perspective is critical, as Baillargeon regards the manipulation of the public by government and powerful private groups as antidemocratic. There is a blatant posture of “controllers and controlees” – which is regarded by Bernays (and Walter Lippmann, etc.) as the right and necessary way of regulating the masses in a modern democracy. In the section “Propaganda and Invisible Government against Democracy”, we find the following:
“It is crucial to remember how much of what is proposed here [in the book Propaganda] contradicts the modern ideal of democracy, as inherited from the Enlightenment. We should recall the point where Bernays, as with the industry he fashioned [PR], shows an astonishing aptitude for duplicity. This is the simultaneous declaration of his concern for truth and free discussion – and (then) also accept that truth is provided by a client at the beginning of a campaign; and this campaign will involve making all needed means available – including, if absolutely necessary, [disregarding] truth itself – for creating belief in an idea or behavior among the people. These people are viewed, antecedently, as incapable of really understanding what is at stake [“in play”], and therefore one has the right to use what Plato called ‘noble lies’ “.*
We see an unmistakable paternalism: yes, we are deliberately misrepresenting things, but it is for your own good, as you (the citizen) are not capable of understanding. This is, in part, what is at stake for public libraries, and their role in the larger US context; where they are supposed to represent the interests of all citizens – the public interest – not just the power of a privileged few.
*For the main text: Edward Bernays. “Propaganda : Comment manipuler l’opinion en Démocratie.” Traduit de l’anglais (États-Unis) par Oristelle Bonis. Préface de Normand Baillargeon. Ouvrage initialement paru sous le titre “Propaganda” aux éditions H. Liveright, New York, en 1928 et réédité chez Ig publishing en 2004. © Edward Bernays, 1928. © Pour la traduction française, Zones / Éditions La Découverte, Paris, 2007. Le présent document pdf fut réalisé par le réseau La Dissidence – ( https://la-dissidence.org/ ). For the Preface: « Edward Bernays et l’invention du ‘Gouvernement Invisible’ » par Normand Baillargeon.
Before summarizing material above, a point noted in the part 1 sketch is repeated: public libraries (in all their variety) are part of a current national context requiring special attention. In a sense, libraries are caught between conflicting political ideals: the more recent commercial-democratic forms in power, and their own, stated, social democratic (citizen-oriented) past; at least as reflected by key ALA documents. Such political conflict might be unwelcome. Yet whether libraries can be neutral in the face of political ideas and programs aiming to extinguish them as institutions – through privatization – is a challenging question. Much depends on what is meant by neutrality. Very close attention to larger forces around them, i.e. political-commercial pressures, seems (at the least) advisable.
Conclusion.
Thus in beginning a summary, the US context and library response are leading concerns. The US context is too complex for a single label of course. Instead, the very suggestive idea of a commercial-democratic system was offered. This dominant model routinely reflects a totalizing system, with everything, as possible, an object in a market. Less sympathetic observers will stress this political system as more commercial than democratic.
A potential response for libraries is to maintain independence in this US context, as circumstances allow. This autonomy in turn permits them to serve all citizens, a public interest or common good. Key elements go with this: a stress on equality, especially as knowledge equality; and a higher knowledge standard for democratic education and discussion.
The Beutelsbach Consensus presents these ideas of knowledge equality and higher standard in a potent form. We are reminded there, too, just how far our institutions typically are from reflecting these standards. A critical but honest view of public education, especially post-secondary, shows an emphasis on vocationalism and narrowness. The general character is closer to indoctrination, rather than the ALA democratic value of an informed citizenry.
This negative aspect of public education, so close to indoctrination, is a systemic problem. Teachers are working in a vast bureaucratic system, many with undoubted excellent intentions. But a given context imposes constraints. The commercial-democratic system has its effects. The general stress on narrow vocationalism is not friendly to ideals like knowledge equality, educational balance, and intellectually autonomous citizens.
The material offered on propaganda and Bernays, although brief, shows a similar disregard for a genuinely intellectually independent public. Baillargeon suggests that the Bernays (and Lippmann) group had, and their followers still have, intentions of deliberate public manipulation. This “invisible government” Baillargeon discusses is viewed as clearly anti-democratic, aimed instead at elite control.
Vocational education and pervasive propaganda techniques are not the complete US scene. Yet as major elements in this setting, they have a place in a discussion of a more autonomous public library. Are these somewhat piercing, unflattering? Yes. Are we interested in presenting a balanced US context, an accurate history, a composite of positive and negative features? This seems to depend on what is meant by “we”.
This discussion repeatedly raised the idea of a complex national canvas. In a sense, this complexity is undeniable. In another, perhaps this quality is exaggerated. Philosophy-tinged discussion implies open, continuous effort. Yet two points are contrasted, and offered for their ethical and equality-related content: (1) Public libraries can reinforce a political control system for a privileged few, which is clothed in democratic terms; or (2) stress the power implications of equality and autonomy – in support of the common good, and with the ALA, a genuine well-informed citizen ideal. Such a contrast can serve as a limited guide, despite the ongoing need for attention to difficult conditions.
Edward Eggleston
