New York City is one of the world’s leading cities. It is recognized globally for it’s innovative designs and planning. Though New York is forever changing and is always in constant motion, it is no secret that it takes a while before any ideas are implemented. Concerns about New York City’s public libraries have been brought to the public’s attention and debates over solutions are currently in the works. Now this is not another article about the tragedy public libraries face with underfunding. Though it is a serious concern, it might help to focus on the issues facing patrons. If the problems affecting patrons are addressed, libraries will then have someone to fight for them other than librarians.

Libraries have kept up pretty well with the changes in technology. Library items and data are easily accessible through any device. All libraries at this point have online public access catalogs (OPAC) that allow patrons to access the items at their convenience . This immediate accessibility from home devices or mobile devices is the main reason visitor numbers are declining. But should these technological advances steer people away from libraries? Are libraries doing something wrong?

Maybe the terrible florescent lighting or the ugly 1980’s dorm furniture are the reason people just don’t want to stay and do their work in a library. People would rather sit packed side by side surrounded by the grinding of espresso machines and tangled charger cords under their feet at a coffee shop than sit quietly at library. Something is off putting about the atmosphere. If libraries are moving toward becoming community centers they need to consider re-inventing their space. In simple terms, they need to be as cool as coffee shops.

It is possible that the interior design of public libraries is so dull and bleak because librarians cannot find descriptive words to paint a portrait of who they are and what they would like to represent. To create a space that captures the libraries’ ideals, librarians need to identify them first. In Andre Cossette’s Humanism and Libraries: an Essay on the Philosophy of Librarianship, Cossette argues that without a true grasp on their identity and a philosophy of their work, librarians will essentially never reach their true potential [1]. Though his argument has entails a more complex discussion of the philosophy and identity of librarianship, its basic premise is this: if librarians find a philosophy and identity they agree on, they might have time to focus on other issues that face the field, like attracting more visitors.

North Carolina State University recently rebuilt their library. Their new design and approach is something to admire. Not only is the building modern and equipped with the newest and latest technology, it’s also a place where people want to be. The library attracts both students and faculty. What makes it so different? For one, it throws tradition out the window. The typical quiet atmosphere you think of when libraries are mentioned is not NCSU’s main selling point (not to say that in order to be hip and relevant tradition cannot be present). What NCSU accomplished was being able to increase their visitor rate by re-inventing a space that the users can enjoy. The designers of the space worked with the staff and librarians to create an environment that captures what they would like to represent to their users. A library should not be an intimidating institution and that’s what NCSU was able to achieve.

Here’s what they did right:

1. Robot Alley/ Entrance (Watch book-bot Machinery and explore on the giant touch screen wall.)
2. Makers’ Space (including 3D printers and larger printers for art projects)
3. Gamers’ Lab (provides gaming equipment for users as well as a catalog of student made video games)
4. Black Box Theater (Performances based space that provides projector and audio equipment)
5. White Box Room (Art space with green screen, video production and whiteboard walls.)
6. Seminar rooms and study rooms all equipped with white boards, projectors and flat panel displays)
7. Rain Garden Reading Lounge (provides solo space for individuals, comfortable modern furniture and a relaxing environment)
8. Skyline Reading Room/Terrance (open during nice weather and used for special events)
9. Individual/Group computer work stations
10. Auditorium for various events

Obviously, an average New York City public library cannot house all these different functions due to space and funding limitations but there is no reason public libraries cannot build off of this idea. Librarians can transform their space without demolishing the existing building and starting from scratch. They do not need an expensive flashy design to ensure attendance. Visitors (as well as librarians) just don’t want to feel alienated. People want to feel a part of a collective, they want to be “cool”, they want to be noticed and they want to participate. Even the lone individual goes to read in a library to participate in a social interaction. Here’s what NYC public libraries should consider:

1. Group Space (for students who have group projects and need a place to meet.)
2. Discussion Space (a place where conversation is encouraged/ community gathering)
3. Snacking Space (an area designated for the workers who snack in between)

Discussing the motive and purpose behind the space should be encouraged among librarians. Once they agree on an idea, consulting with board members, donors, management and staff will help put the transformation into effect. But before any actions are taken, librarians need to forge a unified identity that will be the foundation for libraries as inviting spaces for social gathering and development.

---

[1] André Cossette, author, and Rory Litwin, translator. Humanism and Libraries: An Essay on the Philosophy of Librarianship. Duluth: Library Juice Press, 2009

Discussion about the social role of librarians is increasingly common with the advent of the digital age, but these topics are not new. For instance, in 1972 the book Revolting Librarians, was independently published by a group of librarians who were idealistic about the role they should play in society and were fed up with the tendency of their superiors to try and stop political activism. This issue is central to the essay collection Questioning Library Neutrality, edited by Alison Lewis. While the book succeeds in presenting the potential risks that come from neutral librarianship, if a bit dramatically, it does not allow much room for debate on the meaning of neutrality, nor does it provide many suggestions for how librarians and students of library and information science can work to mitigate these problems. Overall, the collection provides an introduction to the concept of neutrality but the essays included often rely on strong language and scant evidence to substantiate sweeping claims, while neglecting to address current efforts being undertaken to create more active librarianship.

By being neutral, the editor suggests that librarians run the risk of “promulgating misinformation or worse.” [1. Alison M. Lewis (2008) “Questioning Neutrality: An Introduction.” Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian (pp. 1-4). Duluth: Library Juice Press, (2)] These concerns inspired her to compile this collection. It is comprised of 11 essays, each originally published in the journal Progressive Librarian and presented in chronological order from their original publication date. Her aim with this collection is to “stimulate further interest and debate about the concept of neutrality within the library community,” [2. Ibid., 4] and each of the articles within the collection is opposed to neutrality. While there are some issues with the book, it is a fairly short introduction to various aspects of neutrality and how it can manifest in libraries. The arguments may be a bit strong but overall it is a book that would be helpful for those new to the field as it is accessible to those unfamiliar with debates about neutrality.

There are many organizations that work for more freedom of expression within the library sector and encourage librarians to be activists both nationally and in their communities, none of which are discussed in this collection. These groups include Radical Reference, the Progressive Librarian’s Guild, and the Alternative Media Task Force. These are groups of activist librarians and each run different programs and initiatives to promote equality and support certain social causes. For instance, the Alternative Media Task Force works to include materials by alternative publishers in collections and Radical Reference examines corporate activity in the library sector and monitors it in case of unethical activity. However, none of the essays in this collection make note of any of these initiatives. The essays were originally published in Progressive Librarian, which is the journal of the Progressive Librarian’s Guild, and it seems unlikely that the authors would not know of any of these groups or activities. Adding examples of work done by these groups or others would have contributed a great deal to the arguments in each of the essays and to the collection as a whole.

Lewis concludes her introduction by claiming that “‘neutrality’ no longer means ‘impartiality’ or ‘objectivity,’ but too often lapses into ‘indifference.’” [3. Ibib., 4]. This brief statement is the closest thing to a definition of neutrality in the entire collection. This lack of a definition is the most glaring weakness of the book. None of the essays include a definition of neutrality in libraries or what being a neutral librarian entails. The authors seem to define neutrality as maintaining the status quo and ignoring social and political issues, but it is never explicitly stated. Additionally, each essay uses harsh, negative language when discussing the issue. This conceptual ambiguity makes it difficult for readers to draw independent conclusions as the explanations force them to conceive of neutrality only in negative terms. For instance, in Sandy Iverson’s article, “Librarianship and Resistance,” she says that, by striving to be neutral, “librarians responsible for acquisitions may be recreating racist censorship in their daily practices of selecting from lists of materials produced by mainstream publishing houses and other organizations that perpetuate these patterns.” [4. Sandy Iverson, “Librarianship and Resistance.” (2008) Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian (pp. 25-32). Duluth: Library Juice Press, 27.]  Peter McDonald, in “Corporate Inroads and Librarianship: The Fight for the Soul of the Profession in the New Millennium,” suggests that that by striving for neutrality, librarians are being complicit in corporate hegemony and control of information. [5. Peter McDonald, “Corporate Inroads and Librarianship: The Fight for the Soul of the Profession in the New Millennium,” Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian (pp. 9-24). Duluth: Library Juice Press, 10.] And in “The Hottest Place in Hell: The Crisis of Neutrality in Contemporary Librarianship,” Joseph Good discusses neutral librarianship as being on par with Switzerland’s smuggling of “millions of Deutschmarks of stolen Jewish money, in the form of gold bullion, out of Nazi Germany during the height of the Holocaust.” [6. Joseph Good, “The Hottest Place in Hell: The Crisis of Neutrality in Contemporary Librarianship.” Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian (pp. 141-146.) Duluth: Library Juice Press, 142.] From all this, a reader can hardly draw any conclusion other than that neutrality is bad, but would not be able to say exactly what it is.

Another weakness of the collection is that most essays do not provide any workable suggestions or proposals of how to combat the negative effects they describe and how librarians can be more active. As mentioned above, there are many organizations working for more active librarianship, but these are not discussed. One essay in the collection, “The Professional is Political: Redefining the Social Role of Public Libraries,” written by Shiraz Durrani and Elizabeth Smallwood, is an exception. The essay focuses on the program called Merton Sense, which was designed for local youths to “connect young people, many of whom were from socially excluded groups, with their library service by actively engaging young people in designing the new service.” [7. Durrani, Shiraz & Smallwood, Elizabeth (2008). “The Professional is Political: Redefining the Social Role of Public Libraries.” Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian (pp. 119-140). Duluth: Library Juice Press, 132.] The program resulted in the youths becoming engaged with the library and furthering their education, and was also beneficial for the library as it resulted in increased participation and interest from the local community. While the authors also neglect to define neutrality, the article offers an impartial examination of the problem and an example of ways it is being addressed in practice, which is more productive when addressing challenges to the profession.

This collection was meant to stimulate debate about the concept of neutrality in librarianship, but the uncompromising negative language of the authors combined with a lack of definition for neutrality greatly limit its potential impact. Also, without current projects to promote more activist librarians, the authors neglect an important aspect of the issue, which is taking steps to mitigate any harmful effects. Looking at and discussing those sorts of initiatives that encourage librarians to engage their communities and be more representative of different groups of voices would have been more productive than simply identifying problems without offering solutions.