A friend recently forwarded an article to me by John Degen, the executive director of the Writers' Union of Canada. In the article, Degen asks the question:
"Are libraries losing their way in the digital age?"
It is a very timely and thought-provoking question. Degen's job is to protect the rights of Canadian authors, and this shapes his view of what a publicly-funded library should be. He doesn't like the fact that so many libraries are re-branding themselves as "information commons." He feels this posture is self-defeating and worries that the rush to digitization and the promise of universal access to information is just the first step towards the privatization of information. He cites the controversies surrounding Google Books and Canadiana.org as examples of this kind of slippery slope. He worries that putting everything online will only end up making the institution redundant, and points out, quite rightly, that "digitization" isn't the same thing as "preservation." If everything is available on his iPhone, he wonders, then "why bother with libraries at all? Let's just make sure everything is available digitally, and we can tear down all those dusty old buildings." In the current model, he charges, "serious research of actual information is often now secondary to entertainment. Is that really what we want from our libraries?"
It's clear that Degen believes that libraries should concentrate on collections. He doesn't mention library programming at all. This is very out-of-step with current library thinking, where the library is seen as a public space that allows for the free exchange of information in whatever form. But then Degen is defending what he believes to be the traditional role of the library.
These are all very good points, but it's clear from some of his comments that Degen is not very familiar with library practices. For example, he wonders if the attraction of digitization is due to the fact that libraries are running out of space. Well, yes, of course this is the attraction. Libraries are always running out of space. That is why we frequently purge our collections to make room for new material. We call it "weeding" to make it sound more attractive, but it has been a common practice for decades. The other whimsical notion he has is that books on library shelves are loaned "many hundreds, if not thousands of times." Anyone who has worked in a library knows that this is not true. Modern books start to fall apart after the first dozen or so readers. It's rare for a book to survive thirty readers, let alone a hundred.
Degen mentions Anthony Panizzi, the Principal Librarian of the British Museum Library from 1856 to 1866, who said:
I want a poor student to have the same means of indulging his learned curiosity, of following his rational pursuits, of consulting the same authorities, of fathoming the most intricate inquiry as the richest man in the kingdom, as far as books go, and I contend that the Government is bound to give him the most liberal and unlimited assistance in this respect.
He admires the sentiment, but wonders if it is realistic. But then, Degen admits he is not a populist. "Libraries are not about commonality; they're about exceptionalism." (I can think of a few librarians who would take issue with that statement, particularly those in the community-led libraries movement, who see libraries as the front line in helping the homeless and the disadvantaged). Libraries, according to Degen, should be about learning and self-improvement, not about streaming Netflix or updating your Facebook page. This is a very conservative view of what a library should be, but it is a valid one and worth considering in a time of rapid change. You can read the entire article
here.
