What do you think?
Rate this book
Barbarians at the Gates of the Public Library: How Postmodern Consumer Capitalism Threatens Democracy, Civil Education and the Public Good by Ed D'Angelo
Barbarians at the Gates of the Public Library is a philosophical and historical analysis of how the rise of consumerism has led to the decline of the original mission of public libraries to sustain and promote democracy through civic education. Through a reading of historical figures such as Plato, Helvetius, Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill, the book shows how democracy and even capitalism were originally believed to depend upon the moral and political education that public libraries (and other institutions of rational public discourse) could provide. But as capitalism developed in the 20th century it evolved into a postmodern consumerism that replaced democracy with consumerism and education with entertainment. Public libraries have mistakenly tried to remain relevant by shadowing the rise of consumerism, but have instead contributed to the rise of a new barbarism and the decline of democracy.
Paperback
First published November 15, 2006
1 person is currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 19, 2007
An interesting but sort of muddled book that traces philosophical, political, and economic ideas of the public good (in particular, as it relates to the mission of the public library) and how these ideas have been eroded by consumer capitalism.
I'm not going to dwell on the typos, or on the author's use of the same quotations in multiple instances (sometimes these were lengthy passages from Plato, or a quotation that appeared twice within the space of about five pages), or on the use of explanatory examples that read more like digressions (I'm thinking in particular of a really long explanation of signifier/signified/referent that actually made me forget what any of those terms meant).
I guess the big issue I have is that so much of the author's argument is the high culture vs. popular culture one. I think he's absolutely right that libraries--public libraries in particular, but even academic libraries are not immune--have drifted away from education and toward entertainment in response to the pressures of a fragmented marketplace in which citizens/patrons are little more than consumers/customers. The thought of calling what we do at reference desks or in classrooms "customer service" is, to me, maddening, horrifying, and kind of vomit-inducing, so I'm really sympathetic to this argument. However, I lost a bit of this sympathy when I began to realize that the "barbarians" in the title doesn't refer to politicians or other nefarious agents of capitalism, but rather to the uneducated masses, the poor fools who don't know that they're supposed to want more for themselves than the latest bestseller and who need the wise Librarian to set them straight. This kind of thinking--the "grand civilizing mission" idea--is the part of being a leftist that I find both demoralizing and incredibly counterproductive.
I'm not going to dwell on the typos, or on the author's use of the same quotations in multiple instances (sometimes these were lengthy passages from Plato, or a quotation that appeared twice within the space of about five pages), or on the use of explanatory examples that read more like digressions (I'm thinking in particular of a really long explanation of signifier/signified/referent that actually made me forget what any of those terms meant).
I guess the big issue I have is that so much of the author's argument is the high culture vs. popular culture one. I think he's absolutely right that libraries--public libraries in particular, but even academic libraries are not immune--have drifted away from education and toward entertainment in response to the pressures of a fragmented marketplace in which citizens/patrons are little more than consumers/customers. The thought of calling what we do at reference desks or in classrooms "customer service" is, to me, maddening, horrifying, and kind of vomit-inducing, so I'm really sympathetic to this argument. However, I lost a bit of this sympathy when I began to realize that the "barbarians" in the title doesn't refer to politicians or other nefarious agents of capitalism, but rather to the uneducated masses, the poor fools who don't know that they're supposed to want more for themselves than the latest bestseller and who need the wise Librarian to set them straight. This kind of thinking--the "grand civilizing mission" idea--is the part of being a leftist that I find both demoralizing and incredibly counterproductive.
February 20, 2008
Horrible book clearly written by an academic librarian dressed as a public librarian. Insists that public librarians are educators--just like those whiny academic librarians. "I'm a teacher. I really, really am." Borrows very heavily from other sources on economic theory--then adds bits about applicability in public libraries. Quote: "But, what people want is not necessarily the same as what people would want if they were sufficiently well informed to know what their best interests were." Wow. In other words, you people are too stupid to know you should be reading, so I'm going to tell you. I got the giggles from the number of times he argues that my desire to provide popular materials in my libraries has contributed to the decline of democracy in America. What a load to bare! That will be a difficult one to share with the children: "sorry kids, in an effort to stay relevant, daddy has fed the barbarians and brought down our country in the process. Yep, daddy has punched high culture in the face and contributed to the death of democracy." O wretched man that I am. The bottom line is that ALL public libraries are local. All of them. If you don't fit the needs of your local customers (yep, I said customers--NOT patrons. Another in a series of heresies...), you will shut down. Just my two cents...
March 2, 2008
As an overview of the political and economic history of Western civilization in just over 100 pages, particularly focusing on the rise of modern capitalism as it relates to /hinders democracy, fine. An careful, fair, and thoughtful examination of the plight of public libraries in America? Not so much.
November 27, 2012
I would have given this book four stars if it didn't make the future look so darn bleak for libraries.
May 16, 2017
Apologies in advance for the big block of text. These are simply reactions I wrote down in an annotated bibliography, meant just for me, not to be a standard essay or review or anything. But I feel so negatively toward this book that I must release these (unedited!) fragments into the world:
To go along with many other repeated phrases, quotes, and ideas, D’Angelo on at least a few occasions rehashes the tired cliché that anarchy is equivalent to chaos and is but a step above total degradation into tyranny. D’Angelo, drawing from a retrogressive allegiance to Mill and ethical liberalism, favours a public library model based on impartial (and restrictive) bureaucracy and the librarian as “critical gatekeeper”—“a professional authority or expert who decided on the basis of some intellectual or aesthetic standard what would be admitted to the culture and what would not” (p. 50)—for the ignorant, uneducated masses, who don’t know enough to know their own desires, behaving as children do. This elitist, classist approach to a public service surely has limited appeal, as does D’Angelo’s entire approach: the book provides such a surface-level summary of the major developments in Western philosophy and economics that anyone with any familiarity of the topics will find the treatment shallow and unengaging; on top of that, there is limited discussion of the public library. As a result, philosophers, economists, and librarians alike will find little of relevance. This surface-level treatment of the topics extends to D’Angelo’s overall arguments as well, drawn from a shockingly low number of sources and mired as they are in stale notions of dualities: high vs. low culture, education vs. entertainment, “democracy” vs. capitalism. Ironically, the democracy he advocates is representative liberal democracy, grounded in notions of voting and the supremacy of the state. Yet, while he criticizes self-help books and “popular imaginative literature” alike because “[t]hey do not challenge us to question our desires or beliefs about them” (p. 28), he accepts the legitimacy of the representative democratic nation-state and, indeed, centralized authorities and hierarchies more generally, “the rule of law”, the efficiency of the bureaucracy, the virtues of a (pre-postmodern consumerist) capitalist system based on morality, and even the apparently sacred and beneficial bond between feudal lord and serf! Transformative resistance to capital and the nation-state in no way enters the discussion, nor do the desires of anyone but the elite (who know what’s best for everyone else). D’Angelo’s entire analysis of Western culture is one firmly rooted in the written word, dismissing oral cultures as backwards, as things of the distant past. For example: “Folk culture was the oral culture of the common people of pre-industrial society” (p. 51). And again: “At least until the 1950s the printed word served as the basis of the culture as a whole. Since the time of Aristotle the West distinguished humans from animals by their ability to speak. Human culture was created by the Word and the printing press allowed the Word to be efficiently preserved. […] As repositories of all that has been printed, or at least of all printed material that is worth preserving, libraries defined the culture” (p. 56)”. Whose culture? The high culture (as opposed to folk culture and pop culture) that D’Angelo so values, one can assume. While he is clearly against postmodern consumer capitalism and, with it, neoliberalism, he believes—uncritically accepts, I might add—that classical liberalism is the only alternative. The result is a limited, unengaging, incomplete, ineffective, and exclusionary view of public library services. A true critique of public library services must go well beyond something like this, if we are to remain in any way relevant to our communities (whose localized needs, of course, do not factor into D’Angelo’s conception of the public library).
To go along with many other repeated phrases, quotes, and ideas, D’Angelo on at least a few occasions rehashes the tired cliché that anarchy is equivalent to chaos and is but a step above total degradation into tyranny. D’Angelo, drawing from a retrogressive allegiance to Mill and ethical liberalism, favours a public library model based on impartial (and restrictive) bureaucracy and the librarian as “critical gatekeeper”—“a professional authority or expert who decided on the basis of some intellectual or aesthetic standard what would be admitted to the culture and what would not” (p. 50)—for the ignorant, uneducated masses, who don’t know enough to know their own desires, behaving as children do. This elitist, classist approach to a public service surely has limited appeal, as does D’Angelo’s entire approach: the book provides such a surface-level summary of the major developments in Western philosophy and economics that anyone with any familiarity of the topics will find the treatment shallow and unengaging; on top of that, there is limited discussion of the public library. As a result, philosophers, economists, and librarians alike will find little of relevance. This surface-level treatment of the topics extends to D’Angelo’s overall arguments as well, drawn from a shockingly low number of sources and mired as they are in stale notions of dualities: high vs. low culture, education vs. entertainment, “democracy” vs. capitalism. Ironically, the democracy he advocates is representative liberal democracy, grounded in notions of voting and the supremacy of the state. Yet, while he criticizes self-help books and “popular imaginative literature” alike because “[t]hey do not challenge us to question our desires or beliefs about them” (p. 28), he accepts the legitimacy of the representative democratic nation-state and, indeed, centralized authorities and hierarchies more generally, “the rule of law”, the efficiency of the bureaucracy, the virtues of a (pre-postmodern consumerist) capitalist system based on morality, and even the apparently sacred and beneficial bond between feudal lord and serf! Transformative resistance to capital and the nation-state in no way enters the discussion, nor do the desires of anyone but the elite (who know what’s best for everyone else). D’Angelo’s entire analysis of Western culture is one firmly rooted in the written word, dismissing oral cultures as backwards, as things of the distant past. For example: “Folk culture was the oral culture of the common people of pre-industrial society” (p. 51). And again: “At least until the 1950s the printed word served as the basis of the culture as a whole. Since the time of Aristotle the West distinguished humans from animals by their ability to speak. Human culture was created by the Word and the printing press allowed the Word to be efficiently preserved. […] As repositories of all that has been printed, or at least of all printed material that is worth preserving, libraries defined the culture” (p. 56)”. Whose culture? The high culture (as opposed to folk culture and pop culture) that D’Angelo so values, one can assume. While he is clearly against postmodern consumer capitalism and, with it, neoliberalism, he believes—uncritically accepts, I might add—that classical liberalism is the only alternative. The result is a limited, unengaging, incomplete, ineffective, and exclusionary view of public library services. A true critique of public library services must go well beyond something like this, if we are to remain in any way relevant to our communities (whose localized needs, of course, do not factor into D’Angelo’s conception of the public library).
October 5, 2011
This volume starts with a set of Progressive political assumptions as "fact" and proceeds to review capitalism and consumerism as the root of all evils in the same way. Loosely linking Public Libraries into the bundle, the author then assigns blame to the short sightedness of the librarian's professional associations, the failure of the political and economic system to retain a steady state mechanism, and the educational stupidity of the public.
I guess if you are a radicalized socialist or an out and out Marxist, this book will gain some traction with you. However, if you are at all thoughtful and analytical, this volume will only win prizes in prolemics and inconsistant logic.
"Yes Virginia" there was a Santa Claus and the country was wealthy enough to start public libraries through the engines of capitalism and public participation. But alas, according to the author, what worked in the 19th and early 20th century has lost it's luster or at least it's beneficit economic status. The end is near, when in danger or in doubt run in circles scream and shout.
Sorry, but I have a more positive view of my countrymen, the values of our society, and the long term view that as messy as Democracy and Capitalism are, they are still better than anything else out there; even though I wonder about our citizen's politics on both sides of the aisle. "Yes Virginia" there is a Santa Claus and libraries will survive. You just have to recognize that change is a constant and they may not look like what this author thinks they should. Thankfully, no one died and made him the Library Czar.
John D. Berry, Librarian
U.C. Berkeley
I guess if you are a radicalized socialist or an out and out Marxist, this book will gain some traction with you. However, if you are at all thoughtful and analytical, this volume will only win prizes in prolemics and inconsistant logic.
"Yes Virginia" there was a Santa Claus and the country was wealthy enough to start public libraries through the engines of capitalism and public participation. But alas, according to the author, what worked in the 19th and early 20th century has lost it's luster or at least it's beneficit economic status. The end is near, when in danger or in doubt run in circles scream and shout.
Sorry, but I have a more positive view of my countrymen, the values of our society, and the long term view that as messy as Democracy and Capitalism are, they are still better than anything else out there; even though I wonder about our citizen's politics on both sides of the aisle. "Yes Virginia" there is a Santa Claus and libraries will survive. You just have to recognize that change is a constant and they may not look like what this author thinks they should. Thankfully, no one died and made him the Library Czar.
John D. Berry, Librarian
U.C. Berkeley
February 5, 2008
I don't know that I learned a lot; the book really mirrors a lot of issues I've been thinking about. To be honest the books begins with a longish overview of the history of public libraries in the United States, and I found that part a bit dull. And the author has an anti-free markets bent (so do I, so this isn't a criticism, but I felt I had to be up front). But the last few chapters hit home for me. I work in a public library, and am studying for my MLS, so I'm sensitive to the issues the author discusses. His greatest worry (and mine) is the tendency that we have to let consumer interest (via simple measures like circulation statistics) determine what materials libraries select and circulate. My own worries are not only about the types of books, but the other shenanigans that go on, like providing computers for information access that are mainly used for social networking (alas, not goodreads!) rather than information retrieval. And renting/circulating videos that pander to the lowest common denominator--although these circulate, even the 'educational' videos aren't that edifying. Many library patrons don't read anymore, and its scary for the future of democracy (which I believe is intimately connected with the written word) and the future of libraries. Plus, it's really obvious that I have a kindred spirit in this author, whose teeth are also set on edge by the people who call library patrons "customers". As he concludes, that thinking is how librarians will cease to exist.
April 30, 2008
Short book with a big view, Ed D'Angelo illustrates that the path American society is on undermines most commonly accepted societal values.
The book ended on a depressing note, nevertheless the book is worth reading and discussing.
Also valuable for introducing readers to Matthew Battles' book "Library: An Unquiet History" and Kathleen de la Pena McCook who wrote the preface.
The book ended on a depressing note, nevertheless the book is worth reading and discussing.
Also valuable for introducing readers to Matthew Battles' book "Library: An Unquiet History" and Kathleen de la Pena McCook who wrote the preface.
March 10, 2009
I couldn't finish it... it was that dull.
September 9, 2013
finally...
March 19, 2010
Well parts of this book were interesting, but D'Angelo makes tons of generalizations, is often quite redundant, and pretty much only mentions libraries in the first and last chapters. Weak.
October 26, 2011
Terrifying.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews