What do you think?
Rate this book
Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian
Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian presents essays that relate to neutrality in librarianship in a philosophical or practical sense, and sometimes both. They are a selection of essays originally published in Progressive Librarian, the journal of the Progressive Librarians Guild, presented in the chronological order of their appearance there. These essays, some by academics and some by passionate practitioners, offer a set of critiques of the notion of neutrality as it governs professional activity, focusing on the importance of meaningful engagement in the social sphere.
156 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2008
5 people are currently reading
556 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 - 28 of 28 reviews
December 11, 2009
Culling from the pages of Progressive Librarian journal, this collection of articles are united in their stance against library neutrality, a particular take on academic objectivity which holds that libraries should be agnostic towards the social value of library material in the selection process. Librarians generally hold to the notion that by remaining "objective" in the selection process, they are giving equal voice to all parties. What these Progressive Librarian's Guild members argue is that the library selection process is already unfairly weighted due to the inclusion of special interests (wholesalers, vendors, and other capitalists) in the selection process. Librarians who rely too heavily on vendors are already exhibiting bias against small & independent publishers, or against particular voices which the vendors themselves are biased against (and hence do not carry, or at least do not advertise). While I agree with the sentiments of the authors, the articles themselves read like typical library literature, and were not reworked to focus in on the theme of the book. Hence, the book is a bit lacking cohesion. Still, as a sampling of what one might find in the pages of Progressive Librarian this is a good collection.
August 29, 2022
As an MLIS student, I found this book very helpful. It brings to light the concept of neutrality and librarianship as either a myth that we currently accept or taken even further that neutrality is not as positive a thing as we think it is. Even in one of my recent courses when we discussed censorship, neutrality, and collection development, my professor emphasized the importance of neutrality when making decisions. Yet I’m not certain we can truly be considered neutral when deciding which books go and stay in libraries. Even how books are classified emphasizing the importance of certain genres of books over others. It offers plenty of food for thought.
September 20, 2021
Some thoughts:
--It's quite a bit older as non-fiction goes: 13 years as of this reading, though the bulk of the content is from the late 90s. The central point of discussion--whether libraries should or even can remain neutral--remains relevant, though. We're fighting about it just as fiercely as ever.
--The entire collection bends against neutrality, so if you're pro-neutral, it'll raise your hackles. It doesn't provide a balanced POV, whatever TF that even means anymore.
--Salient points get made. For example, if libraries want to "stay" neutral, they'd have to have been neutral in the first place, and they weren't and aren't. Also, neutrality isn't neutral--you're automatically on the side of the dominant group if you're sitting on the sideline with your mouth shut.
--The authors all have stances, but as with most info sci literature, they don't make many practical suggestions to address the issues they see. One essay even complains that the real problem is that our field focuses too much on practical application and hasn't created enough theory. I don't disagree, but I also remember how many of us complained about the lack of practical training in grad school. Students want to learn material that will help them get library jobs. Most won't go on to teach, which makes any contribution to scholarship or theory a net-zero prospect for most librarians and grad school students.
--It's not a fun read. Remember the overwritten articles we had to read in grad school? Yeah, you do. The sentences all had 50 clauses each, and the writers seem to believe that whoever packs in the most syllables wins. No one says "use," but rather "utilize." Well, this is that, so...have fun!
--Definitely worth a look despite its age, though, if only for the historical perspective.
CW: Mentions the Holocaust kinda frequently compared to your average info sci texts. Also, one chapter includes excerpts from homophobic letters to the editor of American Libraries from the 1990s, and they're upsetting, albeit amusing in their level of over-grammaticized pearl-clutching.
--It's quite a bit older as non-fiction goes: 13 years as of this reading, though the bulk of the content is from the late 90s. The central point of discussion--whether libraries should or even can remain neutral--remains relevant, though. We're fighting about it just as fiercely as ever.
--The entire collection bends against neutrality, so if you're pro-neutral, it'll raise your hackles. It doesn't provide a balanced POV, whatever TF that even means anymore.
--Salient points get made. For example, if libraries want to "stay" neutral, they'd have to have been neutral in the first place, and they weren't and aren't. Also, neutrality isn't neutral--you're automatically on the side of the dominant group if you're sitting on the sideline with your mouth shut.
--The authors all have stances, but as with most info sci literature, they don't make many practical suggestions to address the issues they see. One essay even complains that the real problem is that our field focuses too much on practical application and hasn't created enough theory. I don't disagree, but I also remember how many of us complained about the lack of practical training in grad school. Students want to learn material that will help them get library jobs. Most won't go on to teach, which makes any contribution to scholarship or theory a net-zero prospect for most librarians and grad school students.
--It's not a fun read. Remember the overwritten articles we had to read in grad school? Yeah, you do. The sentences all had 50 clauses each, and the writers seem to believe that whoever packs in the most syllables wins. No one says "use," but rather "utilize." Well, this is that, so...have fun!
--Definitely worth a look despite its age, though, if only for the historical perspective.
CW: Mentions the Holocaust kinda frequently compared to your average info sci texts. Also, one chapter includes excerpts from homophobic letters to the editor of American Libraries from the 1990s, and they're upsetting, albeit amusing in their level of over-grammaticized pearl-clutching.
February 5, 2009
Good and scholarly. Questions I like to read about but can't necessarily articulate the importance of when I am done. Though I feel the importance in every ounce of my bod. Various essays about people who question the idea the professional is neutral, claiming nothing is neutral. Normal? is a choice. Racist is a choice. Anti-racist is a choice. Awakening the profession to theory instead of technology. Trying to understand and progress the systems of organizing information. All of these things. And fists. The US Patriot Act allows the goverment to access your library check outs. Librarians can fight this. We can fight this.
AAA
Reread. Preparing a scholarly work. Wore bow tie for the occasion. Against Neutrality coming soon to a zinester near you
AAA
Reread. Preparing a scholarly work. Wore bow tie for the occasion. Against Neutrality coming soon to a zinester near you
May 3, 2012
This collection of essays, while an interesting look at challenging the concept of neutrality in libraries, is very one-sided and does not allow for even the possibility that neutrality is actually a good thing when it comes to libraries and archives.
did-not-finish
July 18, 2023Introduction: Here's what each essay you're about to read is about.
Essay 1: Short, but mostly based on the idea "Libraries haven't been truly neutral historically." Which isn't invalid, but...well, here's the thing: the lack of neutrality presented in libraries of the past is depicted as a pretty big negative. So, we fucked up the past, and in the future...we should continue doing it wrong?
Essay 2: This is where I mostly quit. The writer used the word "hegemony" THREE TIMES in the first two pages. That's well over the allotted number of hegemonies permitted.
Then I flipped to the author bios. About a third of the authors have EVER worked in a public library, and maybe 2 or 3 currently do(?)
This one kind of killed me: "Currently, Sandy is unemployed by choice and is wandering the world with her 13 year old daughter."
This book is SO academic-y, which is not my thing as academic writers seem like they have to show you how much research they did, any fact that's potentially relevant MUST be included!
And it's weirdly dated (there's a lot of hand-wringing over libraries adopting more business-oriented models, which seemed like all the rage in 2008, when this was published).
I didn't read much of this, so it wouldn't be fair to rate it. But unless you're reading this for a class, I'd probably pass on it.
Essay 1: Short, but mostly based on the idea "Libraries haven't been truly neutral historically." Which isn't invalid, but...well, here's the thing: the lack of neutrality presented in libraries of the past is depicted as a pretty big negative. So, we fucked up the past, and in the future...we should continue doing it wrong?
Essay 2: This is where I mostly quit. The writer used the word "hegemony" THREE TIMES in the first two pages. That's well over the allotted number of hegemonies permitted.
Then I flipped to the author bios. About a third of the authors have EVER worked in a public library, and maybe 2 or 3 currently do(?)
This one kind of killed me: "Currently, Sandy is unemployed by choice and is wandering the world with her 13 year old daughter."
This book is SO academic-y, which is not my thing as academic writers seem like they have to show you how much research they did, any fact that's potentially relevant MUST be included!
And it's weirdly dated (there's a lot of hand-wringing over libraries adopting more business-oriented models, which seemed like all the rage in 2008, when this was published).
I didn't read much of this, so it wouldn't be fair to rate it. But unless you're reading this for a class, I'd probably pass on it.
December 14, 2024
kind of repetitive, but important! particularly liked the essays where they brought in other theory to say something new
July 19, 2019
Some of the information is dated (think 2006)-- but these are really great essays. I especially liked the articles by Jensen and Good. Not having a program, a presenter, a book in the collection because it might ruffle feathers is not neutral. It is taking a side--the side of the status quo or the side of the oppressing population. It is good for us, as librarians, to be reminded that what we have available for people to access can shape the discussions that people are able to have within our communities. It is important to be vigilant and to employ self-reflection to make sure we are not making excuses for ourselves.
April 14, 2019
What an interesting collection of essays! This, as the title suggests, questions neutrality on a variety of fronts. How can librarians truly be neutral when we are at a classed position in buying books? How can we be neutral or objective when we clearly have our own biases? How can we be neutral and offer fringe, opposing viewpoints as "literature" instead of "hate literature"?
Filled to the brim with analysis and advice, these essays mark a change in how librarianship might be carried out in the future and as the world gets more complicated. Overall, these were all so intriguing and they made me ache for more articles. A must read if you're a librarian!
Review cross-posted here!
Filled to the brim with analysis and advice, these essays mark a change in how librarianship might be carried out in the future and as the world gets more complicated. Overall, these were all so intriguing and they made me ache for more articles. A must read if you're a librarian!
Review cross-posted here!
October 8, 2011
So far this is the best of the essays about LIS collections I've read. I was particularly inspired by Andersen's "Information Criticism: Where is it?" and "Towards Self-Reflection in Librarianship: what is Praxis?" (oops forgot the author's name). Maybe I liked this one because it jives with my personal belief that neutrality/ objectivity is impossible and we need to own up to that and explore it. If it were up to me, I would add Mark Rosenzweig's "Aspects of a Humanist Approach to Librarianship" from Library Juice Concentrate to this book to make an ideal reader.
June 19, 2020
This was a really great read, and brought up a lot of points that I wish had been better covered in library school. It explores the idea of neutrality not as a "positive" aspect of librarianship, but as a quiet acquiescence to the world around us, usually to the detriment of the profession and the people it is meant to benefit. While some of the articles were a bit dense in their presentation of the subject matter, I would very much recommend this book to any librarian looking to make a positive change in library culture.
March 31, 2017
this book led me to the decision that I should become a librarian
July 1, 2018
Excellent book of essays from the "Progressive Librarian". Thinking about a new "way" in librarianship.
January 1, 2021
Every reason why I'm in library school.
February 10, 2026
Let me preface this by saying I really liked the first few essays, even if I didn't wholly agree with them, and the final one, "The Hottest Place in Hell: The Crisis of Neutrality in Contemporary Librarianship" ended on a very strong note, but most of this review was written at the low point of several exceedingly academic essays in a row. Essays are presented in chronological order, with the first having been originally published in 1991 and the last from 2006/2007.
I'm left with a vague impression that at least some of these authors, when writing these articles, believe in their heart of hearts that if the library profession can erect an ivory enough tower, we'll finally have the right vantage point to really engage with everyday people on the ground! Scoff, librarians who think they're sooooo neutral and superior are just out of touch. Shyeah, get a load of us. We don't even have a set discourse about the hegemonies of corporate influence! We just need to get really, really academic about librarianship once and for all, and finally we'll be able to properly enmesh with the peasants, I mean working class, I mean the public, who are all just dying to hear what we have to say about information systems. Gosh, if only we had collectively dedicated ourselves to this 75 years ago, why -- I can't be sure, but I suspect unicorns would have manifested, the air would smell of roses everywhere, cold fusion would exist, and we'd have an engaged electorate shunning the influence of money from politics. (I'm riffing on a passage quoting Michael Baldwin's think piece for Library Journal, Oct. 2002; qtd in Sparanese) I can smell the vocational awe from here.
Look, I do get it, I really do. I'm not arguing with the overarching thesis of libraries not being as neutral (an impossible condition) as we pretend to be, and that maintaining neutrality means maintaining the status quo of oppressor over oppressed. Even at the turn of the century when these articles were written, they were seeing the writing on the wall with technological developments and a changing information society as a threat to a fossilized library system. Libraries will either matter to people and play a role in things they care about (I'm interpreting a little broadly here), or they'll go extinct. The move to digital library systems HAS meant the corporatization of the library, from how we select books to buy to how they're cataloged to how we [are allowed to make] digital content available to our users. “… there is arguably not a single task accomplished in our modern library systems which is not directly or indirectly dominated by external corporate decision making” (McDonald, p. 11). And fortunately, this conversation has persisted 20-25 years later.
But at the same time, I'm not sure they're hearing what they're actually saying. I'd love to put the authors on stage at a public library conference and have them repeat their suggestion that librarians are "isolated" "from the struggles of the working people" (Durrani and Smallwood, p. 121). There is a lot of privilege in who becomes a librarian; librarians are also themselves working class, some exceedingly so if we use that as a euphemism for 'not rich.'
“Acting as information critics, librarians could contribute to the demystification of knowledge organization systems by participating in the public sphere, ..." (Andersen, p. 104)
Librarians haven’t even been able to get the public to understand that not every library employee is a “librarian.”
Librarians should get out into mainstream discourse by writing magazine and news articles -- the "first" barrier to which is not the lack of interest from publishers (and related conversation about corporate media's role in upholding status quo) but the “need to develop a vocabulary, a discourse, that is not technical or managerial.” (Andersen, p. 104) (If that sounds reasonable to you, just wait! Far from decrying jargon per se, those terms as basically derogatory: "techno-administrative language to address technical and managerial problems" rather than high-minded #critlib theory. (Pawley, 2003))
And just for fun, one of the first and oldest pieces laments the privatization and digitization of GPO functionality: “Nowadays, if you don’t have ... a handy $2000 computer lying around…” (McDonald, p. 14).
I'm left with a vague impression that at least some of these authors, when writing these articles, believe in their heart of hearts that if the library profession can erect an ivory enough tower, we'll finally have the right vantage point to really engage with everyday people on the ground! Scoff, librarians who think they're sooooo neutral and superior are just out of touch. Shyeah, get a load of us. We don't even have a set discourse about the hegemonies of corporate influence! We just need to get really, really academic about librarianship once and for all, and finally we'll be able to properly enmesh with the peasants, I mean working class, I mean the public, who are all just dying to hear what we have to say about information systems. Gosh, if only we had collectively dedicated ourselves to this 75 years ago, why -- I can't be sure, but I suspect unicorns would have manifested, the air would smell of roses everywhere, cold fusion would exist, and we'd have an engaged electorate shunning the influence of money from politics. (I'm riffing on a passage quoting Michael Baldwin's think piece for Library Journal, Oct. 2002; qtd in Sparanese) I can smell the vocational awe from here.
Look, I do get it, I really do. I'm not arguing with the overarching thesis of libraries not being as neutral (an impossible condition) as we pretend to be, and that maintaining neutrality means maintaining the status quo of oppressor over oppressed. Even at the turn of the century when these articles were written, they were seeing the writing on the wall with technological developments and a changing information society as a threat to a fossilized library system. Libraries will either matter to people and play a role in things they care about (I'm interpreting a little broadly here), or they'll go extinct. The move to digital library systems HAS meant the corporatization of the library, from how we select books to buy to how they're cataloged to how we [are allowed to make] digital content available to our users. “… there is arguably not a single task accomplished in our modern library systems which is not directly or indirectly dominated by external corporate decision making” (McDonald, p. 11). And fortunately, this conversation has persisted 20-25 years later.
But at the same time, I'm not sure they're hearing what they're actually saying. I'd love to put the authors on stage at a public library conference and have them repeat their suggestion that librarians are "isolated" "from the struggles of the working people" (Durrani and Smallwood, p. 121). There is a lot of privilege in who becomes a librarian; librarians are also themselves working class, some exceedingly so if we use that as a euphemism for 'not rich.'
“Acting as information critics, librarians could contribute to the demystification of knowledge organization systems by participating in the public sphere, ..." (Andersen, p. 104)
Librarians haven’t even been able to get the public to understand that not every library employee is a “librarian.”
Librarians should get out into mainstream discourse by writing magazine and news articles -- the "first" barrier to which is not the lack of interest from publishers (and related conversation about corporate media's role in upholding status quo) but the “need to develop a vocabulary, a discourse, that is not technical or managerial.” (Andersen, p. 104) (If that sounds reasonable to you, just wait! Far from decrying jargon per se, those terms as basically derogatory: "techno-administrative language to address technical and managerial problems" rather than high-minded #critlib theory. (Pawley, 2003))
And just for fun, one of the first and oldest pieces laments the privatization and digitization of GPO functionality: “Nowadays, if you don’t have ... a handy $2000 computer lying around…” (McDonald, p. 14).
August 30, 2019
I'm getting a lot of cognitive dissonance on this one.
I really like the subject matter. I also like the angle the individual writers are coming from.
I definitely like the way the editor sets the overarching narrative up.
I don't, however, see a comprehensive and complete assessment of the subject at hand. Yet, maybe I'm not supposed to.
Additionally, I spot some massive gaps in logic regarding the editor's opening discourse. Again, I like how she sets the stage for what's to come. She works hard to prime the pump for both the writings compiled in this book and the general work of exploring the limitations of "library neutrality"--if such a thing exists. That said, she emphasizes the dangers of bias by arguing from her own bias. That seems to be a trend when writing about this subject.
Data that she presents as irrefutable fact is not as universally accepted as she claims. Which is exactly why the issue of library neutrality is an important topic in the field of information science. Who is the gatekeeper here? Who sets up the perimeter used to designate "generally accepted truth" and "speculation?"
It is here, at the convergence of my mental dilemma, where the two competing and/or clashing sounds come in to play for me (i.,e., dissonance).
I like the book by and by. Some of the essays are super engaging. Most of the essays are profound and thought provoking. I for sure recommend this to those who are interested in a little bit more than a basic overview of library neutrality concerns.
DM
I really like the subject matter. I also like the angle the individual writers are coming from.
I definitely like the way the editor sets the overarching narrative up.
I don't, however, see a comprehensive and complete assessment of the subject at hand. Yet, maybe I'm not supposed to.
Additionally, I spot some massive gaps in logic regarding the editor's opening discourse. Again, I like how she sets the stage for what's to come. She works hard to prime the pump for both the writings compiled in this book and the general work of exploring the limitations of "library neutrality"--if such a thing exists. That said, she emphasizes the dangers of bias by arguing from her own bias. That seems to be a trend when writing about this subject.
Data that she presents as irrefutable fact is not as universally accepted as she claims. Which is exactly why the issue of library neutrality is an important topic in the field of information science. Who is the gatekeeper here? Who sets up the perimeter used to designate "generally accepted truth" and "speculation?"
It is here, at the convergence of my mental dilemma, where the two competing and/or clashing sounds come in to play for me (i.,e., dissonance).
I like the book by and by. Some of the essays are super engaging. Most of the essays are profound and thought provoking. I for sure recommend this to those who are interested in a little bit more than a basic overview of library neutrality concerns.
DM
August 28, 2021
Questioning Library Neutrality had some great essays on the way librarians can look at what it means to be "neutral" in today's library world. While the essays were powerful they were very out of date, which wouldn't be much of an issue if it weren't for the past few years being so extremely politically charged. I would love an updated collection of essays with thoughts on current library practices and guidance on how best to serve the public in times like these when being neutral is not the answer even more than before.
February 28, 2018
This book of essays is 10 years old and a bit dated. Favorite: "Neutral libraries perpetuate such social ills as racism and sexism." and many other ...isms both intentionally and unintentionally. "...burying one's prejudices in a bureaucracy does not qualify one as neutral."
Biggest conversation starter: library and information science programs concentrate on practice and procedure and do not prepare librarians to discuss scholarly criticism.
Biggest conversation starter: library and information science programs concentrate on practice and procedure and do not prepare librarians to discuss scholarly criticism.
February 7, 2023
I wish I had today's equivalent of this book. I'm a new librarian in the field and, while outdated, I found these articles invigorating. That's both exciting, that I found myself inspired to further research in my field, and depressing, in that things haven't changed enough in this field for this book to be totally outdated. I'm glad I have this in my arsenal, but I look forward to continuing my research in my recent publications.
November 22, 2021
These are essays from "Progressive Librarian" and that seems to be another interesting journal (if only i had endless time to read). They're all thematically the same, the same key message but many different ways of reasoning for it from history, philosophy, etc.
This book wasn't specifically related to anything I am researching but some of what it said was interesting to me as a teacher.
This book wasn't specifically related to anything I am researching but some of what it said was interesting to me as a teacher.
March 20, 2023
How are we still having the same conversations in LIS 15 years on?
July 6, 2018
Finally got around to reading this. Well worth it. Of course every essay in the collection has a thorough Works Cited. Ha.
November 22, 2016
A good time to pick this one up — some librarians are just now realizing (audible gasp) that they and their institutions aren't neutral. Especially appreciate the chapters on ALA's history with social responsibility; corporations and libraries; and information criticism. The writing and the arguments aren't super polished, but they hang together all right. Reading this now highlights many long-standing problems in libraries and other information spaces that are about to be swept under the rug in response to alarming new developments, even as they, in many ways provide the root causes of said developments. That's a coded way of thanking neoliberal "values" for helping us get where we are today.
April 24, 2010
I skipped through this at work...in a library...and found it a bit dry. Who would've thunk?
Pretty much argues that there is no such thing as a neutral librarian. I'll say hahaha and it's true they might possibly be pro-censorship in some cases.
Like the bit about libraries not purchasing little press titles and so they aren't recorded on databases. I'll be spending the rest of my shift making book suggestions from small publishers bahahaha.
I got paid in apples today to type something up in word for a student. Seriously...
She offered me lunch and gave me a hug. Warmed the cockles of my heart. But maybe I'll start charging actual monetary fees, I can't live off fruit.
Pretty much argues that there is no such thing as a neutral librarian. I'll say hahaha and it's true they might possibly be pro-censorship in some cases.
Like the bit about libraries not purchasing little press titles and so they aren't recorded on databases. I'll be spending the rest of my shift making book suggestions from small publishers bahahaha.
I got paid in apples today to type something up in word for a student. Seriously...
She offered me lunch and gave me a hug. Warmed the cockles of my heart. But maybe I'll start charging actual monetary fees, I can't live off fruit.
August 21, 2008
Are librarians really neutral (services, programming, collection development) or is that just a myth? Here's a book that argues excellently that it's the latter and that using neutrality as an argument for the services we provide really supports the status quo. Libraries should be better than that!
January 30, 2016
Just finished reading this a second time... this book is a lifesaver for librarians committed to social justice and wrestling with perceived professional ideals... the chilly whiteness of past libraries.
March 6, 2009
I learned a lot from this book. See my full review of it over at my blog here.
April 19, 2018
Essential for any librarian.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews