Library Twopointopians and Conversion
Cliff August 21st, 2007
It appears that the American Libraries’ article A Manifesto for our Times was the final straw for many folks, including The Annoyed Librarian, who responded with an Anti-Manifesto. The AL article by Laura B. Cohen expounded upon A Librarian’s 2.0 Manifesto, a blog post/manifesto that Cohen wrote back in November 2006.
These two writings illustrate a growing divide in LibraryLand–one riddled with stereotypes, misperceptions and above all, miscommunications. The conversations about Library 2.0 that I’ve participated in and observed have made me reflect upon my experiences with conversion.
Back in 2000 I was the president of Pantheon, the Auburn University Student Pagan Association. As you might imagine, we had quite a few “newbie”Pagans who had recently self-identified as Pagan. They were often excited by their new faith, and wanted to share that excitement with others. In many cases that came across as superiority or attempts at conversion (something that is generally disallowed in Paganism). For other new Pagans, they didn’t know enough about their own (or others’) faiths to carry on intelligent discussion about their beliefs. For that reason, I wrote Pagan Guidelines for Interfaith Discussion. It was a quick list of pointers for new Pagans who found themselves discussing their faith with friends and family.
As the Library 2.0 movement has picked up speed, it has created tension in LibraryLand. The Annoyed Librarian has coined the term Twopointopians (which I love by the way), which refers to the zeal, excitement, idealism, and (in some cases) blind spots of the 2.0 Librarians. In the same piece the Annoyed Librarian refers to the opposing perspective:
“I will recognize that libraries change slowly, and will work with my colleagues to expedite our responsiveness to change.”
Let’s paraphrase this a bit, shall we? How about, “I won’t get too frustrated that my stupid colleagues don’t jump on the Twopointopia bandwagon just because I’m all giddy with enthusiasm. I’ll try working with them as long as I can stand it, or until they all retire or die off.”
When I present on Library 2.0, I’m very quick to point out that I don’t preach the Way of 2.0. I’m not trying to convert the Librarian masses. Instead, I’m pointing out some changes that are happening, things that other libraries are doing, and options for following along that path if you so choose. There are some tools that I don’t see as adding value to library service (such as Twitter and SecondLife). However, I don’t disparage those librarians who are trying those services out. Nor do I disparage those librarians who are skeptical of the Library 2.0 movement.
All that said, here’s a few pointers I’ve reworded from my article on interfaith discussion to keep in mind when carrying on conversations about Library 2.0 (or new services/technologies of any kind):
- Don’t let folks talk down to you, regardless of your position on Library 2.0.
- Know the logical arguments for your position.
- Know the logical arguments for the other positions on the topic.
- It’s all right to “not know”–it just means you have to research the topic and think about it.
- Feel free to change your mind, especially if the evidence changes.
- Don’t use words like “all”, “never”, “always”, etc.
- Listen.
- Have a sense of humor.
- Don’t get personal.
- Understand that no one wins a discussion.
- Don’t name-call (no matter how brilliant “Twopointopians” is.)
- Know when to stop.
- Know when not to start.
- Don’t try to “debunk” the others’ beliefs.
- Don’t try to convert.
- Don’t get your issues confused–Library 2.0 is a very different topic from generational differences, despite the fact that many folks conflate the two.
I don’t usually see things in an either/or way, but in a both/and way. We need both controlled vocabulary and folksonomies. We need both in-person and online reference service. We need to give users both what they need and what they want. That is how we’re going to stay valuable, relevant, and helpful to our patrons: by honoring both our past and our future.
What a refreshing perspective, Cliff! Your pointers are very similar to ground rules utilized by the best facilitators in the world. Especially those ground rules that have to do with inferential thinking and assumptions. Often people assume or infer meaning where the meaning may be quite different in the other person’s mind. Not checking out this meaning leads to conflict and/or defensiveness.
Dichotomous thinking (either/or) is useful in making choices or decisions sometimes but when it comes to discussions or dialogues dichotomous thinking ends the development of learning and often ends true conversation.
We are lucky to have such a wonderful profession where most people are truly collegial and willing to engage in thoughtful dialogues about what is important to pursue.
I so appreciate your post in that it gives us a set of pointers for dealing with conflicts or schisms. No one wins a discussion, indeed, and everyone learns through true skillful discussion.
Thanks Kathryn! Unfortunately Library 2.0 has become a touchy subject for many, when I think it should be about offering the best service possible to library users. It does, however, challenge us to closely examine our assumptions about ourselves, our libraries, and our users. This can be a good thing, but it is also uncomfortable! That’s why I think Library 2.0 should be a dialog, not a monologue. Thanks again for your insights!