This is the second article in a three part series of on the
idea of severability in the library. In the first part of the series I outlined
the concept of severability and attempted to outline how such an idea could be
applied in the library setting to re-envision the library as an institution and
reconstruct our services from the ground up. In this, the second part of the
series I’m going to double back on myself and make a counter argument; that the
different parts Libraries are un-severable.
In the first piece in this series I wrote that I believed
that the idea of severability could be a useful concept in helping libraries
move forward in tough times. Defining what an institution or business is at its
core has its applications, but in cultural institutions like libraries and
museums it becomes difficult. The reason for this is that culture itself is
complicated.
In explaining it I
feel like I’m going to get all Doctorish (as in, The Doctor), and start spouting
nonsense about wibbly wobbley timey whimey… stuff. To sum up my
argument: severability requires temporal clarity: An institution like a
library, serves multiple purposes, constituencies, ideologies and temporalities.
It not only has a set of texts that are based in multiple temporalities, its
semiotic identity is also a web of historical and future images which are both, attached
to it as an institution and core parts of its nature. As a result, it becomes
almost impossible to achieve the clarity needed to apply the concept of
severability.
The library isn’t indivisible because of the hopes, dreams,
and ideologies we place into, there are many similar institutions that
reductive processes can be applied to. Libraries
have immunity because of its unique construction. In many ways libraries are
the original cloud. Cutting them is just as difficult.
In essence I believe that organizations have temporal
orientation. I say orientation rather than location because organizations and
institutions exist across time. They’re own nature largely define their
orientation.
For example preservation organizations serve the past, service
organizations serve the present, and producing organization/leadership
organizations serve the future. Libraries serve all three.
By seeking to provide access to past information to all its
constituents, to provide the current best information, and to provide the
ability of patrons to develop new information, libraries are necessarily seated
in all three. Libraries must preserve the information resources so that future
generations can access them. At the same time library mission statements lay
out a clear commitment to serving the immediate needs of stakeholders in the
present. As new resources are developed librarians integrate them into their
collections so that they are useful in the future. Finally, most scholarship on
literacy includes techne related to production as part of their definition.
Libraries as literacy organizations must promote the ability to produce and use
information in their constituents. Libraries use the knowledge of the past, in
the present, with the goal of building a better future.
The unseated nature of the library means that cuts deeply
effect the institutions commitments to its multiple temporalities. For instance
cuts to cataloging/metadata departments in order to maintain or increase user
services may result in a degradation of long term findability of items.
Findability matters because an un-findable item effectively does not exist. As another examples bulk purchasing
contemporary titles, without planning for preservation of older work can lead
to a space shortage and unnecessarily aggressive weeding. Finally, libraries
have in the past made the mistake of discarding valuable materials after “preserving
them” in a modern format, only to find that the material was either,
incorrectly preserved, or that the medium chosen lacked durability. Showing
that future focus on technologies can be an otherwise robust institution’s Achilles’
heel.
In conclusion, what can you cut? Nothing. The library can and should remain; one institution, indivisible, with knowledge, and learning for all.
In conclusion, what can you cut? Nothing. The library can and should remain; one institution, indivisible, with knowledge, and learning for all.
