![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, here are some things I hear from liberal-ish people about libraries:
"Libraries aren't really relevant anymore because so much information is on the internet."
"I go to the library, but they never have what I want, and there are always homeless people sleeping at the tables."
"I used to use the library a lot, but these days I don't. I just use Google."
I sympathize with all of this! I would say it about myself, basically! If I did not go to the library every week for work, I am sure I would find it more convenient to buy the e-book of everything I wanted to read -- which would be kind of expensive, but not prohibitively so; I'm not a book-a-day reader -- and not even have to deal with lots of paper books piling up around my home.
(I'm glad for the library because I read a lot of books I expect to feel only lukewarm towards for my committee, and I definitely wouldn't want to pay full price for those even at e-book prices, but if I didn't have a library job then I would read fewer of those!)
The thing is, library funding existed for a long time on a Social Security-like model. Everyone pays into it, everyone benefits from it, so it's really popular even though some people benefit much more than others. Everyone pays a little; everyone gets to borrow books; and even if you can afford the new Danielle Steel hardcover, you know it's not really something you'd pay $25 for, so you're happy to be able to borrow it for free (even if you're #123 on the hold list.)
I think it's harder now to make that argument, because the same book you wouldn't pay $25 for is often one that you would pay $10.99 for, especially when you don't have to deal with the library's wait list and limited opening hours, or even deal with going outside. I think a lot of middle-class people who aren't really voracious readers perceive -- not incorrectly, necessarily! -- that they don't get as much from the library as they put into it. And maybe the only way to advocate library funding, when you start from there, is to make an argument the same way you'd argue for welfare -- from either a noblesse-oblige standpoint, or a pure utilitarian standpoint of "we'll all be better off if lower-income people are more able to apply for jobs online, and study for the GED, and take ESOL classes, and read books."
The flip side of that is that as soon as you talk about libraries being for poor people, rather than libraries being for everybody, there starts to be a question of controlling what information you think poor people deserve to have access to. Like when people go off about people buying soda or organic beans with food stamps. And I suspect that the end result would be a lot less popular fiction on the shelves because it's not "useful" or "improving" enough.
I get a twinge of feeling disrespected when I see library director jobs that aren't full-time, that don't even require a Bachelor's degree, that kind of pay enough to live on, and certainly I'm worried about the deprofessionalization of library jobs, but when I start thinking about how you even advocate for library funding when my friends don't go to the library... that's when I get really worried.
(I don't want to open up a can of worms about how library competence isn't measured in terms of a degree. But if you think that you're going to get a good library director for $15 / hr, 20 hours a week, then you are hoping for a miracle or a doormat. Or a miracle doormat.)
"Libraries aren't really relevant anymore because so much information is on the internet."
"I go to the library, but they never have what I want, and there are always homeless people sleeping at the tables."
"I used to use the library a lot, but these days I don't. I just use Google."
I sympathize with all of this! I would say it about myself, basically! If I did not go to the library every week for work, I am sure I would find it more convenient to buy the e-book of everything I wanted to read -- which would be kind of expensive, but not prohibitively so; I'm not a book-a-day reader -- and not even have to deal with lots of paper books piling up around my home.
(I'm glad for the library because I read a lot of books I expect to feel only lukewarm towards for my committee, and I definitely wouldn't want to pay full price for those even at e-book prices, but if I didn't have a library job then I would read fewer of those!)
The thing is, library funding existed for a long time on a Social Security-like model. Everyone pays into it, everyone benefits from it, so it's really popular even though some people benefit much more than others. Everyone pays a little; everyone gets to borrow books; and even if you can afford the new Danielle Steel hardcover, you know it's not really something you'd pay $25 for, so you're happy to be able to borrow it for free (even if you're #123 on the hold list.)
I think it's harder now to make that argument, because the same book you wouldn't pay $25 for is often one that you would pay $10.99 for, especially when you don't have to deal with the library's wait list and limited opening hours, or even deal with going outside. I think a lot of middle-class people who aren't really voracious readers perceive -- not incorrectly, necessarily! -- that they don't get as much from the library as they put into it. And maybe the only way to advocate library funding, when you start from there, is to make an argument the same way you'd argue for welfare -- from either a noblesse-oblige standpoint, or a pure utilitarian standpoint of "we'll all be better off if lower-income people are more able to apply for jobs online, and study for the GED, and take ESOL classes, and read books."
The flip side of that is that as soon as you talk about libraries being for poor people, rather than libraries being for everybody, there starts to be a question of controlling what information you think poor people deserve to have access to. Like when people go off about people buying soda or organic beans with food stamps. And I suspect that the end result would be a lot less popular fiction on the shelves because it's not "useful" or "improving" enough.
I get a twinge of feeling disrespected when I see library director jobs that aren't full-time, that don't even require a Bachelor's degree, that kind of pay enough to live on, and certainly I'm worried about the deprofessionalization of library jobs, but when I start thinking about how you even advocate for library funding when my friends don't go to the library... that's when I get really worried.
(I don't want to open up a can of worms about how library competence isn't measured in terms of a degree. But if you think that you're going to get a good library director for $15 / hr, 20 hours a week, then you are hoping for a miracle or a doormat. Or a miracle doormat.)