Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'

8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'

1/22

Librarians as Organic Intellectuals: A Gramscian Approach to Blind Spots and Tunnel VisionAuthor(s): Douglas RaberSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 33-53Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619.

Accessed: 18/08/2013 11:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Library Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/22

LIBRARIANS

AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS:

A

GRAMSCIAN

APPROACH TO

BLIND SPOTS

AND TUNNEL

VISION'

Douglas

Raber2

In the January

1999

issue of

LibraryQuarterly,

Wayne Wiegand

suggests

that

library and information

science

(US)

has failed

to

critically

examine its role

in relations

of

power

and

knowledge

that

systematically

marginalize

the

needs of less powerfulmembers of society.What we know, and what we allow

ourselves

to

know,

about

libraries

and their users is conditioned

by

history

and politics. The

work

of Antonio Gramsci can help us to understand

this

situation. Librarians

and

scholars of UIS occupy a space that

is

contested

ter-

rain in a war of position

between the

hegemony

of the

capitalist

historic bloc

and

the

subjects

who would

challenge

that bloc to be true to its self-declared

principles

of democratic participation.

Gramsci'sinsights regarding

the na-

ture of

capitalist social

formations, and

the

role of intellectuals organic to

these formations,

reveal the ambivalent

social position of LIS

as

a

source

of

both

support

and resistance to

capitalist

hegemony.

Introduction

In

Library

Qyarterly's

January 1999 issue,

Wayne

Wiegand expresses

a

fear that plans regarding

the future of

librarianship

are affected by

blind spots

and tunnel vision, in

large part

because the cultures

in

which we are immersed-or

to which we aspire-tend

to

control the

range

of

questions

we ask about ourselves

and

our profession

[1, p.

3].

In order to identify some of the

questions we should

be asking,

he

reviews the literature of American library

history

addressing

a

period

from 1893 to the

present. He concludes

that the profession,

and

the

academic research ostensibly providing it with

a legitimating body

of

1. This article is a revised version of a presentation at the

Library

Research Seminar n,

Part-

ners and Connections: Research Applied to Practice, University of

Maryland,

College

Park,November2-3, 2001.

2. Associate

professor, University

of

Tennessee,

School of Information

Sciences,

1345

Circle

Park Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0341; Telephone 865-974-9003; Fax

865-974-4967;

E-mail [email protected].

[Library

Quartcrly, ol. 73, no. 1, pp. 33-53]

? 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0024-2519/2003/7301-0003$10.00

33

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

34

THE LIBRARY

QUARTERLY

knowledge, is trapped in its own discursive formations, where mem-

bers

speak mostly

to each

other and where connections between power

and knowledge that affect issues of race, class, age and gender, among

others, are either invisible or

ignored [1, p. 24]. Perhaps even more

troubling is Wiegand's implied

suggestion that this practice is system-

atic and deliberate, if not

entirely conscious. He explicitly notes that

the

work

of

certain critical

theorists and interdisciplinaryscholars that

might help us to address the issue he identifies is generally absent from

library and information science

discourse [1, pp. 10-11, 22-25]. To

support this claim, he refers to an unscientific survey he conducted

of a

couple

of recent volumes of the

Journalfor

the American

Society

of

Information Science,and he reports that he found little evidence of an

awareness

of the

ambivalent relations between power and knowledge

or any sign of an effort to explore

Douglas Zweizig's

concern that

li-

brary

and information science research

privileges

institutions over

peo-

ple

and tends to view the latter as a means to the ends of the former

[1, pp. 23-24; 2]. Library

and information science

(LIS) practice

and

research appears to display a

systematic tendency

to attend to

some

issues while allowing others of at

least equal importance

to

go

unarticu-

lated, undefined, and untheorized. This condition, according to Wie-

gand,

is the cause of our blind

spots

and tunnel vision.

Evidently,

not

everyone

in

library

and information science

agrees

with

Wiegand's

observations. Donald

Case,

in

a comment

published

in

the October 1999 issue of

Library

Quarterly,

questions Wiegand's

conclu-

sions and asserts that one scholar's

'tunnel vision'

may

be another

scholar's

microscope [3, p. 537].

Case also

expresses disappointment

that

Wiegand's essay

deteriorates

into

yet

another instance

of

disci-

plinary navel-gazing [3, p. 537].

Actually,

Case's comment

may repre-

sent more than even he

realizes,

but there

is one

point

he raises that

deserves immediate attention.3As noted earlier, Wiegand refers to the

work of

certain scholars

whose

work

might help

LIS to

overcome

its

limited

vision,

and he refers to six

persons

in

particular.4

Case

fairly

asks, Why

these six writers? He

is

certainly

correct when he asserts

that

Wiegand's

list is not

inclusive,

but his claim that

it is inconsistent

3. The

pejorative use of the phrase navel-gazers

is interesting

in

its own right.

This use

suggests

the disparagement

of inward-looking

contemplation

as being otherworldly,

exces-

sively idealistic

or self-absorbed,

and certainly

not practical. The

stereotyping of Eastern

culture and religion,

and the

privileging

of a Western pragmatic

point of

view regarding

contemplation is also potentially involved. Scholars such as EdwardSaid might suggest that

the casual use

of such language,

even with

the intention of merely

being humorous,

says

more about its speakers

than they realize,

but that is a subject

for

another study.

4. The six theorists

identified by Wiegand

are Michel Foucault,

Antonio

Gramsci,Jirgen

Ha-

bermas,

Helen Longino, MargaretJacob,

and Sandra Harding.



4/22

LIBRARIANS

AS

ORGANICINTELLECTUALS 35

mayhave missed the mark [3, p. 536]. Conceived broadly,critical the-

ory in the

human sciences

has

a

long

history,

a rich

discourse,

and

is

represented by

a

great

number of writers

[4].

It includes

Marxism,post-

Marxism, poststructuralism

and

postmodernism,

psychoanalysis,

her-

meneutics,

phenomenology,

and

semiotics,

to

name but a

few of

the

lines

of thought associated

with critical

theory.

At

best,

Wiegand's

list

serves

as a

set of

index

terms to

this

literature.

On the

other

hand,

the six writers he

names

share a

common

characteristic:

hey

study

the

connections

between

power

and

knowledge,

and

they

would

agree

with

Wiegand

that

these

connections are

never

totallyobjective

and

never

disinterested

[1, p.

23].

One

of

the writers

Wiegand

mentions

is

Antonio

Gramsci.

My goal

is to

show

how

Gramsci'swork

can

help

to

explain

the blind

spots

and

tunnel

vision of LIS

and to

provide

a means

for

expanding

our

vision.

Gramsci

is

especially relevant to the

issues

raised

by Wiegand because

he

explicitly addresses

how

the culture

in

which we

are

immersed con-

trols

the

range

of

questions

we can

ask

about

ourselves and

our histori-

cal

situation.

To be

specific, Gramsci's

work

suggests that

librarians

can

be

viewed

as

organic

intellectuals

and

that

they play

an

ideological

and organizationalrole in maintaininga historic bloc's hegemony over

the

relations

of

economic

production and

civil

society. From this

per-

spective,

the

apparently

neutral discourse of LIS

regarding access

to

information can be

examined as

a

discourse that privileges

particular

rather than

universal

interests.

Gramsci's Marxism

In

order

to

understand the

concept

of

organic

intellectual, we

must

first

review

Gramsci's

development of

Marxisttheory. The

notion

that

human being and history are products of human labor provides the

foundation

of his

thought.

The

production

and

reproduction

of

value,

culture,

and

even

our

bodies constitute

the

material

foundation for

human existence.

The

relations of production

that socially

organize

this

labor

constitute

the

structure

on which

is

built particular super-

structures at

particular points

in

human

history. The superstructure

includes not

only

the

state

and its

associatedjuridical and coercive insti-

tutions

but

also the

social

and

cultural

institutions

and

practices typi-

cally

associated with the

idea of civil

society. Together, base

and super-

structure

constitute

a social formation that

Gramsci calls

the

historic

bloc. In our time, the historic bloc is one of capitalist democracy,

characterized

by private

ownership

of the

means

of production

and

wage labor,

and

ideologically

organized by

a

discourse of

parliamentary

and

electoral

politics.

While

formally organized

at the level of

the



5/22

36 THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY

nation-state, this social formation is a global phenomenon, and it exer-

cises hegemony over economic and political relations [5,

pp.

416-18].

Gramsci's use of the word bloc in this context is important.

A

historic bloc is not merely a structuralphenomenon. As a social forma-

tion, it depends on political principles and alliances that are subject

to

constant negotiation, challenge, and change. It is characterized

by

diverse interests whose particular fortunes and influence will vary as

an

outcome

of

political contests both within the bloc and

between

the

bloc and

its

historical challengers. It organizes and assesses

its he-

gemony

over

society largely by controlling the terms of political

dis-

course

and

setting

the

agenda

of

that discourse, but its own internal

divisions combined

with

events

and

behaviors

beyond

its control can

create historical

imperatives

to which

it

must

respond.

In effect, a his-

torical

bloc

represents

a

form of

social

contract;

it is

relatively

stable

but subject to renegotiation.

The

concepts

of

structure and superstructure arise from Marx's

as-

sertion that

relations

of

production

constitute the economic structure

of society, the real foundation,

on which

rises

a

juridical and political

superstructure [6, p. 503].

The

ideas

that dominate

and

govern

a

par-

ticular moment in historyare the ideas of the class that dominates and

governs

the means

and

relations

of

material

production [7].

Given

these

kinds

of

statements,

it

is not

difficult

to

see

how some

interpreters

of

Marx arrive

at

the conclusion that Marxismrepresents

an economic

determinism, but one must also recall that

Marx

insists

that men

are

the

producers

of

their

conceptions, ideas, etc.-real,

active

men,

as

they

are

conditioned

by

a definite

development

of their

productive

forces and of the intercourse

corresponding

to

these

[7, p.

47].

His

point

is

simply

that

circumstances

make

men

just

as

much

as

men

make circumstances [7, p. 59]. Social reality

must be

understood

as

the material outcome of a dialectical relationship between human be-

ings

and their

circumstances.

The historic

bloc, then,

is an

outcome

of

this

relationship.

In his

explanation

of human

nature,

Gramsci

makes clear

that

the historic bloc,

and

the

superstructure

that

repre-

sents

it,

is not

merely

a

determined

outcome

of

certain

relations

of

production:

The

measure

of

freedom enters

into

the

concept

of

man.

That the

objective

possibilities

exist

for

people

not

to die

of

hunger

and

that

people

do die of

hunger,

has

its

importance,

or so one

would

have

thought.

But the

existence

of objective conditions, of possibilities,or of freedom is not yet enough: it is

necessary

to

know

them,

and to know

how

to use

them. And

to want

to

use

them.

Man,

in this

sense,

is

concrete

will,

that

is,

the

effective

application

of

the abstract

will

or

vital

impulses

to

the concrete

means

of which

realise

such

a

will....

Man is

to be conceived

as an historical

bloc of

purely

individual



6/22

LIBRARIANS

AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS

37

and subjectiveelements and of mass and objective or material elements with

which the

individual

is in

an

active

relationship.

[5, p. 360]

This

passage

reveals the

intimate

relationships

Gramsci

sees

between

history,

social

existence,

and

individual human lives. Individual

exis-

tence

and,

we shall

see,

social formations can

be characterized

by

the

nature

of the

historic

bloc that

governs

each,

but to

be

conditioned

by

history is

not the

same

thing

as to be

determined

by

it.

Recent

Marxist

theory,

influenced

by

Michel

Foucault and

Jacques

Derrida,

manifests

a

controversy

over

whether

the

structure,

or

base

as it is

sometimes

referred to,

and

superstructure should be

regarded

as

inherent

categories of

historical

existence or

as

cultural

and

intellec-

tual

constructions.

This

issue

turns on

another

controversy

regarding

the role

of

classes as

agents

of

history [8-9].

Both

problems

are

related

to the

failure to

realize

a

genuine socialist

hegemony

and to

the

post-

modem

turn of

late

capitalism.

This

situation

is

about

much

more

than

merely

the

collapse

of

the

Soviet Union.

By

the

mid-1970s

many

Marxist

scholars

and

socialist

activists,

largely

because of

the

influence

of

Gramsci's

thought,

had

already come

to

regard the

Soviet Union

as a

practically

and

theoretically

bankrupt

historical

model

[10].

Rather,

it

is the resiliency of capitalism as a viable productive formation, despite

the

persistence

of

contradictions

between

the

social

production of

value

and its

private

appropriation, that

led to

these

controversies

within

Marxist

theory.

Despite these

controversies,

however,

and

the

successes of late

capitalism,

Marxist

theory

as

exemplified

by

the

work

of

Gramsci

still

possesses a

power to

explain

persistent

economic,

so-

cial, and

political

problems of

capitalist

democracy,

not

the least

of

which

are blind

spots

and

tunnel

vision

across a

wide

range of

practices

in

addition to

library

and

information

science. It

might still

offer

guid-

ance to

a

democratically

transformative,

if not

revolutionary,

politics.

The key to Gramsci's thought lies in his rejection of economic and

historical

determinism. There

are

no

inexorable laws

or

inevitable

outcomes in

human

affairs.

Human

existence

is

characterized by

an

ethical-political,

or as

Gramsci

frequently referred

to

it,

an

intellec-

tual

reality

as

much

as

it

is

by

economic reality

[5, pp.

8-9, 161,

258,

333-34,

and

366-67].

As

can be

seen from

the

long

quote

above,

Gramsci

explicitly

recognized

the role

of

human will

in

human

history.

This

recognition has

important

implications

for

understanding how

capitalism

works. The

historical

relations

between base

and

superstruc-

ture are

complex,

and

they are

not

unidirectional.

Gramsci

writes: Be-

tween the premise (economic structure) and the consequence (politi-

cal

organization),

relations

are by

no

means

simple

and

direct:

and

it is not

only

by

economic facts

that the

history

of a

people

can be

documented. It

is a

complex and

confusing task to

unravel

causes

and



7/22

38

THE

LIBRARYQUARTERLY

in order to do so, a deep and widely diffused studyof all spiritualand

practical activities

is needed

[11, pp.

280-81].

Relations

of production

can be organized

in a variety

of ways,

and

more and less

progressivechoices

are available.

Combined

and uneven

development

both within and

between national

social

formations

means that different

peoples

will organize

themselvesin

differentways.

In other words,not everyone

lives,

or livesin exactly

the same historical

moment. As a

result, superstructures

willvary,and

some

capitalistsocial

formations will be more

progressive

than others.

Politics at the

level

of the superstructure

can be

used to effect a

catharsis, or the

pas-

sage from the

purely economic

(or egoistic-passional)

to the ethico-

political

moment, and

in

this

moment the base

can be transformed

into a means

of freedom,

an instrument

to create a new

ethico-political

form

and a source of new initiatives

[5, pp. 366-67].

Ideas have

power,

and progressive

materialreform

of the relations

of production,

short

of their

revolutionary

transformation,

is

possible.

Historical Subjects

and

Hegemony

The location

of

the

historical

subject,

whether

individual

or

social

group,

in

a social formation

is not an

absolutely

determinate phenome-

non. There are

no historically

determined, objective,

political

interests.

By

no

means does Gramscideny

that

the relations of

production

assert

a

powerful

material influence

on the

course of

history.

This

notion

is

central

to Gramsci's

concept

of

hegemony,

but he insists

that historical

subjects

are located-and

more

important,

willfully

locate them-

selves-in

the nexus

of

historically

conditioned

productive

and

social

relations

that

constitute

a

hegemony.

Louis Althusser's

structuralism

has been criticized for merely substituting an idealist essentialism for

economic determinism, [8, pp.

97-105],

as a

result

leaving

little room

for a

revolutionarysubject [12,

p. 141],

but it seems clear that he

was

working

from Gramsci's

deas when he

used the

psychoanalytic

concept

of overdetermination

to describe the

moment

in which

base and

super-

structure,

economic

and intellectual

reality

come

together

to create

the actual

historical

location of a

subject

in a social

formation.

This

location

depends

on

objective

historical

conditions

and what the

sub-

ject

thinks about

these

conditions

[13,

pp. 87-128].

This

reality,then,

is

ideologically

constructed,

and while

it

ordinarily

reflects the ideas

of a ruling class more accurately,a dominant hegemony-it is also

the source

of the

superstructure's

power

over the

base

and

represents

a

possible

historical

position

from

which a

dominant

hegemony

and

the

relations

of

production

that

support

it can be

challenged.

Class



8/22

LIBRARIANSAS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS 39

membership, that is, a subject's location in a social formation with re-

gard to the relations

of

production

between

capital

and

labor,

is a

fun-

damental

but not

determining

factor.

It

plays

a

large

but

hardly

exclu-

sive

role in the construction of a

subject's

political

interest.

In Althusser's

language,

the relations of

production

are,

in

the last

instance,

the

determining

force within social

formations,

but this is

an instance that

may

never

fully

arrive, precisely

because of

willful,

counterdetermining

resistance to their

logic.

The continued domi-

nance of capitalist relations

of

production

is no more assured than

their

radical transformation

[14].

The

outcome of the contest

between

capital

and

the resistance to it that arises from the

exploitation

follow-

ing

from the differences that

capital

creates and maintains will

be

de-

termined

by

what Gramscicalls the war of

position.

This is a

struggle

of

ideological

and

political

practice

that

is

protracted

and

ordinarily

takes

place

on

the terrain of civil

society,

but in

some

instances it can

occur within the state itself

[5,

pp. 108-11, 120,

and

229-39].

It is in

the context of this kind of war that both the

progressive

and conserva-

tive nature of libraries can be

seen,

but to

get

to this

we must first

take a look at Gramsci's

analysis

of how

capitalist

social formations

are

politically organized and reproduced.

The

Historic Bloc and

Hegemony

Central to Gramsci's

analysis

of

both

hegemony

and the

war

of

position

is the

concept

of

the historical bloc. At

any given

moment in the

life

of

a social formation

there is only one

historic bloc. It

organizes and

dominates base and

superstructure,

and

the relations

between them,

in

order to reproduce the means and

relations of

production from

which it derives its resources, its political power, and its intellectual/

cultural,

or as Gramsci calls

it,

its

ethico-political

hegemony. The

base

provides

a

historic bloc its

content, and the

superstructure gives

it form [5, p. 377]. The

historic

bloc represents

political

alliances, but

it cannot

be reduced to a mere

political alliance

[15, pp. 119-25]. It

is a

complex,

contradictory,

and

discordant ensemblef

the

superstruc-

tures

[that]

is the

reflection of the ensemble f

the social

relations of

production

[5, p. 366]. A

historic bloc

is

an ensemble

of social groups,

intellectual and

ideological

forces organized around

the historic inter-

ests

of

the fundamental

social

group

that

organizes

and

leads the

bloc [5, pp. 115-16].

Hegemony

is

a

concept

Gramsci

uses to clarify

the nature

of a his-

toric bloc's

power.

This

power

is

dominant,

but

not

dominating. It is far

from

total, and as mentioned

earlier, it is

exercised by setting

political



9/22


agendas rather than by dictating political outcomes. Gramsci writes

that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as

'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership.' A social

group

dominates

antagonistic groups,

which it

tends to 'liquidate,'

or to

sub-

jugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied

groups.

A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise 'leadership'

be-

fore winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal

conditions of

winning

such

power); it subsequently becomes

dominant

when it exercises

power,

but even

as it

holds

it firmly in its

grasp, it

must continue to 'lead' as well [5, pp. 57-58].

A

ruling

historic

bloc, then,

relies

as

much if

not more on

ideological

leadership,

exercised

through agents constituted by civil society

rather

than on coercion exercised directlyas state power. In fact, the historic

bloc

is

likely

to

be more politicallysuccessful when it does so. The col-

lapse of Soviet hegemony

in

Russia, for example, is clearly

related to

failures on the

part

of the historic

bloc

led

by

the Communist Partyto

reconcile contradictions between its claims to ideological

leadership

and its need to

rely

on state coercion to retain

power.

It is precisely

this need

to

rely

on intellectual

and moral

leadership

that

opens

a

dom-

inant hegemony to a challenge of its legitimacy on its own terms and

suggests

historical roles for intellectual

groups, including professionals.

Gramsci

saw this as crucial to a war of

position.

There will

always

be

challenges

to

a

historical

bloc.

Some will

be based on traditional

seg-

ments of

society generally seeking

a return

to a

mythical past.

Others

will be based on

marginalized

and radicalized

segments

seeking

a trans-

formation

to

a

utopian

future. Some will arise from within the bloc

itself

as different interests that constitute it assert different visions of

the bloc's future.

Perhaps

at this moment the last instance

arrives. In Marxist

theory

of capitalistsocial formations the fundamental socialgroup is the bour-

geoisie.

In late

capitalist

societies direct

ownership

of the means of

pro-

duction

typically

is

dispersed,

so this

group

instead consists of those

who exercise direct control over the

means of

production.

To render

this

phenomenon

in a

way

that

captures

its

complexity,

however,

ac-

counts

for the overdetermined relations

between base and

superstruc-

ture,

avoids

personalization,

and

recognizes

the

problems

of class

as

a theoretical and historical

category,

I will refer to it

simply

as

capi-

tal.

Among

other

problems,

the historic bloc of

capital may

not be

dominated

by

the

bourgeoisie

as a

class,

and the

subjects

of its domi-

nance may not be exclusively the working class or proletariat. In the

past,

and

in nondemocratic

capitalist

social

formations,

the historic

bloc

is

often

organized by

social

groups

other than the

bourgeoisie

on

behalf

of

capital [16].

The

military,

for

example, typically

akes a

lead-



10/22

LIBRARIANS

AS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS

41

ing role in the organizationof fascistsocial formations.Withthe advent

of a

discourse

of

democracy [8, pp. 152-59]

and the

rise of

parliamen-

tary

institutions,

the notion

of

a

political

class

is useful

[17]. Begin-

ning with Bismarck's

Germany,

for

example, professional

politicians

and a

bureaucratic class

have

organized

welfare states

on

behalf

of

capital. As discussed earlier,

a historic

bloc

is

not free

of internal

con-

flict. This condition is

especially

true

of welfare states and

capitalist

democracies.

Fractions

with

different immediate interests exist

within

historic blocs,

and each

will

seek its own

power

within

the

bloc

[18,

pp.

77-85].

For

example,

since the

passage

of the

Telecommunications

Act of 1996, we have

witnessed

a

significantstruggle

among

incumbent

and competitive

local exchange carriers,

ong-distance telephone

com-

panies,

and cable

operators

for control

of the telecommunications

mar-

ket, within

the context of the game

defined by that act of legislation.

The focus of

this contest, however, is relative

competitive advantage,

and the

interpretations

of the

rules

of the

game,

rather

than

the nature

of the

game itself.

All

of

the

players accept without

question

the need

for

liberalization (that is,

deregulation

of

telecommunication mar-

kets).

Political

Strategy and Hegemony

Following

Goran Therborn [19], we are

now in a position to examine

what

the

historic

bloc of capital

does when it rules and

to understand

the war

of position

as a

matter

of

revealingand

challenging

blind spots

and tunnel vision.

According to Gramsci,

this bloc seeks

to protect its

hegemony

and to reproduce capitalist

relations of

production as well

as its

own position as a

privileged historicalsubject in the

social forma-

tion. Coercion and exclusion by using the state asan oppressive appara-

tus

is a dangerous option.

An alternative is to seek the

legitimacy of

the

historic bloc's

authority

and

to maintain

its position by grounding

the

institutions

of

the state

and civil society on a

rational/legal basis

[20],

and

to

grant

concessions

to

popular

demands

for

social

and

politi-

cal

participation,

and economic security,

if

not equality. Outstanding

examples

of

this

strategyinclude Franklin

Roosevelt's New Deal and

Lyndon

Johnson's GreatSociety. These

initiatives invite a kind of lim-

ited

membership

in

the bloc by creating

permeable class boundaries

for

individuals, recognizing

the

grievances

of historically

excluded so-

cial groups, and representing themselves symbolicallyas extensions of

a

historical discourse of

democracy.

This

political strategy s

itself

overdetermined, drivennotjust by con-

siderations

of practical

politics seeking a social

equilibrium and the



11/22

42

THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY

maintenance of capital's power, but also by a widespread acceptance

of the discourse of

democracy's legitimacy,even among the members

of the historic bloc.

By granting a legitimate place to the discourse

of

democracy

in its

political strategy,and accepting

the idea that this im-

plies meaningful participation beyond voting

and formal equality of

citizenship, the historic bloc brings an intellectual

reality

into play,

and finds in persuasion an ideological solution

to the frailty of its he-

gemony.

Ultimately this solution

is

based

on the widespread acceptance of a

Panglossian observation:

that while not perfect, capitalist relations

of

production when

combined with a political

superstructure of parlia-

mentary democracy, rational/legal structures

of governance

and au-

thority, equality

before

the

law,

and a

guarantee

of

individual

rights,

makes for the best

of all

possible worlds.

There is powerful empirical

evidence for this claim. Certainlysince

World War

II, the general

level

of

prosperity

n

the capitalist West

has increased.

The

culturesof West-

ern

capitalist

democracies

manifest

a

real commitment to human

rights, and the nation-states

based

on

these

cultures display pluralist

polities

that

represent

diverse

political

interests and

compromise

among these interests despite evident political partisanship.Concur-

rence with

a

Panglossian

viewpoint, however,

can also be taken as

evi-

dence

of

the effectiveness

of

the

capitalist

historic

bloc's

ideological

strategy

in

a war

of position, given the persistence

of

systematic

and

structural inequalities and exclusions,

the

relative privileging

of

prop-

erty rights

over

human rights,

and the

tendency

to

privilege

market

relations over human relations by privileging

commodities over

their

producers.

Late

capitalism, however,

offers

a

complex political

situation

in

which the

nexus

that conditions

the location

of historical subjectstends

to work against polarization.There are wealthysuburbaniteswho sup-

port

environmental causes

and rural

industrial

workers that

reject

unions. This condition

invites

us to

return to Gramsci.

The war

of

posi-

tion that characterizes

politics

in

late

capitalism

is not

a

war of violent

civil

strife. It

is, instead,

an

ideological

war,

conducted

over a

long term,

and

its

goal

is

to

alter

the

relations

of

production

that

unnecessarily

limit human

freedom. To

accomplish

this

goal,

the

social

formation

must

be

altered

at

its

base

in

order

to realize the collective

nature

of

the

production

of

human

values

and

to

transcend

the

private appropri-

ation and

commodification

of human

labor.

According to Gramsci, the political means of accomplishing these

ends lies

in

challenging capital's hegemony

within the

superstructure.

He

argues

that

progressive

social

groups

and individuals

must

pene-

trate

civil

society

of the

dominant

hegemony,

seize

positions

within



12/22

LIBRARIANS

AS

ORGANIC

INTELLECTUALS

43

it, and turn its institutions toward progressive and

transformative

ends. The

goal

is to take state

power,

but that

can

only

be

accomplished

by

fighting in the

trenches of civil

society

[5, pp.

235,

243].

Gramsci

writes:

The

massive structures of modern

democracies,

both as

State

organizations,

and

as

complexes

of association in

civil

society,

consti-

tute for

the art of

politics

as it were the

'trenches' and the

permanent

fortifications of the front in the war of

position:

they

render

merely

'partial' the element of the movement

which before

used to be 'the

whole'

of

war

[5, p.

243].

Gramsci's

understanding

of

the art of

poli-

tics follows from his understanding of the dialectical relations between

base and

superstructure.

Change

is

not a matter of

reforming

the base

so that

reform of the

superstructure

may

follow.

The

art of

politics

is

a matter of

reforming

base and

superstructure

simultaneously

through

political

action

that

accompanies a

change

of

political

consciousness

[21, p. 1328].

The

fact that

capital

relies on the

discourse of

democracy

to

legitimate its

hegemony also creates an

opening

for a

politics that

demands the

meaningful extension of

democracy

at

the level of the

base.

Intellectuals, Blind

Spots, and

Tunnel Vision

If

we now combine

Gramsci's

theoretical

understanding of the

way

so-

cial

formations are

organized,

his

notion of the

role of

intellectuals

in

politics, and Althusser's

understanding

of

superstructural

institutions

as

overdetermined sites

and stakes of

ideological

conflict in

late

capital-

ist social

formations [22,

pp.

127-86],

we can

begin to

outline an

expla-

nation of

the blind

spots

and tunnel

vision of

librarianship.

This

move

will also

allow

us to raise

some serious

research

questions

about the

reproductive role of libraries and librarianship in the context of politi-

cal

contradictions

generated

within

capitalist

social

formations.

To be clear

about

Gramsci's

terms, it

is

important to

note

that he

believed

that

intellectual

capability is not

limited

to a

particular group

identifiable as

intellectuals.

The

intellectual

is an

aspect of

ethical/

political

reality

in

which all

people live

and

participate [5,

pp. 333-

34].

Gramsci writes: All

men are

intellectuals,

one

could

therefore

say:

but not all

men have in

society the

function of

intellectuals.

When

one

distinguishes

between

intellectuals and

non-intellectuals,

one is

referring

in

reality only

to

the

immediate

social

function

of the

profes-

sional category of intellectuals.... This means that, although one can

speak

of

intellectuals,

one cannot

speak of

non-intellectuals....

There

is no human

activity from

which

every

form of

intellectual

participation

can be

excluded: homo

faber

cannot be

separated from

homo

sapiens



13/22

44

THE

LIBRARYQUARTERLY

[5, p. 9]. The capitalistpossesses and uses intellectual qualities as an

organizerof relations

of production.

The worker

likewisepossesses

and

uses intellectual

qualities

but often

without

a clear theoretical

con-

sciousness

of his or her

activity.

This last

point is especially

important,

because

it implies

the existence

of a

space

fromwhich intellectual

resis-

tance to

the historic bloc

can arise.

Intellectual,

then,

is

a

broad theoretical

term

describing

anyone

who exercises

an organizational

function

in a wide

sense-whether

in

the field

of production,

or

that

of culture,

or that

of political organi-

zation

[5,

p. 97]. Of

those who can

be

formally dentified

as intellectu-

als,

some,

including academics,

physicians,

and

the

clergy,

for example,

appear

to exist outside

of a context

established by

capitalistrelations

of

production.

These

traditional

intellectuals

[5,

pp. 6-8], and

their

social functions,

existed prior

to the

rise of the capitalist

historic bloc.

They belong

to an earlier

time

and appear

to represent

a historic

conti-

nuity, as

well

as a

political

neutrality

with respect

to the capitalist

his-

toric

bloc.

Their

origins,

however,

trace

back to an

organic

link to

the

preindustrial

historic

bloc. The

clergy's

role as the

source and

orga-

nizer of

morality

in

preindustrial

social

formations

is perhaps

the best

example of this link. These practiceswere crucial to the feudal hege-

mony grounded

on the

divine right

of

kings

to exercise

governing

authority,

but

they

were

ideologically

co-opted

and

adapted

by

the

nineteenth-century

bourgeoisie

to provide

the

foundation for

Victo-

rian

morality

[23].

Traditional

intellectuals,

then,

are assimilated

into

the

capitalist

historic bloc

and indeed

are often crucial

allies

and

mem-

bers

of this

bloc, providing

important

organizing

and

organic

services,

not

the

least

of

which

is an

ideological

legitimation

of the

capitalist

historic

bloc's

hegemony

as a

natural extension

of

prior

historical

de-

velopments [15,

p.

142].

In contrast, organic intellectuals [5, pp. 5-6] emerge as a historic

bloc

ascends to

power

and

begins

to

assert

its

hegemony

over

a

social

formation. For

capital,

these intellectuals

include

technicians,

engi-

neers, managers,

economists,

lawyers,

ibrarians,

and

now,

information

professionals.

They

are

the

organizers

of

capitalist

hegemony

and its

culture,

and

they play

central

strategic

and

ideological

roles

in the su-

perstructure

that

reproduces

capitalist

relations of

production.

These

intellectuals

are the

dominant

group's

'deputies'

exercising

the

subal-

tern

functions

of social

hegemony

and

political government

[5, p.

12].

They

are

organized

and

related

by

the

historic

bloc

through

its

industrial and state bureaucracies,servingthe bloc byfulfilling certain

functions that

require

their

expertise

and

by providing

the

bloc

with

a

homogeneity

and an awareness

of its own

function,

not

only

in the

economic,

but

also

in

the social

and

political

fields

[5, p.

5].

The



14/22

LIBRARIANS AS ORGANIC

INTELLECTUALS

45

function at issue here is no less than the organizing and ruling function

of

the

capitalist historic bloc.

Organic

intellectuals,

then, provide

the

link between

the

base and

superstructure

that

in

turn

provides

capital

with

its

identity

as the fundamental

group

and leader of

the historic

bloc. These

intellectuals are essential for

the

practical

and

ideological

exercise of

capitalist

hegemony.

We are now in a

position

to offer a

Gramscian

explanation

of Wie-

gand's

observation

that

librarians,

among

other

intellectuals,

are

trapped

in their

own discursive formations.

Librarians,

as

intellectuals,

and

librarianship,

as

a

practice,

are

immersed

in

a culture

determined

by

the

hegemony

of

the

capitalist

historic bloc.

Indeed,

they

serve

a

positive function in the

production and

reproduction of

this bloc and

its

hegemony.

Under

these

circumstances, it is

unlikely that librarians

will raise

questions that

critically

interrogate

the

relations of

power

and

knowledge

that

sustain capitalist

hegemony.

To do

so would not

only

challenge

the

authority

of the

historic

bloc,

it

might also lead

to sanc-

tion against

those

posing the

questions.

Wiegand's notion of

immersion is

important

here, because it

helps

us to understand

the nature of

the

politics

at

work.

For

many

in

LIS,

this immersion means that critical questions regarding their own role

in

the

historic

bloc

simply

will not occur

to

them,

as

they

accept its

legitimacy

and see

no reason to

question its

means or its

ends. For

those who

might question this

legitimacy,

the

threat of

sanction

is real.

In

this

instance,

however,

immersion

has

different

implications. Recall

that

late

capitalist

social formations

generally

do

not

rely

on

overt co-

ercion to

enforce

discipline. Immersion

creates a

situation in

which

coercion is not

necessary.

Instead,

discipline

is

enforced

through

var-

ious

ideological

mechanisms that

send

messages as

much

as

they pro-

vide

incentives or

deny

benefits.

Transgressors, for

example, are

de-

nied funding for libraryoperations, find themselves unable to obtain

research

grants, are not

chosen

to give

presentations at

professional

conferences,

and

are

marginalized

in

the

research

literature.

This

discipline

can be

effective

precisely

because the

transgressors

are

themselves

immersed in

the dominant

culture and

depend on

that

cul-

ture for

their social

position.

In

addition,

this

discipline

does not

ap-

pear

as

oppressive

to those

exercising

it

as,

in their

eyes,

the

transgres-

sors

are not

formally

denied free

speech.

Indeed,

they are

allowed to

speak

and

then

dismissed as either

incorrect or

as

navel-gazers

whose

concerns

are not relevant

to more

important matters.

Wiegand's brief reexamination of the history of American librarian-

ship

might

be

regarded as an

instance

of such

navel-gazing,but

it re-

veals a

profession that rather

consistently overlooks

its own

contribu-

tion

to the

imbalances of

power

and

knowledge that in

turn

contribute



15/22

46

THE LIBRARY

QUARTERLY

to the systematicexclusion of certaingroups of people from full partici-

pation

in capitalist

social formations.

Wiegand

asserts

that

throughout

the twentieth

century,

a dominant

professional

imperative

systemati-

cally

privileged

some

library

purposes

and

audiences

to the

exclusion

of others.

He

argues

that

this trend

is also visible in the practice

of

information

science:

The

'information

science' that

has developed

in

the last years

of the

twentieth

century

constitutes

an arena of study

in

which the technology

to which it

is

harnessed

defines the

field

...

and

to the extent

that

people's

'information

economy'

does not require

the

use

of

these

technologies

within

the

culture

in

which

they

live,

current

'information

science'

discourse

renders

them and their culture(s) in-

visible largely

by ignoring

both

[1,

p. 24].

Questions

that

information

science

might

ask about the information

needs,

uses,

and behaviors

of

marginalized

people

in a capitalist

social

formation

are

not regarded

as important

enough

to deserve

concern.

As Wiegand

might

say

at this

point,

blind spots

and

tunnel vision

stand

revealed.

In

an earlier

work,

Michael

Harris

used

Gramscian

heory

to examine

blind spots

and tunnel vision

in the practice

of public

librarianship.

His particular

concern

was

with practice

that reinforced

print

culture

as an aspect of capitalisthegemony [24]. He locates librarianshipas a

historical subject

in an ensemble

of institutions,

both

public

and pri-

vate,

constituting

the means

of

sanctioning

and distributing public

knowledge

in a capitalist

social formation.

In effect,

he describes librar-

ians as intellectuals

organic

to the

dominant

culture of capitalist

he-

gemony.

According

to Harris,

the central

role of

libraries as

a state

apparatus

and

agent

of

capitalist

ideological

hegemony

is the

preser-

vation, transmission,

and

thus the

reproduction

of the

Book,

and

the

audience

for the Book

[24, p.

241].

While simple

enough

in

itself,

the

implications

of this statement

have

been contextualized by what Harris provides before it. The word

Book,

for

example,

is

deliberatelycapitalized.

Harrisdoes

so to

indi-

cate

its role as a

symbolic

representation

of

high

culture-the

canon

of

Western

civilization

that

grounds

and

provides

the

legitimacy

for

capital's

worldview

as universal

and universalizing,

as well

as its claim

that its particular

vision

of the ends

of cultural

reproduction

are in

fact

also universal.

The

library,

along

with the bookstore,

is one

of the

least

powerful

institutions at

the end of a

chain of both

state

and civil

institu-

tions that function

to

produce

and

reproduce

the

cultural

hegemony

of

capital

in the form

of the book.

Producers

and

publishers

are at

the

top of this chain, while reviewersand other tastemakers, ncluding

educators,

are

located somewhere

near

the middle.

This condition

also

tends

to

privilege

some

books,

some uses of those books,

and

some

users of

them,

while it

marginalizes

and excludes

others.



16/22

LIBRARIANS AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS

47

Librarians, as professionals, participate in this function as organic

intellectuals.

They appear

to have some

autonomy

with

regard

to selec-

tion

of materials and

provision

of services in the libraries

they

direct.

This

autonomy

is

ostensibly

based

on a

professional

ideology

of

neutral-

ity with

regard

to book

selection,

and a commitment to intellectual

freedom. It is reinforced

by

the status and trust accorded to

librarians

as

professionals

who can demonstrate that their

practice

is nondiscrimi-

natory,

based

on a

rational/legal authority

derived from

knowledge

that is an outcome of a value-free research

discourse,

and

supported

by positive

law that

guarantees

public accountability.

Harris

argues,

however, that this autonomy is only apparent, and is

actually quite

lim-

ited. The

library

is what Althusser calls an

ideological

state

apparatus

[22, pp.

141-48].

Selection decisions

by

librarians are framed

by

al-

ready

determined criteria over which librarians have

little

control. The

library

is a consumer of culture

already

determined as

appropriate

for

distribution,

and

library and

information science's

research

paradigm

does not allow these conditions to be

problematized. This situation

resembles one of don't

ask,

don't

tell.

Harris

concludes: Libraries

are

marginal

institutions

embedded

in a

hierarchically arranged set of

institutions designed to produce and reproduce the dominant effective

culture in

print

form. Power is

asymmetrically

distributed

among

these

institutions.... The library's structural and functional characteristics

are determined

by

its

definition

as an

institution contrived to

consume,

preserve, transmit, and reproduce

high

culture in

printed form [20,

p.

242].

Harris,

like

Wiegand, might

be accused of

expressing

well-intended

but

impractical concerns. His theoretical

speculations, however,

lead

him

to assert twenty-six related

propositions,

all of

which have serious

implications

for the

everyday practice

of

librarianship [24, pp. 242-

44]. Harris offers these propositions as hypotheses in need of investiga-

tion,

not as truths whose

certainty

is

already established. In other words,

he

poses

critical questions that challenge received wisdom and

conven-

tional

knowledge.

Like

Wiegand

and

Zweizig,

he is

concerned

about

the

library

in

the life of the user.

Many

of his

propositions point to

specific,

unexplored

blind

spots regarding

relations of power, knowl-

edge, and access to information

alluded to by Wiegand. If one is to be

selected as

the most

telling,

it

might

be this

one:

Librarians blame

non-users for non-use of

libraries [24, p. 244].

Possibilities of Resistance

A

persistent pessimism

characterizes the tone of

Harris' essay, and it

is not

entirely

absent from

Wiegand's. Perhaps

a sense of

futility, as



17/22

48

THE

LIBRARY

QUARTERLY

well as misgivingsregardingpossible sanction, holds in their grip some

librarians

and LISscholars

who might

otherwise

explore

through prac-

tice and

research

the issues

raised here.

But even Harris

notes

that

one

must not push

the

metaphor

of 'reproduction'

too far, lest

we

obscure

the real

evidence

of

resistance, or

counter-hegemonic

forces

in American

librarianship

[24, p.

242].

Despite their tone,

it seems

clear that both Harris and

Wiegand

also imply the

possibility

of a kind

of

political

action that might

at

least

counter the

excesses

of capitalist

hegemony.

Neither

wants to give

up

on an institution

thatJesse

Shera

[25] and Sidney

Ditzion

[26] identify

as central to the discourse

of

democracy

in

America.

The historical

realityof this

discourse,

when combined

with an

over-

all

view of

Gramsci's thought,

reveals

a political

space

within which

progressive

resistance

to the

historic bloc's

hegemony

can be and

has

been

mounted. Recall

first of all that

the

categories

of Gramscian

dis-

course,

including structures

such

as base

and superstructure,

and

classes

of

people such

as

intellectuals,

represent

theoretical constructs

whose concrete,

historical reality

is

fluid and malleable.

Both

objective

structures,

and

subjective

positions

within

structures,

are open to over-

determination. Neither human nature nor the natureof human institu-

tions are inexorably

fixed by

forces of history

or

hegemony.

It is

entirely

possible

that the actions

of a

given

structure

within

a social formation,

or a

given

intellectual working

within

that structure, might

at a

given

historical

moment be

characterized

by

a conflict between hegemonic

and

counterhegemonic

ideas. Such

a condition

is

indicative

of

the

war

of

position.

According

to

Gramsci,

deas do

make a difference

because

human

beings are

free

to

act

on them.

Change

at

the

superstructural

level can

cause

change

in the base.

Turning

to the nature

of intellectuals

specifically,

Gramsci

observed

that both traditionaland organic intellectuals possess a relativeauton-

omy

from

the historic

bloc because

of their

expertise

[5, p.

6]. They

perform

specialist

functions

on

which

the bloc

depends,

and

this

de-

pendency

of the bloc

on their

skills

provides

them

with a measure

of

power [18,

pp. 255-62].

As Harris

argues,

they may

not

possess

a

great

deal of

power,

and the

threat of sanction

is

real.

Nevertheless,

intellec-

tuals, including

librarians,

are

not

entirely

constrained

in either their

thoughts

or

actions,

and the

range

of freedom available

has

grown

in

the context

of

a

discourse

of

democracy

that has

become

integral

to

at least

some

capitalist

social formations.

Indeed,

this

expansion

has

occurred precisely because of political struggles conducted by an alli-

ance

of

people

that

reflects

the

potential

of a new

historical bloc

[5,

pp.

9-10].

This

alliance

includes

members

of the

current historical



18/22

LIBRARIANS

AS

ORGANIC

INTELLECTUALS

49

bloc, who exercise their relativeautonomy to pursue change within the

bloc,

as well as

people

excluded from the bloc

[8,

pp.

152-71].

Given Harris'

analysis,

for

example,

the

public

library

may

be

re-

garded

as an

ideological

state

apparatus.

It is a

state-maintained,super-

structural nstitution

designed

not to

coerce

but to

persuade

the

public

of the historical bloc's

legitimacy

by

reinforcing

the dominant culture.

From a

Gramscian

perspective,

it is an

ideological

weapon

in

the war

of

position,

but it is a

double-edged

weapon. Librarians,

as

organic

intellectuals, are

in

a position to exercise at least some real

choice re-

garding

the ends

they pursue.

Some libraries

may

never

venture be-

yond satisfying

he conditioned demands of audiences

seeking nothing

but assurance

that

this

is the

best

of

all

possible

worlds. The actions of

these

libraries

will

confirm

Harris'

theory.

Some

libraries,however,

will

seek out the underserved and the

unserved and commit

significant

quantities

of their limited resources

to

engaging

these audiences.

Most

libraries

will

fall between these

extremes, and

some of their users will

find

their

own paths

through mazes of

information

and classification

systems

presented to them to

achieve

ends

that librarians can neither

imagine

or anticipate

[27].

Even within a

single library t is

likely

that

one will discover some professional practices that represent capitalist

hegemony at work and others that

challenge that

hegemony.

Intellectual

freedom

regarding

book

selection, for

example, may

be

practiced

uncritically and

imperfectly

realized

[28], yet its

position

in

the professional canon of

librarianship is not without

meaning,

and

it

has

led librarians to active

resistance

against

censorship [29].

The

ambivalent

location

of

the

library

in the social

formation,

especially

within

the context of

the discourse of

democracy, means that

the li-

brary

as an

agent of

hegemony

is

politically vulnerable. It is a

potential

site of

ideological

conflict

manifest in contests over

decisions

regarding

the nature of its collections, services, and audiences. It is also a stake

in that conflict in

that it can and

perhaps

usually does serve

the purpose

Harrisdescribes,

yet

it

has the

potential

to be penetrated

and turned

counterhegemonic.

Certainly

this

condition does not

imply a revolu-

tionary transformation.

The library's

dependence on the

state for

fund-

ing, to say

nothing

of

the political

conditions and

practices

of capitalist

democracies, precludes

this outcome.

This

condition, however,

does

raise interesting

questions that

are not free of

political

implications.

In what

waysand to what extent

does the

library'sposition

in the

super-

structure

and

librarianship's

location as a

historical

subject result in

practices that are progressiveor conservative?Does KathleenMcCook's

[30]

recent work on the

library's

potential

role in

community building

represent a progressive

counterhegemonic

challenge to

the Public Li-



19/22


braryAssociation's (PLA's) emphasis on administrativerationality [31-

32]?

Does the latter

represent a kind of tunnel vision that

limits the

library's contribution to genuinely progressive social outcomes

by de-

fining professional success in terms of the ability of the library

to serve

the

predictable demands of a normatively dentified market?And what

does it

say

about the

American LibraryAssociation, that it is

willing to

publish

both McCook's

and

the

PLA's texts? It may be that this bears

witness to

pluralism

in

action, a manifestation of ideological

conflict

within

ALA,

or

both. Gramscirepeatedly assertsthat neither

theoretical

abstractionsnor facile

assumptions regarding

the

laws of

historywill

contribute to understanding how civil society actuallyworks at a given

moment. Coming to an understanding of the real conditions

of exis-

tence in order to

exercise a genuine freedom is a difficult task

requir-

ing critical empirical study. The empirical questions arising

from the

ambivalent

position

of libraries in

the social formation,

however, also

imply

that

librariansmust confront political and moral choices in their

everyday practice.

In his discussion of the

problems

faced

by workers

in

their effort

to

develop

a theoretical consciousness of their

actions,

Gramsci

neatly

describes a situation that can be applied to librarians [5, pp. 333-34].

His work suggests that librarians might manifest a

contradictory theo-

retical consciousness. On the one hand, their activity mplies a progres-

sive transformation of the world. This is particularlymanifest

in

librari-

anship's long-standing

commitment to

empowering

individuals to

pursue

self-culture and

lifelong learning [21, pp. 53-77; 33].

On the

other

hand, they uncritically

absorb a

theoretical

consciousness from

the

past [1; 34].

This consciousness holds them

together

as a social

group,

influences their

ethico-political

conduct and

will,

but

produces

a

situation that does not

permit action,

instead

reinforcing

a moral

and political passivity [35]. They offer a potentially progressive and

transforming service,

but

they

do so in a context that

preserves

their

self-interest and liberal

identity

within the

capitalist

hegemony,

thus

allowing

them to dismiss the need

for critical

selfW-examination.

series

of

questions follow,

not unlike

the

propositions

advanced

by

Harris.

In

each

instance,

research

questions imply political

and value

questions.

Questions for Practice and

Research

1. Do libraries work within a context of contradiction, sustaining a

capitalist hegemony

and

providing

a means

for users to think be-

yond

that

hegemony,

as

well

as its limits to human freedom? Can

libraries do more to enhance

freedom

and overcome the struc-



20/22

LIBRARIANSAS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS

51

tural barriers that deny to some full participation in the social

formation? Should

libraries

do this? Does

librarianship

conduct

a discourse within

and about

itself that assumesthat

the

important

value

questions

regarding

the

ends of

public

library

practices

and

services have

already

been

satisfactorily

answered?

2. If the condition indicated

by

the first

question

above

is

true,

is

this then a

manifestation of

a

reality

in

which the

public

library

is a

site

and

stake of an

ideological

conflict

whose

outcome

con-

tributes to

the

production

and

reproduction

of the social

forma-

tion? Can we

find evidence of

this conflict?

Can we find

librarians

and scholars who do address the issues raised by Wiegand and

Harris and

act in

ways

that

reveal blind

spots

and

expand

our

vision?

Are

we hesitant to

engage

these

questions

because we

might

cast

ourselves in a less

than ideal

light?

Might

we find

our-

selves

on the

wrong

side?

3.

Why

do

questions

like those

posed here

go

unasked? Why

do

propositions like those

offered

by

Harris

go unexamined?

Does

the lack of

action

reveal blind

spots and

tunnel vision?

Are

they

not

pursued

because they are not

salient or

important, or

because

librarians,fulfilling their responsibility as organic intellectuals in

support

of

capital, deny

the

saliency

and

importance of

these

questions

and

propositions?

Is

the

source

of

the blind

spots and

tunnel vision

identified by

Wiegand?

4.

If

librarians

chose to

pursue

a

counterhegemonic

strategy,would

this even be

possible?

To what

kinds of

discipline would it

be

sub-

ject?

How are

progressive

choices

constrained or

encouraged

by

a

capitalist

hegemony

that

is

nevertheless

characterized

by a dis-

course

of

democracy? If

limits are in

place, in

what ways

and

to

what extent

can

and should

librarians

challenge

them?

What

strat-

egies can and should be pursued if librarianschoose to engage

in the war of

position?

Conclusion

Wiegand's

essay

implies

that

librarianship's

discourse, in both

its

theo-

retical and

practical

aspects, is

essentially

centered on

its own

status

and

power within

the historical

bloc

that

organizes

and governs

the

American

capitalist social

formation.

He

argues that

information

sci-

ence as an academic discipline willingly,if unconsciously, contributes

to

this

bloc's

maintenance and

exercise of

power

by its

focus on

ques-

tions

Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'

Documents

Transcript of Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'