“I think those of us who have been
killjoys around family tables probably know this; how useful we are as
containers of incivility and discord.”
Sara
Ahmed
from Living a Feminist Life
**Author’s note:
This post is written by a Filipinx-American veteran of the United States
Air Force whose experience of the American education system is formed by nine
years of Catholic school. The following post
contains themes of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism that fans of theAmerican status quo may find objectionable and, possibly, upsetting. Responses to these ideas can be sent to
lawrencecm@ucla.edu or given in person to the author, who can often be found in
Long Beach, California’s north side. In
either case, the author thanks these readers in advance for the opportunity to
expand their worldview.
American life under a Trump
administration has seen increased calls for civil discourse, “the free and
respectful exchange of ideas,” in a rising tide of incivility. Susan Herbst has referred to civility as “the fundamental tone and practice of democracy,” which highlights the seemingly
benign nature of civil behavior and how it is taken for granted as a democratic,
social norm. The library, as an American institution,
often conflates civility with an idealized standard of behavior that applies to
its workers and its users, as seen in a recently published book selling on the
American Library Association’s online bookstore titled, “Cultivating Civility:Practical Ways to Improve a Dysfunctional Library.” The connotations associated with the concept
of being “civil,” however, are rarely called into question. If American librarianship wishes to align
itself with the ALA’s Core Values of “Diversity” and “Social Responsibility,” the
profession would be wise to consider the settler colonial, white supremacist
tradition of maintaining “civility” by silencing and enacting violence upon the
United States’ marginalized communities.
In
exploring the concept of civility, it is important to note the power relations
implied in this behavioral standard and how this standard functions as a
“mechanic of power,” enabling authority to “have a hold over others’ bodies…so
that they may operate as one wishes.”1 As
a product of capitalist, settler colonial, and white supremacist practices and
traditions, the United States as it stands today is the result of Manifest
Destiny, the nationalist ideology that deluded 19th-century American
political leaders into thinking they were ordained by divine forces (usually a
white, male god) to expand and spread “civilization” across North America by
displacing and slaughtering the people who were already living here. Justifying this massacre required
dehumanizing large populations of Indigenous Americans and Mexicans by
declaring them to be “savage” and, *gasp* uncivilized (This same belief
also fueled the impulse to subjugate Africans and drag them to the colonies so
that they could provide free labor).
Those who were not eradicated in the westward expansion were forcibly
removed from the land and thrown into boarding schools run by missionaries paid
by the American government to “civilize” them.
This usually meant having Anglo-Saxon ways of speaking and being imposed on
them by punishing Indigenous people for attempting to sustain traditional
cultural practices and forcing them to practice Christianity.
…and everyone lived civilly ever
after.
…that
is, until the 1960s, where incivility again reared its ugly head and threatened
American civilization. African Americans
in the southern United States had organized a non-violent movement to call
attention to the cruel and unjust treatment that deprived them of access to the
same benefits of citizenship as white Americans. They had coordinated a series of non-violent
actions, such as boycotts, protests, and marches in order to have their demands
heard. A Gallup poll was taken in 1961
to determine what white Americans thought about these protests. To the question of whether or not they
approved of what these activists were doing, 61% of them did not. Over half of those responded believed that
the “‘sit-ins’… and other demonstrations” hurt African Americans’ chances “of
being integrated in the South." In other words, even when African
Americans adhered to non-violence to challenge the American status quo (i.e.,
white supremacy maintained through legitimized racial segregation laws that
Adolf Hitler got starry-eyed over. Pun begrudgingly intended.),
disapproval of these methods highlights how white Americans remain arbiters of what forms
of dialogue are deemed “acceptable.”
In writing about civility, NPR
correspondent and producer of the “Code Switch” podcast, Karen Grigsby Bates
highlights the long American tradition of dismissing similar calls for justice
“as inherently uncivil by the people who want to maintain [the status quo].” She looks at how Bill Clinton’s chastising of
Black Lives Matter protesters, the anger directed at activists calling
attention to the AIDS epidemic, and the National Football League’s fan base’s
response to Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the national anthem all follow
this theme of vocal marginalized communities failing to live up to standards of
civility.
This tradition points to asymmetrical power relations
at play here, specifically, “colonized/colonizer,” “master/slave,” and/or
“’White’/racialized Other.” Calls for
civility have historically been made to appease those in power so as to not feel
discomfort from marginalized peoples’ expressions of experiencing
injustice. In effect, the goalposts for
what is deemed “civil” are never fixed and those who challenge the status quo
are often denounced for not speaking to those in power on their terms, if such
a thing is even possible (shouts to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak).
Given this context, positioning the library as a space
for “civil discourse” alienates people from communities who have had
less-than-ideal experiences with different manifestations of “civility.” Marking the library as “civil” dredges up the
skeletons of early American boarding schools notorious for subjecting Indigenous
children to corporal punishment. If making
the library a more civil place is what the ALA considers a “contribution that librarianship can make in ameliorating or solving the critical problems of society,” then perhaps ditching the ALA’s Core Value of “Social Responsibility” may best
serve librarians who wish to cultivate and promote diverse, inclusive libraries
that serve all the members of their communities.
Yawo Brown
No comments:
Post a Comment