by Robert D. Montoya
The functions of libraries seem to be changing.
Some of the relatively quiet real estate previously occupied by stacks of books
has been transformed into the central hub of campus activity. The once
labyrinthian endless rows of knowledge are slowly transforming into spaces
where collaborative projects exhibit the use of new modes of technological
innovation and investigation. In order to create these new spaces, libraries
have devised methods of moving these under (or never) used material to off-site
climate-controlled storage. The student, faculty, and public responses to this
relocation have been lukewarm at best. The recent uproar over the potential
transfer of some three million books from the New York Public Library (NYPL) to
a storage facility in New Jersey is good representation of this ongoing debate (Burdick 2014). While the NYPL about-faced on this
proposition, the concern expressed by the public is indicative of an increased
fear over a lack of access to information. Reasons for transferring books are
often financial in nature and mounds of circulation statistics and data are
often published to justify such changes. In this post I wish to explicate this
tension through the lens of Gayatri Spivak’s notion of the subaltern as well as
by using Spivak’s technique of deconstruction to interrogate what it means to ‘access’
library material. I propose deconstructing the relationship between access and
non-access in the library setting, focusing on how moving books off-site has
the potential to endanger free and anonymous paths to information. Furthermore,
by limiting immediate access to library material, institutions are potentially eradicating
the one public space where the subaltern segment of the population has the potential to use such information to
gain a receptive voice.
Before proceeding, I should establish two
working definitions for concepts of the ‘subaltern’ and ‘deconstruction’ as
used in this post. A term that gained great traction in Gayatri Spivak’s piece
titled, “Can the Subaltern Speak,” the subaltern is generally understood as an
individual or group within society whose voice (or collective voice) is not heard
or represented in a social context. By definition, the subaltern is not heard, and is thus unable to be either
politically represented or “spoken for” by any other segment of the population (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2006, 29–32). In the context of this blog, I see the
subaltern population as a segment of the community that may need to utilize
library sources in order to gain a listened-to voice in society.
Deconstruction is a method of textual analysis
(broadly defined) that arises from Jaques Derrida’s Of Grammatology, translated with an introduction by Spivak in 1967.
In deconstructing a concept or text, one is to identify a binary opposition in
order to tease out the “hierarchical concept[s]” inherent in the relationship—where
one concept is seen as subordinate to the other (Leckie, Given, and Buschman 2010, 296; Derrida and
Spivak 1998, xi). Then, by
focusing discussion on the subordinate term, we break down the power
relationships by exposing the constructed
nature of the relationship, and
showing that this relationship need not proceed as it has been conceived. Taking
access/non-access as our binary example in this post, the goal is to examine
the access from the perspective of those that cannot gain access (non-access)
in order to show that institutional choices are not always in line with the
optimal forms of access for underrepresented, subaltern members of the
community.
Numerous
universities across the United States have chosen to repurpose underutilized
library space for collaborative and multi-use purposes. In 2007, Georgia Tech Library “received the Association of
College and Research Libraries' (ACRL) ‘University Library of Excellence’
award,” proving to be a model for library renovations across the country (Fox and Stuart). What were once drab rows of chairs and tables
are now active computer terminals, multimedia centers, and peer-to-peer
consultation spaces, which proved incredibly successful and dynamic in use.
While Georgia Tech generally repurposed areas that were already existing study
spaces, some libraries have decided to relocate book stacks in order to make
room for these collaborative learning spaces. Southwestern Michigan College
(SMC), for example, transformed an “existing 1960s layout featuring traditional
hushed space occupied by tall book stacks” into a “vibrant, noisier space” seen
as the “social hub” on campus (“SMC a Case Study for Creating an Active Library” 2014). SMC was so successful that it
received accolades from the Higher Education Journal as case study of success
for such renovation projects.
SMC’s renovation was not without its
losses, however: twelve feet of book shelves were removed, titles were weeded
out from the collection due to lack of use, and periodicals subscriptions were
suspended due to lack of demand. By moving books off site users’ immediate
access to material is being diminished. The much-followed proposed renovation of the 5th
Avenue Main Branch of the New York Public Library, which involved moving
millions of the books to off-site storage, raised a series of objections from
the community, claiming that a disappearance of the physical stacks would rip
the “spirit” of the institution away for twenty-first century luxuries (Besteman 2014). The articulated justification for NYPL’s
relocation of books was that such changes were necessary to conform to the
changing needs of the “information age,” and to make way for different
services: tutoring and study spaces, for example (“Reimagining The New York Public Library” 2014). These developments in public libraries to move
physical books stacks to offsite storage is one example of dislocating physical
material from disenfranchised, subaltern populations that can’t otherwise
access digital texts online (Schuman 2014). While NYPL’s books will still be request-able
within a twenty-four hour turnaround time, the public still objected—so much so
that the NYPL reversed their decision to relocate the material in early May,
2014 (Crain 2014).
But why
are libraries moving their stacks? A good question—and the reasons are
financially and operationally sound. (1) Libraries are running out of space.
American University Library in 2011, for example, estimated that their stacks
would “run out of space for the monograph collection in less than five years
time,” leaving them no other option than to move books to offsite storage (Reeves and Schmidt 2011, 413). (2) Libraries are also facing new demands by
users, as was the case in Texas A&M University Library, whose patrons
wished for “more independent and collaborate study and learning spaces within
the physical environment of the library” (Tabacaru and Pickett 2013, 112). (3) Library and University staff and faculty
need more appropriate teaching spaces as well, leading the co-opting of library
space for teaching purposes (Freiburger 2010). (4) Circulation statistics for many titles are
low and digital journals are being usurped by the availability of digital
access, meaning these items are prime targets for off-site storage and
deaccessioning (Reeves and Schmidt 2011, 416–418). (5)
Space is at a premium and it’s expensive to keep underused collections in space
that can otherwise be used for other uses (Columbia University Libraries Unknown). Institutions are being pulled in multiple
directions to evolve with shifting financial resources and perceived user
attitudes.
It is important, however, to reexamine ‘access’
not necessarily from an institutional perspective, but from the perspective of
the user. In examining the access/non-access binary as it is expressed in the
move to relocate books off-site, there is a conflict between institutional
notions of access and what types of access individuals might need—especially
underprivileged or sensitive members of the population. Access in an
institutional setting is about usage
insofar as the space or resources should be utilized for the most individuals
at any given time. In Columbia University’s “Investing in the Future of
Columbia Libraries and Academic Information Systems” library plan, under the
subsection titled “Improving Access to Print Collections,” the plan cites
holdings overcrowding, difficulty in finding print material, and the resulting
user dissatisfaction, as the impetus to moving books off-site to alleviate
these issues (Columbia University Libraries). These institutional reasons, as seen above,
are understandable and fiscally appropriate given the funding circumstances for
libraries. But what these administrative notions of access fail to account for
is how these actions may actually inhibit access on an individuated level,
especially to segments of the populations whose seeking-out of information necessitates
anonymous and immediate access. For example, numerous studies on medical
information seeking behaviors, especially related to HIV, indicate that, due to
the sensitivity of the information sought-after, the “social costs” of seeking
is high, resulting in “information avoidance” (Veinot et al. 2013, 2). The more libraries send material off-site, the
more underrepresented and sensitive groups will be required to encounter (and
avoid) administrative structures to access information, such as librarians,
paging interfaces, and the need to purchase or sign-up for a library card,
etc., for fear that the very act of
seeking will expose the private information they are seeking.
Compounding this effect is how such limitations
to immediate access are part of a larger economy of knowledge, whereby quality
information has become far more difficult to obtain. Questions of quality access
become tantamount to questions of how much power you have to gain voice within
society. In his first monograph, Two Kinds of Power: An Essay on
Bibliographic Control, Patrick Wilson describes two interdependent
concepts: exploitative power and descriptive power; the former being the
ability of individuals to engage and utilize information (find what they need),
while the latter being the organization of information in discoverable
infrastructures (where they find it) (Wilson 1968). The titular use of “control” is essential in
this context, for the apportionment of a means
to access is a “political decision” that either denies or affords access to
any given group of constituents (Wilson 1968, 133). The less quickly an individual can access
material, the less they can exploit its knowledge to power. And the less
immediacy these discoverable infrastructures provide in the procurement of
scholarship, the less likely they will be able to utilize information when they
need it most. If the library space is to serve as a potential space to give voice
to the subaltern voiceless, then unmediated access to information is necessary
to achieve this goal.
Depending on the internet to deliver this unmediated,
quality access to underrepresented portions of the population is not a
reasonable alternative. Full-scale access to quality information online is a
figment of the imagination, so expecting individuals to speedily find relevant
information online is not a wholly adequate solution. This says nothing of the
fact that the internet is expensive and still a luxury to some members of
society. Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search can certainly find you
citations to articles and books, but they can’t provide you access unless you
have Virtual Private Network (VPN) access such as that provided by universities.
As Siva Vaidhyanathan indicates in his book, The Googlization of Everything,
Google’s search results offer the illusion of
precision, accuracy, and relevance. Psychologists at the University of
California at Berkeley have even published a study claiming the Google’s
Web-search techniques mimics the way humans brains recall information. So it is
understandable that we have come to believe that Google’s search rankings are
for quality of information, simply an extension of our collective judgment (Vaidhyanathan 2011, 3).
We, as a society, are lulled into believing that we have access to
quality and relevant information, but in reality have gained little ground. It
is no surprise, then, that individuals rally against less access to book stacks given these circumstances.
My main goal here has been to situate the
relocation of library books within a larger landscape of information availability.
The operational impetuses to move books off site are understandable. These
limitations are practical and undeniable facts of the library environment. But
we (and I) should not be so hasty to equate these outcries against the moving of
stacks offsite with an unwillingness to accept change or to reminiscences of
times past. It’s just not that simple. And while the serendipity of browsing
may not be as prevalent (or effective) as some think it to be, nor as old a
custom as is generally acknowledged, the symbolic value of being able to do so
means something to the public in our contemporary climate (Barclay
2010). What these
outcries indicate is a collective fear for our ever-increasing loss of unmediated,
un-documented access to information that might
potentially play a role in the contingencies of our lives. These objections
represent a fear of losing direct access to material—books destined to
obfuscation behind another web-based user interface managing the paging of
material. What is being lamented is a loss of exploitative power. Whether or
not books can be paged from offsite storage in twenty-four quick hours, our
institutions should be cognizant of and address the larger ecosystem of
information deprivation at play as these decisions are being made. As Olson and
Fox indicate, “without input from groups as users or formal advisors, the
subaltern in the library will be unable to speak” (“Hope Olson and Melodie J. Fox, ‘Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak: Deconstructionist, Marxist, Feminist, Postcolonialist,’ in C,” 303). To extend this notion, if the library is to be
a space where the disenfranchised and the socially marginalized segments of the
population can empower themselves with knowledge and social voice, moving books
off-site stands as an impediment to easy, free, and anonymous access to the
building blocks of mobility.
CITED SOURCES
Ashcroft,
Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. 2006. The Post-Colonial Studies
Reader. 2 edition. London ; New York: Routledge.
Barclay, Donald. 2010. “The Myth of Browsing: Academic
Library Space in the Age of Facebook.” May 19.
http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/myth-browsing.
Besteman, Catherine. 2014. “An Open Letter from the
Faculty Concerning Miller.” The Colby Echo. April 9.
http://www.thecolbyecho.com/opinion/an-open-letter-from-the-faculty-concerning-miller.
Burdick, Kelly. 2014. “New York Public Library to
Store 3 Million Books... in New Jersey » MobyLives.” Melville House Books.
Accessed May 14.
http://www.mhpbooks.com/new-york-public-library-to-store-3-million-books-in-new-jersey/.
Columbia University Libraries. Unknown. “Investing in
the Future of Columbia’s Libraries and Academic Information Systems”. Columbia
University. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/docs/libplan.html.
Crain, Caleb. 2014. “The New York Public Library Comes
Around.” The New Yorker Blogs.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/05/the-new-york-public-library-comes-around.html.
Derrida, Jacques, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
1998. Of Grammatology. Corrected edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Fox, Robert, and Crit Stuart. “Creating Learning
Spaces Through Collaboration: How One Library Refined Its Approach.” Educause.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/creating-learning-spaces-through-collaboration-how-one-library-refined-its-approach.
Freiburger, Gary. 2010. “A ‘White Elephant’ in the
Library: A Case Study on Loss of Space from the Arizona Health Sciences Library
at the University of Arizona.” Journal of the Medical Library Association :
JMLA 98 (1): 29–31. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.011.
“Hope Olson and Melodie J. Fox, ‘Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak: Deconstructionist, Marxist, Feminist, Postcolonialist,’ in C.”
Leckie, Gloria J., Lisa M. Given, and John E.
Buschman. 2010. Critical Theory for Library and Information Science:
Exploring the Social from Across the Disciplines. 1 edition. Santa Barbara,
Calif: Libraries Unlimited.
Reeves, Robert K., and Kari Schmidt. 2011. “Radical
Relocation: Adapting Print Collections to an E-Centric World.” The Serials
Librarian 61 (3-4): 412–29. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.580424.
“Reimagining The New York Public Library.” 2014.
Accessed May 15. http://www.nypl.org/yourlibrary/faq.
“Research Library Renovation.” 2014. Accessed May 15.
http://www.library.ucla.edu/research-library-renovation.
Schuman, Rebecca. 2014. “Save Our Stacks: It’s Not
about the Books. It’s about the Books Representing the Last Place on Campus
Where Intellectual Contemplation Thrives.” Slate. Accessed May 13.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/05/college_libraries_should_keep_their_books_in_the_stacks.html.
“SMC a Case Study for Creating an Active Library.”
2014. Accessed May 15. http://www.swmich.edu/node/699.
Tabacaru, Simona, and Carmelita Pickett. 2013. “Damned
If You Do, Damned If You Don't: Texas A&M
University Libraries' Collection Assessment for off-Site Storage.”
Collection Building 32 (3): 111–15. doi:10.1108/CB-02-2013-0006.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2011. The Googlization of
Everything: (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Veinot, Tiffany Christine, Chrysta Cathleen
Meadowbrooke, Jimena Loveluck, Andrew Hickok, and Jose Artruro Bauermeister.
2013. “How ‘Community’ Matters for How People Interact With Information: Mixed
Methods Study of Young Men Who Have Sex With Other Men.” Journal of Medical
Internet Research 15 (2): e33. doi:10.2196/jmir.2370.
Wilson, Patrick. 1968. Two Kinds of Power; an Essay
on Bibliographical Control. University of California Publications:
Librarianship, 5. Berkeley: University of California Press.
