Comments on: The Other Crisis of Trust (and a question about what it means for Info Lit) http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=962 On the intersection of libraries, politics, and culture Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:19:57 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Rory Litwin http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=962&cpage=1#comment-782748 Rory Litwin Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:29:08 +0000 http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=962#comment-782748 What you're saying is very interesting, although I'm not sure I follow you entirely. Is our profession a defender of the status quo? In terms of the situation I'm discussing, I think libraries are more a manifestation of the past situation that a defender of the status quo, since we are still fundamentally about literacy and written texts, which engage critical reason in a way that visual media don't. I would say that we're somewhat anachronistic to that extent, despite our efforts to be relevant in a more sensory order. In terms of information literacy, I think that it means we are not very effective at communicating what we are trying to communicate, because we're assuming that the former order is still the primary order of things (when it has persisted in a secondary way). So... while I don't agree that librarianship is a domain that is complicit in this counterfeiting of reality, I see us as less than effective in illuminating the underlying truth. What you’re saying is very interesting, although I’m not sure I follow you entirely. Is our profession a defender of the status quo? In terms of the situation I’m discussing, I think libraries are more a manifestation of the past situation that a defender of the status quo, since we are still fundamentally about literacy and written texts, which engage critical reason in a way that visual media don’t. I would say that we’re somewhat anachronistic to that extent, despite our efforts to be relevant in a more sensory order. In terms of information literacy, I think that it means we are not very effective at communicating what we are trying to communicate, because we’re assuming that the former order is still the primary order of things (when it has persisted in a secondary way). So… while I don’t agree that librarianship is a domain that is complicit in this counterfeiting of reality, I see us as less than effective in illuminating the underlying truth.

]]> By: Badda Being http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=962&cpage=1#comment-782742 Badda Being Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:11:52 +0000 http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=962#comment-782742 The meaning depends on whether you intend to perpetuate the current state of affairs or transform it into something else. But as of now it appears you can only perpetuate it: the way information is generally understood within your profession, coupled with the standard set of professional values with respect to it, keeps you constantly behind the transformative curve. Notice, for example, the way user interfaces are designed with a mind toward optimizing interactions based upon needs and competencies evolved within the very context you find problematic. Any attempt to position yourself at the front is looked down upon as a form of technocratic control, of the information professional thinking he knows better what clients need than the clients themselves, of forcing them to adjust to your overall scheme (which may or may not pan out in the end). Yours is not a risk-taking profession. Above all else, you're defenders of the status quo. Thus whatever transformations do come about occur only non-reflexively as random outgrowths from the excess utility of technologies -- that is, following the law of unintended consequences. Now consider what information literacy would look like when you're trying to survive in the wilderness. Teaching students to be information literate within that context would mean teaching them to read the landscape for signs of wildlife, to read the sky for signs of the weather, and so forth. And it would mean something else in yet another context. So one way to effect transformation in the current state of affairs is to abandon your profession and promote information literacy in some other domain of human undertaking, a domain that's less complicit in counterfeiting reality. The meaning depends on whether you intend to perpetuate the current state of affairs or transform it into something else. But as of now it appears you can only perpetuate it: the way information is generally understood within your profession, coupled with the standard set of professional values with respect to it, keeps you constantly behind the transformative curve. Notice, for example, the way user interfaces are designed with a mind toward optimizing interactions based upon needs and competencies evolved within the very context you find problematic. Any attempt to position yourself at the front is looked down upon as a form of technocratic control, of the information professional thinking he knows better what clients need than the clients themselves, of forcing them to adjust to your overall scheme (which may or may not pan out in the end). Yours is not a risk-taking profession. Above all else, you’re defenders of the status quo. Thus whatever transformations do come about occur only non-reflexively as random outgrowths from the excess utility of technologies — that is, following the law of unintended consequences.

Now consider what information literacy would look like when you’re trying to survive in the wilderness. Teaching students to be information literate within that context would mean teaching them to read the landscape for signs of wildlife, to read the sky for signs of the weather, and so forth. And it would mean something else in yet another context. So one way to effect transformation in the current state of affairs is to abandon your profession and promote information literacy in some other domain of human undertaking, a domain that’s less complicit in counterfeiting reality.

]]>