libraries and public perception || contemporary challenges and public perception

97

4

Contemporary challenges and public perception

Abstract: This chapter focuses on three main and large-scale topics considered relevant for the future perspectives of libraries: their role in the knowledge economy, their positioning in the welfare state and the impact of the digital revolution. The aim is to analyse these topics from librarians’ point of view and then to read them again in the light of the newspapers, in order to evaluate the gap between the inside perception of librarians and the outside view conveyed by newspapers. The main finding of this analysis is that the points of view of journalists and citizens do not always coincide with that of librarians. They could be conditioned partly by prejudices and stereotypes, and partly by a scarce awareness of the competences and background work of librarians.

Key words: public perception, knowledge economy, welfare state, digital revolution, role and functions of libraries.

Looking from the inside and outsideThe analysis of articles proposed in the previous chapter gives an overview of the topics and circumstances affecting libraries that are echoed by public opinion. These issues, in part, are also debated by librarians and knowledge professionals in their specialised literature and forums.

In order to evaluate the gap between the inside perception and interpretation of the surrounding circumstances by librarians and the outside view conveyed by newspapers on the same issues, three main and large-scale themes, which are considered especially relevant for the future perspectives of libraries, have been identified, described and analysed from librarians’ point of view and then read again in the light of the newspapers.

98

Libraries and Public Perception

This double check could be useful not only to possibly rethink the librarians’ choices in defining the libraries’ priorities and the future library models, but also to reflect upon how much work and time are needed to change the conventional image of libraries that people have in their minds.

Libraries and knowledge

The rise of the knowledge economy

The first area of analysis identified is the evolving role of knowledge in the contemporary economic and technological framework.

Knowledge management is one of the most traditional tasks carried out by organised groups. However, over recent decades, knowledge has become a key player of the social, economic and technological playground, and one of the main wealth producers at global level, as a consequence of the profound changes of the global socio-economic scenario.1

This process dates back to the period when, after the abandon of the farmlands and the long industrial and manufacturing phase, the importance of services (the so-called tertiary sector) grew progressively, producing a deep change in society, i.e. the decrease in the quantitative and political relevance of the working class, which had been the political and economic glue of the Western societies during the twentieth century. The transition from the secondary to the tertiary sector had the middle class in the leading role, which became the main engine of the national economy. The government, in turn, aimed social policies at guaranteeing a widespread wealth of this class, in order to preserve its role as the main supporter of the political system, as well as the primary client of the productive surplus created by the market.2

Under the framework of a service-based economy, due to its saturation, the market shifted its focus towards the soft components of economic transactions, the symbolic value of goods and services, and the user experience.3

Afterwards, the advent of globalisation, the rise of new technologies and the predominant role of the financial transactions in creating wealth changed the socio-economic scenario further and definitively, and gradually shaped the so-called information or network society.

On the one hand, the possibility of drawing on the working force available at global level (far less expensive and less bound by severe social protection schemas), the Western markets saturation and the

99


subsequent development of new global markets caused the delocalisation of production and working labour. On the other hand, insofar as the new technologies gained a central position in the global financial system, the main players of Western economies moved their attention from the phase of production to those of conception, innovation and sense-making, heading towards an intangible economy based upon research, knowledge creation and exploitation. This is what many call the ‘knowledge economy’.4

Consequently, the labour market gradually assumed new characteristics, like mobility, flexibility and fluidity, and became suitable only for those capable of reinventing themselves rapidly, conceiving successful ideas and continuously updating their professional knowledge in order to adapt to changing needs, while other components of society were progressively left behind.

While at the advent of the knowledge economy, the middle class stayed central in the socio-economic scenario, with the emergence of the financial capitalism and the network society, this class, which was a stable and conservative one, passed the baton to the knowledge workers. These people do not represent a social class in a traditional way, as they are socially heterogeneous, but they share the courage to risk on short-term projects, the ability to continuously reinvent themselves and the capacity to innovate.

This transition is fostering a polarisation in society, as – given the middle class is gradually vanishing – power and wealth are concentrated in a more and more restricted number of people, while a new ‘working class’ (proletariat) arises, whose access to a wide variety of services is not guaranteed by social policies and by the economic surplus produced by work any more – as was the case for the working class born after the Industrial Revolution – but by the possibilities given by the low-cost economy.5 This new working class is characterised by a broad and heterogeneous social basis and, though less safeguarded than the old middle class, has even wider possibilities in terms of services, thanks to the low-cost offer.

At the bottom of the social pyramid lies an even broader group of ‘new poor and left out people’, whose socio-economic situation is so difficult that even low-cost products and services are out of their reach.

Over recent years, this reconfiguration of society has been accentuated and made clear at global level by the economic crisis, and the very pillars of the welfare state have been put into question by this new socio-economic structure. Some observe that the presence of the state as the

100


only owner and governing institution of goods and services for citizens, besides causing inefficiency and being by now incompatible with the current economic situation of the state, represents an obstacle to the full deployment of the market potentials in supporting wealth, progress and innovation. Many pleas have been made for the liberalisation and privatisation of the services, as well as for the highest possible flexibility of the labour market.

On the other hand, some studies confirm the existence of alternative experiences in the Western scenario, for example the Finnish one, examined by Castells and Himanen, though it should be stressed that their research precedes the emergence of the economic crisis, as it was published in 2002. The two scientists highlighted that Finland had registered some of the highest growth and innovation rates in the world thanks to the advances in the new technologies and mobile communication sectors. Nonetheless the country kept a solid social-democratic welfare state, based on the principle of universalism and characterised by high levels of taxation and high appreciation by the population. According to Castells and Himanen, along with the role exerted by the state by means of welfare policies and that of the market concerning technological innovation, there was one more reason explaining the Finnish success: a bottom-up movement supported by citizens’ firm belief that collective well-being is a common good each one has to fight for, by using new technologies.6

Nonetheless, no matter if a solid welfare state is compatible with a modern and growing economy, knowledge (conceived as a means to manage information and communication) to exploit the research results and to develop innovation is more and more crucial in the current economic scenario. In the global competition, Western economies are having a hard time keeping pace with emergent ones like China and India, which before were only providers of low-cost labour force. Nowadays they are developing ideas and producing new knowledge.7

These are the reasons why the privatisation of information, knowledge and communication is one of the main goals of the world economy key players in any sector.8

However, knowledge is by its nature a public good, as it is non-scarce, non-rival and non-excludable.9 This means that the more it is circulated, consumed and shared, the better the chances are of creating new knowledge. Privatising knowledge is on the one hand technically difficult – all the more so in the digital environment, where the reproducibility of content is easy and free – and on the other hand, it is not advantageous from a strategic point of view.10

101


The impact of the Internet on knowledge production and circulation

The role of knowledge in the current economic scenario also depends on the profound transformations the Internet has caused in the process of knowledge production and circulation and in the characteristics of media. In particular, it is worth mentioning that, over recent years, the Internet has gradually turned from a one-way communication channel and a content repository into a participatory platform for collectively creating new knowledge.

This has triggered a harsh contrast between those invoking a restricted access to intellectual content on the basis of copyright laws and the masses of Internet users who upload and create content that is available for free and fully reusable, according to the web 2.0 philosophy. Apparently, the comparison is, on the one hand, between knowledge workers (individuals and institutions involved so far in its production and distribution) and ordinary people who flood the web with unreliable and low-quality content (often infringing upon copyright laws), and on the other hand, between the commercial and the non-profit world.

Actually, the situation is much more complex and manifold, as some important players of the commercial sector have decided to embrace the logic of the Internet (i.e. being free and participatory) and have developed alternative economic models where profits come from listings, advertisement and commercial agreements with third parties, as well as through forms of self-financing. At the same time, some of the institutions traditionally in charge for storing, evaluating, indexing and distributing content – even the non-profit ones – seem far from embracing the open and participatory model.

Consequently, the current scenario is quite mottled: on the one hand, some groups of knowledge workers have started bringing into question the traditional model of content circulation and copyright laws, and are endorsing open access movements;11 in addition, the publish-then-filter model and the collaborative crowdsourcing12 are proving their effectiveness in producing quality content, comparable to those created by professionals, and their efficiency in updating this content almost in real-time.

The tough conflict on the copyright issues that is now underway could be seen as the symbolic representation of the opposition of these two worlds, interpreting knowledge as a scarce good and a non-scarce good, respectively.

On this topic, as well as on many other aspects concerning the idea of the Internet as a participatory environment, even opinions of researchers and gurus are conflicting. Some – like Shirky (2008, 2010) and Benkler

102


(2006) – have strong faith in progress and think that, once traditional one-way media are definitively overtaken and people embrace the possibility of taking an active role and participating in conversations, the shift can be considered accomplished and the consequences on the knowledge market, as well as on the society as a whole, will become evident.

Others – like Schirrmacker (2009) and Morozov (2011) – are sceptical about the real extent of the participatory phenomena and acknowledge their many potential negative consequences. For example, Evgeny Morozov highlights that the Internet is neither good nor evil by nature; rather it replicates the characteristics of society. Furthermore, in Morozov’s opinion, the idea the Internet supports a new kind of democracy based upon transparency and openness does not consider that democratic governments need things like secrecy, deception and repression to function effectively.

In any case, the fact is that many people use their time to produce content without any payment, whose drives lie in the so-called ‘hacker philosophy’,13 and, even though a restricted number of people seems responsible for most of this content, it is also true that a very high number of individuals participate and give their contribution, though small. This proves that the long-tail paradigm14 applies to collaborative crowdsourcing as well.15

As a consequence, at global level, information and knowledge can hardly be kept locked up unnaturally; this triggers an open conflict between global economies (which consider the knowledge management a huge business), political power (which bases the governability on secrecy),16 information and knowledge professionals (who flourished in the pre-Internet era when knowledge was a scarce good), and a bottom-up movement that puts the past knowledge management into question and aims at founding an alternative public sphere where points of view multiply and new solutions are found, but – on the other hand – the confusion might increase and new forms of deception are possible.

Furthermore, as many researchers highlight and recent events prove,17 these phenomena, though emerging on the web, often go beyond the borders of the virtual environment and move into the real world. In this way they connect people who were before totally separate or distant, rally groups of citizens and build an alternative public opinion that could differ greatly from that represented by traditional media.

On the other hand, it should be noticed that the Internet, which seems to have fostered inclusion and participation, is also one of the main factors boosting the new economy and, consequently, the outburst of the

103


turbo-capitalism, an economic model based upon the financial power and the expulsion of those groups and social classes that are not able to keep pace with rapid change.18

Libraries in the knowledge economy and public perception

All the phenomena and circumstances that have been analysed so far have much to do with libraries, as they traditionally take part in the knowledge cycle and are in charge – though not alone – of storing, indexing, distributing and promoting the products of the publishing process. The knowledge market is the segment where libraries, together with many other public and private institutions, position themselves; consequently, whatever affects the production and circulation of knowledge is of primary interest for libraries.

Therefore, in a society where information and knowledge are central, libraries might gain a competitive edge, together with all those institutions that specialise in the selection and evaluation of the huge amounts of content uploaded daily onto the web and, in doing so, aim at fostering the development of the critical sensibility by citizens and Internet users, and creating the conditions to develop innovation and new ideas.

It is no coincidence that the economies that are growing more and seem to have better chances of surviving the recession are those investing in R&D (Research and Development), in particular in universities, continuing education and access to the web and the traditional and digital information resources, sectors that are all strictly connected to libraries’ mission. For example, this is one of the key strengths of the Finnish model mentioned earlier, which is characterised by a role of the state mainly aiming at guaranteeing the high quality and extensive availability of these services. Many researchers believe that even the competition between the two Asian economic giants, China and India, in the medium to long term will be affected more by the quality of intellectual capital and the quantity of innovation they will be able to develop than by their very low-cost productive capability (which is currently their main competitive edge).

In addition, following the overwhelming side effects of the recession, those institutions, which offer learning opportunities and support job searching, become more and more important from a social and economic point of view. Libraries, particularly public libraries, can exploit this opportunity, as they – all over the world – present themselves as

104


supporting and complementing formal education and, over recent years, have started offering rich opportunities for lifelong learning. Furthermore, they were among the first – if not the only – institutions guaranteeing free access to the Internet, proving themselves attentive to the inclusive and innovative potential of the Internet. On this basis, many libraries organise specific services to help patrons in searching job information in order to respond to social needs.

On the other hand, the amateurisation of knowledge production and management and the crisis of those professions and institutions that flourished in the era of knowledge scarcity put into question the role of libraries as mediators of knowledge as well. After all, the same is happening for other key players of the knowledge sector, such as publishers, booksellers and journalists, who have each chosen their own strategy to be acknowledged in the new contemporary framework.

How much of this debate crosses the boundaries of the pundits’ territory and reaches the general public? It seems that the idea that libraries can function as engines for the knowledge economy and participate in the new mechanisms of knowledge production and circulation is not much rooted in public opinion. In most cases libraries are presented as a cost that in many cases cannot be afforded any more by public authorities. As emerged in some articles analysed in the previous chapter,19 many readers and commentators consider libraries obsolete in the current knowledge environment and not worth the investments required.

Even the contribution that libraries can offer to the informal educational system, creating opportunities for lifelong learning, is barely perceived by the general public. More acknowledgement is given to those services that directly respond to the threats of the economic crisis – for example, the possibility of searching for employment information, free access to the Internet and to books and other resources many citizens cannot afford any more.

Libraries and welfare

New welfare and merit goods

Another important large-scale theme that is worth examining in order to position libraries correctly and to interpret better public perception of their role and services is how the relationship between the public and the private sector has evolved, and how welfare has changed over the last decades, starting from the classification of goods and services.20

105


In fact, a convincing and generally accepted classification of goods and services in the public–private continuum does not exist, and the criteria adopted by various scientists over time have considerably influenced the interpretation of these concepts.21 The two main criteria that have been used so far to define and classify goods and services are individual freedom of choice and the existence of externalities (i.e. positive or negative repercussions on society as a whole). In addition to these, three more variables are necessary for a complete definition: rivalry (i.e. the impossibility of a contemporary use of the same good or service by different people), excludability (i.e. the possibility of excluding individuals or groups from the use of the good or service), and scarcity (i.e. the more the good is used, the sooner it runs out).

Under this theoretical framework and following these criteria, three main categories of goods can be distinguished: veritable public goods, social ones and private ones.

As already mentioned,22 veritable public goods are by nature non-rival and non-excludable, and consequently there is no need to take into consideration the other two criteria, i.e. the individual choice and the evaluation of externalities. Given these characteristics, they do not have any economic relevance, as in this case market action would not guarantee efficiency and effectiveness (these are the so-called ‘market failures’, as theorised by Pareto in 1896). Examples of veritable public goods are knowledge, fresh air, public lighting and national defence.

Apart from veritable public goods, all other goods are rival and excludable. Therefore the freedom of choice and the existence of externalities become crucial for deciding if they should be kept in the public realm or not.

Social goods are those that are assumed by the public sector because of their extensive positive externalities. They can be categorised in two sub-groups: veritable social goods and merit goods.

While for the former, collective interest and individual choice converge, the latter would be chosen only by part of the community if the choice were free. Nonetheless, the public authority keeps these goods in the public realm on the basis of the shared values of the community (i.e. those values that ‘the individual, as member of the community, accepts even though they contrast with his individual preferences’).23 For example, the public health service or the collective security can be categorised as veritable social goods as they are relevant for the whole community, whereas education and child care belong to the category of merit goods, as – even though they are exploited only by part of the community – their contribution to an overall higher quality of life is

106


generally acknowledged by public opinion and they are an integral part of the shared values of the community as a whole. Consequently, they are usually kept in the public sector and financed by the entire community.

This means that merit goods – more than veritable social goods – result from the strategy and evaluation of the public authority under specific horizons of political and social values. Therefore, in order to stay in the public realm, not only do they have to prove their positive externalities, but these should also be perceived and shared by a wide part of both the community and the political authority.24

As for private goods, the individual is the only one who takes advantage of their benefits, as externalities are quite absent, and who autonomously chooses to make use of them or not.

Actually, there is a fine line between these categories, and the assignment of the various goods and services to each of them is neither easy nor obvious. In fact, except for veritable public goods, all other goods and services may present variable rates of rivalry and excludability, and the collaborative or competitive behaviours of individuals become an important variable to be considered for their categorisation.

These behaviours are illustrated by two well-known examples: Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the commons’ (1968) and the prisoner’s dilemma.25

Hardin proves that, when goods are scarce and rival, the behaviour of individuals and groups tends to be competitive and to exploit the resources to their own advantage (‘free riding’), though this means exhausting the resources more rapidly to the detriment of everybody (the ‘tragedy of the commons’).

On the other hand, the prisoner’s dilemma highlights that – lacking the possibility to coordinate the individual behaviours by means of communication and exchange of information – the rational choice is not always the best one, as it could end in inconvenience for both the individual and the community.

Against these behaviours, the political and social sciences identified two possible solutions:

privatisation, i.e. the resource is subdivided and each part is assigned exclusively to each stakeholder, devolving the balancing of interests and the regulation of behaviours to the market forces (the ‘invisible hand of the market’, theorised by Smith in his 1759 book);

assignment of the collective goods to a third party (generally public), which guarantees the collective resources is preserved over time by means of ruling, supervising and applying sanctions.

107


Whatever the choice, the basic assumption is the same: resource management cannot be self-directed by the community because of the tragedy of the commons, and an external authority is needed to impose the rules and to control the exploitation of goods.

Over time, each organised community has chosen its own solution, gleaned from the possibilities at stake, and has decided whether to involve the public authority or the market and how much space to confer on each of them. This choice defines the public and private spheres.26

The public sector usually takes charge of veritable public goods, as they do not have any economic relevance, and those goods that should be preserved from the tragedy of the commons by virtue of their high positive externalities (i.e. veritable social goods and merit goods). However, the extent of the public sphere can be different from state to state and could change over time, together with the evolution of the welfare state.27

The welfare state is a socio-economic and political system based upon the principle of substantial equality and aimed at limiting social disparities. It is intended to provide services and vouch for those rights considered essential for an adequate standard of living, from healthcare to public education, from access to cultural resources to support for the unemployed. The financial resources needed to provide and manage these services come from public finances (i.e. the state and/or local authorities) by means of taxes paid by citizens in proportion to their income. The aim of the welfare state is to safeguard personal freedom and self-determination, by relieving citizens from material dependence.

The origins of the welfare state date back to the second half of the nineteenth century, following industrialisation and the rise of the working class, as a response to the need for maintaining social appeasement.

As has already been mentioned,28 the meaning and content of the welfare state are not univocal everywhere, as different states and socio-cultural areas have adapted the original concept to their specific political and economic situations,29 and have developed their own type of welfare, based on a varyingly extensive interpretation of what public and social goods and services are.

Over the last decades, in particular after the economic crisis of the 1970s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the basic assumptions of the welfare state have been put into question from ideal and practical points of view, and the role of the market in managing goods and services has grown. Some commentators interpret the new framework as a victory of capitalism and the beginning of a new phase called ‘turbo-capitalism’, along with market globalisation.30

The welfare state has been confronted with a laissez-faire approach based on an extensive trust in the capability of the market to settle

108


individual interests with the common good. In some cases the private sector has taken on the property of social and merit goods; in other cases, given the decrease of public resources and the increasing costs of these services, it is called to manage the services in order to get better results in terms of efficiency, but governance stays in public hands.

This could end in higher prices for citizens, encouraging supply, but discouraging demand, which is not desirable for merit goods. Alternatively, in order to avoid higher prices and encourage both supply and demand, governments could decide to cover some of the costs of private sector provision, either by subsidising these services or by offering incentives to private firms to enter the market. Furthermore, they could also request that the individual consumer makes a contribution to these costs out of their own pocket.

As the support and promotion of social and merit goods by the public sector is strictly linked to the idea of society that a government intends to carry forward, in a period of economic crisis and revision of the welfare state, the amount a government decides to invest in these goods and the agenda of priorities are paramount to understanding its system of values.

There is no doubt that after the emergence of the economic crisis that started between 2007 and 2008, the debate concerning public and private services and goods ignited once again and some commentators started criticising turbo-capitalism and its uncontrollable and fragile financial basis. Nonetheless, the trend towards downsizing and reshaping of the welfare did not stop, and actually intensified. Under this framework, the debate crossed the public/private dichotomy and broadened towards a new category of goods, the so-called ‘common goods’. These are collective resources, which – though scarce and rival – are not transferred to the market or to the public authorities, but are self-managed by means of agreements that are given and updated over time by the same community interested in these goods. Elinor Ostrom (1990) has studied the mechanisms regulating the common goods extensively and has emphasised the need to evaluate the real scope of this concept and its applicability (on a local or more extended, if not global, scale) and the possible alternatives to the public/private dichotomy.

Libraries in the welfare state and public perception

The public/private issue is crucial to understanding the past and present of libraries, chiefly public libraries; in particular, the different interpretations of the concept of ‘public’, the numerous aspects it encompasses and its

109


evolution over time have deeply conditioned the way in which libraries have been conceived in different geographical and cultural contexts, and partly explain the difficulties libraries are going through nowadays.

First of all, it could be useful to verify if the origins of public libraries have something to do with the rise of the welfare state. The researchers date back the birth of public libraries in the Anglo-American context to the mid-nineteenth century, when social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution became evident and the concept of the welfare state was gradually broadening up.31

The Public Libraries Act (1850) was one of the numerous measures approved by the British Parliament when the country was getting out of the worst phase of the Industrial Revolution. Many scientists agree that, despite some statements aimed at highlighting the ‘universal’ role of these institutions (for example, they were presented as services for all citizens and not for specific groups or social classes), British public libraries were mainly conceived as part of the educational and social interventions in favour of the working classes.32

In fact, early public libraries were open to everybody, but in particular they were a free service for the working class, in the same way as other social and educational initiatives. Therefore, public libraries were perfectly in line with the true character of the welfare state that was arising in the UK in that period, i.e. a set of measures primarily addressed at the working class and aimed at social appeasement and stability. Therefore, it is no surprise that most of the liberal politicians talked about public libraries as backings of the social and political order against the subversive ideas coming from some literary products.

The most original and innovative aspect of the Public Libraries Act was the choice of self-government for the establishment and the support of these libraries, as it allowed local authorities to found this service on citizens’ taxation, though at that time it was perceived as essential by only a few authorities. In addition, it should be highlighted that the tax levied for this specific service was subject to the endorsement of the majority of the taxpayers.

The history of British public libraries in its first phases seem to point out some characteristics qualifying them as merit goods, since – though mainly working to benefit a part of the community – they are charged to the public tax system by virtue of their positive externalities. However, the choice made at national level is validated by the local authority and community. As a consequence, the need for public libraries to create and consolidate their base of supporters and to legitimise their existence in the eyes of the whole community was crucial for their development.

110


Obviously, the origins of public libraries and their evolution over time were not the same in all countries. For example, in France they were strictly linked to some decisions taken during the French Revolution, in particular the confiscation of the ecclesiastical goods (bibliographic collections included) and their confluence in ‘national goods’, and were deeply influenced by the social and political approach to the concept of ‘nation’, which was developed during that period.

As a consequence, libraries that were established in this way were addressed to the nation as a whole and were considered part of the national heritage, under the framework of a centralised administrative system. In fact the local authorities that were in charge of collecting books and providing the services were not seen as the key players of the library sector, but as areas where goods and facilities of national interest (exclusively belonging to the nation) were organised.

In the French case, public libraries were an integral part of national policy aimed at managing and increasing the value of cultural heritage, and seem to convey the idea that a nation’s cultural heritage belongs to all the citizens, and its positive externalities and exploitation should be kept available for the whole nation. On the other hand, the social value of libraries and their importance as public services to the citizenry, which were the founding principles of British public libraries, stayed in the background of French policy, at least in the beginning.

The conceptual framework that characterised the birth of French public libraries was shared by many other countries of continental Europe, where, for a long time, national legislation focused only on libraries aimed at either preserving the national bibliographic collections or supporting research.

Clearly, the different premises and the juridical framework each country initially established for its public libraries deeply affected their development from then on.

In the Anglo-American context, the public library kept close to the welfare state and its evolution in relation to social changes, in particular the growth of the middle class during the twentieth century and the central role it gained in the national economy thanks to the protection and support provided by social policies.33 Here, on the one hand, the public libraries contributed to the increase of educational and informational opportunities for the expanding middle class, and in this way they legitimated and reinforced the social organisation that was taking shape and was also supported by the national policies; on the other hand, they took advantage of the increase of potential users, considering that their needs and attitude perfectly embraced the aims of this free service financed by local taxes.

111


Where public libraries were accounted as cultural more than social goods and were considered part of national interests more than local ones – which means that they were treated as national properties rather than local public services – their presence in the welfare state is more linked to cultural policies (encompassing, for example, educational system, tourism) and to their alternated fortunes. The Italian case stays in the middle between these two models.

Given the varied situations that can be found in different countries, it might be useful to wonder if the different nature of libraries in relation to the welfare state has any repercussions on public debate concerning them. Even though the categorisation of libraries as public, social or merit goods is not always explicit and clear in people’s minds, there is no doubt that the different backgrounds of each country from this point of view influence the perceptions of journalists and common people.34

It is no coincidence that, in French newspapers, the debate about libraries is rarely inserted in more general considerations about the situation of the social welfare, both because in France this was less threatened by the economic crisis, and because French libraries are less associated with goods and more with public heritage. It seems that for French public opinion, library policies are mainly aimed not at enriching local services, but at making their vast collections universally available by means of digitisation. Therefore, libraries are seen more as vehicles of knowledge and, given that knowledge is a shining example of veritable public goods, libraries should be treated accordingly.

On the other hand, in the UK, much of the debate about libraries belongs to the wider debate concerning the crisis of the welfare state and the policies that are replacing it, for example, the flagship policy known under the name of ‘Big Society’. The articles of news and opinions and letters from readers focus on cuts to local services caused by the economic crisis and by government policies (though the situation can be interpreted differently by different people) and consider libraries an integral part of these services.

This perception emerges from Italian and Spanish newspapers as well, but in these countries it is mixed with many other different approaches and interpretations of libraries’ situation, which means that the connection between libraries and the welfare state is much looser in people’s minds.

In the UK, as well as in Italy and Spain, the public opinion that is embodied by the newspapers does not explicitly distinguish between social and merit goods. However, the debate highlights that, in commentators’ and readers’ opinions, not all goods and services

112


provided in return for citizens’ taxes have the same importance and impact on collective life. Therefore, libraries can be seen as social or merit goods according to personal background and convictions, but, according to the surrounding circumstances (e.g. the economic crisis and budget cuts) and the global changes in society, some personal beliefs can turn into general approaches and be endorsed by the political environment.35 For example, the idea that some goods, like services for health and elderly people or those concerning the security of citizens, are of primary importance for the whole community (so that they can not be replaced by market services and must not be cut), whereas other services (for example, libraries) can be subjected to payment or partly privatised, has become more and more popular over recent years. This proves that libraries are perceived as closer to the category of merit goods, as their presence in the welfare state is particularly unstable and subject to the preferences and beliefs of the political establishment.

Libraries and the digital revolution: impact on libraries and public perceptionAs mentioned earlier, over the last 20 years, the knowledge environment has been profoundly affected by technological developments, particularly the advent and success of the Internet, and its evolution into a more and more participative environment, the so-called web 2.0.

This web 2.0 and the tools it has developed, like Wikipedia, blogs and social networks, are all based on the following concepts: convergence to the digital format, ‘mass amateurisation’ and mass content creation, collaborative crowdsourcing, and overturning of the traditional publication process (from the filter-then-publish to the publish-then-filter schema).36

The first important trend to highlight is the convergence to digital, which means that most of the content that before was distributed in analogical form is now becoming digital, as well as more and more content being digital in origin. The numerous projects aimed at digitising textual, audio and visual archives little by little are creating a digital alternative to the use of the originals, though copyright law sets many restrictions on digitisation initiatives and even more on the possibility of distributing digitised content, as the Google Books project proves.37 The convergence to digital, by making content available over the Internet, frees it from its physicality and from the need for a place and an intermediary to consult the content.

113


Further important factors influencing the current knowledge environment are the already mentioned ‘mass amateurisation’ and collaborative crowdsourcing, which are made possible by the Internet being used not only as a tool for doing the same things of the past in a different way, but also as an opportunity to connect people, express points of view, make the most of talents and collaborate without any organisational costs. These phenomena are transforming the concept of authority in reputation and the role of institutions from intermediaries to facilitators and partners.

The distribution of free quality content over the Internet raises some worries and triggers tough competition between those who traditionally deal with content archiving, indexing and distribution, i.e. publishers, libraries, bookstores and book traders in general. The fear of ending up out of the business because of the Internet produces competitive behaviours rather than cooperative ones; therefore each player tries to reduce the operating field of the others and to polarise roles and functions that before were shared. In particular, publishers aim at becoming the main if not the only intermediaries for informational content, freezing out book traders and libraries. Some examples of these strategies come from the ebook market,38 where publishers are trying basically to cancel the traditional exceptions that copyright law guarantees to libraries for the circulation of copyrighted books, and are limiting their possibilities to choose and customise the packages and the cost schemas. On the other hand, book traders are trying to expand their role from the sale of publishing products to the creation of platforms and tools for accessing and using them. Furthermore, it should be noted that the distinction between publishers and book traders is becoming almost meaningless in a market where the concentration rate is growing fast, and players who are economically strong and capable of lobbying decisions concerning public policies tend to become predominant.

Libraries have struggled to keep pace with technology and have continuously adapted their internal procedures and their services to the new technological possibilities at stake and the potential coming from the digital revolution. In some cases they have even tried to keep intact their role of key players in archiving, indexing and distributing against the other, much more equipped, competitors. Libraries have made many attempts to exploit the characteristics of the digital environment and have created new services and opportunities for their patrons based on technologies, like web directories, digital reference, intermediated searching of the databases, public access computing, Library 2.0 and services related to ebooks.

114


The fact is that libraries seem to chase rather than keep up with innovation, even in areas that in the past were their specialities, and are slow in making organisational changes, whereas the Internet can keep on experimenting without suffering too much from failures or passing trends. Most Internet innovations are out of reach for library institutions (particularly public ones), because they require huge efforts that only global players or a strong cooperation among institutions could deal with, and they strictly depend on the possibility of fully exploiting some characteristics of the web (e.g. rapidity, decentralisation and users’ involvement). For example, platforms like LibraryThing39 and GoodReads40 have achieved some goals that library catalogues and standards are far from realising; also Google is working on mass digitisation, despite the many obstacles encountered, whereas libraries can not afford the organisational and financial costs of this.

In a 2012 article titled ‘The decline and fall of the library empire’, Steve Coffman was even more pessimistic about the possibilities for libraries to be competitive in the current technological environment. For example, he was very sceptical about the attempts of libraries to colonise the web 2.0 and to propose themselves in a new way by means of the social networks:

It seems that any conversations we may be having are largely with ourselves, while our patrons are busy contributing reviews and doing all sorts of other cool, interactive things on Amazon, Goodreads, LibraryThing, and the hundreds of other places people get together online to compare notes on books.

The reason is that ‘we lack the critical mass of users needed to create and sustain robust online interaction and communication’. Furthermore, the role played by libraries in giving the local communities the opportunity to access the Internet and fighting the digital divide is waning: ‘A combination of new technologies and easier, cheaper access to the web has begun to eliminate our importance as an Internet access enabler.’ As far as ebooks are concerned, Coffman is particularly sarcastic about the ‘palpable excitement’ that is leading many librarians ‘to envision a bright future where millions of patrons will come flocking to library websites to download the latest copies of best-sellers, romances, mysteries, and other popular titles’. Actually, the competitive and sometimes contrasting behaviours of the publishers are undeniable and the difficulties for libraries to compete in the ebook market are tough and possibly

115


increasing over time. In addition, as the costs of ebooks are diminishing, according to Coffman the role of libraries in guaranteeing the price control and making reading economically sustainable for everybody is losing its importance:

I strongly suspect that if books were as broadly and cheaply available back in late 1800s and early 1900s as ebooks are now, the public library movement would have had a very difficult time getting off the ground. Andrew Carnegie might have found a better way to spend his money.

In the end, Coffman thinks that the aim librarians have been pursuing for the last decades, i.e. the achievement of a virtual library, is being fulfilled, but libraries and librarians have little to do with it, whereas the key role is carried out by the Internet providers: ‘Each of the services we’ve provided in the digital arena has been – or is being – superseded by new and better technologies or by other organisations better suited to deliver services electronically.’

Obviously, this does not imply that libraries and librarians have lost their meaning in contemporary society and that they have no possibility to play a role in the future because of the technological innovations. Actually, Coffman himself suggests focusing on the competences of librarians more than on the functions of libraries, as ‘we may not need libraries, but we’ll always need librarians’. This position is shared by many other researchers, for example, David Lankes, who – in his Atlas of New Librarianship (2011) – writes about the future of libraries starting from the following basic assumption: ‘The mission of librarians is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities’, which means that librarians keep their role independently from the artefacts (i.e. books and other media) and physical spaces called libraries.

All these things considered, it is of utmost importance to verify the perception of public opinion in this regard and whether people still acknowledge libraries and librarians as having a role in the digital world, despite the wider and wider possibilities in accessing information and creating knowledge provided by the Internet.

First of all, it should be stressed that the topic concerning the role of libraries after the advent of the Internet is central in newspapers,41 which means that public opinion clearly perceives how the information environment is changing as a consequence of technological innovations

116


and how much this affects institutions and professions dealing with knowledge and communication. However, the point of view of journalists and citizens does not always coincide with the librarians’ one, as it could be conditioned partly by prejudices and stereotypes, partly by a scarce awareness of the competences and background work of librarians.

Following analysis of the newspaper articles concerning these issues, the first important thing to highlight is the sharp separation between the debate about the future of physical libraries and that regarding the library in the digital environment.42

The idea that the Internet is making libraries obsolete is getting stronger in public opinion, though the described phenomena above (convergence to digital, amateurisation of the content production, collaborative crowdsourcing etc.) stay in the background, as they are often generically translated in the simplistic assumption that all interesting content is becoming accessible via the Internet. Even when journalists and readers advocate for libraries, they rarely mention the competences of librarians in the new digital environment, nor do they totally acknowledge the continuity between the physical library and access to digital content.

Therefore, the articles tend to convey the idea that talking about libraries mainly means dealing with physical libraries, and those who support the survival of libraries against the expanding perspectives of the Internet focus on their importance as meeting, studying and social spaces, their role in integrating those people, groups and social classes which risk marginalisation, their proximity to the community and eventually the human relationship between librarians and patrons. Many advocate for the traditional role of libraries as primarily spaces for printed books and reading.

On the other hand, when the articles concern the perspectives of the digital library in relation to the process of digitisation and the transition of printed sources to the digital format (ejournals, ebooks, etc.), the role of libraries and librarians is ignored, whereas the acknowledged key players are the Internet giants. Public opinion seems to recognise libraries only as providers of those huge and unique collections they hold and that are the necessary basis of any digitisation project; actually, an active role of librarians in the building and maintenance of digital libraries, as well as in offering services for digital collections, is scarcely perceived by the general public. The only comments that show awareness of the many possible developments of the library’s and librarians’ functions usually come from librarians themselves.

117


Notes1. For an introduction to the meanings and content of knowledge management

in the framework of globalisation, see Grazzini, 2008, Sennett, 2006, Rooney et al., 2005 and Drucker, 1999.

2. About the evolution and the current crisis of the middle class, see Gaggi and Narduzzi, 2006: 3–12 and Hartmann, 2006.

3. A classical reading concerning the experience economy is Pine and Gilmore, 1999.

4. See in particular Grazzini, 2008 and Rooney et al., 2005.5. To get more information about the low-cost society and its implications, see

Korgen and Gallagher, 2013, Grazzini, 2008: 150–1, Gaggi and Narduzzi, 2006: 45–53 and Anderson, 2004.

6. It is not possible here to examine the Finnish case in depth, which is extensively debated in Castells and Himanen’s research. Nonetheless, it is at least necessary to mention that the Finnish peculiarities, i.e. the limited size of the population and the high social homogeneity, on the one hand fostered the above-mentioned processes, and on the other might cause xenophobia and closure towards the external world, as some recent circumstances seem to prove. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the mentioned research would need an update in order to evaluate the consequences of the economic crisis on the Finnish socio-political system.

7. To get more information about the new emerging economies of China and India, see Dahlman, 2007, Gaggi and Narduzzi, 2006: 55–60, 71–84.

8. About the process of knowledge privatisation, read Grazzini, 2008: 95–117, 215–32 and Hess and Ostrom, 2007: 3–27, 83–125.

9. A clarification about the concepts of public, social and private goods and services is encompassed on pages 25–6.

10. A discussion about knowledge as a veritable public good and the current attempt to privatise it can be found in Shirky, 2008 and Hess and Ostrom, 2007.

11. For an overview of the studies concerning open access, see Bailey, 2010.12. For an explanation of these concepts, see Shirky, 2008, 2010.13. For a definition of the ‘hacker philosophy’, see Ziccardi, 2011 and Castells

and Himanen, 2002.14. The man who invented the concept of ‘long tail’ and applied it to the

Internet is Chris Anderson in his 2006 book.15. Shirky explicitly refers to the link between these two concepts in his 2008

book.16. More information about the importance of secrecy for governments can be

found in Morozov, 2011: 245–74.17. Consider, for example, the political events that have occurred not long

before the time of writing in North Africa, the so-called Arab Spring (www.technologyreview.it/index.php?p=article&a=1964), the protest movements of young citizens (indignados) in Spain (http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/11512/1/agora_magallon_AMRD_2011.pdf), as well as the results of the last referendum held in Italy (in the following sociological

118


analysis: http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/politica/2011/06/14/referendum_morcellini_voto_commento_vittoria_web_piazze_comunicazione_tv_berlusconi.html).

18. This phenomenon has been already introduced on page 3; the main references on this topic are Sennett, 2006 and Luttwak, 1998.

19. See in particular pages 71–9.20. Some elements about typologies of welfare states and a short introduction

to public and social goods are given on pages 24–6.21. The most influential works on this topic can be considered Musgrave, 1995

and Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1983.22. See pages 25–6.23. This definition comes from Musgrave, 1995: 186.24. To examine the concept of individual choice in more depth, consult Arrow,

1951.25. This example was invented by Albert W. Tucker during a lesson held in 1950

(Ostrom, 1990). In order to go more in depth into ‘game theory’ (and the prisoner’s dilemma, which is part of it) and its application to the library science, see Galluzzi, 2005: 233–65.

26. On this topic see Geuss, 2001.27. The main references on this issue are Esping-Andersen, 1990, 1996, 1999,

2002, and Ritter, 1991. See also pages 24–5.28. More information about the main typologies of welfare state can be found

on pages 24–5.29. The main work on the classification of welfare states is Esping-Andersen,

1990. For a comparative study of welfare states, see also Masulli, 2003.30. Luttwak (1998) was the first to use the term ‘turbo-capitalism’, whereas

Sennett (2006) offers many insights into market globalisation.31. About the history of public libraries, see Traniello, 1997 and Black, 1996.

In particular, the interpretation of the origins of the British and French public library comes from Traniello, 1997.

32. Traniello, 1997: 185–93.33. See Gaggi and Narduzzi, 2006: 13–21.34. See pages 62–5, 71–9.35. An analysis of the library positioning in the public–private continuum can

be read in Galluzzi, 2011.36. For an explanation of these concepts, see Shirky, 2008, 2010.37. About the Google Books project and the debate around it, see pages 59–62.38. Many commentators raise concerns about the possibility for libraries to be

successful in the ebook market. See for example Farkas, 2011.39. The platform can be consulted on www.librarything.it.40. The platform can be consulted on www.goodreads.com.41. See pages 65–8, 75–6.42. See pages 60–2, 78.

libraries and public perception || contemporary challenges and public perception

Documents