DeWall 1

Kimberlee C. DeWall Professor Adams Social Networking and Library 2.0 April 8, 2012 An Historical Perspective of Foucaults Power Functions: Towards Library 2.0 as the Emerging Power Network in the Selection Process of Public Libraries The tendency of postmodern scholars to make sense of the time in which they live is clearly evident in the academic discourse of library and information science (LIS); so, too, is the difficulty of the process, as Dino Felluga explains: Although an admirable endeavor, such critics inevitably run into difficulties given the sheer complexity of living in history: we do not yet know which elements in our culture will win out and we do not always recognize theways that changes in our society affect our ways of thinking and being in the world. To be sure, postmodern LIS scholarship illustrates the difficulty in developing critical theories of library and information science, especially in the attempt to apply philosophical theories outside of the field onto the physical practice of librarianship. One specific areacontemplated at length by John Buschman--where this is evident is the persistence of LIS scholars to view Michel Foucault as one of the primary wellsprings informing the project of constructing viable, critical theory of library and information science (21). Given that only one LIS critic addresses Foucault in terms of power as of last year; one may very well wonder if Foucault is the wellspring. The present investigation posits that Foucault is, indeed, a source for making sense of the present and will endeavor to outline the historical shift in Foucauldian power functions of the public library due to Library 2.0. In short, after discussing Foucault in relation to LIS and defining his

DeWall 2

concept of power through selection theory, this study will then illustrate how power functions of the public library transition through a series of power networks: the institution versus the individual, the institution versus the institution, and then culminate in a complete inversion of the former; considered, here, as the individual versus the institution. For the past twenty years, LIS investigations into the works of Foucault are intermittent and focus primarily upon Foucaults The Archaeology of Knowledge, The Birth of the Clinic, Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, The Order of Things, and his essay, La Bibliotheque Fantastique. The responses to such early challenges in LIS critical thinking as those put forth by Michael Harris and Wayne Wiegand persist, but are slow coming. For example, Gary Radford, along with such various co-authors as Marie Radford and John M. Budd, is the most prolific. His work in Foucauldian thought spans from gender studies and the discourse of fear to an attempt to describe an archaeology of LIS. Of the most recent investigations over the past ten years, Karen Pettigrew and Lynne McKechnies work brings Foucault back into the forefront in their attempt to solidify critical theory in LIS study, and Ronald Days work in post-structuralism serves to further bolster this foundation: that is, until very recently. In this case, Michael Ollsons essay, Michel Foucault: Discourse, Power/Knowledge and the Battle for Truth (2010) and Elena S. Smiths Power and Practice in Academic Library Materials Selection Paradigms (2011) illustrate where LIS study stands in regard to Foucauldian theory today; and it is Smiths work in materials acquisitions that the present study responds to because the history of collection development and selection theory do indeed provide a good starting point in assessing the implications of current technology upon librarianship.

DeWall 3

While Smiths study of materials acquisitions in academic libraries explores the practical considerations of power structures embedded in selection paradigms is most assuredly progressive in nature; her intent is to sharpen the research lens and study the problems relating to professional practice and real world applications, as suggested by Gloria J. Leckie and John E. Bushman in their introduction to Critical Theory for Library and Information Science (xii). Smith gets right to the point in regard to electronic patron driven acquisitions and ends her study by laying out the groundwork for future investigations through a series of questions. However, it is this studys aim to show that before such investigations can be addressed, it is worthwhile to retract the lens and widen the perspective with an historical account of the power relationships in selection theory first and, in doing so, consider the profound effect that technologies such as Library 2.0 have upon it. In this manner, the study of the implications of Library 2.0 upon librarianship is sure to be a fruitful one. In a lecture given at the College de France in 1976, Foucault expounds upon his concept of power and how one might most effectively approach it. He offers a series of methodological precautions in the examination of power, such as: Do not regard power as a phenomenon of mass and homogenous dominationthe domination of one individual over others, of one group over others, or of one class over others; keep it clearly in mind that unless we are looking at it from a great height and from a very great distance, power is not something that is divided between those who have it and hold it exclusively, and those who do not have it and are subject to it. (29)

DeWall 4

According to Foucault, then, when the study of power relations moves towards an historical vantage point, it gives way to a more holistic view of power, which in turn proffers an account of the derivation of libraries. In fact, Foucault goes on to describe that the study of power functions should examine the processes of power and the shifting or oscillating quality of power: Power must, I think, be analyzed as something that circulates, or rather as something that functions only when it is part of a chain. It is never localized here or there, it is never in the hands of some, and it is never appropriated in the way that wealth or a commodity can be appropriated. Power functions. Power is exercised through networks, and individuals do not simply circulate in those networks; they are in a position to both submit to and exercise this power. They are never inert or consenting targets of power; they are always its relays. In other words, power passes through individuals. It is not applied to them. (29)

It is, therefore, worthwhile to examine the development of power functions associated with public libraries over time, or as part of a chain, which collectively illustrate that power is, in fact, best revealed as being exercised through networks. In this light, as Leckie and Buschman suggest, a Foucauldian research paradigm would focus on...peoples engagement with existing, intersubjective networks of power/knowledge (xvi). The power functions between the library as an institutional network and the patron as an individual are evident through--though certainly not limited to--selection theory, in which the institution deems what the public or the individual should read and have access to. To start, Lionel McColvin places selection at the forefront of public librarianship: Book selection is the first task of librarianship. It precedes all other processesand it is the most important. No

DeWall 5

matter how thorough and efficient the rest of the work may be, the ultimate value of a library depends upon the way in which the stock has been selected (9). Indeed, not so long ago, the notion of the librarian as an educator to the public, or arbiter of quality, as Peggy Johnson puts it, emerged (10). Johnson traces the lingering effect of the Puritan condemnation of fiction reading as it trickles down through the works of such thinkers as Arthur E. Bostwick, whose view of librarianship is that librarians as censors is a positive idea and that they have a responsibility to censor anything that is not Good, True, and Beautiful (13). The essence of Bostwicks viewwhich he expressed in 1908lingers well into the twentieth century. For example, vehemently calling into question the American Library Associations Code of Ethics for Librarians, Samuel Rothstein proposes a Martin Luther-like declaration of principles, or ethos (157). Of the four values that Rothstein outlines in his discussion of the principles of librarianship, the following value elicits some contention: a responsibility of the librarian is enlarging the horizons and elevating the taste of the community, using the discriminating selection of materials as a tool (Gorman 21). In this case, while it was at one time the responsibility of the library, as an authoritative network, to edify and to enlighten readers, it may be said through hindsight that, in so doing, the library had the potential to limit and/or remove individual choice. On the other hand, consider Celeste Wests countercultural view of the role of the librarian in the selection process in Revolting Librarians, in which their responsibility is not to any power structure at all but to the patron and to the profession ([7]). In fact, it is here where the transition of power functions is best described as moving from the librarian as an arbiter of quality to an enabler or an empowering advocate for the individual because, in Wests view, true librarianship implies evolution, if not revolution, and those who profess a calling have

DeWall 6

certain goals and standards for improving existence, which necessarily means moving, shaking, transforming it. ([7]) Indeed, the selection process in this light is one of participation because librarians generate information ([7]). Wests views clearly indicate a cultural shift in the power function between the library and the user and portray it as circulating or passing through individuals as described in Foucaults aforementioned lecture. Although the relationship between the library as an institution and the publishing industry as another has recently reached new heights, the relationship between both networks has always been precarious in nature. Unlike the public library, the aim of the publishing industry is fiscally driven. It is not to educate, empower, or provide access to information to the public, nor does publishing have the publics best interest in mind. In fact, the relationship between publishers and public libraries is downright contentious today. As Milton T. Wolf points out, Numerous authors have detailed the conglomeration, consolidation, and homogenization of the publishing industry worldwide (430). Wolf also suggests that the new business model in Big Publishing is commodification and control over all data and information (435). In fact, as he sees it, by allowing themselves to be captured by big publishing, libraries appropriate over 90 percent of their annual budgets primarily on the publishers point of view and its a very narrow one, indeed (434-35). Moreover, the idea that libraries and publishers vie for the dissemination of information with different aims in mind is further illustrated by Richard E. Rubin, who claims that the need for information today has put public librariesnonprofit organizationsin direct competition with outside forcesfor profit organizations. The problem is that the latter recognize[s] that information is a valued commodity and that both profit and power can be acquired if its dissemination can be controlled (79).

DeWall 7

However, the dynamics of this power relation is also changing, and it is here that the beginning of a dialectical shift is ultimately made all the more evident through technological advancesnamely, eBooks. Take, for example, a consortium of 25 libraries in Connecticut currently boycotting Random House. Their contention is that Random Houses new eBook pricing policy is not only discriminatory, but arbitrary, as well. According to Richard Conroy, the president of LIONS (Libraries Online, Inc.), the consortium could purchase a title for $35 through Overdrive, but a mere 24 hours later, the same title cost $105, while the private sale of title cost $17.99 (Kelly). While this surely describes the struggle in the power function between the public library and publishing houses; so, too, does Sarah Houghtons stance against publishers, as well as her appeal to include law makers and even the public, itself, into the networking process: I think its about damn time we, as library professionals, started getting the public riled up about this too. We need legislation passed (or copyright law clarified) that states that indeed, libraries can license/purchase and lend out digital items just like they can with physical items. Fragmentation and exclusionary business practices hurt the people we serve. As a librarian I feel we must stand up, as a profession, and say no more. Houghtons inclusion of the public in the power function not only echoes Celeste Wests vision of collaborative relations, but her advocacy efforts exemplify the potential influence that social media has over institutions. It follows, then, that the inversion of the power function between the individual and the library as a network is overwhelmingly due to Web 2.0, or Library 2.0, technologies. To begin

DeWall 8

with, the implications of the individual over the institution is not without its own set of problems as Smith points out in her application of Foucaults theories in relation to the varying degrees of power among the users of an academic library. Through the dynamic transition from Traditional Collection Development (TCM) to Patron Driven Acquisitions (PDA), Smith depicts the complexities and intricacies of the academic librarian having a high degree of influence over which materials are purchased when utilizing TCM practices, but yielding the authority over collection development under the PDA practice by apportion[ing] patron power to faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduates. (In this case, the degrees of influence are listed in descending order, as within the structure of the university, there existsas Smith describes-subsets within network power functions). At this point, however, the distinction must be made that there is indeed a difference between the academic library and the public library in terms of the selection process: as Smith admits, while the PDA system increases the users overall power in the library materials purchasing process, it alters the visibility of librarian influence over the collection. To be sure, the academic librarian serves the university, while the public librarian serves the public. In fact, the public library perhaps best exemplifies the benefits of the redistribution of influence over the selection process, as this transition appears to uphold one of the very missions of the public library: free and equal access to information. In his study of Library 2.0, Jack M. Maness also locates and identifies a major paradigmatic shift in the individuals influence over the library and suggests that its effect upon the foundations of librarianship, a profession steeped in decades of a culture of control and predictability, will be to focus less on secured inventory systems and more on collaborative discovery systems. Here, again, the pattern of public librarians incorporating the user into a power function is not only realized, but it is transformed, or as Maness puts it, Rather than

DeWall 9

creating systems and services for patrons, librarians will enable users to create them for themselves. In conclusion, by stepping back and considering Foucaults definition of power, or termed here as power functions, as a chain of relations that pass through such networks as the library, the individual, and outside entities like publishing houses; LIS studies might then move forward and address the questions that such scholars as Smith put forth: how can librarians better negotiate with vendors in order to provide their new library selectors with as many highquality possibilities as possiblehow, in libraries formed around the power dynamic of TCD, users and librarians will adjust to their new, more cooperative materials purchasing roles and how their expectations of each other will change. Moreover, an historic account of power culminating in, as Maness claims, a revolution of the profession due to Library 2.0 informs the field of LIS study and allows for a better understanding of past, present, and future power relations. After all, as Leckie and Buschman state: As a quintessentially social field, LIS is interested (in one way or another) in how society, people, institutions (including but not limited to libraries), governments and information technologies work, and the interactions among them (xii).

DeWall 10

Bibliography Buschman, John. Transgression or Stasis? Challenging Foucault in LIS Theory. The Library Quarterly. 77.1 (2007): 21-44. EBSCOHost. Web. Day, Ronald E. Poststructuralism and Information Studies. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, edited by Blaise Cronin, vol. 39, pp. 575-609. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 2005. Felluga, Dino. "General Introduction to Postmodernism." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. 31 January 2011. Purdue U. Web. April 4 2012. Felluga, Dino. "Modules on Foucault: On Power." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. 31 January 2011. Purdue U. Web. 4 April 2012. Foucault, Michel. Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976. Trans. David Macy. NY: Picador, 2003. Print. Gorman, Michael. Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century. Chicago: American Library Association, 2000. Print. Harris, Michael. Review of Michel Foucault, by Didier Eribon. The Library Quarterly 63 (1993): 115-16. Houghton, Sarah. Notice to publishers: curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. Librarian in Black, 9 February 2012. Web. 6 April 2012. Johnson, Peggy. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. 2nd. Chicago, IL: American library Association, 2009. Print. Kelley, Michael. Consortium of 25 Libraries in Connecticut Votes to Boycott Random House. The Digital Shift. 5 April 2012. Web. 6 April 2012. Leckie, G. & J.E. Buschman (Eds.) Critical Theory for Library and Information Science. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 2010. Print.

DeWall 11

Maness, Jack M. "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries". Webology, 3 (2), Article 25. 2006. Web. 6 April 2012. McColvin, Lionel. The Theory of Book Selection for Public Libraries. London: Grafton, 1925. Print. Ollson, M.R. Michel Foucault: Discourse, Power/Knowledge and the Battle for Truth. In Leckie, G. & J.E. Buschman (Eds.) Critical Theory for Library and Information Science. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 2010. Print. Pettigrew, Karen E. and McKechnie, Lynne. The Use of Theory in Information Science Research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (2001): 62-73. Radford, Marie L. and Gary P. Radford. Power, Knowledge and Fear: Feminism, Foucault and the Stereotype of the Female Librarian. The Library Quarterly. 67.3 (1997): 250-266. EBSCOHost. Web. Radford, Gary P. Trapped in Our Own Discursive Formations: Toward and Archaeology of Library and Information Science. The Library Quarterly. 73.1(2003): 1-18. EBSCOHost. Web. Rothstein, Samuel. In Search of Ourselves. Library Journal (January 15, 1968): 156-57. Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science. 2nd. NY: Neal Schuman Publishers, 2004. Print. Smith, E. S. Power and Practice in Academic Library materials Selection Paradigms. Student Research Journal, 1(2). (2011) Web. 4 April 2012. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/slissrj/vol1/iss2/6 West, Celeste, and Elizabeth Katz, eds. Revolting Librarians. San Francisco, CA : Booklegger Press, 1972.

DeWall 12

Wiegand, Wayne A. Tunnel Vision and Blind Spots: What the Past Tells us about the Present; Reflections on the Twentieth-Century History of American Librarianship. The Library Quarterly 69 (1999): 1-32. Wolf, Milton T. Building Library Collections: The Horse is Riding Us! Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences 40.4 2003; 429-37. Academic OneFile. Web.