I agree with other respondents who have noted the value of this discussion. Rory has demonstrated repeatedly that he is a librarian who cares passionately about the field of librarianship, about social justice, and about SRRT. Also, Rory has given serious thought to the role of librarians and of our professional organizations in a broader social context. So I haven’t been surprised that I’ve found my own thinking provoked and stimulated by Rory’s original post as well as by contributions of others to this discussion. But, as in other recent discussions, I again find myself disagreeing with much of Rory’s perspective.
I have to confess that the first thing about Rory’s account that confused me was his characterization of SRRT as an “activist organization” with an “activist orientation” and “activist goals.” My own understanding of the term “activism” is close to that of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.” I’ve belonged to various organizations that were activist in this sense. In contrast, the main activities of SRRT revolve around passing resolutions and organizing programs for ALA conferences. As important as these activities are, in my mind they hardly constitute an “activist” agenda.
Instead, I think that Rory is really objecting to the strongly political—and especially leftist—emphasis of SRRT’s resolutions. This is suggested by his complaint about the leadership’s “political priorities, assumptions about the way things are, and modes of acting” which originated in the 1960s. Unfortunately, Rory doesn’t specify which priorities, assumptions, and modes he finds so objectionable. But he is convinced that these are no longer appropriate, for since the “revolutionary time of the 60’s,” and especially in the past few decades the “country has shifted rightwards,” there has been a steadily “worsening reality,” which has contradicted the leadership’s “obsolete assumptions.”
Rory does not attempt to substantiate these assertions, apparently assuming they are self-evident. But there is at least some reason to believe that they are highly exaggerated, or even inaccurate. One of the most important sources for political attitudes in the U.S. over decades is the General Social Survey of the National Opinion Research Center, begun in 1972. Data from that survey show that, in fact, a high point of progressive sentiment in the U.S. was 1973, when 4% of the population identified themselves as “extremely liberal.” GSS data show a drop in “extreme liberalism” since then —but only to 3% in 2008, and only after having again reached 4% in 2004. The total percentage identifying themselves as liberal to any degree has dropped from a high point of 31% in 1973. But that drop occurred mainly between the early 1970s and the mid-80s. Since 1987 it has varied between 24% and 27% (with a dips in the early 1990s perhaps connected to the collapse of “actually existing socialism,” and in the early 2000s following 9/11). Furthermore, it has risen steadily since 2004 to 26% in 2008. [H.W. Stanley & R.G.Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics 2009-2010, CQ Press, 2010), 111, 112.]
A few other figures are also worth noting. Since 1970, studies by the Higher Education Institute at the university of California have measured the number of college freshmen in the U.S. identifying themselves as liberal or far left. After a decline from almost 40% in 1970, this percentage has risen fairly steadily from a low point of about 20% in 1980 to about 38% in 2008. Finally, I might note that a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press discovered that a surprisingly high 29% of Americans currently view “socialism” positively. [Stanley & Niemi, 113; “’Socialism’ Not So Negative, ‘Capitalism’ Not So positive, A Political Rhetoric Test,” Pew Research Center, May 4, 2010, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1583/political-rhetoric-capitalism-socialism-militia-family-values-states-rights]
Of course, figures such as these also oversimplify and distort a complex reality. One can legitimately question the value of political self-identification, the categories employed, etc. Still, they suggest a number of conclusions: 1. Although the wave of radicalization in the late 60s and early 70s was real (and magnificent!), it would be inaccurate to characterize the overwhelming popular sentiment of that time as revolutionary, or even liberal. 2. Although there have been various shifts within the U.S. since the early 70s, a strong current of liberal opinion has remained constant. 3. Liberalism and radicalism have been growing among young people for some time; and more recently liberalism has been on the rise within the broader population.
It seems to me that it’s been the sentiments of this broader current—and not just stubbornness on the part of a handful of grizzled 60s holdovers—that has nourished the progressive activities of SRRT over the years. I think this is reflected in the fair number of younger librarians— including inactive SRRT members as well as nonmembers—who have spoken positively to me about many of the resolutions we’ve adopted. It’s been reflected in the fact that SRRT remains one of the largest round tables in ALA. It’s even reflected in the positions taken by ALA Council. Despite occasional frustrations, I’ve been positively impressed by the ultimate willingness of Council to adopt important resolutions on such controversial international topics as the destruction of Palestinian resources, the American use of torture, and the Iraq war. Likewise, this broader progressive current has inspired similar resolutions and actions by other professional and academic organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Anthropological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Historical Association.
Rory also suggests that an old SRRT leadership, which has retained control for decades, is hostile, or at best indifferent, to the views of the membership. In response, others have noted the fairly high rate of turnover within AC, as well as the openness of SRRT in-person meetings. That corresponds closely to my perceptions since I first got involved it in SRRT in 2001. Like Julie and Jaime, I still feel a bit intimidated about presenting my views on a large email list. That may be inevitable. At any rate, I believe we’ve made substantial progress in the past few years in overcoming the problems of incivility on the SRRT-AC list mentioned by Fred—though there may be more we can do to make the list a more comfortable environment for participation.
With Diedre, I feel Rory’s assertion that AC members don’t care about the views of the membership is inaccurate. But I also think the issue is somewhat false. When a member raises a point in discussion, as a member of AC the first thing I think is neither “Who is this person?” nor “How big a part of the membership does this person in effect represent?” Instead, I ask myself how the member’s comments fit with our goal of promoting social responsibility as a core value of librarianship. And I respond on the basis of that, rather than trying to represent an imaginary constituency. I suspect that’s what most AC members do.
Having said all this, I believe we could do more to encourage participation and the exchange of ideas on the part of the membership. But in contrast to Rory, I think the best way to do this might be by INCREASING the level of activism of SRRT, not decreasing it. Currently members can express their general views on resolutions under consideration or on topics for programs. But much of the actual discussion and debate about these inevitably takes place in relatively small task forces or AC meetings at ALA annual or midwinter. I’ve wondered at various times if there wasn’t more we could be doing that would engage a larger portion of the membership.
A few examples from Pittsburgh might help illustrate this. In recent years a loose grouping of librarians—mostly SRRT members, and primarily at Pitt—have created a website for the Allegheny County Labor Council; we’ve spoken at rallies, at city council meetings, and in a documentary about the Patriot Act; we’ve participated in a Progressive Librarian Skillshare; we’ve created a web page of Alternative Resources on the G-20; we’ve volunteered to assist with Radical Reference for the G-20 protests; we’ve initiated research on articles related to the question of public access to academic libraries and the availability of alternative publications; and we’ve begun to explore ways we might help promote information literacy skills within disadvantaged communities.
I’m sure the experiences of other librarians in SRRT are similar. It seems to me we could be doing more as an organization to promote and coordinate these kinds of activities, and to share our experiences about them. Along these lines I would shamelessly like to appeal again for help, ideas, and all kinds of input for the (long overdue!) redesign of the International Responsibilities Task Force web site to make it more appealing, current, and useful to librarians and others who are concerned about the same kinds of international issues that concern us.
Terminological disagreements about what constitutes “activism” aside, Rory may even agree with some of these ideas. In his original post Rory spoke almost exclusively about what we shouldn’t do. I hope that in future contributions he’ll talk more about what he thinks SRRT should be doing.
Thanks and my apologies for the length of this contribution!
Tom