What does it mean to have a library?

Unsurprisingly, a lot of my friends have been talking about the dismantling of the People’s Library at Occupy Wall Street, and it’s got me thinking about why the protesters set up the library and why people care so much that it’s gone. And why tiny towns have libraries, and why universities are judged on their libraries, and why tweed-coated English gentlemen built private libraries far larger than they could read through in a lifetime.

For lending libraries, of course there’s an economic benefit to the community that comes from sharing books. And I imagine that this was a core benefit to the People’s Library, too. It’s easy to see how the protesters would have wanted to carry out simple acts of sharing with all who were in want.

I think there’s also a nice metaphor of cultural exchange that happens with lending libraries. Ideally, more than one person will have read each book, and that means that those people will have experiences in common to discuss and build upon.

I think a library, any kind of library, is also a statement about belonging and longevity. “We are here,” they help us say, “and we plan to be here for a while.” And it’s not just belonging and longevity, but also a statement about progress. “We know things,” they help us say, “and we will continue to learn new things and add those things to this collection.”

I have been having a hard time feeling outrage about the dismantling of the People’s Library, but maybe it is in part because I have been thinking of it as a collection of books in a tent. Maybe it was more than that.

One thought on “What does it mean to have a library?

  1. Pingback: LibPunk Radio #36: OCCUPY LIBRARIES | LibPunk

  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 9:37 pm lris
    I'm trying *really hard* to figure out why I should care. :-)
  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 10:25 pm laura x
    Well, it was a collection of books in a tent that a lot of people had spent a lot of time collecting, organizing, cataloging, labeling, and otherwise doing librarianly things with, and so for them, it's a great loss of work as well as a loss of stuff.
  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 11:19 pm Steele Lawman
    I love it when Iris and I see things differently.
  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 11:47 pm lris
    Steve, this is less about me saying the way I see the OWS library and more about me thinking of ways to understand why the library has gotten so much play time in the conversations and reporting that I've heard. I have tended to have a pretty cynical view of the library, and I guess this is me hoping that it meant more than a bunch of people playing house, so to speak, in the middle of the city.
  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 11:49 pm DJF
    Iris cynical? O.o
  • Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 11:51 pm lris
    oh yes indeedy
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 12:33 am Steele Lawman
    Yes, I know it was kind of thinking out loud and trying to put yourself in other people's shoes. Which you did a lovely job of
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 2:39 am laura x
    Iris is nothing but cynical. I, on the other hand, am a hopeless romantic about bringing to birth a new world from the ashes of the old, so I am in favor of "playing house in the middle of a city"--only I'd call it building a city in the middle of the city.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 2:40 am Meg V. Meg
    Am I the only one who believed that libraries were common features in anarchist communities? I didn't realize it was so weird as everyone seems to find it, or that it merited any explanation/comment at all.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 2:43 am laura x
    I kind of think libraries are common features in all kinds of communities? Anarchist in particular (hence zine libraries, infoshops, etc.), but really, so many places where people gather and form some kind of a society develop a library.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 3:04 am lris
    Yeah, see, I really can't get behind a massive game of house. So I guess I'm back to square one.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 4:15 am Steele Lawman
    Meg, my interest isn't so much in the fact that there was a library at OWS as it is in the reactions to the library's destruction. Like Iris, I wondered "should I care? Some people have written about the loss of the library as if it was important beyond its importance to the people who created and used the library. Is it?"
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:22 am Meg V. Meg
    Steve, do you not see any symbolism/metaphor in the act of police officers destroying a library?
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:28 am Steele Lawman
    If they had come in to destroy the library I'd feel completely different about it. But I think that trying to tie this to the deliberate destruction of books by Nazis, Serbs, whoever, is misguided.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:32 am Meg V. Meg
    Because Nazis and Serbs were only interested in destroying libraries?
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:34 am Meg V. Meg
    I just think it's a powerful idea, so people ran with it. The NYPD are jerks, beyond this, though: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/the-nypds-ticket-fixing-scandal.html so maybe there's also more context to the OWS stuff (in the NYC media at least?) that isn't part of your experience
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:35 am Meg V. Meg
    More powerful than "cops arrest/beat dirty hippies/trust-fund kids" which was the prevailing story before this.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:44 am Steele Lawman
    Because Nazis and Serbs deliberately targeted books and libraries as part of an overall plan to destroy the culture of the people they demonized and murdered. NYPD are undoubtedly assholes. But the library, I believe, was treated just like all the other property at the site and not destroyed in an attempt to erase dirty hippies/trust fund kids from history.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:49 am Meg V. Meg
    I'm okay with accidentally/incidentally powerful metaphors. Means/ends/something.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:57 am Steele Lawman
    Ah, and I'm not, at least not in this case. So there's our problem. :)
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:01 am Meg V. Meg
    What is it about this case that makes you unsympathetic?
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:08 am Steele Lawman
    I'm sympathetic to people who got pepper sprayed. I'm sympathetic to the people who built the OWS library only to see it destroyed in the eviction. I'm not sympathetic to the argument that this situation has much in common with some of the historical book-and-library burning.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:17 am Steele Lawman
    Also, from my vantage point, OWS looks like it's all means and no ends.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:51 am Meg V. Meg
    To me, the discussion/awareness of the OWS library serves as a helpful bridge from what is to what could be. The library (as concept) seems to be one of the only secular commons that exists/remains in our everyday world. It doesn't have to be, though, I don't think.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:57 am Meg V. Meg
    That's why the destruction is meaningful to me: it makes plain the greater ideological conflict, whether or not the NYPD intended it that way. It's almost more significant/damning if they didn't?
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 8:30 am lris
    Huh. I think comparing this to Natzis or whatever is a little too much for me, kind of like comparing this to Arab Spring. For me, both of those comparisons dismiss a lot of hardship that's so much more awful than anything that's going on here. I guess that's why I was thinking more about what it means to have a library than I was about what it means to dismantle one. Splitting hairs, sure, but it was how I could find a way into the topic, and it's generalizable (for me) to all kinds of libraries, including mine.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 8:34 am lris
    Also, this thread's Godwin award goes to.... STEVE THE BOULDER LAWSON!!! :-)
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 8:34 am Eric Sizemore
    RE: Means: I'd like to just throw in, that ANYTHING which can interrupt the chattering class, change the topic from all things Kardashian or Palin, and point out that the talking heads can't even read simple signs (SEE: what are they talking about? What do they want?), any thing - any means, that can disrupt the meaningless chatter, by definition, must add meaning. And, meaning is an end . To Iris and Lawson's points: I too was stunned that it was the books that stirred so much sympathy. I thought sure it would take images of a puppy, heroic lifesaving, or a birth in the park to stir broad sympathies. Who knew books still had the power to move people? I was surprised.
  • Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 3:55 pm Steele Lawman
    In the post I ended up not finishing, I had a short bit about how there must be an addendum to Godwin's Law for discussions of the destruction of books. Something like "once the destruction of one or more books becomes a topic of discussion, the probability that someone will bring up Hitler or the Nazis immediately becomes 1."

Comments are closed.