This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Teacup_
I'm studying for my masters comprehensive exam and I want to discuss Lester Asheim's "Selection or Censorship" because I'm a little confused about a few things in it.
Asheim says:
"To the selector the important thing is to find reasons to keep the book, Given such a guid- ing principle, the selector looks for values, for virtues, for strengths, which will overshadow minor objections. For the censor, on the other hand, the important thing is to find reasons to reject the book. His guiding principle leads him to seek out the objectionable features, the weaknesses, the possibilities for misinterpreta- tion .... The selector says, if there is anything good in this book let us try to keep it; the censor says, if there is anything bad in this book, let us re- ject it. And since there is seldom a flawless work in any form, the censor's approach can destroy much that is worth saving."
He also says:
"The selector, on the other hand, judges by internal values. Since it is the book with which he is concerned, it is the content of the book that is weighed, not the table manners of the publisher or the sartorial orthodoxy of the author."
and
"It is important to note here that, whether they annoy us or not, some pressures are legitimate and our patrons have every right to exert them, so long as they are pressures on opinion, not on the expression of opinion."
Here's a link to the article in case someone needs it:
https://www.ala.org/Template.cfm Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=109668
I don't understand what he meant by the last two quotes. Aside from those a lot of what he says sounds so reasonable to me except I also feel like he's almost taking for granted that every written work is valuable and that every author is driven by healthy motivation. There must be works published clearly with the intent of slandering just as there are authors who are clearly racist. So if a library outweighs the positive with the negative and believes that a certain work will inevitably lead to unnecessary problems (e.g. if I'm adding a book that slanders a certain religion in a community that follows that religion), wouldn't banning it just be another way of "avoiding problems"? Another example would be to catalog 50 Shades of Grey to middle school libraries or even high schools?
I don't know if Asheim is oblivious to that or I'm misinterpreting things and this is simply not an issue he is talking about in his paper?
Just need to emphasize I'm not stirring up a heated discussion. The objective is for me to sit for my exam with something I actually fully understand.
Asheim says:
"To the selector the important thing is to find reasons to keep the book, Given such a guid- ing principle, the selector looks for values, for virtues, for strengths, which will overshadow minor objections. For the censor, on the other hand, the important thing is to find reasons to reject the book. His guiding principle leads him to seek out the objectionable features, the weaknesses, the possibilities for misinterpreta- tion .... The selector says, if there is anything good in this book let us try to keep it; the censor says, if there is anything bad in this book, let us re- ject it. And since there is seldom a flawless work in any form, the censor's approach can destroy much that is worth saving."
He also says:
"The selector, on the other hand, judges by internal values. Since it is the book with which he is concerned, it is the content of the book that is weighed, not the table manners of the publisher or the sartorial orthodoxy of the author."
and
"It is important to note here that, whether they annoy us or not, some pressures are legitimate and our patrons have every right to exert them, so long as they are pressures on opinion, not on the expression of opinion."
Here's a link to the article in case someone needs it:
https://www.ala.org/Template.cfm Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=109668
I don't understand what he meant by the last two quotes. Aside from those a lot of what he says sounds so reasonable to me except I also feel like he's almost taking for granted that every written work is valuable and that every author is driven by healthy motivation. There must be works published clearly with the intent of slandering just as there are authors who are clearly racist. So if a library outweighs the positive with the negative and believes that a certain work will inevitably lead to unnecessary problems (e.g. if I'm adding a book that slanders a certain religion in a community that follows that religion), wouldn't banning it just be another way of "avoiding problems"? Another example would be to catalog 50 Shades of Grey to middle school libraries or even high schools?
I don't know if Asheim is oblivious to that or I'm misinterpreting things and this is simply not an issue he is talking about in his paper?
Just need to emphasize I'm not stirring up a heated discussion. The objective is for me to sit for my exam with something I actually fully understand.
2aulsmith
Well, in the first place, I object to his definition of selector. In a library a selector judges a book by the needs of the community using the library and the book's place among the books already there.
So, if I'm looking at a perfectly respectable introduction to electronics that is basically the same as an introduction to electronics that we already own, my selection process changes based on where I am:
small public library - I already have one, so I'll give this a miss
medium size public library - does the other one circulate a lot? Might we need another?
college library where electronics is taught - different students often need different approaches to the same subject. Is the book we currently own used a lot? Might this book supplement its approach?
Or your example: a book that slanders a religion
Public library: Is the book getting a lot of buzz and am I likely to have patrons who want to see what it says (either to agree or disagree)
library at a 4-year college with a few introductory courses in religion: No. I'm going to go for neutral academic studies in religion.
large library with an extensive historical interest in that particular religion or religions in general: Yes, controversy and slander says as much, especially historically, as neutral or sympathetic treatments.
Without reading the article, I'm having trouble parsing the last statement, but I do agree that some patrons have legitimate complaints. When our local Breast Cancer Survivors group pointed out that the newest book on breast cancer that the public library had was ten years old and that treatment had changed radically in the last ten years, that was a perfectly legitimate complaint.
So, if I'm looking at a perfectly respectable introduction to electronics that is basically the same as an introduction to electronics that we already own, my selection process changes based on where I am:
small public library - I already have one, so I'll give this a miss
medium size public library - does the other one circulate a lot? Might we need another?
college library where electronics is taught - different students often need different approaches to the same subject. Is the book we currently own used a lot? Might this book supplement its approach?
Or your example: a book that slanders a religion
Public library: Is the book getting a lot of buzz and am I likely to have patrons who want to see what it says (either to agree or disagree)
library at a 4-year college with a few introductory courses in religion: No. I'm going to go for neutral academic studies in religion.
large library with an extensive historical interest in that particular religion or religions in general: Yes, controversy and slander says as much, especially historically, as neutral or sympathetic treatments.
Without reading the article, I'm having trouble parsing the last statement, but I do agree that some patrons have legitimate complaints. When our local Breast Cancer Survivors group pointed out that the newest book on breast cancer that the public library had was ten years old and that treatment had changed radically in the last ten years, that was a perfectly legitimate complaint.
3Teacup_
I'm totally with you on that- great points.
Let me explain some of the things he wrote. He's kind of saying the standards for selection are vague. For instance, a killer and a surgeon both wield knives but one for a noble cause the other not obviously. I think what he's ultimately trying to do is draw a clear distinction between censorship and selection. He describes selection as being positive, where the librarian has faith in the reaction of an intellectual reader who could be exposed to controversial materials without complaints. In fact he goes as far as saying selection "stimulates" controversial works in order to pave way to innovation, as opposed to censorship where the censor only has faith in himself and expects an irrational reader. He considers this limiting to readership and almost a form of overprotection that hinders innovation.
So if there's a controversial book, the positive selector would look for any good thing in the book in order to justify keeping it; whereas the censor will look at those controversial parts and will immediately reject the book because of them not taking into consideration the other good parts in it.
These are all great ideas but I kind of got the impression that he's generalizing. 1) that all authors are noble in their intentions. 2) any of form of title rejection is immediately considered censorship and that's bad.
I guess that makes me wonder is it really bad to prevent certain type of patrons from being exposed to controversial material if you knew it was going to cause issues. To Asheim that's not democratic and totally authoritarian.
It's a great article, just confusing.
Let me explain some of the things he wrote. He's kind of saying the standards for selection are vague. For instance, a killer and a surgeon both wield knives but one for a noble cause the other not obviously. I think what he's ultimately trying to do is draw a clear distinction between censorship and selection. He describes selection as being positive, where the librarian has faith in the reaction of an intellectual reader who could be exposed to controversial materials without complaints. In fact he goes as far as saying selection "stimulates" controversial works in order to pave way to innovation, as opposed to censorship where the censor only has faith in himself and expects an irrational reader. He considers this limiting to readership and almost a form of overprotection that hinders innovation.
So if there's a controversial book, the positive selector would look for any good thing in the book in order to justify keeping it; whereas the censor will look at those controversial parts and will immediately reject the book because of them not taking into consideration the other good parts in it.
These are all great ideas but I kind of got the impression that he's generalizing. 1) that all authors are noble in their intentions. 2) any of form of title rejection is immediately considered censorship and that's bad.
I guess that makes me wonder is it really bad to prevent certain type of patrons from being exposed to controversial material if you knew it was going to cause issues. To Asheim that's not democratic and totally authoritarian.
It's a great article, just confusing.
4DanieXJ
But, even with your example (or maybe it's his?) You're assuming one concrete definition for 'killer' and one definition for 'surgeon'. There are multiple points of view of both those people, not just killer=bad, surgeon=good.
I guess it's just not obvious to me.
And, any form of title rejection is censorship. It's just that as a civilization we have determined that there are okay and not okay sorts of censorship. And okay sort of censorship is a Childrens department not having Chuckie movies in their collection.
While we've predetermined that not having the Chuckie movies in the adult section can be considered censorship. But really, technically, they both are....
Also, your link doesn't seem to work at the moment. :)
I guess it's just not obvious to me.
And, any form of title rejection is censorship. It's just that as a civilization we have determined that there are okay and not okay sorts of censorship. And okay sort of censorship is a Childrens department not having Chuckie movies in their collection.
While we've predetermined that not having the Chuckie movies in the adult section can be considered censorship. But really, technically, they both are....
Also, your link doesn't seem to work at the moment. :)
5Teacup_
Danie, actually it was his example. That's what I was trying to say, he over generalizes a bit. In many instances librarians do not even select titles especially the case in academic libraries where that tasks is carried out by faculty. Aulsmith said it best above- depends on which type of library and what kind of audiences are you providing service for.
Sorry about the link hehe. Didn't notice.
Sorry about the link hehe. Didn't notice.
6aulsmith
So, it sounds like he's only dealing with the case where you already have the title in your collection and someone challenges it. He seems to think that the reason to keep a book resides in the book itself, where I think the reason to keep a book resides in the collection. And I think Snodgrass99 is correct. It's placing way too much faith in the author of the book.
There are a lot of bad books in the world; I'll use Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an example. It's a forgery, pure and simple. It's led to millions of deaths. It has no redeeming features. But in the correct context, it's a very important book. You can't really understand the Holocaust in Germany without it. While I don't want to waste time reading it myself, I very much appreciate the people who have and have explained it to me. And they couldn't have done that if no libraries kept a copy of the book.
Would I buy it in a small or medium size public library? No. But placed in a large library in the context of other books on antisemitism, hoaxes and the Holocaust, it can be a very useful book. So it is the context, not the book itself, that makes it a keeper. That's why ALA recommends a strong collection development policy as the best defense against censorship.
There are a lot of bad books in the world; I'll use Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an example. It's a forgery, pure and simple. It's led to millions of deaths. It has no redeeming features. But in the correct context, it's a very important book. You can't really understand the Holocaust in Germany without it. While I don't want to waste time reading it myself, I very much appreciate the people who have and have explained it to me. And they couldn't have done that if no libraries kept a copy of the book.
Would I buy it in a small or medium size public library? No. But placed in a large library in the context of other books on antisemitism, hoaxes and the Holocaust, it can be a very useful book. So it is the context, not the book itself, that makes it a keeper. That's why ALA recommends a strong collection development policy as the best defense against censorship.
7lquilter
You are asking about the last two quotes, right?
"The selector, on the other hand, judges by internal values. Since it is the book with which he is concerned, it is the content of the book that is weighed, not the table manners of the publisher or the sartorial orthodoxy of the author."
and
"It is important to note here that, whether they annoy us or not, some pressures are legitimate and our patrons have every right to exert them, so long as they are pressures on opinion, not on the expression of opinion."
As I read them, the first quote is basically saying select BOOKS; don't be influenced by extrinsic factors. Don't censor (or select) books based on whether you approve or disapprove of the publisher's or author's non-book-related personal behaviors (for instance).
The second quote says that patrons can and should express their opinions. Asheim then distinguishes between trying to change someone's views, which is okay, and trying to prevent them expressing their views, which is not. In the selection context, for instance, it would be fine for someone to say to a librarian, "You should not have bought this book, because your opinion about it fitting your selection criteria is wrong -- you selected it based on its alleged quality, but there are no good reviews of it." That would be trying to change the selector's opinion. The expression of the selector's opinion would be buying the book because it's appropriate for the collection. So getting the selector to change their behavior, without changing their opinion, would be inappropriate.
.......
Your questions seem to mostly relate to the first quote:
"To the selector the important thing is to find reasons to keep the book, Given such a guid- ing principle, the selector looks for values, for virtues, for strengths, which will overshadow minor objections. For the censor, on the other hand, the important thing is to find reasons to reject the book. His guiding principle leads him to seek out the objectionable features, the weaknesses, the possibilities for misinterpretation .... The selector says, if there is anything good in this book let us try to keep it; the censor says, if there is anything bad in this book, let us reject it. And since there is seldom a flawless work in any form, the censor's approach can destroy much that is worth saving."
Aside from those a lot of what he says sounds so reasonable to me except I also feel like he's almost taking for granted that every written work is valuable and that every author is driven by healthy motivation. There must be works published clearly with the intent of slandering just as there are authors who are clearly racist. So if a library outweighs the positive with the negative and believes that a certain work will inevitably lead to unnecessary problems (e.g. if I'm adding a book that slanders a certain religion in a community that follows that religion), wouldn't banning it just be another way of "avoiding problems"? Another example would be to catalog 50 Shades of Grey to middle school libraries or even high schools?
It's not a balancing test -- is the book more positive than negative; is it going to cause more problems than it's worth. It's an attitude. Why should we have this book? For instance, I can look at "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and say, "This book is false; or I can say, "This book had an important effect on history." Unquestionably, the book is false and was written with evil intent. But there may be good reasons to get an false book written with evil intent, and we look for the positive reasons to select, not the negative ones not to select.
Yes, banning books can be a way of avoiding problems. You will note that "avoiding problems" is not one of the typical selection criteria in libraries.
The reason 50 Shades of Grey is not in most school libraries is because their purpose is generally to support the curriculum, and to support students' reading. The latter criteria is how it MIGHT get in, and here's where you would want to carefully interrogate why a school librarian is selecting materials: Is she or he selecting AGAINST 50SOG to avoid problems? or selecting FOR another title for particular reasons?
"The selector, on the other hand, judges by internal values. Since it is the book with which he is concerned, it is the content of the book that is weighed, not the table manners of the publisher or the sartorial orthodoxy of the author."
and
"It is important to note here that, whether they annoy us or not, some pressures are legitimate and our patrons have every right to exert them, so long as they are pressures on opinion, not on the expression of opinion."
As I read them, the first quote is basically saying select BOOKS; don't be influenced by extrinsic factors. Don't censor (or select) books based on whether you approve or disapprove of the publisher's or author's non-book-related personal behaviors (for instance).
The second quote says that patrons can and should express their opinions. Asheim then distinguishes between trying to change someone's views, which is okay, and trying to prevent them expressing their views, which is not. In the selection context, for instance, it would be fine for someone to say to a librarian, "You should not have bought this book, because your opinion about it fitting your selection criteria is wrong -- you selected it based on its alleged quality, but there are no good reviews of it." That would be trying to change the selector's opinion. The expression of the selector's opinion would be buying the book because it's appropriate for the collection. So getting the selector to change their behavior, without changing their opinion, would be inappropriate.
.......
Your questions seem to mostly relate to the first quote:
"To the selector the important thing is to find reasons to keep the book, Given such a guid- ing principle, the selector looks for values, for virtues, for strengths, which will overshadow minor objections. For the censor, on the other hand, the important thing is to find reasons to reject the book. His guiding principle leads him to seek out the objectionable features, the weaknesses, the possibilities for misinterpretation .... The selector says, if there is anything good in this book let us try to keep it; the censor says, if there is anything bad in this book, let us reject it. And since there is seldom a flawless work in any form, the censor's approach can destroy much that is worth saving."
Aside from those a lot of what he says sounds so reasonable to me except I also feel like he's almost taking for granted that every written work is valuable and that every author is driven by healthy motivation. There must be works published clearly with the intent of slandering just as there are authors who are clearly racist. So if a library outweighs the positive with the negative and believes that a certain work will inevitably lead to unnecessary problems (e.g. if I'm adding a book that slanders a certain religion in a community that follows that religion), wouldn't banning it just be another way of "avoiding problems"? Another example would be to catalog 50 Shades of Grey to middle school libraries or even high schools?
It's not a balancing test -- is the book more positive than negative; is it going to cause more problems than it's worth. It's an attitude. Why should we have this book? For instance, I can look at "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and say, "This book is false; or I can say, "This book had an important effect on history." Unquestionably, the book is false and was written with evil intent. But there may be good reasons to get an false book written with evil intent, and we look for the positive reasons to select, not the negative ones not to select.
Yes, banning books can be a way of avoiding problems. You will note that "avoiding problems" is not one of the typical selection criteria in libraries.
The reason 50 Shades of Grey is not in most school libraries is because their purpose is generally to support the curriculum, and to support students' reading. The latter criteria is how it MIGHT get in, and here's where you would want to carefully interrogate why a school librarian is selecting materials: Is she or he selecting AGAINST 50SOG to avoid problems? or selecting FOR another title for particular reasons?
9Teacup_
Aulsmith, sorry I wasn't doing a good job explaining it was I?
7: Thank you. I'm still a little confused still. I'm slow lately, so please bear with me. So overall he's not totally against censorhip, he's basically saying do it for the right reasons? Because I got the impression since it's negative and limiting and hindering, then it was as if he's saying no library should do that and all books have positive elements in them and therefore worth keeping?
7: Thank you. I'm still a little confused still. I'm slow lately, so please bear with me. So overall he's not totally against censorhip, he's basically saying do it for the right reasons? Because I got the impression since it's negative and limiting and hindering, then it was as if he's saying no library should do that and all books have positive elements in them and therefore worth keeping?
11lquilter
Asheim is against censorship. He is saying that the attitude a librarian takes will lead them down the path of censorship, or down the path of selection.
In other words, librarian, if you want to avoid censorship, you have to have an attitude of looking for positive things about works -- what's of interest or value in this work to our mission or our community; looking at a work as a whole with content in context; and not passing judgment on works based on authorial or publisher attributes.
An attitude that tends towards censorship is one where a selector takes parts of a work out of context, rather than looking at a work holistically; or considers attributes of author or publisher in judging a work. In general, a selector who looks at a work with an eye toward figuring out what's wrong with it -- how it will make trouble, which part is problematic or will piss someone off, what parts are bad or undesirable -- that, right there, is a censorious attitude and approach. It will lead a selector into making decisions that amount to censorship, rather than making positive decisions that amount to selection.
In other words, librarian, if you want to avoid censorship, you have to have an attitude of looking for positive things about works -- what's of interest or value in this work to our mission or our community; looking at a work as a whole with content in context; and not passing judgment on works based on authorial or publisher attributes.
An attitude that tends towards censorship is one where a selector takes parts of a work out of context, rather than looking at a work holistically; or considers attributes of author or publisher in judging a work. In general, a selector who looks at a work with an eye toward figuring out what's wrong with it -- how it will make trouble, which part is problematic or will piss someone off, what parts are bad or undesirable -- that, right there, is a censorious attitude and approach. It will lead a selector into making decisions that amount to censorship, rather than making positive decisions that amount to selection.
14RowanTribe
lquilter summed up my interpretation exactly.
I will add that to your concern that he's being naïve about the intentions of the author or the complaining patron (to look at two sides of the question) - it isn't that he's being naïve, it's that their intentions do not matter that much to the process.
If the selector is coming at the process of selection or deselection from the "proper" perspective (as lquilter and the others expressed above) then the intent of the person writing the book, or the intent of the person trying to remove the book don't actually impact the decision overmuch - those concerns become just one small part of the larger narrative of proving the worth of the material in question.
Finally (and this is where practical applications come in) it's totally valid to think that a particular material has value, but NOT FOR YOUR NEEDS. That's not censorship, that's understanding your service population and your institutional mission. Just be aware of the trap of avoiding difficult subjects or difficult decisions by claiming that the material doesn't fit.
I will add that to your concern that he's being naïve about the intentions of the author or the complaining patron (to look at two sides of the question) - it isn't that he's being naïve, it's that their intentions do not matter that much to the process.
If the selector is coming at the process of selection or deselection from the "proper" perspective (as lquilter and the others expressed above) then the intent of the person writing the book, or the intent of the person trying to remove the book don't actually impact the decision overmuch - those concerns become just one small part of the larger narrative of proving the worth of the material in question.
Finally (and this is where practical applications come in) it's totally valid to think that a particular material has value, but NOT FOR YOUR NEEDS. That's not censorship, that's understanding your service population and your institutional mission. Just be aware of the trap of avoiding difficult subjects or difficult decisions by claiming that the material doesn't fit.
15mamzel
Another rather obvious reason for deselecting books is space. Most smaller libraries cannot be warehouses for books and must make space for new ones coming in. Even though a book has been highly reviewed and well respected, if it is old and unread the library may have to remove it to make space.
And I'd like to echo what was said by lquilter about school libraries supporting curriculum. While students may request books like 50SOG and many school librarians may want to stock shelves with popular books students want to read, librarians should keep in mind the basic mission of their library which does not include entertainment.
And I'd like to echo what was said by lquilter about school libraries supporting curriculum. While students may request books like 50SOG and many school librarians may want to stock shelves with popular books students want to read, librarians should keep in mind the basic mission of their library which does not include entertainment.
