Upload
kam-ho-m-wong
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
1/22
Librarians as Organic Intellectuals: A Gramscian Approach to Blind Spots and Tunnel VisionAuthor(s): Douglas RaberSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 33-53Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619.
Accessed: 18/08/2013 11:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Library Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4309619?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
2/22
LIBRARIANS
AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS:
A
GRAMSCIAN
APPROACH TO
BLIND SPOTS
AND TUNNEL
VISION'
Douglas
Raber2
In the January
1999
issue of
LibraryQuarterly,
Wayne Wiegand
suggests
that
library and information
science
(US)
has failed
to
critically
examine its role
in relations
of
power
and
knowledge
that
systematically
marginalize
the
needs of less powerfulmembers of society.What we know, and what we allow
ourselves
to
know,
about
libraries
and their users is conditioned
by
history
and politics. The
work
of Antonio Gramsci can help us to understand
this
situation. Librarians
and
scholars of UIS occupy a space that
is
contested
ter-
rain in a war of position
between the
hegemony
of the
capitalist
historic bloc
and
the
subjects
who would
challenge
that bloc to be true to its self-declared
principles
of democratic participation.
Gramsci'sinsights regarding
the na-
ture of
capitalist social
formations, and
the
role of intellectuals organic to
these formations,
reveal the ambivalent
social position of LIS
as
a
source
of
both
support
and resistance to
capitalist
hegemony.
Introduction
In
Library
Qyarterly's
January 1999 issue,
Wayne
Wiegand expresses
a
fear that plans regarding
the future of
librarianship
are affected by
blind spots
and tunnel vision, in
large part
because the cultures
in
which we are immersed-or
to which we aspire-tend
to
control the
range
of
questions
we ask about ourselves
and
our profession
[1, p.
3].
In order to identify some of the
questions we should
be asking,
he
reviews the literature of American library
history
addressing
a
period
from 1893 to the
present. He concludes
that the profession,
and
the
academic research ostensibly providing it with
a legitimating body
of
1. This article is a revised version of a presentation at the
Library
Research Seminar n,
Part-
ners and Connections: Research Applied to Practice, University of
Maryland,
College
Park,November2-3, 2001.
2. Associate
professor, University
of
Tennessee,
School of Information
Sciences,
1345
Circle
Park Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0341; Telephone 865-974-9003; Fax
865-974-4967;
E-mail [email protected].
[Library
Quartcrly, ol. 73, no. 1, pp. 33-53]
? 2003 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0024-2519/2003/7301-0003$10.00
33
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
3/22
34
THE LIBRARY
QUARTERLY
knowledge, is trapped in its own discursive formations, where mem-
bers
speak mostly
to each
other and where connections between power
and knowledge that affect issues of race, class, age and gender, among
others, are either invisible or
ignored [1, p. 24]. Perhaps even more
troubling is Wiegand's implied
suggestion that this practice is system-
atic and deliberate, if not
entirely conscious. He explicitly notes that
the
work
of
certain critical
theorists and interdisciplinaryscholars that
might help us to address the issue he identifies is generally absent from
library and information science
discourse [1, pp. 10-11, 22-25]. To
support this claim, he refers to an unscientific survey he conducted
of a
couple
of recent volumes of the
Journalfor
the American
Society
of
Information Science,and he reports that he found little evidence of an
awareness
of the
ambivalent relations between power and knowledge
or any sign of an effort to explore
Douglas Zweizig's
concern that
li-
brary
and information science research
privileges
institutions over
peo-
ple
and tends to view the latter as a means to the ends of the former
[1, pp. 23-24; 2]. Library
and information science
(LIS) practice
and
research appears to display a
systematic tendency
to attend to
some
issues while allowing others of at
least equal importance
to
go
unarticu-
lated, undefined, and untheorized. This condition, according to Wie-
gand,
is the cause of our blind
spots
and tunnel vision.
Evidently,
not
everyone
in
library
and information science
agrees
with
Wiegand's
observations. Donald
Case,
in
a comment
published
in
the October 1999 issue of
Library
Quarterly,
questions Wiegand's
conclu-
sions and asserts that one scholar's
'tunnel vision'
may
be another
scholar's
microscope [3, p. 537].
Case also
expresses disappointment
that
Wiegand's essay
deteriorates
into
yet
another instance
of
disci-
plinary navel-gazing [3, p. 537].
Actually,
Case's comment
may repre-
sent more than even he
realizes,
but there
is one
point
he raises that
deserves immediate attention.3As noted earlier, Wiegand refers to the
work of
certain scholars
whose
work
might help
LIS to
overcome
its
limited
vision,
and he refers to six
persons
in
particular.4
Case
fairly
asks, Why
these six writers? He
is
certainly
correct when he asserts
that
Wiegand's
list is not
inclusive,
but his claim that
it is inconsistent
3. The
pejorative use of the phrase navel-gazers
is interesting
in
its own right.
This use
suggests
the disparagement
of inward-looking
contemplation
as being otherworldly,
exces-
sively idealistic
or self-absorbed,
and certainly
not practical. The
stereotyping of Eastern
culture and religion,
and the
privileging
of a Western pragmatic
point of
view regarding
contemplation is also potentially involved. Scholars such as EdwardSaid might suggest that
the casual use
of such language,
even with
the intention of merely
being humorous,
says
more about its speakers
than they realize,
but that is a subject
for
another study.
4. The six theorists
identified by Wiegand
are Michel Foucault,
Antonio
Gramsci,Jirgen
Ha-
bermas,
Helen Longino, MargaretJacob,
and Sandra Harding.
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
4/22
LIBRARIANS
AS
ORGANICINTELLECTUALS 35
mayhave missed the mark [3, p. 536]. Conceived broadly,critical the-
ory in the
human sciences
has
a
long
history,
a rich
discourse,
and
is
represented by
a
great
number of writers
[4].
It includes
Marxism,post-
Marxism, poststructuralism
and
postmodernism,
psychoanalysis,
her-
meneutics,
phenomenology,
and
semiotics,
to
name but a
few of
the
lines
of thought associated
with critical
theory.
At
best,
Wiegand's
list
serves
as a
set of
index
terms to
this
literature.
On the
other
hand,
the six writers he
names
share a
common
characteristic:
hey
study
the
connections
between
power
and
knowledge,
and
they
would
agree
with
Wiegand
that
these
connections are
never
totallyobjective
and
never
disinterested
[1, p.
23].
One
of
the writers
Wiegand
mentions
is
Antonio
Gramsci.
My goal
is to
show
how
Gramsci'swork
can
help
to
explain
the blind
spots
and
tunnel
vision of LIS
and to
provide
a means
for
expanding
our
vision.
Gramsci
is
especially relevant to the
issues
raised
by Wiegand because
he
explicitly addresses
how
the culture
in
which we
are
immersed con-
trols
the
range
of
questions
we can
ask
about
ourselves and
our histori-
cal
situation.
To be
specific, Gramsci's
work
suggests that
librarians
can
be
viewed
as
organic
intellectuals
and
that
they play
an
ideological
and organizationalrole in maintaininga historic bloc's hegemony over
the
relations
of
economic
production and
civil
society. From this
per-
spective,
the
apparently
neutral discourse of LIS
regarding access
to
information can be
examined as
a
discourse that privileges
particular
rather than
universal
interests.
Gramsci's Marxism
In
order
to
understand the
concept
of
organic
intellectual, we
must
first
review
Gramsci's
development of
Marxisttheory. The
notion
that
human being and history are products of human labor provides the
foundation
of his
thought.
The
production
and
reproduction
of
value,
culture,
and
even
our
bodies constitute
the
material
foundation for
human existence.
The
relations of production
that socially
organize
this
labor
constitute
the
structure
on which
is
built particular super-
structures at
particular points
in
human
history. The superstructure
includes not
only
the
state
and its
associatedjuridical and coercive insti-
tutions
but
also the
social
and
cultural
institutions
and
practices typi-
cally
associated with the
idea of civil
society. Together, base
and super-
structure
constitute
a social formation that
Gramsci calls
the
historic
bloc. In our time, the historic bloc is one of capitalist democracy,
characterized
by private
ownership
of the
means
of production
and
wage labor,
and
ideologically
organized by
a
discourse of
parliamentary
and
electoral
politics.
While
formally organized
at the level of
the
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
5/22
36 THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY
nation-state, this social formation is a global phenomenon, and it exer-
cises hegemony over economic and political relations [5,
pp.
416-18].
Gramsci's use of the word bloc in this context is important.
A
historic bloc is not merely a structuralphenomenon. As a social forma-
tion, it depends on political principles and alliances that are subject
to
constant negotiation, challenge, and change. It is characterized
by
diverse interests whose particular fortunes and influence will vary as
an
outcome
of
political contests both within the bloc and
between
the
bloc and
its
historical challengers. It organizes and assesses
its he-
gemony
over
society largely by controlling the terms of political
dis-
course
and
setting
the
agenda
of
that discourse, but its own internal
divisions combined
with
events
and
behaviors
beyond
its control can
create historical
imperatives
to which
it
must
respond.
In effect, a his-
torical
bloc
represents
a
form of
social
contract;
it is
relatively
stable
but subject to renegotiation.
The
concepts
of
structure and superstructure arise from Marx's
as-
sertion that
relations
of
production
constitute the economic structure
of society, the real foundation,
on which
rises
a
juridical and political
superstructure [6, p. 503].
The
ideas
that dominate
and
govern
a
par-
ticular moment in historyare the ideas of the class that dominates and
governs
the means
and
relations
of
material
production [7].
Given
these
kinds
of
statements,
it
is not
difficult
to
see
how some
interpreters
of
Marx arrive
at
the conclusion that Marxismrepresents
an economic
determinism, but one must also recall that
Marx
insists
that men
are
the
producers
of
their
conceptions, ideas, etc.-real,
active
men,
as
they
are
conditioned
by
a definite
development
of their
productive
forces and of the intercourse
corresponding
to
these
[7, p.
47].
His
point
is
simply
that
circumstances
make
men
just
as
much
as
men
make circumstances [7, p. 59]. Social reality
must be
understood
as
the material outcome of a dialectical relationship between human be-
ings
and their
circumstances.
The historic
bloc, then,
is an
outcome
of
this
relationship.
In his
explanation
of human
nature,
Gramsci
makes clear
that
the historic bloc,
and
the
superstructure
that
repre-
sents
it,
is not
merely
a
determined
outcome
of
certain
relations
of
production:
The
measure
of
freedom enters
into
the
concept
of
man.
That the
objective
possibilities
exist
for
people
not
to die
of
hunger
and
that
people
do die of
hunger,
has
its
importance,
or so one
would
have
thought.
But the
existence
of objective conditions, of possibilities,or of freedom is not yet enough: it is
necessary
to
know
them,
and to know
how
to use
them. And
to want
to
use
them.
Man,
in this
sense,
is
concrete
will,
that
is,
the
effective
application
of
the abstract
will
or
vital
impulses
to
the concrete
means
of which
realise
such
a
will....
Man is
to be conceived
as an historical
bloc of
purely
individual
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
6/22
LIBRARIANS
AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS
37
and subjectiveelements and of mass and objective or material elements with
which the
individual
is in
an
active
relationship.
[5, p. 360]
This
passage
reveals the
intimate
relationships
Gramsci
sees
between
history,
social
existence,
and
individual human lives. Individual
exis-
tence
and,
we shall
see,
social formations can
be characterized
by
the
nature
of the
historic
bloc that
governs
each,
but to
be
conditioned
by
history is
not the
same
thing
as to be
determined
by
it.
Recent
Marxist
theory,
influenced
by
Michel
Foucault and
Jacques
Derrida,
manifests
a
controversy
over
whether
the
structure,
or
base
as it is
sometimes
referred to,
and
superstructure should be
regarded
as
inherent
categories of
historical
existence or
as
cultural
and
intellec-
tual
constructions.
This
issue
turns on
another
controversy
regarding
the role
of
classes as
agents
of
history [8-9].
Both
problems
are
related
to the
failure to
realize
a
genuine socialist
hegemony
and to
the
post-
modem
turn of
late
capitalism.
This
situation
is
about
much
more
than
merely
the
collapse
of
the
Soviet Union.
By
the
mid-1970s
many
Marxist
scholars
and
socialist
activists,
largely
because of
the
influence
of
Gramsci's
thought,
had
already come
to
regard the
Soviet Union
as a
practically
and
theoretically
bankrupt
historical
model
[10].
Rather,
it
is the resiliency of capitalism as a viable productive formation, despite
the
persistence
of
contradictions
between
the
social
production of
value
and its
private
appropriation, that
led to
these
controversies
within
Marxist
theory.
Despite these
controversies,
however,
and
the
successes of late
capitalism,
Marxist
theory
as
exemplified
by
the
work
of
Gramsci
still
possesses a
power to
explain
persistent
economic,
so-
cial, and
political
problems of
capitalist
democracy,
not
the least
of
which
are blind
spots
and
tunnel
vision
across a
wide
range of
practices
in
addition to
library
and
information
science. It
might still
offer
guid-
ance to
a
democratically
transformative,
if not
revolutionary,
politics.
The key to Gramsci's thought lies in his rejection of economic and
historical
determinism. There
are
no
inexorable laws
or
inevitable
outcomes in
human
affairs.
Human
existence
is
characterized by
an
ethical-political,
or as
Gramsci
frequently referred
to
it,
an
intellec-
tual
reality
as
much
as
it
is
by
economic reality
[5, pp.
8-9, 161,
258,
333-34,
and
366-67].
As
can be
seen from
the
long
quote
above,
Gramsci
explicitly
recognized
the role
of
human will
in
human
history.
This
recognition has
important
implications
for
understanding how
capitalism
works. The
historical
relations
between base
and
superstruc-
ture are
complex,
and
they are
not
unidirectional.
Gramsci
writes: Be-
tween the premise (economic structure) and the consequence (politi-
cal
organization),
relations
are by
no
means
simple
and
direct:
and
it is not
only
by
economic facts
that the
history
of a
people
can be
documented. It
is a
complex and
confusing task to
unravel
causes
and
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
7/22
38
THE
LIBRARYQUARTERLY
in order to do so, a deep and widely diffused studyof all spiritualand
practical activities
is needed
[11, pp.
280-81].
Relations
of production
can be organized
in a variety
of ways,
and
more and less
progressivechoices
are available.
Combined
and uneven
development
both within and
between national
social
formations
means that different
peoples
will organize
themselvesin
differentways.
In other words,not everyone
lives,
or livesin exactly
the same historical
moment. As a
result, superstructures
willvary,and
some
capitalistsocial
formations will be more
progressive
than others.
Politics at the
level
of the superstructure
can be
used to effect a
catharsis, or the
pas-
sage from the
purely economic
(or egoistic-passional)
to the ethico-
political
moment, and
in
this
moment the base
can be transformed
into a means
of freedom,
an instrument
to create a new
ethico-political
form
and a source of new initiatives
[5, pp. 366-67].
Ideas have
power,
and progressive
materialreform
of the relations
of production,
short
of their
revolutionary
transformation,
is
possible.
Historical Subjects
and
Hegemony
The location
of
the
historical
subject,
whether
individual
or
social
group,
in
a social formation
is not an
absolutely
determinate phenome-
non. There are
no historically
determined, objective,
political
interests.
By
no
means does Gramscideny
that
the relations of
production
assert
a
powerful
material influence
on the
course of
history.
This
notion
is
central
to Gramsci's
concept
of
hegemony,
but he insists
that historical
subjects
are located-and
more
important,
willfully
locate them-
selves-in
the nexus
of
historically
conditioned
productive
and
social
relations
that
constitute
a
hegemony.
Louis Althusser's
structuralism
has been criticized for merely substituting an idealist essentialism for
economic determinism, [8, pp.
97-105],
as a
result
leaving
little room
for a
revolutionarysubject [12,
p. 141],
but it seems clear that he
was
working
from Gramsci's
deas when he
used the
psychoanalytic
concept
of overdetermination
to describe the
moment
in which
base and
super-
structure,
economic
and intellectual
reality
come
together
to create
the actual
historical
location of a
subject
in a social
formation.
This
location
depends
on
objective
historical
conditions
and what the
sub-
ject
thinks about
these
conditions
[13,
pp. 87-128].
This
reality,then,
is
ideologically
constructed,
and while
it
ordinarily
reflects the ideas
of a ruling class more accurately,a dominant hegemony-it is also
the source
of the
superstructure's
power
over the
base
and
represents
a
possible
historical
position
from
which a
dominant
hegemony
and
the
relations
of
production
that
support
it can be
challenged.
Class
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
8/22
LIBRARIANSAS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS 39
membership, that is, a subject's location in a social formation with re-
gard to the relations
of
production
between
capital
and
labor,
is a
fun-
damental
but not
determining
factor.
It
plays
a
large
but
hardly
exclu-
sive
role in the construction of a
subject's
political
interest.
In Althusser's
language,
the relations of
production
are,
in
the last
instance,
the
determining
force within social
formations,
but this is
an instance that
may
never
fully
arrive, precisely
because of
willful,
counterdetermining
resistance to their
logic.
The continued domi-
nance of capitalist relations
of
production
is no more assured than
their
radical transformation
[14].
The
outcome of the contest
between
capital
and
the resistance to it that arises from the
exploitation
follow-
ing
from the differences that
capital
creates and maintains will
be
de-
termined
by
what Gramscicalls the war of
position.
This is a
struggle
of
ideological
and
political
practice
that
is
protracted
and
ordinarily
takes
place
on
the terrain of civil
society,
but in
some
instances it can
occur within the state itself
[5,
pp. 108-11, 120,
and
229-39].
It is in
the context of this kind of war that both the
progressive
and conserva-
tive nature of libraries can be
seen,
but to
get
to this
we must first
take a look at Gramsci's
analysis
of how
capitalist
social formations
are
politically organized and reproduced.
The
Historic Bloc and
Hegemony
Central to Gramsci's
analysis
of
both
hegemony
and the
war
of
position
is the
concept
of
the historical bloc. At
any given
moment in the
life
of
a social formation
there is only one
historic bloc. It
organizes and
dominates base and
superstructure,
and
the relations
between them,
in
order to reproduce the means and
relations of
production from
which it derives its resources, its political power, and its intellectual/
cultural,
or as Gramsci calls
it,
its
ethico-political
hegemony. The
base
provides
a
historic bloc its
content, and the
superstructure gives
it form [5, p. 377]. The
historic
bloc represents
political
alliances, but
it cannot
be reduced to a mere
political alliance
[15, pp. 119-25]. It
is a
complex,
contradictory,
and
discordant ensemblef
the
superstruc-
tures
[that]
is the
reflection of the ensemble f
the social
relations of
production
[5, p. 366]. A
historic bloc
is
an ensemble
of social groups,
intellectual and
ideological
forces organized around
the historic inter-
ests
of
the fundamental
social
group
that
organizes
and
leads the
bloc [5, pp. 115-16].
Hegemony
is
a
concept
Gramsci
uses to clarify
the nature
of a his-
toric bloc's
power.
This
power
is
dominant,
but
not
dominating. It is far
from
total, and as mentioned
earlier, it is
exercised by setting
political
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
9/22
40 THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY
agendas rather than by dictating political outcomes. Gramsci writes
that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as
'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership.' A social
group
dominates
antagonistic groups,
which it
tends to 'liquidate,'
or to
sub-
jugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied
groups.
A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise 'leadership'
be-
fore winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal
conditions of
winning
such
power); it subsequently becomes
dominant
when it exercises
power,
but even
as it
holds
it firmly in its
grasp, it
must continue to 'lead' as well [5, pp. 57-58].
A
ruling
historic
bloc, then,
relies
as
much if
not more on
ideological
leadership,
exercised
through agents constituted by civil society
rather
than on coercion exercised directlyas state power. In fact, the historic
bloc
is
likely
to
be more politicallysuccessful when it does so. The col-
lapse of Soviet hegemony
in
Russia, for example, is clearly
related to
failures on the
part
of the historic
bloc
led
by
the Communist Partyto
reconcile contradictions between its claims to ideological
leadership
and its need to
rely
on state coercion to retain
power.
It is precisely
this need
to
rely
on intellectual
and moral
leadership
that
opens
a
dom-
inant hegemony to a challenge of its legitimacy on its own terms and
suggests
historical roles for intellectual
groups, including professionals.
Gramsci
saw this as crucial to a war of
position.
There will
always
be
challenges
to
a
historical
bloc.
Some will
be based on traditional
seg-
ments of
society generally seeking
a return
to a
mythical past.
Others
will be based on
marginalized
and radicalized
segments
seeking
a trans-
formation
to
a
utopian
future. Some will arise from within the bloc
itself
as different interests that constitute it assert different visions of
the bloc's future.
Perhaps
at this moment the last instance
arrives. In Marxist
theory
of capitalistsocial formations the fundamental socialgroup is the bour-
geoisie.
In late
capitalist
societies direct
ownership
of the means of
pro-
duction
typically
is
dispersed,
so this
group
instead consists of those
who exercise direct control over the
means of
production.
To render
this
phenomenon
in a
way
that
captures
its
complexity,
however,
ac-
counts
for the overdetermined relations
between base and
superstruc-
ture,
avoids
personalization,
and
recognizes
the
problems
of class
as
a theoretical and historical
category,
I will refer to it
simply
as
capi-
tal.
Among
other
problems,
the historic bloc of
capital may
not be
dominated
by
the
bourgeoisie
as a
class,
and the
subjects
of its domi-
nance may not be exclusively the working class or proletariat. In the
past,
and
in nondemocratic
capitalist
social
formations,
the historic
bloc
is
often
organized by
social
groups
other than the
bourgeoisie
on
behalf
of
capital [16].
The
military,
for
example, typically
akes a
lead-
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
10/22
LIBRARIANS
AS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS
41
ing role in the organizationof fascistsocial formations.Withthe advent
of a
discourse
of
democracy [8, pp. 152-59]
and the
rise of
parliamen-
tary
institutions,
the notion
of
a
political
class
is useful
[17]. Begin-
ning with Bismarck's
Germany,
for
example, professional
politicians
and a
bureaucratic class
have
organized
welfare states
on
behalf
of
capital. As discussed earlier,
a historic
bloc
is
not free
of internal
con-
flict. This condition is
especially
true
of welfare states and
capitalist
democracies.
Fractions
with
different immediate interests exist
within
historic blocs,
and each
will
seek its own
power
within
the
bloc
[18,
pp.
77-85].
For
example,
since the
passage
of the
Telecommunications
Act of 1996, we have
witnessed
a
significantstruggle
among
incumbent
and competitive
local exchange carriers,
ong-distance telephone
com-
panies,
and cable
operators
for control
of the telecommunications
mar-
ket, within
the context of the game
defined by that act of legislation.
The focus of
this contest, however, is relative
competitive advantage,
and the
interpretations
of the
rules
of the
game,
rather
than
the nature
of the
game itself.
All
of
the
players accept without
question
the need
for
liberalization (that is,
deregulation
of
telecommunication mar-
kets).
Political
Strategy and Hegemony
Following
Goran Therborn [19], we are
now in a position to examine
what
the
historic
bloc of capital
does when it rules and
to understand
the war
of position
as a
matter
of
revealingand
challenging
blind spots
and tunnel vision.
According to Gramsci,
this bloc seeks
to protect its
hegemony
and to reproduce capitalist
relations of
production as well
as its
own position as a
privileged historicalsubject in the
social forma-
tion. Coercion and exclusion by using the state asan oppressive appara-
tus
is a dangerous option.
An alternative is to seek the
legitimacy of
the
historic bloc's
authority
and
to maintain
its position by grounding
the
institutions
of
the state
and civil society on a
rational/legal basis
[20],
and
to
grant
concessions
to
popular
demands
for
social
and
politi-
cal
participation,
and economic security,
if
not equality. Outstanding
examples
of
this
strategyinclude Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal and
Lyndon
Johnson's GreatSociety. These
initiatives invite a kind of lim-
ited
membership
in
the bloc by creating
permeable class boundaries
for
individuals, recognizing
the
grievances
of historically
excluded so-
cial groups, and representing themselves symbolicallyas extensions of
a
historical discourse of
democracy.
This
political strategy s
itself
overdetermined, drivennotjust by con-
siderations
of practical
politics seeking a social
equilibrium and the
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
11/22
42
THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY
maintenance of capital's power, but also by a widespread acceptance
of the discourse of
democracy's legitimacy,even among the members
of the historic bloc.
By granting a legitimate place to the discourse
of
democracy
in its
political strategy,and accepting
the idea that this im-
plies meaningful participation beyond voting
and formal equality of
citizenship, the historic bloc brings an intellectual
reality
into play,
and finds in persuasion an ideological solution
to the frailty of its he-
gemony.
Ultimately this solution
is
based
on the widespread acceptance of a
Panglossian observation:
that while not perfect, capitalist relations
of
production when
combined with a political
superstructure of parlia-
mentary democracy, rational/legal structures
of governance
and au-
thority, equality
before
the
law,
and a
guarantee
of
individual
rights,
makes for the best
of all
possible worlds.
There is powerful empirical
evidence for this claim. Certainlysince
World War
II, the general
level
of
prosperity
n
the capitalist West
has increased.
The
culturesof West-
ern
capitalist
democracies
manifest
a
real commitment to human
rights, and the nation-states
based
on
these
cultures display pluralist
polities
that
represent
diverse
political
interests and
compromise
among these interests despite evident political partisanship.Concur-
rence with
a
Panglossian
viewpoint, however,
can also be taken as
evi-
dence
of
the effectiveness
of
the
capitalist
historic
bloc's
ideological
strategy
in
a war
of position, given the persistence
of
systematic
and
structural inequalities and exclusions,
the
relative privileging
of
prop-
erty rights
over
human rights,
and the
tendency
to
privilege
market
relations over human relations by privileging
commodities over
their
producers.
Late
capitalism, however,
offers
a
complex political
situation
in
which the
nexus
that conditions
the location
of historical subjectstends
to work against polarization.There are wealthysuburbaniteswho sup-
port
environmental causes
and rural
industrial
workers that
reject
unions. This condition
invites
us to
return to Gramsci.
The war
of
posi-
tion that characterizes
politics
in
late
capitalism
is not
a
war of violent
civil
strife. It
is, instead,
an
ideological
war,
conducted
over a
long term,
and
its
goal
is
to
alter
the
relations
of
production
that
unnecessarily
limit human
freedom. To
accomplish
this
goal,
the
social
formation
must
be
altered
at
its
base
in
order
to realize the collective
nature
of
the
production
of
human
values
and
to
transcend
the
private appropri-
ation and
commodification
of human
labor.
According to Gramsci, the political means of accomplishing these
ends lies
in
challenging capital's hegemony
within the
superstructure.
He
argues
that
progressive
social
groups
and individuals
must
pene-
trate
civil
society
of the
dominant
hegemony,
seize
positions
within
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
12/22
LIBRARIANS
AS
ORGANIC
INTELLECTUALS
43
it, and turn its institutions toward progressive and
transformative
ends. The
goal
is to take state
power,
but that
can
only
be
accomplished
by
fighting in the
trenches of civil
society
[5, pp.
235,
243].
Gramsci
writes:
The
massive structures of modern
democracies,
both as
State
organizations,
and
as
complexes
of association in
civil
society,
consti-
tute for
the art of
politics
as it were the
'trenches' and the
permanent
fortifications of the front in the war of
position:
they
render
merely
'partial' the element of the movement
which before
used to be 'the
whole'
of
war
[5, p.
243].
Gramsci's
understanding
of
the art of
poli-
tics follows from his understanding of the dialectical relations between
base and
superstructure.
Change
is
not a matter of
reforming
the base
so that
reform of the
superstructure
may
follow.
The
art of
politics
is
a matter of
reforming
base and
superstructure
simultaneously
through
political
action
that
accompanies a
change
of
political
consciousness
[21, p. 1328].
The
fact that
capital
relies on the
discourse of
democracy
to
legitimate its
hegemony also creates an
opening
for a
politics that
demands the
meaningful extension of
democracy
at
the level of the
base.
Intellectuals, Blind
Spots, and
Tunnel Vision
If
we now combine
Gramsci's
theoretical
understanding of the
way
so-
cial
formations are
organized,
his
notion of the
role of
intellectuals
in
politics, and Althusser's
understanding
of
superstructural
institutions
as
overdetermined sites
and stakes of
ideological
conflict in
late
capital-
ist social
formations [22,
pp.
127-86],
we can
begin to
outline an
expla-
nation of
the blind
spots
and tunnel
vision of
librarianship.
This
move
will also
allow
us to raise
some serious
research
questions
about the
reproductive role of libraries and librarianship in the context of politi-
cal
contradictions
generated
within
capitalist
social
formations.
To be clear
about
Gramsci's
terms, it
is
important to
note
that he
believed
that
intellectual
capability is not
limited
to a
particular group
identifiable as
intellectuals.
The
intellectual
is an
aspect of
ethical/
political
reality
in
which all
people live
and
participate [5,
pp. 333-
34].
Gramsci writes: All
men are
intellectuals,
one
could
therefore
say:
but not all
men have in
society the
function of
intellectuals.
When
one
distinguishes
between
intellectuals and
non-intellectuals,
one is
referring
in
reality only
to
the
immediate
social
function
of the
profes-
sional category of intellectuals.... This means that, although one can
speak
of
intellectuals,
one cannot
speak of
non-intellectuals....
There
is no human
activity from
which
every
form of
intellectual
participation
can be
excluded: homo
faber
cannot be
separated from
homo
sapiens
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
13/22
44
THE
LIBRARYQUARTERLY
[5, p. 9]. The capitalistpossesses and uses intellectual qualities as an
organizerof relations
of production.
The worker
likewisepossesses
and
uses intellectual
qualities
but often
without
a clear theoretical
con-
sciousness
of his or her
activity.
This last
point is especially
important,
because
it implies
the existence
of a
space
fromwhich intellectual
resis-
tance to
the historic bloc
can arise.
Intellectual,
then,
is
a
broad theoretical
term
describing
anyone
who exercises
an organizational
function
in a wide
sense-whether
in
the field
of production,
or
that
of culture,
or that
of political organi-
zation
[5,
p. 97]. Of
those who can
be
formally dentified
as intellectu-
als,
some,
including academics,
physicians,
and
the
clergy,
for example,
appear
to exist outside
of a context
established by
capitalistrelations
of
production.
These
traditional
intellectuals
[5,
pp. 6-8], and
their
social functions,
existed prior
to the
rise of the capitalist
historic bloc.
They belong
to an earlier
time
and appear
to represent
a historic
conti-
nuity, as
well
as a
political
neutrality
with respect
to the capitalist
his-
toric
bloc.
Their
origins,
however,
trace
back to an
organic
link to
the
preindustrial
historic
bloc. The
clergy's
role as the
source and
orga-
nizer of
morality
in
preindustrial
social
formations
is perhaps
the best
example of this link. These practiceswere crucial to the feudal hege-
mony grounded
on the
divine right
of
kings
to exercise
governing
authority,
but
they
were
ideologically
co-opted
and
adapted
by
the
nineteenth-century
bourgeoisie
to provide
the
foundation for
Victo-
rian
morality
[23].
Traditional
intellectuals,
then,
are assimilated
into
the
capitalist
historic bloc
and indeed
are often crucial
allies
and
mem-
bers
of this
bloc, providing
important
organizing
and
organic
services,
not
the
least
of
which
is an
ideological
legitimation
of the
capitalist
historic
bloc's
hegemony
as a
natural extension
of
prior
historical
de-
velopments [15,
p.
142].
In contrast, organic intellectuals [5, pp. 5-6] emerge as a historic
bloc
ascends to
power
and
begins
to
assert
its
hegemony
over
a
social
formation. For
capital,
these intellectuals
include
technicians,
engi-
neers, managers,
economists,
lawyers,
ibrarians,
and
now,
information
professionals.
They
are
the
organizers
of
capitalist
hegemony
and its
culture,
and
they play
central
strategic
and
ideological
roles
in the su-
perstructure
that
reproduces
capitalist
relations of
production.
These
intellectuals
are the
dominant
group's
'deputies'
exercising
the
subal-
tern
functions
of social
hegemony
and
political government
[5, p.
12].
They
are
organized
and
related
by
the
historic
bloc
through
its
industrial and state bureaucracies,servingthe bloc byfulfilling certain
functions that
require
their
expertise
and
by providing
the
bloc
with
a
homogeneity
and an awareness
of its own
function,
not
only
in the
economic,
but
also
in
the social
and
political
fields
[5, p.
5].
The
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
14/22
LIBRARIANS AS ORGANIC
INTELLECTUALS
45
function at issue here is no less than the organizing and ruling function
of
the
capitalist historic bloc.
Organic
intellectuals,
then, provide
the
link between
the
base and
superstructure
that
in
turn
provides
capital
with
its
identity
as the fundamental
group
and leader of
the historic
bloc. These
intellectuals are essential for
the
practical
and
ideological
exercise of
capitalist
hegemony.
We are now in a
position
to offer a
Gramscian
explanation
of Wie-
gand's
observation
that
librarians,
among
other
intellectuals,
are
trapped
in their
own discursive formations.
Librarians,
as
intellectuals,
and
librarianship,
as
a
practice,
are
immersed
in
a culture
determined
by
the
hegemony
of
the
capitalist
historic bloc.
Indeed,
they
serve
a
positive function in the
production and
reproduction of
this bloc and
its
hegemony.
Under
these
circumstances, it is
unlikely that librarians
will raise
questions that
critically
interrogate
the
relations of
power
and
knowledge
that
sustain capitalist
hegemony.
To do
so would not
only
challenge
the
authority
of the
historic
bloc,
it
might also lead
to sanc-
tion against
those
posing the
questions.
Wiegand's notion of
immersion is
important
here, because it
helps
us to understand
the nature of
the
politics
at
work.
For
many
in
LIS,
this immersion means that critical questions regarding their own role
in
the
historic
bloc
simply
will not occur
to
them,
as
they
accept its
legitimacy
and see
no reason to
question its
means or its
ends. For
those who
might question this
legitimacy,
the
threat of
sanction
is real.
In
this
instance,
however,
immersion
has
different
implications. Recall
that
late
capitalist
social formations
generally
do
not
rely
on
overt co-
ercion to
enforce
discipline. Immersion
creates a
situation in
which
coercion is not
necessary.
Instead,
discipline
is
enforced
through
var-
ious
ideological
mechanisms that
send
messages as
much
as
they pro-
vide
incentives or
deny
benefits.
Transgressors, for
example, are
de-
nied funding for libraryoperations, find themselves unable to obtain
research
grants, are not
chosen
to give
presentations at
professional
conferences,
and
are
marginalized
in
the
research
literature.
This
discipline
can be
effective
precisely
because the
transgressors
are
themselves
immersed in
the dominant
culture and
depend on
that
cul-
ture for
their social
position.
In
addition,
this
discipline
does not
ap-
pear
as
oppressive
to those
exercising
it
as,
in their
eyes,
the
transgres-
sors
are not
formally
denied free
speech.
Indeed,
they are
allowed to
speak
and
then
dismissed as either
incorrect or
as
navel-gazers
whose
concerns
are not relevant
to more
important matters.
Wiegand's brief reexamination of the history of American librarian-
ship
might
be
regarded as an
instance
of such
navel-gazing,but
it re-
veals a
profession that rather
consistently overlooks
its own
contribu-
tion
to the
imbalances of
power
and
knowledge that in
turn
contribute
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
15/22
46
THE LIBRARY
QUARTERLY
to the systematicexclusion of certaingroups of people from full partici-
pation
in capitalist
social formations.
Wiegand
asserts
that
throughout
the twentieth
century,
a dominant
professional
imperative
systemati-
cally
privileged
some
library
purposes
and
audiences
to the
exclusion
of others.
He
argues
that
this trend
is also visible in the practice
of
information
science:
The
'information
science' that
has developed
in
the last years
of the
twentieth
century
constitutes
an arena of study
in
which the technology
to which it
is
harnessed
defines the
field
...
and
to the extent
that
people's
'information
economy'
does not require
the
use
of
these
technologies
within
the
culture
in
which
they
live,
current
'information
science'
discourse
renders
them and their culture(s) in-
visible largely
by ignoring
both
[1,
p. 24].
Questions
that
information
science
might
ask about the information
needs,
uses,
and behaviors
of
marginalized
people
in a capitalist
social
formation
are
not regarded
as important
enough
to deserve
concern.
As Wiegand
might
say
at this
point,
blind spots
and
tunnel vision
stand
revealed.
In
an earlier
work,
Michael
Harris
used
Gramscian
heory
to examine
blind spots
and tunnel vision
in the practice
of public
librarianship.
His particular
concern
was
with practice
that reinforced
culture
as an aspect of capitalisthegemony [24]. He locates librarianshipas a
historical subject
in an ensemble
of institutions,
both
public
and pri-
vate,
constituting
the means
of
sanctioning
and distributing public
knowledge
in a capitalist
social formation.
In effect,
he describes librar-
ians as intellectuals
organic
to the
dominant
culture of capitalist
he-
gemony.
According
to Harris,
the central
role of
libraries as
a state
apparatus
and
agent
of
capitalist
ideological
hegemony
is the
preser-
vation, transmission,
and
thus the
reproduction
of the
Book,
and
the
audience
for the Book
[24, p.
241].
While simple
enough
in
itself,
the
implications
of this statement
have
been contextualized by what Harris provides before it. The word
Book,
for
example,
is
deliberatelycapitalized.
Harrisdoes
so to
indi-
cate
its role as a
symbolic
representation
of
high
culture-the
canon
of
Western
civilization
that
grounds
and
provides
the
legitimacy
for
capital's
worldview
as universal
and universalizing,
as well
as its claim
that its particular
vision
of the ends
of cultural
reproduction
are in
fact
also universal.
The
library,
along
with the bookstore,
is one
of the
least
powerful
institutions at
the end of a
chain of both
state
and civil
institu-
tions that function
to
produce
and
reproduce
the
cultural
hegemony
of
capital
in the form
of the book.
Producers
and
publishers
are at
the
top of this chain, while reviewersand other tastemakers, ncluding
educators,
are
located somewhere
near
the middle.
This condition
also
tends
to
privilege
some
books,
some uses of those books,
and
some
users of
them,
while it
marginalizes
and excludes
others.
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
16/22
LIBRARIANS AS ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS
47
Librarians, as professionals, participate in this function as organic
intellectuals.
They appear
to have some
autonomy
with
regard
to selec-
tion
of materials and
provision
of services in the libraries
they
direct.
This
autonomy
is
ostensibly
based
on a
professional
ideology
of
neutral-
ity with
regard
to book
selection,
and a commitment to intellectual
freedom. It is reinforced
by
the status and trust accorded to
librarians
as
professionals
who can demonstrate that their
practice
is nondiscrimi-
natory,
based
on a
rational/legal authority
derived from
knowledge
that is an outcome of a value-free research
discourse,
and
supported
by positive
law that
guarantees
public accountability.
Harris
argues,
however, that this autonomy is only apparent, and is
actually quite
lim-
ited. The
library
is what Althusser calls an
ideological
state
apparatus
[22, pp.
141-48].
Selection decisions
by
librarians are framed
by
al-
ready
determined criteria over which librarians have
little
control. The
library
is a consumer of culture
already
determined as
appropriate
for
distribution,
and
library and
information science's
research
paradigm
does not allow these conditions to be
problematized. This situation
resembles one of don't
ask,
don't
tell.
Harris
concludes: Libraries
are
marginal
institutions
embedded
in a
hierarchically arranged set of
institutions designed to produce and reproduce the dominant effective
culture in
form. Power is
asymmetrically
distributed
among
these
institutions.... The library's structural and functional characteristics
are determined
by
its
definition
as an
institution contrived to
consume,
preserve, transmit, and reproduce
high
culture in
printed form [20,
p.
242].
Harris,
like
Wiegand, might
be accused of
expressing
well-intended
but
impractical concerns. His theoretical
speculations, however,
lead
him
to assert twenty-six related
propositions,
all of
which have serious
implications
for the
everyday practice
of
librarianship [24, pp. 242-
44]. Harris offers these propositions as hypotheses in need of investiga-
tion,
not as truths whose
certainty
is
already established. In other words,
he
poses
critical questions that challenge received wisdom and
conven-
tional
knowledge.
Like
Wiegand
and
Zweizig,
he is
concerned
about
the
library
in
the life of the user.
Many
of his
propositions point to
specific,
unexplored
blind
spots regarding
relations of power, knowl-
edge, and access to information
alluded to by Wiegand. If one is to be
selected as
the most
telling,
it
might
be this
one:
Librarians blame
non-users for non-use of
libraries [24, p. 244].
Possibilities of Resistance
A
persistent pessimism
characterizes the tone of
Harris' essay, and it
is not
entirely
absent from
Wiegand's. Perhaps
a sense of
futility, as
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
17/22
48
THE
LIBRARY
QUARTERLY
well as misgivingsregardingpossible sanction, holds in their grip some
librarians
and LISscholars
who might
otherwise
explore
through prac-
tice and
research
the issues
raised here.
But even Harris
notes
that
one
must not push
the
metaphor
of 'reproduction'
too far, lest
we
obscure
the real
evidence
of
resistance, or
counter-hegemonic
forces
in American
librarianship
[24, p.
242].
Despite their tone,
it seems
clear that both Harris and
Wiegand
also imply the
possibility
of a kind
of
political
action that might
at
least
counter the
excesses
of capitalist
hegemony.
Neither
wants to give
up
on an institution
thatJesse
Shera
[25] and Sidney
Ditzion
[26] identify
as central to the discourse
of
democracy
in
America.
The historical
realityof this
discourse,
when combined
with an
over-
all
view of
Gramsci's thought,
reveals
a political
space
within which
progressive
resistance
to the
historic bloc's
hegemony
can be and
has
been
mounted. Recall
first of all that
the
categories
of Gramscian
dis-
course,
including structures
such
as base
and superstructure,
and
classes
of
people such
as
intellectuals,
represent
theoretical constructs
whose concrete,
historical reality
is
fluid and malleable.
Both
objective
structures,
and
subjective
positions
within
structures,
are open to over-
determination. Neither human nature nor the natureof human institu-
tions are inexorably
fixed by
forces of history
or
hegemony.
It is
entirely
possible
that the actions
of a
given
structure
within
a social formation,
or a
given
intellectual working
within
that structure, might
at a
given
historical
moment be
characterized
by
a conflict between hegemonic
and
counterhegemonic
ideas. Such
a condition
is
indicative
of
the
war
of
position.
According
to
Gramsci,
deas do
make a difference
because
human
beings are
free
to
act
on them.
Change
at
the
superstructural
level can
cause
change
in the base.
Turning
to the nature
of intellectuals
specifically,
Gramsci
observed
that both traditionaland organic intellectuals possess a relativeauton-
omy
from
the historic
bloc because
of their
expertise
[5, p.
6]. They
perform
specialist
functions
on
which
the bloc
depends,
and
this
de-
pendency
of the bloc
on their
skills
provides
them
with a measure
of
power [18,
pp. 255-62].
As Harris
argues,
they may
not
possess
a
great
deal of
power,
and the
threat of sanction
is
real.
Nevertheless,
intellec-
tuals, including
librarians,
are
not
entirely
constrained
in either their
thoughts
or
actions,
and the
range
of freedom available
has
grown
in
the context
of
a
discourse
of
democracy
that has
become
integral
to
at least
some
capitalist
social formations.
Indeed,
this
expansion
has
occurred precisely because of political struggles conducted by an alli-
ance
of
people
that
reflects
the
potential
of a new
historical bloc
[5,
pp.
9-10].
This
alliance
includes
members
of the
current historical
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
18/22
LIBRARIANS
AS
ORGANIC
INTELLECTUALS
49
bloc, who exercise their relativeautonomy to pursue change within the
bloc,
as well as
people
excluded from the bloc
[8,
pp.
152-71].
Given Harris'
analysis,
for
example,
the
public
library
may
be
re-
garded
as an
ideological
state
apparatus.
It is a
state-maintained,super-
structural nstitution
designed
not to
coerce
but to
persuade
the
public
of the historical bloc's
legitimacy
by
reinforcing
the dominant culture.
From a
Gramscian
perspective,
it is an
ideological
weapon
in
the war
of
position,
but it is a
double-edged
weapon. Librarians,
as
organic
intellectuals, are
in
a position to exercise at least some real
choice re-
garding
the ends
they pursue.
Some libraries
may
never
venture be-
yond satisfying
he conditioned demands of audiences
seeking nothing
but assurance
that
this
is the
best
of
all
possible
worlds. The actions of
these
libraries
will
confirm
Harris'
theory.
Some
libraries,however,
will
seek out the underserved and the
unserved and commit
significant
quantities
of their limited resources
to
engaging
these audiences.
Most
libraries
will
fall between these
extremes, and
some of their users will
find
their
own paths
through mazes of
information
and classification
systems
presented to them to
achieve
ends
that librarians can neither
imagine
or anticipate
[27].
Even within a
single library t is
likely
that
one will discover some professional practices that represent capitalist
hegemony at work and others that
challenge that
hegemony.
Intellectual
freedom
regarding
book
selection, for
example, may
be
practiced
uncritically and
imperfectly
realized
[28], yet its
position
in
the professional canon of
librarianship is not without
meaning,
and
it
has
led librarians to active
resistance
against
censorship [29].
The
ambivalent
location
of
the
library
in the social
formation,
especially
within
the context of
the discourse of
democracy, means that
the li-
brary
as an
agent of
hegemony
is
politically vulnerable. It is a
potential
site of
ideological
conflict
manifest in contests over
decisions
regarding
the nature of its collections, services, and audiences. It is also a stake
in that conflict in
that it can and
perhaps
usually does serve
the purpose
Harrisdescribes,
yet
it
has the
potential
to be penetrated
and turned
counterhegemonic.
Certainly
this
condition does not
imply a revolu-
tionary transformation.
The library's
dependence on the
state for
fund-
ing, to say
nothing
of
the political
conditions and
practices
of capitalist
democracies, precludes
this outcome.
This
condition, however,
does
raise interesting
questions that
are not free of
political
implications.
In what
waysand to what extent
does the
library'sposition
in the
super-
structure
and
librarianship's
location as a
historical
subject result in
practices that are progressiveor conservative?Does KathleenMcCook's
[30]
recent work on the
library's
potential
role in
community building
represent a progressive
counterhegemonic
challenge to
the Public Li-
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
19/22
50 THE LIBRARYQUARTERLY
braryAssociation's (PLA's) emphasis on administrativerationality [31-
32]?
Does the latter
represent a kind of tunnel vision that
limits the
library's contribution to genuinely progressive social outcomes
by de-
fining professional success in terms of the ability of the library
to serve
the
predictable demands of a normatively dentified market?And what
does it
say
about the
American LibraryAssociation, that it is
willing to
publish
both McCook's
and
the
PLA's texts? It may be that this bears
witness to
pluralism
in
action, a manifestation of ideological
conflict
within
ALA,
or
both. Gramscirepeatedly assertsthat neither
theoretical
abstractionsnor facile
assumptions regarding
the
laws of
historywill
contribute to understanding how civil society actuallyworks at a given
moment. Coming to an understanding of the real conditions
of exis-
tence in order to
exercise a genuine freedom is a difficult task
requir-
ing critical empirical study. The empirical questions arising
from the
ambivalent
position
of libraries in
the social formation,
however, also
imply
that
librariansmust confront political and moral choices in their
everyday practice.
In his discussion of the
problems
faced
by workers
in
their effort
to
develop
a theoretical consciousness of their
actions,
Gramsci
neatly
describes a situation that can be applied to librarians [5, pp. 333-34].
His work suggests that librarians might manifest a
contradictory theo-
retical consciousness. On the one hand, their activity mplies a progres-
sive transformation of the world. This is particularlymanifest
in
librari-
anship's long-standing
commitment to
empowering
individuals to
pursue
self-culture and
lifelong learning [21, pp. 53-77; 33].
On the
other
hand, they uncritically
absorb a
theoretical
consciousness from
the
past [1; 34].
This consciousness holds them
together
as a social
group,
influences their
ethico-political
conduct and
will,
but
produces
a
situation that does not
permit action,
instead
reinforcing
a moral
and political passivity [35]. They offer a potentially progressive and
transforming service,
but
they
do so in a context that
preserves
their
self-interest and liberal
identity
within the
capitalist
hegemony,
thus
allowing
them to dismiss the need
for critical
selfW-examination.
series
of
questions follow,
not unlike
the
propositions
advanced
by
Harris.
In
each
instance,
research
questions imply political
and value
questions.
Questions for Practice and
Research
1. Do libraries work within a context of contradiction, sustaining a
capitalist hegemony
and
providing
a means
for users to think be-
yond
that
hegemony,
as
well
as its limits to human freedom? Can
libraries do more to enhance
freedom
and overcome the struc-
This content downloaded from 161.45.205.103 on Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/21/2019 Raber - 'Librarians as Organic Intellectuals'
20/22
LIBRARIANSAS ORGANICINTELLECTUALS
51
tural barriers that deny to some full participation in the social
formation? Should
libraries
do this? Does
librarianship
conduct
a discourse within
and about
itself that assumesthat
the
important
value
questions
regarding
the
ends of
public
library
practices
and
services have
already
been
satisfactorily
answered?
2. If the condition indicated
by
the first
question
above
is
true,
is
this then a
manifestation of
a
reality
in
which the
public
library
is a
site
and
stake of an
ideological
conflict
whose
outcome
con-
tributes to
the
production
and
reproduction
of the social
forma-
tion? Can we
find evidence of
this conflict?
Can we find
librarians
and scholars who do address the issues raised by Wiegand and
Harris and
act in
ways
that
reveal blind
spots
and
expand
our
vision?
Are
we hesitant to
engage
these
questions
because we
might
cast
ourselves in a less
than ideal
light?
Might
we find
our-
selves
on the
wrong
side?
3.
Why
do
questions
like those
posed here
go
unasked? Why
do
propositions like those
offered
by
Harris
go unexamined?
Does
the lack of
action
reveal blind
spots and
tunnel vision?
Are
they
not
pursued
because they are not
salient or
important, or
because
librarians,fulfilling their responsibility as organic intellectuals in
support
of
capital, deny
the
saliency
and
importance of
these
questions
and
propositions?
Is
the
source
of
the blind
spots and
tunnel vision
identified by
Wiegand?
4.
If
librarians
chose to
pursue
a
counterhegemonic
strategy,would
this even be
possible?
To what
kinds of
discipline would it
be
sub-
ject?
How are
progressive
choices
constrained or
encouraged
by
a
capitalist
hegemony
that
is
nevertheless
characterized
by a dis-
course
of
democracy? If
limits are in
place, in
what ways
and
to
what extent
can
and should
librarians
challenge
them?
What
strat-
egies can and should be pursued if librarianschoose to engage
in the war of
position?
Conclusion
Wiegand's
essay
implies
that
librarianship's
discourse, in both
its
theo-
retical and
practical
aspects, is
essentially
centered on
its own
status
and
power within
the historical
bloc
that
organizes
and governs
the
American
capitalist social
formation.
He
argues that
information
sci-
ence as an academic discipline willingly,if unconsciously, contributes
to
this
bloc's
maintenance and
exercise of
power
by its
focus on
ques-
tions