Discussion this week brought to my mind a problem that exists with usage of the language.  Viewed from outside we might just see arguments or heated discussion, when in reality both parties involved might be referring to same thing or their usage of terms has a very different meaning implied.  What I am referring to is inexact nature of the language.  Words have very defined meaning, but meaning often is shaped by background, society and various other factors.  As words are used new meanings get implied to them or change them.  Partially this occurs due to innocent evolution of the language, other times it is used to influence minds of people through deliberate change of the meaning.

In the class this came up when we discussed the concept of not being limited by definition of functionality.  Functionality the way it was expressed by Professor Lansky was slightly different from my understanding of it, a small difference but enough of a difference that perception of what was being said changed.  Professor Lansky was using it with more practical approach, as if you were talking about tools, while I was thinking of skill set which is mutable and unlike tools can be easily modified based on the changing need.  Once clarification occurred all of the sudden the objection I might had disappeared.

Noting this problem of usage of the language I believe it is important for librarians to be at least aware that this bias exists and to be able to see other side of any issues.  For example let’s look at current War on Terrorism.  Choice of words was deliberate to invoke strong feelings, but unless we step back and look at issue from more neutral ground it is hard to see why the conflict even exits.  Word terrorist has a strong implication of someone who evokes terror for their own gain, but it is also a term to make you biased against specific group of the individuals.  While I do not disagree with usage of this term in some cases, I do think it is abused.  What I am trying to point out here is that if we look at Partisans of WW II using same definitions for the word terrorist,  these people would be consider terrorist in today’s world.  Reason we do not call them that is because we use language to portray what we want others to perceive.  If we want to support one group because they fighting for goals we support we will call them freedom fighters or partisans, but if we disapprove of the same group now we will call them terrorists or rebels.  Tactics used might be the same, but language is used to sway public opinion.  This is done with clear premeditation.

I just want to point this out, so if you get into discussion and you think others are wrong or do not understand you, it might be not because your opinions differ, but because language and terminology used might have a different meaning to the people involved.  Now if you disagree with what I said please tell me.   

It took me a while to get ‘steamed up’ today, the hearing that some people think that librarians are obsolete made really angry.  The logic applied was that with digital technology progress need for libraries and librarians is in the past.  Problem with this logic is multifold.  What is the main issue with that is that people do not even realize all the things librarians provide as service.  Since librarian’s service often appears transparent in nature it is easy to overlook. 

One thing that was proposed is an idea that with internet, Google and other tools people can get information easily.   That is far from the truth.  Yes people can find information, but often they do not know which information is reliable.  The amount of time it takes people to research topics is also an issue.  Even though some the law clerk or Joe Smith might find the information they need, the amount of time they spend is something to consider.  Professor Lensky provided great example in his story about lawyer rushing to court and needing way to debunk expert witness opposition was providing in court.  If that lawyer had enough time he could have found his answer, but he had to be in court in 20 min and librarian only took minutes to achieve what was needed.  In current society people often equate value to profit.  One of the most valuable resources is time.  Specialized skills that librarians posses in converting data/information into usable knowledge make librarians invaluable in saving time.  After all if time was not an issue we would not need mechanics, technicians, or any other professionals.  Given time anyone can fix their car, diagnose disease and so on.   As you already can see there is major flaw in this type of thinking. 

With all the practical needs that I mentioned for librarians there is many more functional that librarians provide.   More important function of the librarians is their social role in current society.  Professor Lansky used term ‘radical’ in reference to librarians and I very much agree with his assessment.  Librarians often are put in place to empower people through guarding their access to knowledge and teaching them.   One of the key needs for enlightened in democratic society is freedom of information.   Librarians are often in middle of guarding against censorship from outside forces or in collecting resources while education public in general.  If you disagree with this consider totalitarian states in the world.  First step in controlling population is to limit information they can access.  Nazi Germany, communist states of Cold War and even today censorship in China shows how governments can create abusive environment through control of the information.  To say we do not need libraries and librarians is also inviting ignorance and despotism which his always soon to follow.

     One of the things we discussed in class was definition of the library.  This was an important discussion since it examined libraries from perspective of time.  It quickly became apparent that the concept is more connected to the people then to artifacts which are associated with a place called library.   In this age when information is stored sometimes in ethereal medium as Internet (yes there is physical storage associated with it, but it might be widely distributed) that question becomes very important.  While yes most libraries are involved with storage of information, their central role is not in data warehousing, but how that information is converted into usable knowledge.

      Knowledge is not something you can store; it is processed information which becomes usable by the people.  Even though most people can given time find information they need to compile it into the knowledge, the importance of libraries comes in form of the librarians.  Librarians not only deal with answering question, but their major role is in compiling various information and then translating it into knowledge which is needed by patron/user/owner.  From that prospective even if there is no physical place which store a lot of artifacts like books, as long there are librarians who have a way to access the information it becomes a library.  Library is service, with secondary role of being the information storehouse.  If there was no need for libraries as some people try to say nowadays there would be no need for librarians, but we know from our daily lives that is not true.  People need someone who they can go to acquire or at least help them compile information into knowledge they need.  In conclusion we should view libraries as service and people not as dry artifacts which fill some building or some database.