Dee Garrison (1934–2009)

In this problematic and polemical little monograph, the real conflict of interest to Garrison is not the strategic struggle between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War. No, she is most concerned with the argument between the likes of Herman Kahn and Edward Teller, and the creeping authoritarianism represented by the intense nuclear civil defense measures they promulgated, and the scientific and social critics who recoiled in disgust at the notion that such massive and futile social engineering represented hope in the face of the overwhelming disaster that would be even a limited nuclear war. That Garrison relentlessly and successfully reminds one of how pathetic the civil defense advocates look in retrospect (as most of their offerings were little more than a confidence game designed to bolster public opinion) always gives her a certain dignity.

Still, the seeming self-congratulation with which Garrison approaches her favored topic would be more tolerable if she put her story in context by considering the creeping militarization that was the logic of mass industrial war in the first half of the twentieth century, and which informed the effort to create a viable strategy for nuclear war beyond a mere spasm attack. I also find it a tad easy for Garrison to proclaim that it was better to be "temporarily Red" rather than "permanently dead;" this is almost as triumphalist in its own way as the "End of History" Neo-Conservatives rejoicing in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union.

However, there is one more point that I will give Garrison (who it turns out passed away in 2009 after a long academic career). This is when she links the authoritarian mindset of the Cold War civil defense "experts" with that of the "authorities" who have given us the "security theater" of the post-9/11 era. Whether this friction ultimately generates the sort of political mass activism that Garrison glorifies in her book (particularly when it comes to female political empowerment) is another question.… (mehr)

Garrison has done a remarkable job of culling primary sources to expound on the history of the profession of librarianship. Although a discerning topic for any interested reader, it was particularly fascinating to me as a budding librarian myself. No doubt, this book itself has served to shape the profession contemporarily.

The book is arranged in four parts. The first part is concerned with the early library and its elitist society leaders. The public library was born out of a reform movement to socialize and to educate all, especially the poor and the immigrants. The early leaders saw themselves as educational missionaries, bringing literacy and literature to the masses. Short biographies and the social ideals of 36 early library leaders are included.

Part two discusses the moral leanings of the public library and the role of the library in espousing virtues to change society for the better. Topics discussed, such as censorship and the literature versus popular fiction debate, are still relevant and deliberated to this day.

Part three is devoted solely to Melvil Dewey. He is probably the most well-known name from the library world, yet one of the most misunderstood. He was obsessive-compulsive, preoccupied with time and death, and did much for the feminization of the profession while still remaining rather sexist. It is interesting to learn of the many paradoxes of this man.

The fourth part discusses the feminization of the profession and how the influx of women to librarianship seems to have lowered the profession's status in society. There are numerous instances in the sources that cite how women, more so than men, are fit for library work because of its tediousness, attention to detail, work with children, and women's helpful nature. Even more, the lower pay women were willing to accept further pushed the feminization and discouraged men from becoming librarians and prevented women from taking a substantial portion of the leadership roles within the library.

All sexism aside, there are many grains of truth to this analysis, though I hate to admit it. Professional librarianship came about at a strange place in time when middle class women did not often work and the work they did was undervalued. Also, they were willing to receive much lower pay than men and, economically speaking, it made sense to hire women because of this. The women did not demand more, nor could they. The social climate of the time limited women very much, especially in aggression; asking for more pay would go against the social conventions and possibly mark one for ridicule.

On a more positive note, the book ends with a call to make the profession feminist rather than feminized. In this way, both men and women are equal forces for the betterment of the profession and the institution of the public library. It is interesting that many of the same themes have such a longstanding history. The "woman" question was around over 100 years ago, written about by Garrison almost 30 years ago, and continues to be discussed today. It seems that the more we change, the more we stay the same. Perhaps in another 100 years, we will have solved this dilemma of equity, not just in librarianship, but in all professions.

I cannot help but wonder about the future of public libraries in general and how this highly feminine profession will deal with the digital era. It is my fear that a high percentage of women in libraries will effect the social psychology of communities, making public libraries seem even less important, rather than more, in the Internet age. One thing is true, part of the new role of the librarian is to recognize their self-worth strongly enough to make others see the library's vitality. Regardless of the women to men ratio, without the underlying institution not only the profession but the entire society has lost something very special and so subtly substantial to our development and advancement.… (mehr)