Content area
Purpose
This article explores the ranging notions of a public library for all and the related conflicts on for all and the principle of neutrality in Norway and Denmark.
Design/methodology/approach
A document study of four profession magazines in a ten-year period is conducted, focusing on the problematizations of for all using the WPR approach: What’s the Problem Represented to be? Theories on public sphere and democracy frequently applied in Library and Information Science (LIS) are discussed in relation to the ranging notions.
Findings
The analysis shows that although for all is used as an argument by both advocates and opponents of the principle of neutrality, there are different notions of who constitutes for all. In total, five ranging notions of for all are identified and presented in a typology, to serve as a framework to understand the conflicts concerning neutrality and the public library for all.
Originality/value
The typology offers a new conceptual framework for understanding the nature of the conflicts and why they appear. The analysis indicates a need to discuss the use of for all in order to engage in more nuanced discussions of the democratic role of the public library.
Introduction
This paper explores the ranging notions of a public library for all, and the related conflicts on for all and the principle of neutrality in Norway and Denmark. Descriptions of the public library often include statements that emphasize the library as an institution that empowers users by proving equal access to information (Audunson et al., 2020) and a cornerstone of democracy (Kranich, 2020). Thus, the most frequent and powerful description of the public library is the library for all. For all is a core value and is expressed through the principle of free access to both materials and the physical library space for all citizens in society. For all is clearly confirmed by International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) stating that materials, facilities and services must be “equally accessible to all users” with no discrimination due to “race, creed, gender or age” (IFLA, 1999). Further, for all is also marked in both the Norwegian Library Act, “for everyone living in the country” (Norwegian Public Library Act, 1985) and in the Danish Library Act: “Public libraries are available to anyone” (Danish Public Library Act, 2000). The notion of a library for all is connected to the principle of neutrality. Traditionally, the principle of the neutral library has been both an ideal and a way to practice for all through universality and values of information freedom and freedom of speech (Helgason, 2020; Lewis, 2008). However, the principle of neutrality is also criticized through the argument that for all must entail a greater focus on under-represented groups (Hudson, 2017; Schrader, 2009) and that neutrality is perceived as an impossible ambition, that contributes to the reproduction of stigma (Drabinski, 2013; Olson, 2007).
Conflicts related to for all and neutrality have increased in public libraries in both Norway and Denmark in recent years (Nissen and Kann-Rasmussen, 2022; Larsen, 2024). A recent example from Norway is a conflict concerning whether the public library should continue to promote Harry Potter-books in the light of the controversial opinions on the transgender community from author J.K. Rowling (Kallelid, 2021). There is agreement that the public library should be for all, but disagreement concerning how for all should be achieved. Proponents see the principle of neutrality as a tool to be for all, while opponents see the principle of neutrality as an obstacle. The ambiguous and different perceptions of neutrality in terms of being a library for all make it challenging for the library to respond and navigate, when conflict arises. The modern public library is caught in a field of tension between traditional ideals and current social justice agendas, described as universality versus diversity (Olson, 2002). Conflicts on neutrality and for all have been analyzed in various studies (Carlsson et al., 2022; Engström, 2022; Kann-Rasmussen, 2023). However, the ranging perceptions of for all have not been mapped or related and for all remains an elusive concept, even though the perception of a public library for all is fundamentally agreed upon. To fully grasp the nuances of conflicts of neutrality, it is necessary to study the ranging notions of for all and the underlying connotations. The overall research question asks:
What different notions lie within a public library for all?
This paper aims to analyze the ranging notions of a library for all in public libraries in Norway and Denmark, from the perspective of the library sector. The paper does not intend to define the concept of neutrality, but to explore the different perceptions of for all to gain a better understanding of conflicts of neutrality, why they occur and what they are about. First, the article will present previous research to situate how public libraries and conflicts of for all and neutrality has been studied. Thereafter we describe the data collection and analysis of four library profession magazines, using the WPR approach: What’s the Problem Represented to be? (Bacchi, 2009, 2012). We then analyze the ranging notions of for all by creating a typology. In the discussion, we summarize the notions which illuminates the need for a new approach to discuss for all and neutrality that focuses on when the library is for all, instead of discussing who constitutes for all.
Previous research
Traditionally, neutrality has been a core – yet controversial value in the public library and discussed in various ways in Library and Information Science (LIS) research. Neutrality is an ambiguous concept and is defined differently by LIS scholars. The principle of neutrality is defined as “not having a position or not taking a side” (Johnson, 2016, p. 25) but also as a way to “see all viewpoints” (McMenemy, 2007, p. 179) and a way to secure equal concern and service to all citizens by remaining impartial (Hart, 2016). According to Jaeger et al. (2013), the goal of neutrality has manifested itself in two areas of librarianship: (1) to create collections as large as possible to present and reflect a variation of different viewpoints and (2) in attempts to remain apolitical to the largest extent possible. This categorization also emphasizes the ambiguity of the principle of neutrality, linking neutrality to the balancing of different ideologies and viewpoints, as well as the devoid of ideology. According to Scott and Saunders (2021), the term neutrality is often discussed from different perspectives, with the result that neutrality “seems to be used for, or conflated with, everything from not taking a side on a controversial issue to the objective provision of information and a position of defending intellectual freedom and freedom of speech” (p. 153). How neutrality is interpreted influences how librarians engage with users and implement services and the questions of neutrality is often perceived as a central part of librarianship.
Some researchers claim that impartiality is the primary task for a librarian, to ensure library users’ right to self-determination (Mathiesen, 2015), or that neutrality is an expression of individual rights and a representative democracy (Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020). Others have emphasized that materials themselves are not neutral and thereby no collection can ever be neutral (Mathiesen and Fallis, 2008). In general, a substantial portion of the LIS literature concerning the principle of neutrality has engaged in discussions regarding the merits and demerits of employing neutrality. This discourse reinforces the perception of the principle of neutrality as an elusive concept (Macdonald and Birdi, 2020).
Instead, researchers critical of the notion of neutrality are engaged with the role and responsibility of the library in terms of working for diversity and representation of marginalized groups. This type of work is associated with social justice. According to Bales (2017) the relationship between social justice and the library is complicated, as it is both “… positive and negative, liberal and conservative, transformative and static” (p. 7). Social justice is associated with several positive terms as equality, inclusion, fairness and diversity (Mathiesen, 2015) and parts of LIS argue that the public library in itself is tool in social justice work as the library serve as a place of community with free access to information (Igarashi et al., 2021; Ketchum, 2020). According to Samek (2004), a progressive library perspective questions the principle of neutrality by claiming that libraries always have been politically engaged and that a progressive perspective includes a “range of viewpoints on a continuum that spans from an anarchist stance to varying degrees of a social responsibility perspective” (p. 5). This type of research challenges the ways libraries unconsciously and consciously contributes to the reproduction of oppressive systems (Iversen, 2008; Nicholson and Seale, 2018) claiming that libraries are produced in and through systems influenced by patriarchy and racism (Drabinski, 2019).
Research on for all manifests itself in two research traditions in contemporary library studies. One tradition has been concerned with the social and democratic role of the library, focusing on the library as an arena for public discourse and an informal meeting place (Buschman, 2003; Aabø et al., 2010). The concept of a low intensive meeting place (Audunson, 2005) has almost become an inseparable part of the perception of the public library and has had great influence on LIS, where the term often is discussed through a Habermasian lens of the library as a public sphere (Audunson et al., 2019). The notion of the public library as a promoter of democracy and accessible space open for all has been agreed upon and research has emphasized the public library’s role in, e.g. integration (Johnston, 2016; Johnston and Audunson, 2019) or sustainability (Khalid et al., 2021; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022). Further, Lankes (2016) argues that librarians have the potential to serve as proactive change agents working for radical and positive change in their local community.
Another type of research of for all has moved away from this consensus model and is instead concerned with conflicts and disagreements through a more critical perspective on democracy. According to Carlsson et al. (2023), current political turmoil, caused by a right-wing turn in political discourse in Europe, calls for a revisit of the notion of the public library as a meeting place that promotes community building. There is no longer consensus about the role and responsibility of the public library, but conflicts concerning neutrality, activism and who the library is for. This type of research argues from a normative perspective that adhering to the notion of a neutral library, limits the library to a “passive diversity” with no encouragement to work actively with racism or representation (Gibson et al., 2017).
Overall, divergent notions of neutrality, social justice and for all are discussed in various ways in LIS. Kagan (2001) argues that “taking sides on whether or not the profession is neutral is a debate about the nature and ideology of librarianship” (p. 11). The ranging notions of for all and how the public library can support for all remain ambiguous in LIS as it concerns questions on librarianship and LIS itself. With the aim of studying the different notions of for all from the perspective of the library sector, this paper aims to contribute with systematic knowledge on how the library profession and field perceive neutrality and their role of being a library for all, by using Norway and Denmark as examples.
Method
Norway and Denmark were chosen for comparison, because of their distinct cultural-political similarities in the library sector, while at the same time having quite different library acts. Further, recent similar studies on conflict of neutrality have compared Sweden and Denmark (Engström et al., 2024; Kann-Rasmussen, 2023; Nissen and Kann-Rasmussen, 2022), but there are no studies comparing Norway and Denmark.
The empirical work has been carried out by the first author and the data consists of documents from four profession magazines: Bok and Bibliotek, Bibliotekaren, Danmarks Biblioteker and Perspektiv. These magazines are the most important and influential in professional debate on libraries and library developments in the two countries. The data consists of written contributions from and about librarians, library managers, politicians, LIS scholars and others who work with or within the library sector. An overview is presented in Table 1.
The chosen timespan is 2013–2023, focusing on one year prior and the following years after the revision of the Library Act in Norway in 2014. The act emphasizes the library as “an independent meeting place and arena for public conversation and debate” (Norwegian Library Act, 1985), and the act and its interpretations has led to heated conflicts about the role and responsibility of public libraries and librarians in Norway. These debates have also influenced the Danish library debate, in discussions on the need of a revision of the Danish library act (Lerche, 2023). All issues of the magazines have been skim-read using the headings and subheadings as a guide to identify relevant articles which have been re-read in depth. Thematic issues have been read with more attention, e.g. an issue on gender (Perspektiv, 2018; vol. 1) or freedom of speech (Bok and Bibliotek, 2014; vol. 6). The following criteria were made to define the reading:
- Only public libraries are included, not e.g. academic- or school libraries.
- The work of Library Associations (e.g. IFLA or ALA) or NGO’s (e.g. Librarians without Borders) are included to the extent it is relevant in relation to notions of a library for all.
- Content about other countries is included if relevant to notions of a library for all or conflicts on neutrality. Especially two countries are recurring: Sweden (due to the close relationship between the Scandinavian countries) and the United States, where conflicts concerning freedom of speech and censorship (e.g. #BannedBooks) are discussed to a more extreme extend.
The reading is inspired by Bacchi’s (2009; 2012) method WPR. Focusing on problematizations in policy documents, the method is useful as it makes the problematizations that shape a field visible. These problematizations are often invisible and taken for granted, as policy documents tend to focus on the solutions to the problems, and not the problem in itself. The WPR approach takes the starting point of the idea that “(…) what we propose to do about something indicates what we think need to change and hence what we think the ‘problem’ is” (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 16). As policy documents are proposals for change, the WPR approach provides a way to “read of” what a specific policy document is the answer to – what needs to be “fixed”. In case of this article, the statement of the public library for all¸ is the solution and argument used by representatives from different (political) perspectives and views. The term for all is proposed as a solution and goal in different ways in the data and the WPR approach will make it possible to study what “problems” for all is supposed to “fix”.
The WPR approach has been shown to be useful in studies of the public libraries and library development (Engström, 2021; Kann-Rasmussen and Tank, 2016). As an example, Kann-Rasmussen and Tank (2016) have analyzed what “problem” the implementation of Citizen Service (Borgerservice) in Danish public libraries was supposed to “fix” and argued that citizen service was the solution to the “problem” that the Danish population was not sufficiently self-reliant and independent regarding their (digital) communication with the Danish State. Therefore, it became a library task. Originally, the WPR approach is applied to policy documents, such as organizational files and records, legislation. Material that can be used in a WPR analysis must be prescriptive and understood as “… a form of proposal and guide to conduct” (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016, p. 18). In this sense, we find the data from profession magazines appropriate, as the content in the magazines originate from policy documents, e.g. library acts, law proposals, ministry reports, strategies and the cultural policy in force throughout the years. According to Hvenegaard Rasmussen and Jochumsen (2006), professional magazines can be considered key sources for understanding the development of the public library’s institutional identity, their practice and views on users. Further, a WPR analysis is not only to be applied to textual documents, but also organizational culture (symbols), buildings or mechanisms of government (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016). As public institution in society, the public library in itself can be read as a policy document. This is also the case for cultural programs or rainbow shelves that are being implemented in libraries to emphasize the pride movement (Hansen, 2022a). The WPR approach consists of six questions that are asked to the material. The questions are not to be followed in a specific order nor does an analysis need to encompass all questions.
- What’s the problem represented to be in a specific policy or polices?
- What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the “problem”?
- How has this representation of the “problem” come about?
- What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the “problem” be conceptualized differently?
- What effects are produced by this representation of the “problem”?
- How and where has this representation of the “problem” been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced?
By adapting a WPR-approach, we asked the following three questions to our material:
- How is the “problem” represented? (Values and moral principles)
- What effects are produced by this representation of the “problem”?
- What assumptions lie behind the representation of “the problem”?
The questions were used in different ways. The question regarding how the problem is represented was answered by looking at the words and concepts used to describe the “problem”, by looking at how the library’s core tasks are emphasized. Core tasks are described as, among other things, ensuring a wide variety of materials and opening hours or making users feel welcome and seen. What is emphasized as an important task also describes what “problem” the task aims to solve – that the library must ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity and desire to use the library or that there are some user groups that do not feel welcome or represented in the library. The two other questions concerning what effects and assumptions that are produced by and lie behind the representation of “the problem” were particularly used in relation to the principle of neutrality and how neutrality is described in the material. By focusing on effects and assumptions, it was possible to look behind the concept of neutrality and focus on the implications of neutrality instead. This entailed two categories each concerning neutrality in different ways, a positive understanding and a negative understanding, discussed further below.
xAs researchers of public libraries, cultural policy and library development, the authors of this article have also contributed with content in the magazines, through interviews and independent writings. Further, other contributions from researchers in the magazines are current and former colleagues. We do not consider this a bias, and we find it impractical to withdraw our own contributions, as it is impossible to know what other contributions they have shaped. Discussions build on what has been written previously, and we as researchers, are also a part of the field that is studied. We don’t consider this a weakness but find it necessary to critically reflect on our own position and situatedness within the field and the effect it may have on how the data is being collected and what questions we ask to the material (Berger, 2015). As researchers, we are not only collectors of data but also co-producers of data (Small and Calarco, 2022), something we have discussed and taken into consideration during the entire research and writing process.
Analysis: constructing a typology
Five different problematizations were identified in the material, each with their own notion of a public library for all. Throughout the reading, it became clear that one notion was more prominent than the others (for all is “the many”). Although this is the case, the different notions coexist peacefully and appear differently due to shifting societal and political changes that affect which notions that appear, as the library reflects society. As an example, due to large refugee flows in 2015/2016 (from Syria) and 2022 (from Ukraine), there is a greater focus on the library’s role in the integration of refugees in both the Norwegian and Danish library magazines in these years compared to others. The five problematizations and notions of for all are presented as an overall typology in Table 2.
The typology is not to be understood as a direct response to the questions inspired by Bacchi, but the questions have guided the construction of the typology. As explained in detail above, the problematization category is especially guided by the first question (representation of the problem), the solution category is guided by the second question (effects) and the characteristics category is guided by the third question (assumptions). The analysis will focus on how these problematizations and notions of for all have played out in the material and library field. All translations from Danish and Norwegian in the following are by us.
Problematization: the library takes a stand in too many cases
In the first, problematization neutrality is highlighted as a core value and one to be maintained as it is the library’s task and mission to provide users with materials and the freedom to make well-informed decisions, without any influence. If the library takes a stand in too many cases it deprives the library user the right to self-determination, and that is a “problem”. Examples from the material state:
The library should not take a stand and judge what is right and wrong, which would trigger several ethical and political dilemmas, but the library should, through its work, shed light on all sides of an issue (Letnes, 2017, Bok and Bibliotek, no. 1).
As libraries, we remain neutral and are of course not influenced by party politics. Our sole and ultimate mission is to ensure that our citizens are informed and well-informed (Joumaa, 2019, Perspektiv, no. 9).
This notion of for all stems from a classic understanding of the role of the library and the librarian: to provide a wide range of materials so that users have free and equal access to form their own opinions. The public library originates from the thoughts and ideas of the Enlightenment era, embodying principles that prioritize individuals' opportunities for independent action and thought. In his essay “What is enlightenment” from 1783, Immanuel Kant points to the necessity that the individual must detach oneself from immaturity and have the courage to use one’s own mind (Bivens-Tatum, 2012). The public library was a democratic project that should make people aware of the need for free and equal access to education and formation (Bildung) (Budd, 2008). In this way, the principle of neutrality plays an important role for the traditional notions of what a library is (Skouvig, 2004). Following the historical perception of the public library’s role and responsibility, for all revolves around the users’ right to self-determination. It is not the library’s or librarian’s job to take a stand on behalf of users, e.g. to remove a book from the library’s collection because the book may be perceived as offensive. Freedom of information is a core value, and the library should not make a judgement of taste or choose sides, but let the choice be the user’s own. Instead, the library must return to the original democratic, informative role - to support free thinking and enlightenment.
Problematization: society lacks non-hierarchical, non-commercial and non-political places
The second problematization emphasizes the lack of non-hierarchical, non-commercial and non-political places in today’s globalized and digitized society. A viable democracy is dependent on informal and free spaces for citizens to meet and the physical library space is highlighted as an important place for this purpose. The public library is perceived as a neutral ground essential for citizens to engage with each other, creating deeper understandings for the differences in society. In this understanding, neutrality is perceived as something positive, whether it regards refugee services, author talks or maker space activities for children. In the material this is expressed as:
The library is neutral ground. The library is a place everyone can go to. You're not forced into a box; you can create your own box. At the library, you are free from other people's judgements. (Kraft, 2021, Bok and Bibliotek, no. 1).
At the library, we were all on neutral ground, coming from different places, schools, and backgrounds. When you meet others in a neutral setting, where everyone is equal and has a lot to say, that's when the most effective integration occurs. Libraries are unique in their neutrality. It's a place where all cultures come and there is free access to knowledge. (Pedersen, 2016, Perspektiv, no. 2).
In this notion of for all, the physical library space is emphasized as being particularly valuable. In the quotes, neutrality is used in a positive way, to describe the possibilities that are embedded in the physical space, a neutral ground, and one of the last non-hierarchical, non-commercial and non-political spaces for all citizens to meet. The concept of “third places” (Oldenburg, 1989) has been used in LIS to analyze the value of the physical library space. A third place is a neutral, non-hierarchical and easily accessible meeting place that is not home or work, but a place to engage in informal discussions. Following this work, the concept of low intensive meeting places has been discussed by Audunson (2005). Audunson argues for the potential that the public library can serve as a low intensive meeting place, defined as arenas where one is exposed to otherness and pluralism. The concept has since turned into a catch-phrase for the public library and librarianship, contributing to the very understanding of the democratic role of a public library and librarian (Carlsson et al., 2023). In this notion, for all revolves around the physical library space as an important space to ensure for all, given the low barriers for participation and accessible spaces, free of charge. This regards different library services, e.g. debates, language cafés for refugees or IT-courses for non-digital-users.
Problematization: not enough people use the public library
The third problematization emphasizes the “problem” that there are not enough who use the public library. The solution to this “problem” is thus a focus on the breadth of both users and library services. In this notion, for all is the many. The library must focus on variation in user groups, across age, education, residence and social background ensured through a focus on decentralization, e.g. digital and mobile library service and a variety of offers so that there is something for everyone. In the magazines, this is expressed as:
Kongsberg Bibliotek is aware of its role as an open and inclusive organization that reaches out to many different groups in society. Adults, young people, children, Norwegians, minority language speakers, foreign cultures, people in education, retirees, people with various life challenges such as unemployment, disability, illness, psychiatry, etc. (Bergstrøm, 2016, Bibliotekaren, no. 7).
The book-bus is not a new phenomenon in the library world. On the contrary, the ability to make the library mobile is still the bus's great strength. Wimbus will help bring exciting and new books to a geographically large municipality - even to towns where the nearest public library is far away. In this way, we ensure accessibility (Yamil, 2022, Danmarks Biblioteker, no. 5).
This notion emphasizes the library task of ensuring equal access to materials, space and service for all citizens. Through a variety of services targeted to different groups the library has something to offer for everyone. This problematization can also be seen in the light of New Public Management (NPM), a rationale that aims to enhance public sector efficiency by fostering market dynamics. Consequently, public libraries are now subjected to performance evaluations and benchmarks. Influence from NPM has led to significant shifts within the library profession and institution (Kann-Christensen and Andersen, 2009). Today, an “audit culture” prevails, making performance metrics and marketing routine in modern libraries. This emphasis on metrics, such as circulation numbers, aligns library services closely with user demands (Kann-Christensen and Balling, 2011). This entails a focus on accessibility expressed in different ways: extended opening hours, an increased focus on visibility and marketing of services and self-governing in the library, digital services (e.g. e-materials), mobile library services (e.g. library busses and -boats) to reach remote users and the free of charge-principle to materials and physical space. The library must ensure low threshold to secure accessibility and by offering a variation of services, the library is for all.
Problematization: society is non-inclusive and homogeneous
The fourth problematization is characterized by an equity focus. The “problem” is that the public library in fact isn’t available to all. This regards both materials, activities, service, language and accessibility. In this understanding, for all is the underrepresented and marginalized groups, e.g. weak readers, non-digital users, LGBTQ + -users, people with disabilities, etc. In the data material this is expressed as:
We should say out loud that we are fighting for a better world and reject fascism, Nazism, racism, etc. And we should put action behind the words and disseminate and promote literature that can enlighten and create bridges. We need to create space for debate and dialogue with a focus on diversity, inclusion, minorities, and the consequences of polarization. And we can't do that if we take a neutral stance (Bergan, 2019, Bibliotekaren, no. 1).
A large number of minority groups in the population are invisible in our collections, outreach and buildings. They are not explicitly part of the institutions, and thus implicitly not welcomed (Hansen, 2022b, Danmarks Biblioteker, no. 6).
This notion emphasizes the library’s role and responsibility in questions of diversity and inclusion. The library must take an active stance and work for better representation and service to marginalized user groups. As mentioned earlier, a recurring understanding of the public library in LIS has been inspired by Habermas and the perception of the public library as a public sphere. Habermas’ concept of a public sphere has been criticized by Nancy Fraser (1990), who argues that the public sphere has not been open to all, as some groups have been excluded and have had to form their own alternative spheres, e.g. women, sexual- and ethnic minorities. According to Fraser there have been several competing public spheres and the counter publics elaborated alternative perspectives on political behavior and norms of public speech and thereby contested the exclusionary norms of the bourgeois public. Fraser's critique has been applied in LIS to analyze the availability in public libraries, e.g. Engström (2021). In line with this perspective the notion of for all as the underrepresented is concerned with those who are excluded and underrepresented in the library. The public library must embrace an equity perspective, supporting the underrepresented groups and apply a norm critical look at the collection and service, in order to make these groups feel welcome, included and represented.
Problematization: the library is too unanimous and unilateral
In the last problematization the “problem” is that the public library is too unanimous and unilateral. In this problematization the main focus is freedom of speech and the library’s role and responsibility in supporting this right. A viable democracy depends on well-articulated critical thinkers and competent citizens, who engage in constructive debate with each other and society. Thus, for all must represent a range of perspectives, including controversial, political and unpopular voices. In this understanding, for all is also those we, as society, disagree with. This is expressed as:
We were approached by Document.no who wanted to borrow a room. Document.no is a think tank and website that has expressed controversial opinions. But the law states that the library must be defined as an arena for all, regardless of religion, political affiliation or cultural background. Denying a legal Norwegian organization access to our building therefore becomes problematic. Libraries are described as a guarantor of freedom of expression in countless examples. This means that libraries must be there for all, including those with whom we disagree. That's why we chose to say yes. (Letnes, 2014, Bok and Bibliotek, no. 6).
Libraries must stand up for freedom of expression and facilitate the debate. Libraries and books are crucial to freedom of expression, so libraries must help debate whether burning books is an attack or a defense against freedom of expression, and what it means for us as a society that we perceive book burning so differently? (Mønsted, 2023a, Perspektiv, no. 6).
In this notion, for all is perceived quite literally. All users are welcome, and this entails all divergent viewpoints and opinions, even though they can be perceived as controversial or unpopular. This notion focuses on debate for the sake of the debate, and the library’s role and responsibility in fostering a constructive conversation between viewpoints that strongly disagree. This notion can be discussed in relation to Mouffe (1999, 2005) and the concept of agonistic pluralism. Instead of rational consensus and deliberation Mouffe is concerned with passion and conflict at the center of political debate. Mouffe presents the argument, that “the aim of democratic politics is to construct the ‘them’ in such a way that it is no longer perceived as an enemy to be destroyed, but as an ‘adversary’ that is, somebody whose ideas we combat but whose right to defend those ideas we do not put into question” (Mouffe, 2005, p. 102). In relation to the public library, this entails that the library must foster debate and the political passions of library users and assist and support these passions in democratic purposes (Carlsson et al., 2022, 2023; Rivano Eckerdal, 2018). Following Mouffe’s thoughts, the understanding of for all must include those we disagree with, and the library must include voices that can be viewed as unpopular, controversial, or political.
Concluding discussion
The analysis presents five ranging notions of for all, each with their own perception of what “problem” the library should solve and who constitutes for all. The notion of for all as the many is the most prominent notion in both the Norwegian and Danish material. This is perhaps not surprising, as the focus on breadth and availability can be seen as a result of NPM which has influenced the library sector in both Norway and Denmark with its emphasis om performance measurement and visibility. Further, the notion of for all as the many, can be discussed through a Habermasian lens and the concept of the public sphere, a domain in our social life that allows for public meaning to be formed, when private individuals “(…) come together to form a public” (Audunson et al., 2019, p. 774). Librarians have been tasked with the fostering of debates, arrangements, and cultural programs to support and maintain a robust public sphere and it is argued that the public library embody much of what Habermas defined as a public sphere (Buschman, 2003). Focusing on breadth, availability and making library materials and service accessible to as many as possible can also be seen as a way of promoting a strong public sphere. The Habermasian understanding of the library as a public sphere has a strong research tradition in LIS and thus has become an integral part of library practice since the turn of the millennium and a central part of the librarians' self-understanding (Widdersheim and Koizumi, 2016). There is no conflict between the notion of for all as the many, NPM or a Habermasian understanding of the public library as a public sphere. They co-exist harmoniously and share the same objectives by perceiving for all as the many.
However, the prominent notion of for all as the many is challenged in different ways in Norway and Denmark. In the Norwegian magazines, it is particularly challenged by the notion of for all as also those we disagree with. This is mainly due to the revision of the library act in 2014 which defines the mission of the public library as being “an independent meeting place and arena for debate” (Norwegian Public Library Act, 1985). The new library act has caused several debates, as library directors are uncertain of how to interpret the new act, and especially the formulation “independent (…) and arena for debate” (Vannes and Hageberg, 2023). A present debate in the library sector in Norway concerns the question on whether there is a need for editorial guidelines for library directors, in line with the existing guidelines for press editors (Larsen, 2024). In the Danish material, the notion of for all as the many is mostly challenged by the notion of for all as the underrepresented. The discussion between these notions can be described as a discussion about equality and equity. Schement (2001) describes equality from the concept of “fairness as uniform distribution, where all are entitled to the same level of access” (p. 19) and equity as “fairness as justice” where the target is specific groups that need extra support to maximize their opportunities for access (p. 21). According to Schement, policies that view fairness as uniform distribution tend to succeed because they appear to entitle everyone, compared to policies that aim at achieving equity. These tend to be perceived “unfair”, as it appears to favor some over others, thereby not serving all.
In both the Norwegian and Danish material, conflicts of for all and neutrality are discussed. Examples are the conflict concerning whether the controversial group Stop the Islamization of Norway (SIAN) has the right to use the library space to host an event (Christensen, 2022) or when a drag show for children hosted at library in Denmark led to heated conflicts and demonstrations in 2023 (Niegaard, 2023). When such conflicts arise, it leads to doubts about the role of the public library, also expressed in the data material:
I think library managers need a deeper and more nuanced reflection on what the role of a public institution entails and what it should be in different situations (Svåsand, 2020, Bok and Bibliotek, no. 4).
The norm-critical approach is called controversial, but quite simply, being norm-critical is “questioning what you take for granted”, which is naturally in the DNA of libraries. Because when you use libraries and your library, you expect to learn more about what you didn't know, and you expect an open-minded approach to what you want to learn more about (Mønsted, 2023b, Perspektiv, no. 2).
The role and responsibility of both the library and librarian are questioned, as it is unclear what the “problem” is and who for all is. The conflict concerning SIAN can be seen as a conflict between the notion of for all as also those we disagree with and the notion of for all as the underrepresented. SIAN’s opinions can be perceived as racist and offensive towards an already underrepresented group in the library, but at the same time SIAN represents a set of viewpoints that are present in society and thereby critical discussion and debate with this group is valuable for a strong democracy. Further, the conflict concerning a library hosting a dragshow can be seen as a conflict between the notion of for all as the underrepresented (by focusing on gender roles and expression) and the notion of for all that is fulfilled by the right to self-determination, by adhering to the argument of a neutral library that should not take an active political stance. Conflicts concerning the question of what the “problem” is and who constitutes for all is inevitably linked to conflicts concerning neutrality and taking a stand. Ultimately, it regards questions on the role and responsibility of the public library, and how the library and librarian should act in each conflict when the overall objective without doubt or question is to be for all.
In a study of the different notions of neutrality, Macdonald (2022) applies a Wittgensteinian perspective and concludes that conflicts on neutrality stems from a misunderstanding of the grammar of the concept. LIS neutrality has characteristically been treated as a homogenous concept “… with arguments made either for or against neutrality per se, rather than for or against specific conceptions or contexts to which neutrality may apply” (p. 588). This results in polarized debates on neutrality, creating a false dichotomy. Instead, Macdonald introduces Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblance, that focuses on the uses of a word. This concept is useful as it recognizes the heterogeneity of neutrality. Neutrality can be perceived as something positive when it serves values of equality and fairness, e.g. when a librarian provides equal service to a user with whom the librarian strongly disagrees with. At the same time neutrality can be perceived as something negative when it does not serve values of equality and justice, e.g. when the library reinforces the exclusion of underrepresented groups, e.g. through activities or in the collection (Mathiesen, 2015). Further, the concept of family resemblance acknowledges that notions of neutrality can evolve and take on new meanings in the future (e.g. influenced by technological innovations) and nuance the discussion by focusing on how neutrality is used in libraries and LIS instead of discussions on the (im)possibility of neutrality. In this way, it becomes possible to have an “open discussion about the range of contexts in which neutrality helps of hinders the professions wider goals” (Macdonald, 2022, p. 593). Similarly, it can be useful to discuss for all from a Wittgensteinian perspective to create contextual awareness of what is meant by for all. Instead of focusing on who constitutes for all it is more useful to discuss the use of for all in different contexts to avoid all-encompassing conclusions about the nature of for all. By asking questions such as “when does the notion of for all as the right to self-determination meet the overall values for the public library?”, the discussion moves away from an either-or perspective, and it becomes possible to discuss for all and neutrality from the same grammar. It becomes more clear which “problem” a proposed library service seeks to “fix” and which notion of for all that is in question. Focusing on the different uses of for all will contribute to a more nuanced discussion on the democratic role of the public library and librarianship.
The aim of the construction of the typology of the ranging notions of for all has been to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of the conflicts in the public library and how and why they appear. The analysis shows that although for all is used as an argument by both advocates and opponents of the neutrality principle, there are different notions of who constitutes for all. By focusing on the underlying problems which the ranging notions are a response to, the typology is an attempt to create a language for understanding the present and future conflicts of for all and neutrality in relation to the public library. We argue that by focusing on the use of for all instead of who constitutes for all, it becomes possible to have a more nuanced discussion of the democratic role of the public library, that moves beyond an either-or perspective of neutrality, which is the current and prominent approach in discussions in LIS and library practice.
Table 1
The empirical material
| Bok and Bibliotek | Bibliotekaren | Danmarks Biblioteker | Perspektiv | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Norway | Norway | Denmark | Denmark |
| Publisher | ABM-media AS | The Norwegian Library Union | The Danish Library Association | The Danish Library Union1 |
| Volumes pr. Year2 | From 6–4 | From 12–3 | 6 | From 12–9 |
| Volumes in total | N = 58 | N = 87 | N = 60 | N = 80 |
| Total number of volumes | N = 285 | |||
Note(s): 1The Danish Library Association (Bibliotekarforbundet) was renamed to Culture and Information Kultur and Information) in 2020. The union merged with DM (labor union for academic professionals) in November 2023 and the magazine no longer exists independently
2Number of volumes per year is decreasing throughout the time period in three out of four magazines
Source(s): Table by the authors
Table 2
The ranging notions of ‘for all' in public libraries
| Neutrality | Meeting place | Availability | Equity | Disagreement competence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problematization | The library takes a stand in too many cases | Society lacks non-hierarchical, non-commercial and non-political places | Not enough people use the public library | Society is non-inclusive and homogeneous, and the library reflects this | The library is too unanimous and unilateral |
| Solution | The library must focus on the traditional library task: access and availability | The library must support democracy by being a place that is non-hierarchical, non-commercial and non-political | The library must focus on breadth and variation in library service | The library must focus on diversity and increased representation | The library must support citizens’ disagreement competence |
| For all | Fulfilled by the right to self-determination | Requires places to meet in | The many | The underrepresented | Also those we disagree with |
| Characteristics | Not taking sides | The physical library space | Equal access | Equity | Freedom of speech |
Source(s): Table by the authors
© Emerald Publishing Limited.