Content area
Purpose
This article explores how Norwegian public libraries negotiate neutrality and activism in response to national policy implementing the United Nations (UN) goals for sustainable development.
Design/methodology/approach
Informed by the ongoing academic debate on library neutrality and activism, this article presents an analysis of 30 qualitative interviews with librarians and directors in four public libraries. Through comparative case study design, the analysis explores the negotiations of neutrality and activism in the organisational response to the sustainable development goals (SDGs), in public events connected with environmental sustainability and in the engagement of librarians with various higher education backgrounds and competencies.
Findings
The neutrality of Norwegian public libraries is tied to the libraries’ function as a social meeting place and arena for public debate. While the agenda for sustainable development is perceived as neutral by many of the interview participants, there are ongoing negotiations on how politically charged initiatives should be and whether public conversations on environmental and climate issues need to represent a balance of opinions. The case libraries have developed different strategies, and while non-traditional collections and events centred on sustainability may provide a middle ground, the negotiations of neutrality and activism are influenced both by competencies and personal engagement.
Originality/value
This article shows how neutrality is negotiated in public libraries, with the strategies to build a sustainable society through both conventional means and activism.
Introduction
The climate and environmental crisis has come with a call for action in public libraries worldwide, leading libraries and librarians to negotiate their neutrality in efforts that may border on activism. The societal engagement of Norwegian public libraries has a long history and is a product of both the librarianship field and cultural policy developed in line with political agendas for social inclusion, democratic rights, participation for all and, currently, sustainable development, in line with international public library agendas (Audunson et al., 2022; Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2019). Public libraries gain a foothold as institutions for societal change by embracing complex new roles in local communities. In accordance with the global political issues and increased polarisation of our time, this has led scholars and parts of the professional field to call for libraries and librarians to take on activist agendas and identities or embrace roles as radical positive change agents (Jochumsen et al., 2022; Lankes, 2016; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b). Public libraries’ activist and political stands include working for democratic and human rights principles and supporting social justice movements, digital literacy and ethnic and sexual minorities (Gibson et al., 2017; Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020; Kann-Rasmussen, 2022; Kann-Rasmussen et al., 2022). Additionally, libraries are working to achieve the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs) through a wide variety of traditional and non-traditional material collections, organisational partnerships and by building competency and conveying the message of climate change and environmental degradation to large audiences through public events (Beutelspacher and Meschede, 2020; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022a).
This article explores how the concept of political neutrality relates to Norwegian public libraries and the activism, tools and materials of librarians who engage in sustainable development. Library neutrality is contended, and today some scholars reject the notion that public libraries can be neutral (Gibson et al., 2017; Lankes, 2020), while others argue that neutrality should remain a guiding principle (Larsen, 2023; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023; Wenzler, 2019). To address the inherent ambiguities and provide new empirical insights, the concepts of neutrality and activism are framed in terms of negotiations in the daily workings of librarians implementing the UN SDGs. In Norway, an amendment to the library legislation in 2014 mandated the public library to “be an independent meeting place and arena for public conversation and debate” (Norwegian Public Library Act, 1985). This unprecedented legislation has secured legitimacy for the diversification of library services and has led to several debates about library neutrality and the management of public libraries’ independence (Audunson and Evjen, 2017; Larsen, 2023). Neutrality and activism have been studied in relation to librarianship and public libraries’ role in society, and today, global political realities infuse the debate with renewed relevance (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b). As a reoccurring theme within Anglo-American (Lankes, 2020; Wenzler, 2019) and Scandinavian library research (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022; Larsen, 2023; Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020), this article addresses the latest additions to these arguments, namely sustainability and sustainable development (Jochumsen et al., 2022; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b), in context of a current academic discourse that pits Mouffean conflict theory against Habermasian public sphere theory (Carlsson et al., 2023; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023; Larsen, 2023). This advances the understanding of public libraries’ engagement in environmental sustainability as an emerging topic in the literature on library neutrality and activism and as an important aspect of future librarianship (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b).
The UN SDGs have been included as both core values and targets for library associations worldwide and are objectives in Norway’s national library strategy (American Library Association, 2019; Kosciejew, 2020; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022a; Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2019). According to Jochumsen et al. (2022), public libraries and librarians’ engagement in sustainability and the SDGs clearly fit within the development away from neutrality and towards the stands as radical positive change agents in local communities (Jochumsen et al., 2022, p. 217). Furthermore, when libraries or librarians couple themselves to environmental or climate movements, this might be labelled activism (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022). Researchers in the Scandinavian context have found that public libraries take a practical approach to sustainability, focusing on advocacy, dialogue and collaborative consumption (Jochumsen et al., 2022). Additionally, international trends towards non-traditional sharing, with seed libraries, tool lending libraries, maker spaces and communal gardening, influence Norwegian libraries (see Ameli, 2017; Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2019; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022a; Söderholm, 2018). Librarians are defined as any employee who develops and/or mediates library services, and as tasks are diversified, public libraries in Norway are hiring librarians with various higher education backgrounds, along with librarians educated in library and information science or documentation (Bergan, 2019; Bjørklund and Audunson, 2021).
Through an analysis of 30 interviews with librarians and library directors in four public libraries, this article explores the negotiations of neutrality and activism in the organisational response to the SDGs, in public events connected with environmental sustainability and in the engagement of librarians with various higher education backgrounds and competencies. As the negotiations of library neutrality and activism are currently understudied in the case of sustainable development, this article contributes new empirical insights and perspectives to the ongoing academic debate through three exploratory research questions:
The point of departure is literature on public libraries’ contribution to the UN SDGs, as this relates to negotiations of neutrality and activism. The chapter on theory and literature then introduces the ongoing academic debate on neutrality and activism. It begins by describing the dominant perspective in Norway, focusing on Habermasian public sphere theory and the arguments for libraries and librarians to uphold the principle of neutrality. The subsequent perspective has arisen from Sweden, where library researchers are wielding Mouffean conflict theory to challenge the Norwegian paradigm and provide intellectual tools for libraries and librarians that step away from neutrality in light of polarised political realities. The methodology and comparative case study design, interview participants and case libraries are presented before the analysis of the negotiations of political neutrality and activism along the comparative axis of four public libraries’ engagement in the SDGs. The results explore the negotiations of neutrality and activism in the organisational response to the SDGs, in public events and among librarians working with climate and environmental agendas. The discussion addresses the research questions in light of the theoretical discourse, and the concluding remarks argue how understanding neutrality and activism in terms of negotiations provides novel insights, potentially informing future research.
Theory and literature review
Public libraries and sustainable development
The UN agenda for sustainable development was introduced to the Norwegian public libraries in the National Library Strategy 2020–2023, which will apply for an extended period throughout 2025 (Ministry of Culture and Equality, 2019, 2023). As this article will show, Norwegian public libraries have chosen different paths to contribute to sustainable development, adjusting the traditional library services, building environmental profiles, engaging in innovation and holding public events on environmental and climate issues. On the world stage, the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) has pushed the agenda of sustainability, proclaiming libraries and librarians to take on the role of agents for change (Hauke, 2018). In a comprehensive literature review of articles about libraries, sustainability and the SDGs, Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022a) found the call to act as change agents associated with proactive roles in environmental sustainability (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022a, p. 1291). Furthermore, in their article on librarianship and the concept of neutrality, Mathiasson and Jochumsen (2022b) connect the SDGs to conceptions of librarians as radical positive change agents and a move towards proactive, engaged and self-aware understandings of the library’s role in society (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b, p. 14). Hence, working for the SGDs can represent a shift away from neutrality and towards libraries embracing complex and politically engaged new roles in society (Jochumsen et al., 2022).
The UN SDGs originate from the report Our Common Future of 1987, in which the centrality of the environmental concern to the future generations was clearly stated: “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN Secretary-General and World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 24). To this, public libraries have responded by optimising buildings and organisations to fit environmental standards, raising awareness and conveying literature and information tied to the SDGs and providing non-traditional lending materials to reduce private consumption (Beutelspacher and Meschede, 2020; Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2019; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022a; Skøtt, 2023). When libraries and librarians couple themselves to environmental or climate movements, this might be termed activism, while the self-identity of those involved is key to labelling them activists (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022). An example comes from Denmark, where librarians in the Danish Libraries 2030 network engaged in what has been referred to as “inside activism”, as they involved civil society in sustainable solutions and used their position in the public sector to disseminate information about the SDGs and influence policy formation. A direct result was the inclusion of public libraries in the governmental action plan for the SDGs, potentially changing the targets of Danish public libraries (Olsson and Hyssing, 2012, p. 258; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2023).
The public library’s neutrality and societal role
The assertion that public libraries are public sphere institutions and democratic meeting places has been inferred and studied empirically across European and international contexts (Audunson et al., 2019; Vårheim et al., 2019). In line with Jürgen Habermas’ (1962) argument that the public sphere relies on openness and debate to raise issues of common concern from citizens to the state, research has shown how libraries are open to anyone as low-intensive meeting places, that they supply information that informs discussion and provide a space for democratic deliberation (Aabø et al., 2010; Widdersheim and Koizumi, 2016). Habermas’ (1962) seminal work is credited with a strong and lasting impact on cultural policy in Norway, and the changes to the public library law in 2014 was inspired by the Habermasian conception of libraries as public sphere institutions and pre-empted by research on the role as social meeting place (Audunson et al., 2020; Blomgren et al., 2020). The mandate for the public library to “be an independent meeting place and arena for public conversation and debate” led to an ongoing public debate on the political engagement, neutrality and activism of both library organisations and librarians, with some scholars arguing that neutrality is necessary to maintain independence from political agendas and the library as a democratic arena and public sphere institution (Koizumi and Larsen, 2023; Larsen, 2023). Cultural institutions in Scandinavia maintain clearly defined societal missions, while official policy states that government and politicians should maintain an arm’s length distance from cultural organisations such as public libraries (Larsen, 2017). Although their independence is stated in the legislation, there is no legislated premise that Norwegian public libraries should maintain neutrality (Norwegian Public Library Act, 1985).
Library neutrality is endorsed on grounds of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech (Larsen, 2023), and on the premise that moral convictions and political beliefs are always questionable, leaning on Rawls’ (1993) political liberalism. For instance, Wenzler (2019) underlines how public libraries can protect fundamental requirements for liberal democracies, such as the space, right and ability to acquire knowledge and information pertaining to personal moral and political convictions. There are few agreements on universal moral good and, precisely by maintaining neutrality, public libraries can protect “a space where all views receive equal respect—including those of the majority, the minority, the powerful, and the poor—the library can counterbalance the tendency to enforce conformity of opinion in democratic communities” (Wenzler, 2019, p. 69). Traditionally, library neutrality has been closely connected with the institution’s legitimacy, meaning that neither an organisation nor individuals within the workforce should support any political ideology or social movement through their work. When perceived as an achievable goal, neutrality has been based on the ideal of scientific knowledge, objective quality criteria and the professional competencies of librarians (Kann-Rasmussen et al., 2022).
Renewed interest in library neutrality stems from a new generation of social movements for social justice, sexual and ethnic minorities, as well as climate change. The neutrality of public libraries is challenged by actors seeking to either mediate their own political opinions or limit the voice of others, with tensions arising from issues such as immigration, identity politics and representation (Carlsson et al., 2023; Kann-Rasmussen, 2022; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b). Furthermore, voices within the library field argue that “false claims of neutrality legitimize the prerogatives of privileged social groups by making their advantages appear natural and inevitable” (Wenzler, 2019, p. 56). This “myth of neutrality” has roots in the progressive youth movements of the late 1960s and implies a questioning of scientific truth and the universal quality of art and literature. This became prominent in social science in the 1980s and 1990s (Kann-Rasmussen et al., 2022), with notable contributions from neo-Marxist, feminist and post-structuralist analyses of institutions, culture and scientific research (e.g., Bourdieu, 1979; Latour and Woolgar, 1979; Haraway, 1984).
Commenting on the debates on library neutrality in professional journals and the press since the amendments to the library law in 2014, Norwegian professor Håkon Larsen (2023) identifies two opposing sides: one arguing for the promotion of civil sphere inclusion of minorities and the cancellation of issues deemed problematic, and the other emphasising freedom of speech and the library as a public sphere institution. As an example, exponents of the first tried to cancel Harry Potter nights due to J. K. Rowling’s opinions on gender politics (Larsen, 2023). Contrary to scholars who claim that librarianship cannot be neutral or should indeed be activist (e.g., Gibson et al., 2017; Lankes, 2020), Larsen (2023) asserts that this “case demonstrated that librarians have the freedom to express their opinions in mediated public spheres, but that their political leanings should not influence their professional practice as librarians, in order for the library to remain a neutral institution” (Larsen, 2023, p. 123). Moreover, Larsen (2023) states that “if activist practices are brought into library space by professionals, this all-inclusive space might limit its inclusivity” (Larsen, 2023, p. 124). According to this perspective, neutrality is a prerequisite for libraries to provide a democratic space for collective reasoning in the public sphere (Koizumi and Larsen, 2023), and it conflates the role of the professionals if librarians become interlocutors with the power to curate collections, programmes or political messages in line with personal convictions.
The political engagement and activism of libraries and librarians
Challenging the paradigm of Habermasian public sphere theory and the public library’s obligation to maintain neutrality is a growing coalition of library researchers wielding the conflict theory of Chantal Mouffe (2005). In the Scandinavian context, this perspective has arisen from Sweden amidst polarised politics and a shift towards right-wing government, with politicians contesting the arm’s length principle and the work for socio-economic equity that is the basis for Swedish cultural policy and library legislation (Hanell et al., 2023; Hansson, 2010). According to Carlsson et al. (2023), the idea of the public library as a low-intensive meeting place and neutral public sphere institution disregards barriers to equal participation in debates and is badly suited for times of harsh polarisation (Carlsson et al., 2023, p. 179). To provide tools for librarians in contentious political climates and re-imagine the public library’s role in democracy, Swedish library researchers have turned to Mouffe’s theories of agonistic pluralism (Carlsson et al., 2023; Eckerdal, 2017, 2018). The assertion is that public libraries should be an emancipatory force through political proaction and, as the Swedish professor Joacim Hansson (2010) writes, “Neutrality is a shutting of the eyes at alternative interpretations of the world, the socially good, and the political differences that de facto exist in a multicultural society” (Hansson, 2010, p. 255).
Mouffean library research postulates that taking a stand in political matters is not in conflict with the public library’s aim of providing a democratic space but rather “the very essence of democracy” (Carlsson et al., 2023, p. 191). This builds on Mouffe’s (2005) critique, stating that rationalist and individualist political theories, such as Habermas’ (1962) theory of the public sphere and Rawls’ (1993) liberalism, deny the conflictual nature of democracy. In this state of post-politics, discussions aim to reach a dispassionate consensus on how to resolve moral or technical issues, while adversarial relations in society are deemed illegitimate. Mouffe (2005) confronts Habermas by taking collective identities, group values and inherent passions as the ground for political relations and demarcating the consensus of a rational conversation between equal individuals to abstract idealisation (Mouffe, 2005). In democracy as “agonistic pluralism”, the antagonism between enemies is turned to “agonism” between adversaries, i.e. legitimate compromise and temporary respite in ongoing confrontation (Mouffe, 1999, p. 755). The Mouffean perspective implies that libraries and librarians should engage in the adversarial relations that uphold a vital democracy (Eckerdal, 2018). Moreover, the Habermasian conception of the library as a public sphere institution represents an idealistic striving for dispassionate consensus when, in times of political turmoil, it is the library’s responsibility to “turn antagonism into legitimate conflicts, that is agonism” as the outcome of the library as a meeting place cannot be tranquillity and agreement (Carlsson et al., 2023, pp. 191–192).
Addressing the principle of neutrality, Carlsson et al. (2023) state that it corresponds to an understanding of the public library as an “empty vessel” with the ability to promote informed discussions simply by providing the space for people to meet (Carlsson et al., 2023, p. 187). This critique is sometimes coupled with a notion that neutrality as a professional norm limits librarians’ work to include only universal access to existing collections, spaces and resources, while it discourages the library from engaging actively in community issues unless these are perceived to be apolitical. Furthermore, neutral librarians risk becoming superfluous in the digital age as “machines seem more likely to replace librarians who simply process data than those who are politically engaged” (Wenzler, 2019, p. 57). Others argue that public libraries are inherently political due to their striving to shape informed citizenship (Gibson et al., 2017) and that working proactively to improve society and the lives of library users is non-neutral, progressive and even radical (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b).
The exponents of Mouffean library research maintain that taking a stand in political matters is not activism but rather part of democratic librarianship (Carlsson et al., 2023). Nevertheless, library activism is an empirical area of inquiry, and according to Kann-Rasmussen et al. (2022), either organisations within library institutions or individuals within organisations can exhibit activist traits or engage in explicit or tacit library activism. Kann-Rasmussen et al. (2022) define the activism of public libraries and librarians as qualified by one or more of four criteria: (1) by taking an independent political stand, (2) connecting openly with activist agendas, (3) persistently committing to exposing structural inequalities and (4) working reflexively on their privileged position to interpret institutional values in new ways (Kann-Rasmussen et al., 2022, p. 207). While radical positive change agents make use of the institution’s tools and the means of the librarian profession (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b), the library activist also utilises the tools connected with political agendas or social movements, for example by adopting symbols or rhetoric or by facilitating for activist groups to use the library to their ends (Kann-Rassmussen et al., 2022). Crucially though, Kann-Rasmussen (2022) emphasises a criterion of self-identification, as “the label “activism” is clearly flawed if librarians do not themselves see their work as activism” (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022, p. 41).
Design and methodology
This research was conducted as part of a larger project on the public library’s contribution to sustainable development and collaborative consumption, named UPSCALE (Jochumsen et al., 2023). This article comprises the empirical findings on the negotiations on neutrality from a comparative multiple-case study (Yin, 2018). Four separate public libraries constitute the cases, one placed in Northern Norway (L1), one in the central-eastern region (L2) and two in the capital of Oslo (L3, L4). The selection of cases was due to the libraries in northern and central-eastern Norway being partners in the UPSCALE project, while the libraries in Oslo were selected due to their pronounced environmental profiles. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 librarians and library directors in the spring of 2021. The interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide that focused on several interrelated subjects, while this article builds on data generated on neutrality and activism, institutional change, the librarian profession and the means and strategies of public libraries and librarians who engage in climate and environmental agendas and the SDGs.
Sample
A sample of 30 interview participants was recruited from the libraries. To ensure reliability, the presentation in Tables 1–4 includes position, higher education, field of work and years employed. Specific information on age and gender is anonymised, whereas the median age was 39 years old, and 73.33% (N22) of the sample were women. The samples from the branch libraries in Oslo are half the size of the samples from the two main libraries in northern and eastern Norway. This, to some extent, reflects the respective library’s size but was also a result of pragmatic considerations during data collection, including resources and time. Since L3 and L4 are subunits of the same organisation, the data could also comprise three equal-sized case samples. L3 and L4 are divided due to the results showing that each branch library has a different focus, means and strategies in working with the SDGs.
The population sizes of the cities where L1 and L2 are located are comparable to the districts of L3 and L4 in Oslo. As main libraries, L1 and L2 provide library services for a broad range of user groups in cities with diverse demographic compositions. L1 is a large main library with two branches that focuses on traditional library services and prioritises librarian education in hiring processes. L2 holds a similar position, as a main library with three branches, but partly due to spacious modern locals, it has more extensive programming and a section of librarians working with events, compared with the sole employee in L1. There is also greater openness for hiring librarians from outside the librarianship field in L2.
The branch libraries in Oslo provide services to neighbourhoods undergoing gentrification, from blue-collar and immigrant populations to students, young professionals and more affluent families. Compared with national averages, these districts demonstrate stronger support for socialist and environmental political parties. L3 has made room for events in almost all parts of the library building and focuses on innovative library projects, while L4 maintains a comparatively stronger emphasis on literature. The focus on the library as a meeting place, public events and sustainability has resulted in hiring processes favouring diverse competencies in both libraries, and about half of the employees are educated outside of the librarianship field. This is reflected in the titles of special librarian and program manager.
Analysis
The implementation of the SDGs in Norwegian public libraries is treated as a policy intervention across localities and studied through a replicated research strategy that takes into account the situatedness of each case (Yin, 2018). The analysis was inspired by Tjora’s (2018) stepwise deductive-inductive approach and conducted by processing the data pertaining to each case separately. After an initial open coding, a categorisation structured the codes along dimensions of neutrality, activism, institutional change, the librarian profession and various strategies to engage in the agenda for environmental sustainability. This allowed for an inductive reading of the variation inherent to each category while also exploring the comparative differences, idiosyncratic findings and context of the cases. The conceptual contribution deals with the negotiations of neutrality and activism, while the comparative optic provides insights into the variation of responses to the SDGs. Although the qualitative interviews constitute the primary data source, the study was also informed by field visits to each library and collected internal documents. This contributes to additional insight into the situatedness of each case, an in-depth analysis and validity through triangulation of data sources (Kapiszewski et al., 2015).
Results
The organisational response to the SDGs
The organisational response to the SDGs is conditioned by each library’s resources, including the physical infrastructure of the library building, workforce and contextual possibilities such as inter-organisational collaborations in civil society. Scandinavian public libraries have always served their local communities in ways that could be deemed political, through securing democratic participation, social inclusion and representation of marginalised groups and by providing equal access to culture and information through the redistribution of material goods (Audunson et al., 2022; Kann-Rasmussen et al., 2022; Koizumi and Larsen, 2023). This was a self-perception and identity amongst the librarians, rooted in the institutional history and tradition of engaging in local communities. A librarian in L3 even referred to the earliest period of Norwegian public library history to elucidate how the library institution is non-neutral sui generis, with a strong socialist heritage for working proactively for societal change:
In the 1910s, many conservative politicians thought it dangerous to open a public library in a working-class neighbourhood, and that knowledge isn’t something everybody should have. We have worked with literacy, theatre, youth librarianship and public gatherings for over one hundred years. So, yes, both the political and the social have a long history here. (5 – L3)
Many interviews echoed this sentiment, yet perceptions varied on how politically charged the contribution to the SDGs should be. For instance, L1 focuses primarily on traditional library services: “The easiest thing we can do is to have exhibitions and purchase books that refer to the sustainability goals” (6 – L1). L1 is also establishing a seed lending library and, through external partnerships, a communal garden to teach pupils at the local primary school how to grow food and re-use events with the Future in Our Hands foundation. While L2 has implemented similar strategies, the interview participants report plans to utilise the extra space for more frequent events and allocate part of the library for collaborative consumption initiatives. Exemplifying the diversification of library services, this focus is reflected in L2’s organisation and openness to hiring workers from outside the librarianship field. Since the projects build on the public library’s core tasks, present pragmatic solutions to everyday problems or rely on the opinion holders being actors outside their organisations, the interview participants in L1 and L2 did not perceive the agenda for sustainable development as challenging their negotiations of neutrality.
The L3 and L4 libraries deploy a range of strategies to implement the SDGs, developed by librarians with diverse competencies in event-making, inter-organisational collaborations and environmental sustainability. Their comparative difference lies in L4 maintaining an emphasis on literature, while environmental sustainability is promoted through diversified services in L3. Both libraries provide seed lending, tool lending and events focused on environmental sustainability. Additionally, L3 provides a communal garden, a kitchen to prepare home-grown vegetables and events on repairing consumer electronics. L3 has also developed clearly defined goals for the societal impact of the library:
We began talking about a manifest, and that is probably quite radical in the library world, but we have a clear set of values and it’s not just about the environment, but social inclusion and anti-racism. These are the principles we wish to work for, that are important to what kind of library we want to be in our local community, and to the direction we want to take society. (5 – L3)
The director in L3 saw the SDGs as part of a politically motivated proaction connected with social inclusion, anti-racism, identity politics and inequality: “Especially concerning the environmental disaster, I think we can play a very important role, it’s an awareness of major global discussions” (4 – L3). Internal documents describe L3 as a sharing culture, clearly emphasising a diversification of library services to include a broad range of non-traditional lending items. Furthermore, a librarian claimed that neutrality is a guise to mask a capitalistic, unjust and unsustainable neo-liberal hegemony (2 – L3), a societal engagement that also reflects the context and user groups of this library. Situating the public library’s contribution to sustainable development within adversarial relations in society was unique to L3, while most of the interview participants in L1, L2 and L4 explained how negotiating neutrality maintains support for public libraries that could otherwise be perceived as bastions of leftist politics. Sharing materials was nevertheless understood as a strategy in opposition to the unsustainable consumption championed by right-wing ideology, historically ingrained in Norwegian public libraries (Solum, 2024).
Public events on environmental sustainability
The primary strategy to implement the SDGs was public events on environmental sustainability, alongside purchasing and conveying related literature. When asked about the negotiations of neutrality in such events, the interviews reflected the debate on neutrality in the media and professional journals (Larsen, 2023). In all case libraries, interview participants drew on discussions internal to the organisations, explaining how the foremost approach was a balance of opinions in public events involving collaborations with political, commercial or civil society actors. Party politics is generally avoided outside of moderated public debates. Moreover, there was some concern about whether taking a stand on climate and environmental issues might reignite the old critique of public libraries as paternalistic carriers of good taste and correct moral virtues:
Don't be too pedantic … And don't make it too political … I have in the back of my mind that we should be politically neutral. It’s extremely important for us to be a neutral platform, and if we are going to have a political debate about climate policy, it’s important that all voices are included. (7 – L2)
For advocates of neutrality as a principle of balance, in L1, L2 and L4, this was closely connected to the library’s role as a meeting place and space for dialogue. Setting party politics aside, several interview participants in L1 and L2 maintained that both environmental activists and so-called climate deniers or climate sceptics should be allowed to voice opinions, but not necessarily unchallenged: “You shouldn’t always say what’s right and wrong. I think it’s interesting to hear what the climate sceptics are coming up with. It’s not just black and white” (8 – L2). This is reminiscent of the defence of neutrality, maintaining that there are no valid claims to universal moral good (Wenzler, 2019). As explained by a librarian in L2, such negotiations pervade most aspects of public library services:
Where to draw the line? It boils down to the classic argument to ensure that opposing voices are heard, and it quickly turns into a debate about freedom of speech. It’s not just about debates, but about the collection, and how the material you make available is as broad as possible. Still, there shouldn’t be an unfair amount of space for something that is only a tiny part of the debate, and no false information. (2 – L2)
General public interest and scientific objectivity are foundations for legitimising events on sustainability that do not concern party politics or environmental policy. Events on concrete issues, such as food waste mitigation and forest conservation, negotiate neutrality against core institutional ideals of public enlightenment. Going further, interview participants who were personally engaged in the climate and environmental agenda maintained that the basis of scientific fact and urgency of environmental issues should override considerations of coming across as paternalistic or if giving a platform to the SDGs could be perceived as political:
We cannot be afraid to promote discussions where one can be accused of taking a role … The climate issue is of course a political issue, but it is also a truth in the form of research … I believe there is little room to discuss whether climate change is happening, there is little room to discuss whether it is man-made or not … It is the best research that we have today, and it is as objective as can you get. (3 – L3)
Interview participants in all case libraries described a consensus surrounding climate and environmental issues amongst librarians that many perceived to exist in the general public: “I think most Norwegian parties, all the world’s politicians, and parties, believe we have a challenge with the environment and the green transition, and most people agree that it’s something we must work on” (7 – L2). Additionally, the public library is believed to educate users to tolerate other people’s opinions as a democratic arena: “I don’t think we should be afraid to take a stand on climate change … I think it’s about education, that you must allow the library to be an arena for politics and political views and discussion.” (9 – L2). Others, primarily in L3 and L4, saw the inclusion of climate sceptic actors in events as virtue signalling that could be detrimental to the library’s positive societal impact.
Librarianship between neutrality and activism
The SDGs are implemented by groups of employees executing goals and targets or through personal initiative. This engagement is therefore closely connected to the employees’ education and skillset, and the opinions and values of librarians will influence the services. For example, L1 relies on the librarian’s professional competencies, and since this is the predominant focus within the organisation, the employee with no professional education who is responsible for events still focuses on literature. Some interview participants in L1 and L2 claim that tacit activism is inevitable, whether this concerns the choice of literature to recommend in interactions with users, that is exhibited or conveyed through events. The main opinion, however, is that professionalism means curtailing political opinions from the voice of the librarians themselves: “We are professionals to the extent that we try to distance ourselves from our private convictions” (4 – L2). Even though the extensive programming of events provides ample opportunities, the director in L2 asserted that while librarians may express what they want in their spare time, “It’s different to use the library as a mouthpiece … It would be completely wrong for them to stand on stage and talk about their convictions” (4 – L2). In L1, L2 and, to some extent, L4, outright climate and environmental activism was considered potentially limiting to the public library’s inclusivity: “A decent proportion of people are sceptical of the green shift, and … If the librarian has an activist role, will we drive that segment away?” (7 – L1). The alternative was public enlightenment, relying on the users judging rationally based on a breadth of information, as explained by a librarian in L4:
Our role is to provide knowledge and show variety, so people can judge for themselves. I know others think we should be more activist, but then I feel that we go a little too far, and border on something we don't want to be in society. (1 – L4)
L3 and L4 are branch libraries, and the centralisation of librarian professional tasks within their organisation has permitted an influx of employees from outside the librarianship field: “The library has become much more than just lending books, we are a great example, with all the green things happening here. I think this makes room for other educations” (3 – L3). Several interview participants in L3 and L4 had been engaged in political issues and social movements before starting work in the libraries. Hired due to their experience in civil society organisations, they spoke about strong political convictions and personal awakenings to issues such as climate change, environmental degradation and wealth and income inequality. While some identified as activists and engaged openly with activist agendas, most remained hesitant to adopt the label in order to avoid polarisation and backlash from the political right, as the director in L3 explained:
What is activism … If we can call it activism to be extremely forward-leaning and curious and work hard, as opposed to sitting back and delivering out books … It is room for people who are involved in activism to come to us, but it’s a controversial term because the political right sees activism very negatively. (4 – L3)
The libraries in Oslo exemplify the importance of librarians who are passionate about environmental sustainability. L3 and L4 have included the climate and environmental agenda in their targets, profiles and services, but while L3 is developing this aspect of the library through a dedicated employee, the librarian engaged in these issues recently quit L4. The lack of employees with sustainability as a main priority has in turn led to the neglect of some of these initiatives: “We have had a green profile, but sometimes one can wonder whether it’s a fake profile … Right now, nobody is passionate about it …” (2 – L4). After the key figure changed jobs, the remaining employees either focused on their own favourite issues or were busy with primary library tasks. When pressed on whether their environmental agenda represents activism and a breach of neutrality, the librarian responsible for these services in L3 clarified her stance: “I personally don’t think that creating a more sustainable local community through the library is a political thing … I’m employed to make the library green, maybe some think it’s provocative, but I think most people are grateful” (1 – L3).
Discussion
RQ1: Neutrality and activism in the organisational response to the SDGs
The findings presented in this article corroborate that Scandinavian public libraries take a mostly practical approach to sustainability, with initiatives focusing on advocacy, dialogue and collaborative consumption (Jochumsen et al., 2022). The case libraries have somewhat different strategies, including initiatives such as lending seeds or tools, having a community garden and engaging in inter-organisational collaborations in events, which may communicate sustainability without an explicitly political message. As an answer to the critique of neutrality as limiting librarians’ work to provide universal access to collections, spaces and resources, the political agenda for sustainable development rather implies a creative diversification and reframing of the societal mission of public enlightenment in line with the challenges of our times. The conception of the public library as non-neutral siu generis still undergirds many initiatives, however, and the case libraries exemplify somewhat different ways of managing this self-perception and identity.
In all case libraries, there were interview participants who portrayed the public library as inherently non-neutral, and to some participants, the very idea of sharing materials is in opposition to the consumer culture they associate with right-wing political ideology. The difference between the two main libraries, L1 and L2, lies in their structure, which affords L2 more room for public events and collaborative consumption initiatives. L1, L2 and L4 are similar in their negotiation of neutrality in the response to the SDGs, focusing on advocacy through inter-organisational collaborations and sharing initiatives with international precedence (Beutelspacher and Meschede, 2020; Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2019). L3 is unique in developing a manifest for the progressive societal impact of the library, and when radical, left-wing and activist ideas legitimise the response to the SDGs, there is less emphasis on neutrality. As such, negotiations of neutrality and activism can involve considerations of whether sustainability is achievable through incremental change. In her latest book, Towards a Green Democratic Revolution, Mouffe (2022) argues that ecological movements must choose sides politically and couple their cause to the fight for social justice and a new economic system. While this article suggests that some librarians hold similar beliefs, most negotiate neutrality to maintain legitimacy for their efforts.
RQ2: Public events on environmental sustainability
The public library’s neutrality has been tied to the function as a democratic space for collective reasoning in the public sphere and a meeting place that is open for all (Koizumi and Larsen, 2023; Larsen, 2023). The analysis exemplifies how Habermasian ideals of democratic deliberation are organising principles for Norwegian public libraries and how this entails negotiations of neutrality. When neutrality is perceived as a principle of balance, this reflects one of the main negotiations that has resulted from the debate in professional journals and the press since the introduction of the new library legislation in 2014: as long as the format entails moderated public debates featuring representatives with opposing viewpoints, events can feature almost any issue and involve politicians, party politics or discussions of policy. The deliberative rationale can also explain how environmental sustainability is perceived as legitimate in light of consensus amongst the workforce, politicians and in the general public.
For many librarians, taking a stand on political matters is not necessary since they contribute to a broad array of political agendas through their work in a cultural institution. Most library events negotiate neutrality by focusing on pragmatic solutions to concrete situations. Far from becoming “empty vessels”, Norwegian public libraries constitute arenas for myriads of subjects, themes, areas of inquiry and civil society actors who engage in the SDGs and other issues of general public concern. Regarding environmental sustainability, most interviewees were preoccupied with reducing polarisation to involve as many as possible in public conversations about the agenda. As such, the very essence of democracy is not for librarians themselves to act as interlocutors but to involve citizens in democracy. Conversely, L3’s non-consensual and radical stance could potentially exemplify Engström’s (2022) Mouffean conception of the library as “enabling multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power” (Engström, 2022). Thus, public libraries could be a strong emancipatory force by rejecting neutrality. However, if librarians act as figures of authority and guardians of correct moral virtues, this might limit the inclusivity of the library as a meeting place and reduce the plurality of opinions that engage in confrontation. By facilitating arenas where a wide range of confrontations potentially turn antagonism into agonism, Norwegian public libraries take a continual stand for democracy.
RQ3: Profession as change agent and the activist librarian
The analysis has shown how Norwegian public libraries align with the international agenda for the SDGs that could be regarded as a shift from neutrality towards embracing politically engaged and complex new roles in society (Jochumsen et al., 2022; Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b). Nevertheless, most of the interview participants had reservations against describing their work as activism, as implementing the policy only points to the fact that public libraries are non-neutral sui generis. Moreover, since their political agenda and societal influence are mandated through legislation and policy, many of the interview participants expressed how an openly activist profile could undermine the negotiations of neutrality necessary to uphold legitimacy in various publics while engaging in societal issues. Still, core values of scientific reason and public enlightenment can legitimately limit the space for actors with opinions in opposition to the climate and environmental agenda.
Due to the diversification of services in L3 and L4, hiring processes have favoured diverse competencies and many “program managers” and “special librarians” are educated outside the librarianship field. This supports research suggesting an ongoing shift towards a non-librarian-educated workforce that is advanced in Oslo due to the centralisation of librarian professional tasks in the city’s library organisation (Bergan, 2019; Bjørklund and Audunson, 2021). Among the newly employed in L3 and L4, some engaged in tacit activism or identified as activists and engaged openly with activist agendas. Furthermore, internal processes in L3, resulting in clearly defined goals for the societal impact of the library, make it possible to describe this library organisation as exhibiting activist traits, qualified by the four interrelated criteria developed by Kann-Rasmussen (2022): by taking an independent political stand, evidenced by the political manifesto; connecting openly with anti-racism or environmentalist activist agendas; exposing structural inequalities through engaging in the needs of a stratified and diverse local community and; interpreting institutional values, such as neutrality and public enlightenment, in new ways. Both professionally trained and non-librarian-educated librarians take part in transforming public libraries to engage proactively in environmental sustainability. However, this research suggests that librarians who are hired to engage in project-related library services or to develop the organisation’s environmental profile initiate services that other librarians and library organisations later adopt if deemed suited.
Concluding remarks
This article has shown how negotiations of neutrality and activism are inherent to the agenda for sustainable development in Norwegian public libraries, whether this concerns collections, library projects, inter-organisational collaborations or the programming of public events. Habermasian public sphere ideals constitute organising principles for Norwegian public libraries’ function as a social meeting place and arena for debate, while some libraries and librarians exhibit more radical or activist political leanings that can be connected with a Mouffean conception of the public library’s role in society. As a contribution to the ongoing academic discourse, the analysis developed neutrality as an open concept, underlining how negotiations might secure the potential for both consensual and adversarial interactions in the library. A similar perspective from the USA underlines how librarians use neutrality pragmatically to secure funding and legitimacy amidst polarisation and increased distrust of institutions (Crowley, 2021). Securing funding for cultural institutions is not an issue in Scandinavia, but librarians still negotiate neutrality to maintain legitimacy for their societal engagement and inclusion for all in the library’s democratic arena. This aligns with exponents who argue that neutrality is a useful tool to undergird the positive societal impact of public libraries (Mathiasson and Jochumsen, 2022b). The neutrality of public libraries will remain contested as long as the practical application is based on institutional values and professional norms rather than legislation or policy, resulting in processes of continual negotiation that could be conceptualised as dialectic and context-dependent.
According to Söderholm and Nolin (2015), the societal engagement of public libraries has developed in three historical periods of literacy and public education from the early 20th century, radical grassroots work for social inclusion from the 1960s and 1970s and open social space and diversity since the 2000s. While the emphasis on social relations came at the expense of the physical collections, each new wave of development added to the societal mission and values of the institution (Söderholm and Nolin, 2015). The findings in this article support this notion, as the current engagement in sustainable development builds on education through literature and public events, the radical grassroots work of librarians and the library as a social meeting place. The SDGs also refocus some of the public library’s attention on physical collections. Thus, the agenda for sustainable development is included in what is sometimes termed public libraries’ raison d’être (Kann-Rasmussen, 2022). If the joint diversification of services and competencies results in an influx of activist strategies, the radical tendency still has deep roots in librarianship. A novel insight from this study is the suggestion that non-librarian-educated employees build upon this tendency to develop innovative library projects.
Framing library neutrality in terms of negotiations might inform future studies on how to move beyond representations of neutrality as empirical fact or attainable goal. Thus, central issues in the discourse on neutrality and activism, such as immigration, identity politics and representation, might be analysed with more nuance, as they relate to the everyday work of librarians, are historically and geographically contingent and are influenced by policy and new practices in the library space. As the sample is not representative of any wider population, this study has limited capacity to gauge comprehensive insights into developments in the librarianship field. More research is needed to investigate the ongoing diversification of public libraries and how these processes might affect the librarian profession and public libraries’ societal engagement over time.
This work was funded by The Research Council of Norway under grant number 303227.
Table 1
Main library in Northern Norway (L1)
| Participant number | Position | Education | Field of work | Years employed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – L1 | Librarian | Librarian | Childrens literature | 2 |
| 2 – L1 | Librarian | Librarian | Childrens literature | 23 |
| 3 – L1 | Librarian | Librarian | Digital services for adults | 3 |
| 4 – L1 | Middle manager | Librarian | Library management | 16 |
| 5 – L1 | Secretary | Non | Literature | 26 |
| 6 – L1 | Librarian | Librarian | Literature collection | 25 |
| 7 – L1 | Consultant | Anthropology | Events | 4 |
| 8 – L1 | Librarian | Librarian | Childrens literature | 15 |
| 9 – L1 | Consultant | Literature | Children and youth literature | 38 |
| 10 – L1 | Director | Librarian | Director | 2 |
Source(s): Table by author
Table 2
Main library in eastern Norway (L2)
| Participant number | Position | Education | Field of work | Years employed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – L2 | Special consultant | Humanities | Middle manager | 1 |
| 2 – L2 | Librarian | Librarian | IT and digital systems | 3 |
| 3 – L2 | Consultant | Literature | Library services | 30 |
| 4 – L2 | Director | Librarian | Director | 1 |
| 5 – L2 | Middle manager | Librarian | Programming and events | 4 |
| 6 – L2 | Librarian | Librarian | Children and youth literature | 9 |
| 7 – L2 | Consultant | Librarian | Events | 5 |
| 8 – L2 | Middle manager | Librarian | Middle manager | 1 |
| 9 – L2 | Consultant | Literature | Children and youth literature | 11 |
Source(s): Table by author
Table 3
Branch library in Oslo (L3)
| Participant number | Position | Education | Field of work | Years employed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – L3 | Special librarian | Anthropology | Sustainable library services | 2 |
| 2 – L3 | Special librarian | Literature | Events | 3 |
| 3 – L3 | Consultant | Literature | Library services | 1 |
| 4 – L3 | Director | Law | Director | 13 |
| 5 – L3 | Special librarian | Theatre | Events for children and youth | 3 |
Source(s): Table by author
Table 4
Branch library in Oslo (L4)
| Participant number | Position | Education | Field of work | Years employed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – L4 | Attendant | Librarian | Library services | 10 |
| 2 – L4 | Program manager | Art history | Events | 9 |
| 3 – L4 | Librarian | Librarian | Children and youth literature | 6 |
| 4 – L4 | Director | Management | Director | 5 |
| 5 – L4 | Program manager | Journalism | Events | 4 |
| 6 – L4 | Special librarian | Theatre, film | Events for children and youth | 1 |
Source(s): Table by author
© Emerald Publishing Limited.