Bradley W.
Moderator Pick
What About Truth?
In times of social distress—either localized or widespread—it seems librarians are so focused on service to their communities that they have trouble looking beyond whatever instrumental, technological, or administrative solutions they bring to bear on the immediate situation. For at least the last five years, librarians have been in a state of perplexing triage in the face of an epistemic crisis that has become a matter of life and death with the pandemic. This crisis has also severely exacerbated community divisions along political and cultural lines, and threatens to undermine free democracies in favor of authoritarianism around the globe. It is understandable that we have chosen to play to our strengths and throw our energy behind the creation and adoption of new services, programs, resources, tools, and approaches to combat the negative impact of misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news. This sustained intensity has left little time for the profession to look inward and evaluate some of the fundamental things that we believe to be true about our profession. One area in particular with both practical and ethical implications is the very notion of truth, or what the librarian’s role is in supporting truth(s) for a fair, equitable, and well-functioning society. We have become acutely aware of the damage that untruths that can do on a very massive level; my contention is that before we can effectively develop strategies to push outward onto our various publics, we first need to re-evaluate the ethical foundations of our profession and its institutions on where we stand on truth.
The ALA’s Code of Ethics does not expressly mention truth, although one might infer that it assumes a general adherence to principles like honesty, integrity, reliability, and objective, provable reality that traditionally inform the broad understanding of truth. However, for a statement that delineates “the values to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment,” the absence of an explicit reference to some notion of the truth is noteworthy. One may reflexively associate truth with other values in the Code that receive a full-throated endorsement like intellectual freedom, intellectual property, personal privacy, free and equitable access, workers rights, professional development, etc., and truth does not, theoretically, conflict with these. Except for when it does. Of course, the Code of Ethics hedges against itself; it is at once a statement of principles and responsibilities, but also just an optional guideline that may or may not be relevant depending on the situational context. Part of the problem is that the Code still largely adheres to the idea of professional and institutional neutrality, even if the terminology used attempts to avoid this connotation and even if for all operational intents and purposes the ALA has rejected it.
What’s interesting to me is that the last update of the Code was in early 2008, arguably the headwaters for the current wave of the infodemic. That year saw the biggest financial meltdown and initiated the deepest economic recession in generations—from which many still have not recovered—while income inequality and consolidation soared to new heights; it saw the election of the first black American to the U.S presidency, which re-ignited long-standing cultural grievances, racist backlash, and institutional mistrust; it was also banner year for social media, which is now a pervasive feature of everyday life and the most consequential form of personal communication, information consumption, and political expression. The wave built over several years and came crashing down in 2016 with the election of a con artist whose entire approach and appeal were based on open hostility to truth, or rather, anything that did not comport with he and his supporters’ version of truth. Now we’re all trying not to drown. Given how monumentally things have changed since 2008, it seems that a re-consideration of the library profession’s ethical basis is crucial, especially if we believe it is our role to contribute to a common base of information, knowledge, facts, and evidence required to sustain free, prosperous, and progressive communities.
This is not to suggest that librarians are qualified or should be responsible to set standards for universal, categorical truth (no one is, really). However, what we can do is take a close look at how truth factors into the values and principles that we claim to uphold and take a clear position on the truth(s) we will support. This has happened to some degree, but it is largely reactionary and instrumental—the profession attempting to play catch-up through information literacy, fact-checking, resource creation, and so on—which is understandable given how quickly things move. However, these efforts—the efficacy of which are questionable—cannot even begin to address the underlying social forces that create the conditions librarians are reacting to, unless and until there is a larger deliberation and ethical reckoning with the truth and what it means to our work, our institutions, and our communities. The principles and values embedded in our ethical codes offer a good place to start this deliberation and it is overdue.
(5) |
Comments (17)
Comment deleted by user.
Have you ever seen the TED talk with Sam Harris entitled, "Science can answer moral questions"? There may not be a universal truth but there are a myriad of positive peaks to be reached.
Hi Bradley, Jessie, Andrew, Randall and Maggie:
Would y'all care to take a swing at language you would like to see added to the Code of Ethics that would help librarians wage the war for truth?
I am not an expert in philosophy so please don’t judge me too harshly. I find ethics frustrating because there are so many frameworks and they sometimes contradict each other. But we all strive to be good people and good librarians, so ethics are important. Skip to the bottom to see my attempt at a statement and avoid my rambling about ethics! Also, I love constructive criticism!
In order to come to an agreement on shared truths, we need to establish what truth is. Is it observable facts? Is it socially accepted and agreed upon ideas?
It might be easier to agree on what we think misinformation is. I think people on any side of an issue could agree that misinformation has become a major social problem. I have seen charts the show a variety of types of misinformation that include satire, clickbait, and intentionally harmful lies. I believe that harm and especially intentional harm is where misinformation becomes an issue, but harm to whom? Harmful to the self, to others, groups and communities, democracy? Misinformation clearly is disruptive to a person’s ability to make decisions, but that person should also be able to decide for themselves what is misinformation.
Based on the Core Values or Librarianship, misinformation is harmful to the public good and social responsibility. Advocating for truth could fall under professionalism as we need to have the skills to educate the community and meet social needs. Fighting information requires education and lifelong learning. Misinformation is a threat to democracy. Additional values that are not in the Core Values could include equity (misinformation could cause those already marginalized to fall farther behind) and justice (truth is required for justice).
Possible value conflicts in advocating for truth and combating misinformation include access and intellectual freedom.
Thinking of importance concepts in ethics would be the common good, doing no harm or as little harm as possible, fairness and justice, mutual care and respect. We want to build society up and avoid what tears it down. I strive to be free from ignorance and hate (both of which can be driving factors in misinformation).
Although we also are ethically bound to our rights and if someone choses to be ignorant or hateful that is their right.
TL;DR – my swing at ethics language!
We are committed to truth. We strive to combat the danger of misinformation through education and reflection, to uphold our values of social responsibility, the public good, democracy and education, and we promote building up our communities and institutions by contributing to reducing ignorance and hate.
I'd just like to add that the library is for the common good, so if standing for truth puts the library at risk, through funding loss or any other repercussions, that should be considered. Communities need libraries even if they cannot do everything.
I think Jessie's response and first swing at the language are really onto something. There is no way to structure an ethical statement or proposition that can account for every possible conflict, contradiction, or interpretation, nor can such a statement reasonably claim ultimate authority over the truth. As Jessie indicates, I think the key is linking truth to professional values and principles that we cannot ethically disentangle from like justice, fairness, and a commitment to do no harm (among others). There is a supplementary section of the Code that specifically deals with ethics and social media, but this reads almost like a risk management policy and, again, has no moorings in this question of truth and untruth. In any case, I don't know if the best procedure for this is to start with a declarative statement then work backwards; to me it makes more sense to have a broader discussion (like what's going on here) and then winnow down the ideas and theoretical frameworks that seem most relevant and workable for the LIS field. I don't believe that librarians should be the ultimate arbiters of the truth, nor do I think most would want to have that impossible responsibility; but I do think they potentially have a significant role in helping people find a way to the truth through means that are ethically consistent, defensible, and allow for differences, even skepticism. Maybe we begin by talking about what is at stake and what is not acceptable in light of the current crisis and what we hope for the future. I think Jessie's statement offers a wonderful first step in starting to unpack all of this.
Here's a (rough) attempt:
We presume that lifelong learning implies a willingness to grow and change. We affirm the value of adjusting opinions, behavior, and even long-held beliefs in the face of new evidence. We promote and model information searches that remain rooted in logic, science, facts, and reality, even when our findings conflict with our preconceived hopes and expectations. We seek diverse perspectives, but we do not endorse disinformation or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. We look for opportunities to teach effective and ethical means of evaluating and using information.
Maggie, that is an excellent statement. Your inclusion of logic, science, facts, and reality provides a great definition for truth. And you included the concept of teaching information literacy. I love it!
I agree the Code of Ethics could be re-evaluated. It does not provide much guidance for the issue of misinformation.
I don't think anybody could have anticipated just how out of hand it has gotten. And it is doubtful mis/disinformation, propaganda, conspiracy theories, etc., will recede much given the tremendous social pressures the world is experiencing all at once.
I'm pleased to see your posting on this. Yes, I was just discussing with a colleague how the ALA Code of Ethics don't help us when it comes to the online world where librarians are publishers. I would add that the code failed us when it came to untruths. Do we include fake diets in our collection? How should libraries deal with James Frey's "memoir"? How about more serious issues like Holocaust denial writing?
(I am now imagining how libraries will respond if Trump releases a book repeating the lie about the stolen election). Libraries would certainly need to stock it for our users, but I wonder how we can deal with it.
I think librarianship in many ways is stuck in a situation set up for us by Melvil Dewey when he claimed that librarians don't need to be experts, but rather should rely on other specialists to determine what is appropriate for our collections. I think librarianship should stretch ourselves as a profession and help come up with an ability to determine what is disinformation at least. Our code of ethics calls for us to resist labeling, but if we serve the public I think we need to at least be ready to label blatant misinformation.
In any case, I agree that librarians need a deeper knowledge set and ethical code that can help us come up with an appropriate professional response that can contribute to democratic engagement and citizenship.
I agree with all that you are saying. I think a big part of the problem is that the concept of the truth has been so roundly politicized in recent years, the worst possible outcome of postmodern skepticism seeping out of the academy and into the mainstream. It shouldn't be controversial for a library to, for example, have a policy to not carry materials that a blatantly, provably false or to label items they do carry as such. But unfortunately librarians kneecap themselves by refusing to make such judgments and take any action, mostly because they are afraid of public backlash. It's understandable. But being able to fall back on a system of fuzzy situational ethics doesn't help either.
Agreed. After spending a considerable amount of my career teaching information literacy and evaluation, the past five years have been incredibly disheartening and makes one wonder if time was just wasted. But I'm too stubborn to give up.
The nonsense that people will believe is reality is astounding. Again, it seems to be the connection of facts to emotion that causes people to lose contact with any reality I understand. But no, nobody that believes drinking bleach will cure Covid should be in office.
These are all important points. I am a middle school librarian. For me, getting students to confront disinformation is less about the specific tools we teach for evaluating information (not that those don't have value) and more about learning the value of asking questions . . . especially, ultimately, asking questions about their own ideologies. Young people need time and opportunities to examine the underlying reasons why they believe or think certain "facts" are "true."
It's so difficult to impart a sense of discretion and critical thinking to children without veering into cynicism. I think about my kids' use of social media (which is pretty limited) and I struggle with both wanting to protect them and wanting to give them room to figure out things for themselves. It can lead to some weird conversations (haha), but it really shows me that this is now just a part of growing up and this type of discernment--which I never could have dreamed of at their age--is now a necessary life skill for young people. And I think it is at this stage that librarians can have a considerable impression, both on kids and parents.
I completely agree, Bradley. Applying truth to a code of ethics will be difficult, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
This is not meant to be a criticism, but I am reminded that this is a 2000 year question that goes back to that ancient Roman cynic, Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?"
Randall--It is an intractable proposition and, I think, made more difficult by the diminished role of traditional institutions (like libraries) as cognitive authorities and cultural gatekeepers. Not saying I want to try to revisit a long lost time of consensus-based, structurally-imposed reality that excluded and marginalized many people; I would just like to live in a world where those who believe that a satanic cult of pedophile cannibals secretly run things have more trouble getting elected to Congress. I'm not sure how or if librarians might help facilitate this, but I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.