There are many stories and ideas about libraries that really should have disappeared by now, but just won’t stay dead.

Time has moved on, services have been transformed, and all the evidence points to something different, but these zombie myths keep going, shaping attitudes outside – and sometimes inside – our field.

They represent a challenge for us – things we need to overcome in order to ensure that people get an accurate view of what libraries are, and what they can do.

So for Halloween – as marked in some parts of the world today – we’ve brought together a few ideas that seem hard to shift (or exorcise). This is a slightly random selection – we encourage you to share your own ideas in the comments at bottom!

Libraries are just about books

A regular issue we encounter in advocacy is that people tend to have a very narrow perspective of libraries, focused purely on books on shelves.

Typically, this is because that is the model of library that they experienced in their youth. This vision has stuck, meaning that they too easily dismiss what libraries are today. And this has an impact, leading to missed opportunities to draw on all that comes with the books – the spaces, the services, the staff – to achieve goals.

Of course, pointing out that libraries are not just about books – or even have somehow moved beyond books – is a key part of many advocacy strategies. A regular news alert for libraries typically shows up a large number of stories along these lines.

But in this, we should also be careful not to lose the connection to books, and in particular what books contain. Tommi Laitio’s blog about the library stool sets makes the argument powerfully, underlining that it’s not a question of books vs beyond books, but one of what services and activities libraries build around books.

In this way, we stay true to our original goal of helping people to realise their rights and potential through knowledge, maintain our identity as opposed to other community centres, and ensure that those users who want books still recognise themselves.

Libraries are about passive information consumption

Closely linked to the above point, another persistent cliché of libraries is that of a space where people are simply reading books. Once again, it’s not a case of denying the importance of this – reading is clearly essential for developing literacy skills, supporting learning, and also brings wellbeing benefits.

But increasingly, we need others – and in particular partners and funders – to see libraries as places where knowledge is activated, where it can turn into wider positive outcomes. We’ve already mentioned health above, but the same applies across the board.

Finding and applying new ways of working with information, such as text and data mining, is driving scientific progress. Combining information with opportunities to reflect and share can strengthen the foundations of democratic societies. Building on shared knowledge can support social cohesion and resilience.

In short, we need to ensure that in addition to the image of a library as a place for quiet reflection, it is also seen as a catalyst, a place where knowledge and information are turned into real world outcomes.

If we just regulate social media, we’ll have a healthy information environment

Stepping back from libraries alone, the next persistent idea that really should have had its day is that we can resolve all the problems in the information environment through tackling social media alone.

While it is very welcome that the UN and others are now talking about information integrity as a theme, the focus here remains very much on addressing problems associated with major digital actors.

Clearly, there are questions to address, linked in particular to business models that amplify irrelevant or harmful material, but ultimately, a healthy information environment requires far more that this. It needs a strong supply and availability of information for all, as well as a population that is skilled and curious, ready to value and look for reliable, accurate and verifiable knowledge.

These cannot be achieved simply by addressing problems when they happen in social media companies – it needs much more comprehensive policies, including support for libraries!

Neutrality is neutral

Another idea that has been around for a while is that of library neutrality. To some extent, talk of neutrality is likely to be more of an internal concern within the library field than an external one (not many politicians talk about libraries being neutral). At the same time, it was perhaps an indicator of success that the cliché of libraries was as a place where you could simply find the materials you wanted.

Of course, this was not always the case. Many groups did not – and perhaps still do not – feel that the library is a place for them. And as we’ve seen in some parts of the world, there are growing efforts to politicise libraries and their collections, attacking them for stocking books that don’t fit with individuals’ view.

In effect, this means that neither we – nor others – should see library neutrality as a simple thing. On our side, it’s about reflecting far more critically about whether our activities really are accessible and welcoming to all. This can mean a lot, from thinking about the way our buildings and services are designed to recognising that past collection practices – and even what was counted as worth including in books – were not truly neutral.

More broadly, it is about asserting that providing equitable access to information, knowledge and culture is connected to a certain set of values. There have been enough philosophies and belief systems that have not upheld this as a principle in the past, and these still exist today. In short, neutrality is not neutral.

We can do it alone

A final myth is around library self-sufficiency. Because libraries can do so much, it is all too easy to assume that we should do everything. Of course in an environment like a library conference, it is easy to look at the examples that colleagues are sharing and feel a mixture of energy and perhaps guilt about not doing more. The concept of vocational awe in librarianship has been around for a while.

It is neither the case that we need to do everything, or that we need to do it alone. While it can be awkward to ask for help or support, we need to recognise that reaching out and forming partnerships is a way of increasing our impact. We can be proud of the contributions we bring to partnerships – our skills, our spaces, our collections, our values – while celebrating how much further these can go when combined with what others can bring.

Linked to this, we need to make it a reflex that whenever we are preparing plans or strategies to address different questions, we are also making sure to check with others involved in that space. Whether it is a desire not to have to ask for things, a lack of regular contacts, or a reflex always to rely on ourselves, this ultimately risks meaning that we achieve less than we could.

 

As mentioned in the beginning, this is a slightly random set of library myths and clichés, and you will certainly have ideas for more. Do share your ideas and comments in the chat below!