Cult Of 2.0

Cult Of 2.0:
Confession: I have my own religious mental picture of librarians and libraries and the primary symbol has always been the monk and the monastery. People driven by and dedicated to structure and fundamentals. That’s not all a library is but in truth I believe the majority of what constitutes a library is fundamentals, basic rules that guide our actions on a day to day basis. We’re a tool for visionaries, not the visionaries themselves.

I find this to be very problematic. Perhaps I’m an optimist and just think that everyone is a visionary, if they want to be and find a way to be, they can be a visionary. Everyone can contribute and lead elements of the field forward.

There are structures and fundamentals, this is true, but libraries are not monks and monastaries or the homes of servants, they are places that serve the community and there is no better way to serve than to provide leadership and direction in the service of those communities, their informational needs, their cultural needs, and their social needs. The guide is to serve, but not to be be servile.

0 comments on “Cult Of 2.0

  1. I don’t think that the profession has to be servile, but I do see the connection to the religious/spiritual connotation.

    A really good book on the topic is Nancy Maxwell’s Sacred Stacks. She makes two observations linking Libraries to religions institutions.

    The first is the idea that the library is a sacred secular space. Outside of any religion, it has the ability to take us to places beyond ourselves, and that includes through the Internet and in books. A gateway to something greater.

    And the second is that it is this public personal space, where people go to read alone with others. The idea that we are perfectly capable reading at home, but we would rather be doing it with others, but also alone. Much like prayer.

    I am not religious, but I highly recommend the books.

  2. Greg says:

    I agree that we can be visionaries but it is as you say to “lead elements of the field forward.” I would argue that Cult of 2.0 doesn’t want to be limited to or by any one field. That’s why the emphasis on the social in social software.

  3. jeremy says:

    I agree, social software is expansionist, but there is no problem with that, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavors should be implemented in information and library science. There isn’t any real issue with the ‘social’ either, as the library is inherently social, both in its participants and in its funding.

  4. Greg says:

    “interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavors should be implemented in information and library science”


  5. jeremy says:

    translation is that while library science might have a few core skills that it tends to claim as its own, those should not be barriers to integrating material from other disciplines or across other disciplines. in fact, as i look across library science programs these days, frequently the courses originating from other disciplines are equal in number to those in the core areas. social media exists transdisciplinarily which means it cuts across many disciplines and no single discipline can capture its whole meaning or possibilities of use. in libraries, such as library 2.0, it is usually the application of web 2.0 technologies in a reimagination of library information technology, in support of the community of users that constitute the library. But to really do that, we need more research, and less application, the sort of research that in museum’s led to the new museums movement, and most of that research is not originating in library science and information science, so we need to integrate those knowledges, without overly privileging the library in order to perhaps build something that is useful to library users. so basically i’m saying that social software/social media is not just about libraries, but other than ‘librarians’ there doesn’t seem to be much that is just about libraries, and even then they are changing to be more interdisciplinary. Library 2.0 and its resistors is less of an us vs them than an us with us. blah blah blah, i’m rambling a bit much and not composing enough, i know. …