When America’s top librarian is asked “are libraries political?” there are two legitimate answers. Not because it’s a yes or no question, but because yes and no are both correct.
Because there are very different meanings of political.
Non-political
Libraries, like many other institutions in our public life are required to be non-political. Which, more precisely, means non-partisan. They don’t put their thumb on the political scale between political parties.
Another way to speak to this sense of non-partisanship is the intentional creation of free space for a variety of political viewpoints. This is why a library can offer a debate between candidates, but is less likely to offer it if one side doesn’t plan to show up.
Political
At the same time, everything is political. Taking stands in public life is a political act. And when one threatens your very existence in the world, showing up in the world is a political act.
Choosing to be of service to the community is a political act. So is making materials accessible to everybody. Being open. Creating space. All of this is political.
Something we’ve agreed upon
In a very real sense, what we are actually trying to say when we say something is non-political is that it is something upon which we agree. We agree to have an institution in our public life and its credo is openness to the public.
This is a political act we’ve all agreed is the best one. We commit to openness, fairness, and generosity. And that there must be at least one place in our community where there is no cost for entry. Everyone gets to share.
So yes, it is political. The best kind of political.
And also, because we agreed on it, we can say it’s not political because there’s nothing to debate.
Realpolitik
Of course, what makes the question of “political” go is not actually whether libraries are political. We agree they aren’t or we agree that everything is, depending on our meaning of the word. It is the idea that people can choose to make it political.
The concept of agreement and healthy debate are at the root of our common understanding of politics. It is why, when something becomes a hot-button issue, we say it has become political. It always was political, of course, by definition. But in public consciousness, the debate itself is what drives its politicalness.
This means that “political” can be manufactured.
The most obvious example of this is in the climate change “debate” in which 97% of scientists acknowledge its reality and humanity’s role in it. There really is no debate. In the real world, acknowledging climate change isn’t political.
But trying to say there is no climate change is.
In the real world way, libraries aren’t political. But forcing them to ban books is. Defunding them is. Rejecting the social compact is.
Supporting the agreed upon standard is not the true political position. Rejecting it is.
Binary or non-binary?
It is easy to see why we cling to words like “controversial” or “debatable”. They remind us that some people take an oppositional stance. And we want to appear non-partisan.
But we’re operating with different views of the word. And that is by design.
In preserving the agreed upon political orientation, we are projecting a capacity for debate and for opportunity. We actually welcome conversation as long as it remains fair and open to the public.
Critics often use that same real world definition, but then shift toward the textbook definition to project a binary. Not for whether they are political or not, but for which side in a binary debate.
In critiquing the non-political political posture of an institution, they can claim they represent “a side” and that, in supporting the consensus, the other represents “the other side”. They then can apply binary partisanship to this binary frame.
To some, everything is left or right. Period.
Neither view of politics supports this move, however. Because it is intellectually dishonest. And it is manipulative. It moves the goal posts and doesn’t seek a common understanding, but wills its own.
And while there is no real debate about climate change, there is the one-sided intention of creating debate. And a second-sided acceptance that in so creating a debate, it has become political. The lack of scientific debate remains. And the public agrees. Making it political primarily with politicians.
Accepting politics, not partisanship
Another option, of course, is to dispense with the realpolitik altogether and accept the simpler definition: that everything is political.
So libraries are political. But so are book challenges. And in attempting to remain non-political, libraries compromise their core values of openness and integrity.
That’s how a book challenge gains steam. Because it threatens the values of the library and the non-political posture. Even as they represent the tiniest minority in the community (one person can challenge and succeed), the library feels outsized pressure. This happens, even as three out of four people oppose book banning.
That right there is a political project. And represents an intentional disruption of the community. A situation few support.
We support a political project of openness. Of a place where anyone can find a book for them. Regardless of their political persuasions.
That is political. And it is the position that vast majorities of every cross section of the population support.
We reject book banning and defunding. These are deeply unpopular political positions.
We need libraries. And we need to fight for them. And fight for more for them.