Dee Garrison describes the period between the early 1890s to the World War I as progressive years for American libraries. This period saw a change in the uses of the public library to a community center, a place for community activites or "library extension" work, and as a place for children. What makes the change to encouraging the patronage of children so interesting is the fact that "as late as 1893 children under the age of twelve were barred from almost half the large public libraries in the nation" (Garrison, 207). Children's reading rooms became very popular quite quickly, however, and Garrison sees this as an extension of the image of the librarian as a nurturing, maternal figure. The early years of welcoming children into the library were not easy, however, as librarians struggled to both mold and discipline their charges. The fact that librarians had to act as educators, disciplinarians, and as moral leaders really ties into the argument of an elitist class working in the librarians. I find myself more sympathetic to the tendencies of these librarians to censor the reading materials and steer children towards 'wanting to read what we want them to read' because the librarians were indeed working with children and often trying to protect them. As ridiculous as it might seem that historically adults were worried about reading material corrupting youth, its an idea that exists today and is still quite strong. Is is really possible to protect people from corrupting literature? And how did librarians historically draw the line between classical readings that had both violent and sexual themes and more 'modern' literature that feautured disobedient children?
The final chapter of Garrison's book discusses the decline of librarianship as a career. Garrison talks about the discouraging factors of the profession as not only low paying, but also as a way station on the way to marriage. Could being a librarian really be called a career if most librarians were women (who were not thought of as having careers) and the fact that one was expected to leave one's job after marriage, therefore dramatically shortening one's career? The issue of marriage is also very interesting because Garrison noted that a few libraries demanded a woman to resign after her marriage. This slowly began to change after World War II as librarians sometimes decided to work even if they were, in fact, married.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is funny to think of the Victorians expecting librarians to protect children from scandalous dime novels when such reading material was readily available at newstands, drug stores, train stations, and of course book shops. Of course, some parents still object to scandalous books in libraries today, even though their kids could see worse on television any night of the week.
If, as Garrison argues, the early American librarian was supposed to be a genteel, civilizing, and traditionally feminine influence on her lowly patrons, I suppose shielding children from immoral fiction might be fairly considered a part of her job. But that's not the kind of librarian most patrons want today, and it's certainly not the kind of librarian that contemporary librarians want to be! If parents insist upon controlling their children's reading material they should do it themselves and not expect librarians to enforce their rules for them.
Post a Comment