At the risk of sounding rather negative, even petty (or worse), I’ve noticed an awful lot of the inner circle syndrome in library blogland lately. It seems to be getting more and more obvious, but perhaps not to those who might be deemed part of that inner circle. Some time ago I commented about Walt Crawford’s (of Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large and Walt at Random fame, among others) use of the phrase, “the great echo chamber.” My comments here are pretty much in the same vein.

My main beef or criticism is that there seems to be — or there is at least the appearance of — an elite clique of library bloggers out there, all of whom know each other, give presentations at a bazillion different conferences together (how on earth they have the time or money, either personally or from their organization of employment, to go to so many so often, I don’t know), constantly make reference to each other’s postings, often echo what each other is saying, and on and on. One current focus of their attention is something referred to as “Library 2.0.” What the heck that means is still up for debate, although I gather it is in some sense a response to the whole “Web 2.0″ mantra that is currently being discussed in the broader info. tech. environment. The way in which this term or phrase is discussed is what bothers me, more than what I can understand of the meaning of it. In other words, I am all for the so-called “two-way communication” evolution in the broader web environment that is being fostered by blogs, wikis, tagging, and other technologies. But I am cautious about the way Library 2.0 is pitched or hailed as a “movement” or “rallying cry” as many seem to do, seemingly without critical evaluation or assessment. There is also an inherent meaning to the term that anything pre-Library 2.0 is passe, old, even perhaps retrograde, and I object to that. Unlike some who have commented on this phenomenon, I am a relatively young librarian. Also, unlike many who espouse this new approach or philosophy, I have spent a considerable amount of time in both worlds, the traditional library, and the information science/technology realm.

There is an air about this discussion that bothers me that somewhat encapsulated by Roy Tennant in his most recent Digital Libraries column in Library Journal, where he writes about lessons learned in his career thus far. One of those lessons is “Don’t let the past be your guide.” He wasn’t writing about Library 2.0 at all but this lesson is one that I think too many proponents of Library 2.0 are practicing. Forget what we did before, because that landed us in the mess we are now in. Embrace the new stuff wholeheartedly. These words are my interpretation of what Roy wrote. (I really like most of his article and also I am in general agreement on his perspectives about the state of libraries.) I am concerned about the idea of forgetting what is past. Why? Here are some reasons:

• With my academic background in the study of history, I happen to agree with the old adage that says something to the effect that forgetting the past leads to repeating it. I wonder, e.g., if all the flurry and hype about tagging and folksonomies and the like will lead us to reinventing or covering the same ground that we have covered for over 100 years in developing a code of cataloging standards and practice.
• I vehemently disagree that there is nothing to learn from the past because as the book of Ecclesiastes famously says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The terms, the technologies, the attitudes may change, but there are, I believe, several overarching principles and theories of librarianship that we need to remember now more than ever. There may be new principles to develop or flesh out, I don’t deny that. But they must co-exist with longer term principles. Articulating what I think those longer-term or historical principles are is something I’ll try to get to in a future post.
• The “past” is still present and will continue to be with us for a long time. If we don’t understand past practices, we are being shortsighted and ineffective. Just one example of this is in cataloging, where most catalogs still have older records in them that were created under earlier codes. Also, the “past” in terms of print or traditional library material will coexist with the supposedly all digital future for a very long time. I am excited about, actively engaged in, and fairly proficient with the new digital library stuff, but I think it is silly (and detrimental) to ditch the traditional library stuff from our minds and considerations as if it was a millstone around our neck. (Granted, it sometimes feels that way.)

I’ve rambled on quite a ways from my original complaint, which is that there is too much in breeding of ideas and thought among some library bloggers. I think this tendency, whether real or perceived, may tend to freeze out or exclude disparate voices. I hope not. What I advocate is balance, if that’s possible. Sure, blogging is great but beware of the tone used, beware of always using first names when referring to others (I have been guilty of this, too), beware of only paying attention to those who are popular or controversial. Beware of overhyping anything new (guilty).

I sat for a minute before posting this and suddenly realized that this post is somewhat ironic since I have often been accused of being an overly eager purveyor of new things, new technologies, new ways of doing things. Maybe it’s a sign of old age. Maybe I’m finally growing up. Maybe it’s just late on a Friday afternoon.