7.1 Introduction

In this chapter I summarize the views of the reviewers of the literature in the philosophy of librarianship and discuss their major themes. I also review different ap proaches to the definition of knowledge by sampling models developed by the writers in the field, each representing a different world hypothesis. A table in the appendix list all authors covered by each reviewer.

7.2: Reviewers of literature in philosophy of librarianship.

7.2.1 Patricia Peirce, A Study of the Philosophy of Librarianship, 1930-1950 (1951).
This master's degree thesis is probably the first chronol ogical compilation of writings on philosophy of librarianship, covering essays published in English between 1930 and 1950. Written in a form of a paragraph bibliography, the study focuses on the institution of the library rather than on the field of librarianship, interpreting library philosophy in terms of library goals rather than the theories or models of librarianship. One reason for this approach is of course a lack, at that time, of a well-developed philosophy of librarianship. Peirce arran ged the contributions of the thirty-seven authors published in the period between 1925 and 1950 in four chronological chapters. As she pointed out, "prior to 1930 the subject received little attention from the writers in the field."1

The main focus of the study is on the U.S. public library, considered as a social agency dedicated primarily to the welfare of an individual by facilitating the patron's education through reading. The emphasis is on the book as a tool, however, not o n its content.

Commenting on a lack of a well-developed philosophy of librarianship, the author stresses constant change in library functions and scope, suggesting that the change itself, in Bergson's sense, may be the only enduring library philosophical principle.2

The lack of a philosophy of librarianship is explained by the lack of interest in the theory (Butler, 1933), caused by a pragmatic orientation of librarians (Joeckel, 1932). The argument for a philosophy is pr ompted by a desire for professional status (Berthold, 1933) and for clarification of the uncertain scope and purposes of librarianship (Wheeler, 1946).

Peirce comments that the essays reviewed by her create an impression of a search for respectability by expressing a need of belonging, by glorifying the function of selection and custodianship of library material, and by linking librarianship with education as a better established profession.

This rationale is reflected in confusing, or fu sing the library's objectives with its attributes, as if to say that, since the chair is to sit on, the function of a chair's dealer is to promote sitting activities.

7.2.2 McMullen, Haynes: Research in Backgrounds in Librarianship (1957).

This brief review summarizes the views of the critics of the philosophy of librarianship who argue that each library reflects merely a philosophy of the community it serves; or that library philosophy itself should be merely a refle ction of commonly acceptable general philosophy. Many writers in the philosophy of librarianship agree with the above limitations but claim that some philosophical principles can be developed from the basic ideas of librarianship. Thus, for example, Ranganathan's five laws of library science (1931) offered guides for library operations; Broadfield (1949) argued for the library primary function of preserving individual patrons' right to freedom in selecting reading material; Irwin (1949) considered bibliogra phical knowledge and technique as the essence of librarianship; Butler (1933, 1944, 1952) focused on library responsibility for the preservation of scholarship; while Madden (1951 a-d) aimed at reconciliation between library responsibilities to the society and individual.

The discussions of library relationships to society and government, represented by the two works listed by McMullen, are Garceau's (1949) study of American public libraries' relations to local government and the U.S. Office of Education (1956) report on the status of state library agencies. McMullen notes that philosophy of librarianship cannot be considered research in a narrow sense, if it is defined as an inductive process, but could be considered a research in a broad sense as a study that "carefully considers the validity of data and reaches conclusions through the application of reason."3 The author also noted a lack of any theoretical justification for the belief, popular in United States, in the l ibrary's responsibility for serving democratic goals of the society.

Among other contributors to what McMullen calls a library background are McColvin (1956), Ditzion (1947), Shera (1949), Thompson (1952), and Vleeschauwer (1955). All their essays are reviewed for their contribution to the library history, rather than to its philosophy.

7.2.3 Mukherjee, A. K. Librarianship; Its Philosophy and History (1966). The author relies heavily on quotes from other writers, selectiv ely summarizing their views as they relate primarily to the social and ethical aspects of librarianship, considered in a historical context.4 He emphasizes two aspects of librarianship: the pragmatism of library performance, and the library's social heritage. As one of the oldest social institutions, the library closely parallels its society's emerging culture in terms of its viewpoint.

Philosophy of librarianship is considered a core of the discipline, necessary for understa nding any library activities. Mukherjee maintains that although it is elusive, its value is in providing a systematic body of general concepts which validate library processes and clarify its purposes.

Mukherjee lists the following assumptions as the bases for philosophy of librarianship.
(a) The discipline is based on social process bound with the life of community.
(b) Library's social role is to educate, inform, and entertain; it provides tools for needed information and knowled ge.
(c) It contributes to the development of new ideas by stressing the reading habit and by means of patrons' and librarians' sensitivity to group interests and community values.
(d) Librarianship is defined in terms of its purposes, goals, and relationships to other disciplines.

Among the purposes of the library, especially the public library, the author lists the provision of material for the informational, recreational, and self-developmental needs of an individual patron.

Ethical issues are reviewed in terms of the objectives of specific types of libraries. Mukherjee developed a long list of items which describe an ideal librarian as a model to be followed. The list is based on belief in the value of librarians as keepers of books, selected for the furtherance of learning. The responsibilities of librarians include promotion of society's culture, professional neutrality, opposition to dogmatism and to the mediocrity of mass culture, and support of six basic freedoms: of thought, of speech, of press, of dissemination of knowledge, of instruction, and of freedom to study. Dedication to service is reflected in considering each reader as an independent individual, free to pursue his or her own interest.

Operational aspects of philosophy of librarianship are discussed in terms of Ranganathan's (1963) five laws5 and Broadfield's (1949) justification of library techniques in terms of their value to the patron. Selection of reading material is defined as a rejection of inappropriate books. Classification is designed in terms of its value to reference, cataloging is viewed as a finding device, and open stacks are seen as providers of free access to collections. Makhurjee favors centralized processing and decentralized services. The library should be perceived as one big reference institution, combining the scholarly background of the librarian with his or her technical proficiency and broad humanism.

A trend is foreseen toward: a growth of n ationalism and democratization, increased access to collections, fast-expanding technology of processing through automation, improved education for librarianship, and emergence of comparative librarianship. The author identifies but does not discuss the possible resolutions of some philosophical issues created by the divisions within the discipline: among librarianship, library science, and the art of librarianship. The most frequently cited authors are Broadfield, Nitecki, Foskett, Danton, Irwin and Ranganathan. Among major omissions are lack of references to the essays of Shera and Wright. Foskett (1967) criticized Mukherjee's study for its over- dependence on secondary sources and for many factual errors in his historical analyses.

7.2.4 Downs, Myrna W., The Emergence of a Philosophy of Librarianship in the United States (1969).

In this master thesis, Downs sketched the historical background for the emergence of philosophy of librarianship in the United States. She point ed out that the need for this philosophy is a recent development, paralleling an emergence of a post-revolutionary public library and of the market system. "A correlation exists between economics and libraries, between the market system, the profit motive, and the growth of libraries," all requiring "a philosophy, a principle, a raison d'etre to guide its continuing growth and complexity."6

From ancient civilization to modern times societies were governed authoritatively, person al wealth was discouraged, and the concepts of land, labor, and capital were not yet developed. This situation changed with the emergence of nationalism and Protestant ethics in Europe, encouraging learning, individualism, acquisition of wealth, self-reliance, the emergence of the public library, and reading. Downs concluded that the philosophy of librarianship began in the nineteenth century, preceded by isolated philosophical contributions of Naude, Schrettinger, and Ebert.

Following librar y conferences of 1853 and 1876, the American Library Association was founded, and new "philosophical principles of innovation, service, entertainment . . . adult education . . . [and] an extremely significant principle . . . [of] 'know your community'' were introduced.7 'Know your community' made the library responsible for serving a variety of publics and public goals. Downs listed as major contributors to the philosophy of librarianship Green, Dewey, Butler, and Shera. In the abstra ct to the report her adviser, R. Krzys, added Wyer, Broadfield, Ranganathan, Irwin, Butler, Carnovsky, Haines, and Asheim. He noted that these contributions, although "worthy of adherence . . . , were never formally adopted by all the individual members of the profession."8 The ALA's 'Bill of Rights (1939) and the 'Freedom to Read' statements of 1953 marked the beginning of philosophical awareness by the library profession.9 The opening of the first library schoo l (1884) led to the acceptance of librarianship as an academic discipline, composed of several specializations, each developing its own philosophical principles.

7.2.5 McCrimmon, Barbara, American Library Philosophy (1975).

McCrimmon, in her review of selected American essays in the philosophy of librarianship, pointed out the 'unity in the diversity' of the viewpoints expressed in them. Different librarians formulated a similar message with different surface accent. The consensu s among the writers includes a notion of the importance of a library in American culture and an encouragement of reading for good citizenship, pleasure, and knowledge. The library is a part of a social structure serving different individual patron and group interests. Its overall purpose is to conserve and make available records of mankind, to stimulate a desire for searching new meanings, and to tolerate different viewpoints.

Philosophy of librarianship is a part of a societal communication netwo rk, storing and disseminating world knowledge. McCrimmon classified discussions on philosophy of librarianship into three periods: In the nineteenth century the library was perceived as an extension of public education by Dewey (1897), Dana (1906), and Foss (1909); and the librarian was seen as a bookman by Bostwick (1907), Putnam (1915), and Richardson (1927). In the period between 1930 and the 1940s two trends were predominant: a new, sociological approach to the study of librarianship represented by Dan ton (1934), Martin (1937), and Goldhor (1942), and continuing focus of bibliophiles on book content and its impact on an individual reader, expressed in the essays of Sayers (1950), Haines (1950), Butler (1953), and Powell (1954). In the decade of the 1960s a variety of issues were emphasized: Shera (1961) discussed the impact of electronics on the field; Nitecki (1964) developed a philosophical approach; the traditional, humanistic viewpoint was elaborated by Marco (1966); Harlow took the scientific approa ch (1969); and an idealistic respect for graphic expression of knowledge was promoted by Shores (1971) and MacLeish (1972).

The important characteristics of a good librarian, according to McCrimmon, include knowledge of books, professional motivation, and interest in individual patrons' needs. The emerging themes of the philosophy of librarianship include: (a) library operational objectives, purposes, and use, (b) aims and objectives of librarianship, (c) professional consciousness, (d) theore tical foundation based, in United States librarianship, on faith in democracy, appreciation of the power of education, and dedication to the general welfare.

The theoretical foundations of librarianship were discussed either (a) in terms of responsibility for businesslike provision of useful reading material for information or entertainment, or (b) in terms of book content, offering assistance in personal development of individual patrons through reading. The differences between the two views wer e noted: the former leans toward 'mass culture' and the latter concentrates on individual patrons. Both are sociological approaches. Library environment is conditioned by cultural, political, and economic factors with two primary responsibilities in democracy: to guarantee individual freedom and to fulfill its social responsibility.

7.2.6 Foster, Marie. Philosophy of Librarianship (1979).

Foster provided a succinct summary of major philosophical writings. Irwin considered th e philosophy and the definition of librarianship as one and the same statement of aims and relationships with other disciplines. Christ identified library philosophy and its functions as synonymous. Butler (1933) viewed it in the context of society. Broadfield's (1949) first priority was service to the individual. To Foskett, the librarian should be the patrons' alter ego. Shera (1973) incorporated the other views in his socio-epistemological philosophy of librarianship. Kolitsch (1945) recognized the impac t of the society's political philosophy on the philosophy of librarianship. Burke (1947) argued for Christian democracy. A broader approach to the definition of library philosophy was represented by Houle's educational, research, and recreational priorities (1946). Shores (1971) stressed the notion of generic book, and Thompson (1974) the concept of library power. Rao (1961) and Nitecki (1964) took the categorical approach. The former identified four modes: actional, organismic, naturalistic, and and refle xive, the latter described the procedural, contextual, and conceptual dimensions of librarianship. Bekker (1976) distinguished between three usages of library philosophy: as a frame of reference, as a purpose-defined function, and as a statement of occupational ideals.

The author developed a survey of students and faculty in two Canadian library schools to determine the philosophical influence of the faculty on library students. She concluded that while the philosophy of librarianship exists, its different interpretations are accepted for different reasons, with little if any influence of educators on individual students' own philosophy. In general, the personal philosophy of the individual determines their choice of a philosophy of librarianship.

Foster outlines four philosophical models in librarianship: (a) custodial, focusing on intrinsic worth and conservation of library material, (b) humanitarian, stressing contributions of library collections to knowledge, (c) mediating, relating a library to the development of its patrons, and (d) promotional, describing a library as a community service. 10

7.2.7 Whitehead, J. M. Logos of Library and Information Science: Apperceptions on the Institutes of Bibematics with Commentaries on the General Humanistic Method and the Common Philosophy (1980).

This doctoral dissertation is concerned with the development of a philosophy and methodology for library and information science. The author complains that there are no universally accepted philosophy of librarianship, no philosophical building blocks, and no methodology that could be used to develop such philosophy.

The book discusses the philosophical background in three parts: the colonial period, up to 1933, the classical period, between 1933 and 1940, and the modern period, from 1940 to 1980. In the early part of the colonial period, until 1850, the role of the librarian was performed to a large extent by students dedicated to intellectual se lf-improvement. In the second part of that period, between 1850 and 1933, librarian's role changed to that of a teacher, with a simultaneous emergence of the public library movement. In the classical period, Butler (1933) represented a sociological school of thought which viewed a librarian as a scientist, sociologist, psychologist, and historian. Shera (1972, 1973, 1976), Taube (1961), and Daily (1957, 1972) based their writings on a humanistic notion that thoughts precede the service itself in a service oriented philosophy.

The modern period of library philosophy is subdivided into five distinct phases, each characterized by different types of librarians focusing on different aspect of librarianship.
(1) The political approach concentrated on the issues of democracy (McLeish, 1940).
(2) Language issues and linguistic methodology were expressed in the philosophy of classification (1945-1960).
(3) Applied mathematics and the concept of irrelevance of meaning were introduced in information theory (Shannon and Weaver, 1964).
(4) This phase was extended to librarianship by the mathematician -librarian Ranganathan and his five laws of library service (1960-70).
(5) The last phase marked the beginning of philosophical writings.

Whitehead singled out Broadfield (1949), Mukherjee (1966), Butler (1933), Ranganathan (1957, 1967), and Shera (1972, 1973, 1976) as major writers in the philosophy of librarianship. He also identified philosophical influences on librar y classification systems -- e.g., Francis Bacon's influence on Melvil Dewey, and Comte's classification on Richardson, Sayers, and Ranganathan.

According to Whitehead, philosophy of library and information science cannot be defined. It can be found only by doing philosophy. The theory of librarianship goes back to (a) Greek dualism, which distinguished between mind and matter, idealism and materialism, (b) the dialectics of Plato, introducing the question-and-answer methodology, and (c) Hegel's dialectics of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Any idea develops into a philosophy by means of common notions. Form and substance interact, producing laws. Functions such as cataloging or reference are forms operating on the substance of library and information science activities, while functional divisions produce functional organization of a library into departments.

In the dichotomy between empiricism and rationalism the author focuses on relative pragmaticism, a rational equ ivalent of logical positivism. Whitehead's methodology is derived from the technique of oral history, similar to the Delphi method but with added feedback, called by him a 'humanistic method'. That approach, instead of aiming at the consensus, attempts to strengthen individual authors' concept of library sine qua non. In this respect, it is similar to Socratic dialogue's philosophical induction.

Whitehead maintains that all knowledge is basically an error. He argues that the closer knowle dge is to truth, the longer its errors last, since it is more difficult to apperceive errors in a complex theory of knowledge. His philosophical logos of librarianship distinguishes between two kinds of philosophical trends: (1) from empirical to rational; (2) and its reverse, from rational to empirical.

Whitehead presents his review of philosophical issues in a form of a dialogue. He describes the dialogue as mythological, with no direct reference to the published works of the authors particip ating in it. In this dialogue, Ortega y Gasset (1961) argues for purity of information as means for screening undesirable books. He is criticized for defending the form of material (book) at the expense of the institutional function, to preserve the materials and make them available when needed. Trezza favors equal opportunity of access to all libraries by anyone who wants it. He is criticized for his assumption that the user always knows what he wants. Licklider focuses on scientific pr ocedure to organize and make material available. To him, the substance does not matter. Lorenz stresses the importance of the informal education offered by the library. Daily (1957) sees the importance of a library not in ethics but in science and professionalism. Debons (1974) maintains that the logistics of managing the information is of more concern to a librarian than the users' needs. Kent (1974, 1976) concentrates on methodology in search of solutions of 'unsolvables' by means of a study of losses and gains in the process of information transfer. Shera argues for optimization of the utility of graphic records for the benefit of the individual and, through him, of the society.

Whitehead is not fully satisfied with the method used because it resulted in skipping many steps in the dialogue. He ends his dissertation with a plea for a philosophy of librarianship. Attachments to his book include Shera's interpretation of what he calls a library's sine qua non: the no tion that books as depositories of experiences are of critical importance to the substance of librarianship. The library represents a form of unstructured learning, with the individual being free to select what he wants; the purpose of education is to instill in people the desire to know. Of particular interest is Shera's comment that we think in terms of relations because that is the way our brain works.12

7.2.8 Rogers, A. Robert and K. McChesney. The Library in Society (1984).

In his chapter "An Introduction to Philosophies of Librarianship" Rogers discusses in some detail essays of Ranganathan (1931, 1951), Shera (1953, 1961, 1961a, 1972), Butler (1933), Dewey, (1898) Nitecki (1964, 1979, 1981), Danton (1934), and Ortega (1961). From these reviews his own concept of the philosophy of librarianship emerges.

The library as an agency of communication includes both holistic and historical functions. However, it lacks advocacy and at times is taken over by aggressive factions of society to serve their purposes. It is a product, not a base, of a society, and therefore it is subject to change in its function and purposes. Modern librarianship began at the eve of the industrial revolution, switching from 'I-awareness' to 'we-awareness.' Development of libraries is directly related to the level of a country's socio-economic status. Its dynamism depends on the librarians' reactions to societal changes and the way they address the conflict between th e needs of individual patrons compared with those of the society.

The library role in education varies. Its goals to provide services to the government and to satisfy needs of individual and group interests are interpreted differently in different political systems, as illustrated by the old Soviet and American approaches. In many societies, the public library emerged to meet the needs of democracy or other political systems; it was always dedicated to education of citizens in the prevailing pol itical doctrine.

Rogers points to a noticeable recent shift from the rational and individualistic philosophy to a collective philosophy of the society, from individual to group consciousness. Contemporary aspects of the philosophy of librarianship are characterized by a focus on self-education in the nineteenth century and on social advocacy in the twentieth century. Library resources are now marketed as if they were any other commodity. In the nineteenth century the main goal was an accul turation and assimilation of new emigrants and their Americanization; in the present century it is preservation of a minority's cultural identity.

The dissemination of library material must be continuous in order to be effective. The library is an intellectual node for the interdependence of its members. The ideology of service can be viewed: (a) horizontally, as different kinds of libraries serving different populations; (b) vertically, as the same library serving different individuals with diff erent backgrounds and needs. The library itself does not have a purposeful mission; it interprets the mission assigned to it by its own society.13

Understanding past relationships between library and society helps in developing the philosophy of the profession. Although social conditions and technology changed in the last five thousand years, the essential mission of the library -- to serve as intermediary between persons seeking access to ideas and their records in library collecti ons -- remained the same.

Contemporary philosophy of librarianship started in the 1960s with the contributions of Kaplan (1964), Nitecki (1964), H. C. Wright (1976, 1978), and Yngve (1981). Rogers enumerates some of its tenants by summarizing the positions of the above pioneers on a variety of topics. Information is defined as a resource that is renewable, potentially eternal (indestructible), and unique. Library structure is considered as a component of social structure. Library functio nalism is described in terms of society as a cause (independent variable) and a library as its effect (dependent variable).

The purposes of librarianship are: (a) to provide a theoretical and conceptual framework, (b) to elaborate on the role of library in supporting freedom of individuals, (c) to respond to collective needs of the society, and (d) to provide a theoretical underpinning for the discipline.

The library is a holistic, comprehensive agency, both in substance -- by colle cting known records of the totality of the society's experiences and creations -- and in function -- by relating to other agencies. Its organization reflects society's technological, sociological, and ideological culture. Its primary objective is to meet social needs by serving as a repository of intellectual records, to provide dissemination of knowledge and reference to its sources, to educate, and to serve as an agency for social advocacy on issues such as Americanization, cultural heritage, reading, or outreach services.

Philosophy is an exercise of intellectual curiosity focusing on critical discussions. In library writings the major focus is on a library purpose, with some writers relating librarianship to other disciplines.

Major components of philosophy of librarianship are:
(a) statements about fundamental purposes of librarianship, linking a library with some specific division of philosophy (e.g., epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and esthetics),
(b) the principle of the freedom of individual and library provision of access to ideas, and
(c) the implementation of a library role to represent and preserve society's cultural contributions.

7.2.9 Shera, J. Librarianship, Philosophy of (1986).

Shera's essay made no references to other writers. It was presented as a general overview of the concept of philosophy of librarianship rather than as a discussion of its specific aspects. He asked: What is knowledge, how it is learned, and what is its impact on behavior? What does reading {do} to people? What is a metaphysical definition of a book? Shera begins with a historical sketch discussing justification for the existence of libraries. He started with ancient needs for the custody of records, followed in Middle Ages by focusing on book-centered education and on a need for textbooks. The process culminated in the nineteenth century demand for expensive books that were beyond the means of the individual reader, leading t o the creation of the tax-supported public library.

The library serves democracy by providing guidance to immigrants, facilitating adult education and outreach services. It links ideas with contents of records. It is a system that integrates bibliography-based acquisition and order-focused organization with user-oriented interpretation, through mechanistic, physical operations, intellectual resources, and social and intellectual environment. The basic library requirement is to encompass all form s of physical and mental human activities recorded in library collections.

As a social agency the library provides a ground for interrelating people working together to satisfy common needs, with a culture of common knowledge, understanding, and beliefs and with communication. Librarianship is redefined in terms of social epistemology. It includes all intellectual processes of the society as a whole within a total environment. Its focus is on production, flow, integration, and consumptio n of all forms of communication.

7.2.10 McCrimmon, B. Librarianship, Philosophy of (1993) In her description of the background to philosophy of librarianship, McCrimmon stressed the historical pattern of library adjustments to the social environment. The adjustment is evident in a recent focus on readers' intellectual enrichment through reading, and on library awareness of its social role. Although philosophical discussions did not begin until 1876, the philosophical agend a had been slowly emerging from the functions performed by the library throughout the ages. Beginning with the bookkeeping responsibility for the preservation of records, the library occupation was formed at the time of the invention of print, assuming a managerial role of administering printed matter in the seventeenth century, as described by Naude (1627) and John Durie (1650). The significance of the library was further advanced in the Enlightenment by scholars' involvement in library affairs, such as Le ibniz's essay about the impact of classification on readers. Librarians' dedication to serving patrons was expressed by Ebert's motto 'aliis inserviendo consumor'. Panizzi's leadership of the British Library, coupled with the formation of professional organizations in America and England, raised considerably the prestige of librarianship in the Western world. This was the beginning of the articulation of an American philosophy of librarianship. The importance of intellectual freedom was highlighted, and t he public libraries' role was defined as community centers supported by citizens' taxes. Under Putnam's leadership the Library of Congress provided important service to all library patrons through its standardization of bibliographic access to records.

McCrimmon reviewed contemporary library philosophy in terms of a traditional dichotomy between the two major philosophical approaches, those of Plato and Aristotle. Plato's philosophy of an ideal world, expressed in the concept of un iversals and the notion of the highest values, was transplanted into library philosophical values that exalted the reading of good literature. The library is seen as a memory of civilization and as a depository of intellectual energy; librarianship highly motivated by the love of books is considered more an art than a science. Butler, Haines, Powell, Richardson, and Sayers represent this viewpoint.

The Aristotelian approach began at the Graduate Library School in Chicago in early 1930s. Its focus was sociological, emphasizing the need for research into library functions, based on social science methodology. Shera (1965) and Shores (1971) were the better-known spokesmen for this viewpoint.

To some extent the above distinction was also manifested in the debate between the proponents of idealism and those of pragmatism in library philosophy. Ortega (1934) argued that democracy's dependence on a well-read population elevated the role of librarians to that of controllers of the book trade. Kaplan (1964) considered librarianship a metascience, based on metaphysical concepts of structure. Wright (1986) delineated the distinction between hypothetical information and knowledge by perceiving librarianship as a humanistic discipline, based on ideas, graphic records, and scholarship rather than on material objectives of science. Nitecki (1981) formulated a communication model in the form of a root metaphor, standing for the ideas, originated in the mind of their creator, expressed in a physical medi um and interpreted by their receiver. He proposed a study of relationships between these components on physiological, psychological, and philosophical levels. These relationships constitute the subject matter of library philosophy and are to be pursued by metalibrarianship, an umbrella term for information --related disciplines.

Other contributions to the philosophy of librarianship mentioned by McCrimmon included the condemnation of censorship in ALA's Bill of Rights and Bro adfield's call for complete freedom of choice in reading. While Foskett (1984), Orr (1977), Wilson, Ranganathan (1931, 1951), Broadfield (1949), and Botasso addressed some aspects of philosophy of librarianship, none proposed an actual philosophy.

7.2.11 Partial Reviews of Philosophy of Librarianship

There are in library literature many casual reviews of library philosophy, written as parts of the works on other subjects. Those studies are excluded from a full review in this s ection, either because of their more narrow scope or because of their focus on a highly specialized viewpoint.

(a) Bekker's dissertation on library professional ethics (1976) is a good example. He dedicated three sections to the philosophy of librarianship,14 in which he described philosophy in general and discussed briefly library philosophy "as a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs . . . [agreeing with Johannensen, that] . . . an applied philosophy should in clude standards of conduct for practitioners."15

Bekker listed three basic uses of philosophy in librarianship: (1) as a frame of reference, delineating the library's scope and providing for its unity, as suggested by Christ (1969, 1972), Irwin (1949, 1967), and Rothstein (1968); (2) as an explanation of (a) a single notion describing library aims, ends, and objectives, the view represented by Irwin and Broadfield, or (b) its mission in terms of library means rather than ends -- Bekker included Nitecki (1964) in this group; and (3) applications of philosophy in formulating occupational ideals, or guidelines for conduct, addressed by Foskett (1962-1970) and Benge (1870).

Bekker agrees with my own principle, that "these three approaches should not be treated in isolation. They could be interpreted as three dimensions of one basic approach; each supplements the other two in a quest for an acceptable definition of librarianship."16 He completes this sec tion by stating what the philosophy of librarianship is not, and why it is needed.

(b) In defining philosophy of librarianship, Buckland (1983) makes a distinction between the definitions that are 'value-free,' and hence synonymous with the definition of 'theory'; or 'value-laden.' He chooses the latter approach and equates the concept of the philosophy of librarianship with that of philosophy, as "a system of motivating beliefs, concepts, and principles." 17 It is value-laden bec ause it relates to social values, determined by many different people. The criteria or value systems vary with the prevailing social philosophy, as seen, e.g., in selection and censorship policies subscribed to in different political systems.

1. Peirce, P. (June 15, 1951). Study of the Philosophy of Librarianship ; Review of the Relevant Literature, 1930 - 1950 . Unpublished master's thesis. The Drexel Institute of Technology, School of Library Science, Philadelphia, p. ii.

2. I assume that the reference is to Bergson's notion of 'elan vital' as a cause for evolutionary changes. According to Bergson, the concept of evolution by itself does not explain the change; it merely traces its progression. Evolu- tion is neither mechanistic nor predetermined, but is instead a relational concept interrelating experiences with the intuitive 'vital impulse' of future alternatives, within the lim its of available knowledge (Bergson, 1907).

3. McMullen, H. (October 1957). "Research in Backgrounds in Librarianship." Library Trends , 6(2), p. 111.

4. Mukherjee reviews a number of contributions to the philosophy of librarianship. All are listed in Appendix 1. Some of Muk- herjee's citations are incomplete, however, some material is quoted but not identified, and some quotations are not enclosed in quotation marks.

5. An interesting footnote to the wording of Ranganathan's second law was provided by Finks (1992, p.627). He pointed out that the law in the first edition of Ranganathan's work read: "Every person his or her book." This was changed in the consequent publications to "Every person, his book." The original phrasing is a testimony to Ranganathan's awareness of women's role in librarianship, while the comment on the change reflects gende r sensitivity of contemporary librarians.

6. Downs, M. (1969). Emergence of Philosophy of Librarianship in the United States . Long Island University, p. 2.

7. Ibid., p. 73.

8. Ibid., p. 75.

9. Downs did not identify individual works, nor did she elaborated on the specific contributions of any of the librarians mentioned in her essay. The copy of her master's thesis r eceived from Long Island University does not have the bibliography. Therefore, some writers mentioned by her are not included in my own references.

10. Foster, M. (1979). "Philosophy of Librarianship." Canadian Library Journal , 36(3), p. 133.

11. Whitehead, James, M. (1980). Logos of Library and Information Science : Apperceptions on the Institutes of Bibematics with Commentaries on the General Hum anistic Method and the Common Philosophy . Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, p .4.

12. Some of the references above are to mythological dialogue, with no references to specific works given by Whitehead.

13. The supreme rights of an individual in the United States are emphasized by (1) the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, 1939; (2) the Statement of the Committee on Intellectual Freedom, 1940; Intellectual Freedom Manual, 1974; and the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom and Intellectual Freedom Primer, 1977.

14. Bekker, J. (1976). Professional Ethics and Its Application to Librarianship . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, pp. 98-108.

15. Ibid., p. 101.

16. Ibid., p. 104.

17. Buckland, Michae l K. (1983). Library Services in Theory and Context . New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 128-139.