7.1 An important lesson learned from the theory of chaos is that even in the largest disorder there is some underlying order. The new theory posits the existence of "strange attractors" that react to the disturbance of a system by establishing a balance between its ordering and disordering forces. Strange attractors, by "conflating order and disorder, gave a challenging twist to the question of measuring a system's entropy . . . they created unpredictability. They raised entropy . . . they created information where none existed before" (Gleick, J., 1987, p. 258).
In library philosophy, such strange attractors are represented by the natural human need for information or knowledge, the very cornerstone of library philosophy. They create motivation for new information or knowledge whenever the unsatisfactory old explanation of the phenomena makes the existing knowledge obsolete and results in a disorder. The explanation of the new experience is absorbed in the new or modified systems of relations in the person's mind.
The purpose of this essay was to identify such strange attractors in the domain of library and information science. The hypothesis here is that the common denominator in all recorded knowledge is the existence of relationships between recorded facts, events, or phenomena and their interpretation, neither fully understood without the understanding of the other.
7.2 The initial stimulus for the development of the modern American philosophy of librarianship was the perception of its need, reinforced by the desire to change the image of the profession.
The early development of the philosophical approach was discouraged by discordant opinions over its meaning. Some people rejected library philosophy as irrelevant, since they misunderstood the distinction between the philosophical focus on total reality and the library-philosophy concentration on its own limited realities. The confusion between the contribution of philosophy to the understanding of knowledge and the LIS secondary role in its communication led to the dismissal of philosophical interpretation in librarianship as impractical. Both these types of objections invigorated the controversy between the theory, aiming at the objectives of LIS as a discipline, and the practical approach stressing library functions as an institution aiming at the attainment of these goals.
The theory of librarianship, a necessary precursor to its philosophy, evolved by accretion from the focus on building library collections based on the abstract value used in selection of material, through emphasis on service, which developed communication models among the library, its resources, and its patrons, to the preoccupation with access, stressing either the educational library role in training patrons in the use of bibliographic tools, or the retrieval of requested material.
The library philosophy grew by fusion of Platonic metaphysical idealism, Aristotelian epistemological analyses, and contemporary pragmatic and linguistic procedural analysis.
The protagonists' arguments for the philosophy of librarianship are illustrated by stressing the consequences of not having a philosophy, such as the vacillating mission of the public library, emphasis on differences among libraries, reactive attitude, and lack of understanding the nature of changes resulting in the application of new technologies, which were frequently merely cosmetic changes. The advantages of having a philosophy include the creation of a philosophical base for political control of library operations and the possibility of developing a new discipline that would concentrate on the study itself, providing an information base for other disciplines.
Most of the animadversion toward the philosophy of librarianship is based on a twofold paradox: the philosophy is criticized either for its too-inclusive scope or for its too- narrow domain. The former ignores the holistic nature of librarianship, and the latter does not yet recognize the expanded, metatheoretical approach of LIS (metalibrarianship). Criticism of the philosophical focus on the minority served by the LIS as undemocratic and elitist reflects the very nature of library service to those who request it. Considering the philosophy of librarianship an ideology is a political assessment of the philosophers' motives, propagating such ideology rather than the philosophy itself. Criticism of philosophical eclecticism runs contrary to the deliberate and unique LIS objectives toward unification of all knowledge through its bibliographic organization.
7.3 Definitions of philosophy are numerous, themselves subject to philosophical interpretation. For the purpose of this study philosophy proper is defined as the inquiry about the total system of knowledge. It is subdivided into "philosophies of": a number of subsystems of the total knowledge of reality, such as different philosophies of sciences, arts, or religions. One of them, we claim, may be the philosophy of a combined domain of library and information science (LIS).
Often, the term 'philosophy' is used derivationally, in discussing not so much a philosophy of a discipline but its philosophical attributes. When applied to library or information science, it is referred to as their "philosophical aspects."
Thus, we may distinguish between two philosophical models applicable to library and information science.
(1) Model for the philosophical aspects of LIS consist of:
a: Inquiry into the components of LIS,
b: Philosophical interpretation of their characteristics,
c: Contributions of these interpretations to the understanding of library information science.
(2) Model for LIS philosophy of librarianship consists of:
a: Inquiry into the unique and essential philosophical attributes of LIS.
b: Philosophical interpretations of these attributes
c: The value of the resulting LIS interpretations to other domains.
Philosophical interpretations in each model are formulated in terms of systems designed by individual writers or adapted from different, already-existing philosophical systems.
In the metalibrary approach, philosophical inquiry is formulated in terms of the domains' metaphysical, epistemological, and valuational aspects, discussed at the conceptual, contextual, and procedural levels.
To illustrate the difference, the generic concept 'research' may be analyzed in the first model as the contributor to the library or information science, by applying its meaning (definition of research methodology), its properties (empirical methodology), and its values (verifiable methodology) to LIS research methodology.
In the second model, the focus may be on the contribution of unique LIS concepts to research, such as recorded information and its metaphysical meaning (a commodity or a process), its epistemological characteristic (indestructibility), and its value (data as building blocks) to any research. The concept 'research' was imported to LIS from other disciplines, just as the concept of 'recorded information' was exported from LIS to other disciplines.
It is suggested that in library and information sciences, considered as separate domains, the first model is more applicable, because each of the disciplines deals with more restrictive aspects of reality. Considering the two as subsets of LIS, they make the new discipline more complete, permitting development of the unique philosophical inquiry.
The criteria for the above distinctions in metalibrary model consist of the following:
(1) Philosophical aspects of library science are depicted by identification of the concepts cited by the authors as relevant to library or information sciences and their definitions (ME), properties (EP) and values (VA) relevant to either library or information science.
(2) In the philosophy of librarianship concepts unique to LIS are:
a. Defined in terms of their metaphysical meaning (ME) of basic relationships between generic book, its content, and its receiver, at the conceptual level (Co), the environment for data-information-knowledge transfer at contextual level (Cx), and changes among commodities or processes of the transfer at procedural level (Pd).
b. Identification of their epistemological nature (EP) include basic concepts (Co) (e.g., bibliographical tools), basic environment (Cx) (e.g., society-dependence), and basic processes (Pd) (specialized generalizations).
c. Values of the concepts (VA), consist of conceptual (Co) axiological worth (e.g., dissemination of information), contextual (Cx) deontological obligations (e.g., service to all patrons), and procedural (Pd) teleological consequences (e.g., changing patrons' understanding).
In the second model each concept must be analyzed as a unit, interrelated in a form of a philosophy of metalibrarianship, by offering metaphysical, epistemological, and valuational interpretations at conceptual, contextual, and procedural levels.
Any other theory or model of LIS, to be regarded as its philosophy, will have to provide its own system interrelating some concepts unique to LIS.
7.4 Many citations in this compendium revolve around the dilemma of librarianship. Four such quandaries illustrate the nature of the enigma.
(a) The theory vs. practice controversy may, at least in theory, be resolved by making a distinction between two subspecializations imposed by information technology. The new generation of theoreticians and scholars will focus on the abstract aspects of LIS, while the practicing librarians (or information specialists) will concentrate on practical issues of running the libraries (or information centers). The different goals of each group will require a different educational background and different professional classifications that resemble the distinction between hospital management and medical specialization, as two mutually dependent dimensions of the same discipline.
(b) The related contemporary tension between librarianship and information science is a manifestation of the discipline in transition. The organizational technology of the library is being reinvented under new names by computer and information specialists who are searching for order in the chaos of the information "explosion." Librarians react by changing their own terminology, replacing terms like 'library' with 'information center' and 'library schools' with 'information' or communication' departments, talking about 'information' instead of 'generic book' and 'information organization' instead of 'bibliographic control'.
Each terminological change brings with it some additional characteristics, but none depart from the basic nature of organization of the content of recorded book, data, or information. Changing terminology is a part of the evolving, living language. Most of the library terms presently used are of relatively recent origin; they will continue changing in response to the changing environment.
(c) The service vs. teaching dichotomy will be superseded if the focus in the philosophy of librarianship shifts from providing answers to identifying the resources needed to satisfy the needs of the inquirers. The primary concern ought to be the understanding of the meaning behind the questions asked by the individual inquirer, not the appropriateness of answers.
(d) The controversy over librarians_ involvement in social issues, neutrality, and censorship will not be resolved until a distinction is made between the need for aggressive professional politics, arguing for the goals of the discipline, and the ideological neutrality of the specialists, demanded by neutral bibliographic service offered to all people, independently of their own philosophies. The former role is that of library professional organizations, the latter reflects the professional behavior of individual librarians qua librarian. Other disciplines learned the distinction; so can we.
Librarianship is similar to other sciences that have evolved through many stages of division and unity, each leading to a higher level of complexity. The present ideological chaos is the harbinger of a reinvigorated discipline, combining the traditional humanistic librarianship with modern, scientifically oriented information science. _
***
I am sadly amazed when rereading various comments expressed in this compendium - amazed at the dramatic impact of the new technology on the scholarship of all disciplines, and saddened by the minimal acknowledgment this modern revolution is giving to its library antecedence.
The emerging philosophy of the new discipline asks the same metaphysical questions about the meaning of its basic concepts, questions that had already been raised in library literature long before now; the epistemology of information phenomena reduces its basic nature to the same essential characteristics of the content of recorded information, searching for similar high values of efficient and effective access to information.
Both approaches share analogous concepts, contexts, and processes in the acquisition, organization, and use of acquired data, transformed through equivalent communication channels into knowledge; both struggle with the same perennial problems of ownership and deprivation of knowledge, preservation and dissemination of records and accommodation of individual needs in society's mores.
The new way of thinking and seeing reality is appealing to the general public for its practicality; the new methodology stimulates scientific research and the new technology invigorates artistic imagination. What emerges is a philosophy of a discipline that has much stronger appeal, a discipline that is more insightful and definitively further developed than the old theory of librarianship ever was.
Yet, the logical path in this development is the same today as it always was, from the more restricted, physically bound generic book to its present, more unbridled, form-free information content. And the resulting expansion creates a new synthesis in the evolution of human knowledge by creating another vibrant discipline built on its venerable foundations.