A Library-Keeper's Business: Essays by Roger E. Stoddard, and: RES Gestae, Libri Manent: An Exhibition and Symposium Celebrating the Career of Roger E. Stoddard (review)

in concrete ways (collections and services)” (46). This goal (among others) is seriously threatened in the environment of the New Public Philosophy. The discourse informed by the New Public Philosophy tends to become manifest in library buildings, services, and policies. In other words, the trends Buschman identifi es are exemplifi ed not merely in conversations taking place in meetings; they also take the form of concrete actions that have the power to redefi ne libraries and librarianship. The centripetal force of these actions is focused on particular notions of a library’s purpose that are based on concepts of “information.” After examining statements by some library managers, Buschman concludes, “I count at least fi ve different concepts in the previous quotes from library managers: information as system or technique, as economic ‘matter,’ as ‘stuff’ to be collected and organized, and as a basis of occupation” (88–89). What is missing is the human, especially a self that may read, question, or seek. The information-as-thing view is an offshoot of neoliberalism, where human action and human products are valuable only insofar as they have transactional worth. A goal of the New Public Philosophy is to demonstrate value through demonstrating increases in the numbers of transactions that occur. This goal is manifest in education, in medicine, and in other settings. Patrons, users, and information seekers become customers who will “buy” some commodity. The language imposed by neoliberalism shifts meaning: reading, learning, becoming aware no longer have intrinsic value; they are only counted. In the rush to measurement Buschman says, “To the person out to measure ‘quality,’ what is/can be measured—and for what purposes—becomes the reality” (112). Buschman’s tone may be slightly intemperate at times, but the force of his argument is strong. The stakes in this transformed environment are high; Buschman is correct to observe that the fundamental tenets of democracy are at risk in a neoliberal state. The language of the New Public Philosophy admits to an instability that it can use to its advantage; meaning can thus be manipulated. He writes that “without a public, democratic purpose for librarianship there is no compelling reason/argument in the long run to continue libraries” (176). If the public good is sacrifi ced to private good, then there effectively is no public sphere. Even if the consequences are not so dire, democracy may be reduced to an aggregative form in which people’s preferences are assumed and decisions are made without public deliberation. In any event, it is vital that Buschman’s message be heard and heeded by all in our profession.