是冲突的场所还是团结的场所?重新思考公共图书馆作为潜在的民主领域

IF 0.7 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Lisa Engström
{"title":"是冲突的场所还是团结的场所?重新思考公共图书馆作为潜在的民主领域","authors":"Lisa Engström","doi":"10.47989/colis2220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In policies and research, public libraries are often put forth as public spheres promoting inclusion and shared values. This article investigates possible implications of replacing the idea of the library as public sphere with a plurality of public spheres, thereby acknowledging existing inequalities and conflicts between adversaries. The paper is conceptual, focusing on deepening the theoretical analysis. Fraser’s elaboration on the concept public sphere is utilized alongside Chantal Mouffe’s concept agonism to critically discuss the perception of libraries as public spheres, and to explore the library as a place enabling multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power. Two main risks with a consensus-oriented starting point are identified: Firstly, marginalized groups may be silenced when inclusion and shared values are emphasized rather than plurality. Secondly, when cultural and social hierarchies are ignored, the ‘others’ are turned into enemies and antagonism replace agonism. If the notion of libraries as promoters of democracy and inclusion shall not result in upholding the status quo, we must go beyond what we know and make room for pluralistic communities and agonistic conflicts.","PeriodicalId":47431,"journal":{"name":"Information Research-An International Electronic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arenas for conflict or cohesion? Rethinking public libraries as potentially democratic spheres\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Engström\",\"doi\":\"10.47989/colis2220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In policies and research, public libraries are often put forth as public spheres promoting inclusion and shared values. This article investigates possible implications of replacing the idea of the library as public sphere with a plurality of public spheres, thereby acknowledging existing inequalities and conflicts between adversaries. The paper is conceptual, focusing on deepening the theoretical analysis. Fraser’s elaboration on the concept public sphere is utilized alongside Chantal Mouffe’s concept agonism to critically discuss the perception of libraries as public spheres, and to explore the library as a place enabling multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power. Two main risks with a consensus-oriented starting point are identified: Firstly, marginalized groups may be silenced when inclusion and shared values are emphasized rather than plurality. Secondly, when cultural and social hierarchies are ignored, the ‘others’ are turned into enemies and antagonism replace agonism. If the notion of libraries as promoters of democracy and inclusion shall not result in upholding the status quo, we must go beyond what we know and make room for pluralistic communities and agonistic conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Research-An International Electronic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Research-An International Electronic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47989/colis2220\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Research-An International Electronic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47989/colis2220","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在政策和研究中,公共图书馆往往被提出为促进包容和共享价值的公共领域。本文探讨了用多个公共领域取代图书馆作为公共领域的概念的可能含义,从而承认存在的不平等和对手之间的冲突。本文是概念性的,重点是深化理论分析。弗雷泽对公共领域概念的阐述与Chantal Mouffe的概念斗争(concept agonism)相结合,批判性地讨论了图书馆作为公共领域的认知,并探讨了图书馆作为一个可以实现多个公共领域的地方,不同的群体可以在这里加强他们的社会认同并提出权力要求。确定了以协商一致为出发点的两个主要风险:首先,当强调包容和共同价值观而不是多元化时,边缘化群体可能会沉默。其次,当文化和社会等级被忽视时,“他者”就变成了敌人,对抗取代了对抗。如果图书馆作为民主和包容的推动者的概念不能导致维持现状,我们就必须超越我们所知道的,为多元化的社区和激烈的冲突腾出空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arenas for conflict or cohesion? Rethinking public libraries as potentially democratic spheres
In policies and research, public libraries are often put forth as public spheres promoting inclusion and shared values. This article investigates possible implications of replacing the idea of the library as public sphere with a plurality of public spheres, thereby acknowledging existing inequalities and conflicts between adversaries. The paper is conceptual, focusing on deepening the theoretical analysis. Fraser’s elaboration on the concept public sphere is utilized alongside Chantal Mouffe’s concept agonism to critically discuss the perception of libraries as public spheres, and to explore the library as a place enabling multiple public spheres where different groups can strengthen their social identity and make claims of power. Two main risks with a consensus-oriented starting point are identified: Firstly, marginalized groups may be silenced when inclusion and shared values are emphasized rather than plurality. Secondly, when cultural and social hierarchies are ignored, the ‘others’ are turned into enemies and antagonism replace agonism. If the notion of libraries as promoters of democracy and inclusion shall not result in upholding the status quo, we must go beyond what we know and make room for pluralistic communities and agonistic conflicts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Information Research-An International Electronic Journal
Information Research-An International Electronic Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
62
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: Information Research, is an open access, international, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, dedicated to making accessible the results of research across a wide range of information-related disciplines. It is published by the University of Borås, Sweden, with the financial support of an NOP-HS Scientific Journal Grant. It is edited by Professor T.D. Wilson, and is hosted, and given technical support, by Lund University Libraries, Sweden.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信