Post-truth politics and librarianship

To what extent can information literacy address so-called “post-truth politics”? (Image c/o freestocks on Flickr.)

Post-truth politics. Nothing screams zeitgeist quite as much as a blog post about the emergence of “post-truth politics”. At present it seems to be everywhere. Political tweets, articles in national media, analysis by the commentariat. In the aftermath of Brexit and with the emergence of Trump as a presidential candidate in the US, it has almost become a short-hand method by which to describe the current political climate. As someone working in the information profession and being politically engaged, the topic itself is like catnip to me. The notion of “post-truth” as someone who deals in facilitating access to information? How could I not jot down a few thoughts?

A few weeks back I was flicking through a collection of essays by George Orwell (living the stereotype). One essay in particular caught my attention: Looking back on the Spanish War. The Spanish Civil War is a bit of an obsession of mine. Being married to a Spaniard has helped feed this (on top of a history A-level where the study of fascism was the basis of the entire course), and I pretty much seek out as much information as I can on the most romanticised of 20th century conflicts. Orwell, of course, was actively involved in the conflict. Along with many other leftists, he left the UK to join the International Brigades and fight fascism in the truest sense of the phrase.

Reading through his reflections on the Civil War, one passage particularly hit home…forgive me if I reproduce it here in its entirety, but I think it is justified:

Out of the huge pyramid of lies which the Catholic and reactionary press all over the world built up, let me take just one point — the presence in Spain of a Russian army [Note: the Russians provided strategic support and hardware for Republican elements, but did not send in their army]. Devout Franco partisans all believed in this; estimates of its strength went as high as half a million. Now, there was no Russian army in Spain. There may have been a handful of airmen and other technicians, a few hundred at the most, but an army there was not. Some thousands of foreigners who fought in Spain, not to mention millions of Spaniards, were witnesses of this. Well, their testimony made no impression at all upon the Franco propagandists, not one of whom had set foot in Government Spain. Simultaneously these people refused utterly to admit the fact of German or Italian intervention at the same time as the Germany and Italian press were openly boasting about the exploits of their’ legionaries’. I have chosen to mention only one point, but in fact the whole of Fascist propaganda about the war was on this level.

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history.

Orwell wrote these words in 1943.

Post-truth politics is, ultimately, a fancy new term for an age old…truth. In many ways this is hardly surprising. There is a tendency to re-package old ideas and present them as somehow new challenges for a new generation, when quite often they are old ideas that are re-packaged and presented as somehow new [citation needed].

When it comes to Brexit though, I wonder to what extent the vote to leave can simply be blamed on untruths or a sense of “post-truth politics”. Of course perhaps the prime example of the notion of post-truth politics was the infamous Vote Leave bus that suggested £350m being sent to the EU could be spent on the NHS instead. Despite being dismissed as “misleading” by the Chair of the Statistics Authority, the statement clearly influenced some, as demonstrated in this recent piece by Faisal Islam for The Guardian:

“I would go mad if this money doesn’t go into the NHS, I will go mad. I want to be assured that this money – because that’s why I voted to come out,” says Shirley.

But to what extent was the reality of Brexit really about “post-truth politics”? Certainly there are those that were misled, and there are those that would have been persuaded by falsehoods, but by no means can we paint Brexit as solely the consequence of post-truth politics. It is, for example, undoubtedly true that the European Union has adopted and pursued an extensive and damaging economic agenda across the continent. Casting an eye towards Greece is enough to underline the extent to which the EU is hardly a benign, friendly force for good. Economically speaking it is highly destructive. This is certainly a truth for those on the receiving end of the economic brutality. And a truth that is felt by the working class across the continent, those who do not feel the economic benefits so many of us take for granted (can anyone seriously argue that the working class in Greece have benefitted from the EU’s interventions?).

In this respect I was what might be described as a “reluctant remainer”. For me, if it was purely down to the economics of the European Union, I would have voted out. No-one who cares about the poorest in society could possibly consider the anti-democratic and destructive economic policies of the EU and believe that these are things that should be embraced. But then there are the social aspects. I am pro-immigration (indeed, I’m pro-“no borders”), and for me a vote to leave would have had disastrous implications for not only immigrants at home (which given the rise in racism seems to have very much come to pass), but would have given a powerful shot in the arm for far-right movements across Europe (who wasted no time in celebrating Brexit). That I could not countenance. And it was for that reason I voted to Remain. But, there were strong and powerful reasons to Leave, and they were not about “post-truth politics”, but a deeper truth about the reality of how the EU operates.

In terms of how this fits in with our work, would we make much difference here? Certainly, I think librarians clearly have a key role to play in terms of information literacy. We should be out there presenting the facts and working to ensure greater democratic engagement. And when I say “we should be out there” I mean we should be active, we should not just be waiting for folk to come to us in our libraries or institutions, we should be going out to them. Actively engaging wherever possible, working with communities, helping them to make sense of the huge volume of misinformation that proliferates during any political campaign.

But I don’t think better critical thinking amongst voters would necessarily have made a difference in terms of events such as Brexit. Yes there was inaccurate information from the Leave campaign that appears to have persuaded some to vote to leave, but would it have been any different if people were better equipped to assess the information provided? If you see the economic consequences of the EU in the Mediterranean, would you have been none the less persuaded to vote to Remain if you knew that not only were we not spending £350m per week on the EU that could have been spent on the EU, but that Turkey is unlikely to join any time soon and that we would have to join an EU army? Or would these truths make no difference whatsoever? Would the truth of the economic conditions enforced by the EU outweigh such “truths”? Or would the evident democratic deficit? And there are, of course, the racists and xenophobes who will take a racist position and disregard any “truths” that they are confronted with.

“People have had enough of experts,” said Michael Gove. I think we need to hear the voices of experts now more than ever. One look at the state of our media underlines how little the experts are heard, dominated as they are by commentators who pontificate on what they “reckon”. But experts and professionals can’t change realities or affect the lived experience of others. An individual critically analysing information in the run-up to the referendum could just as easily have voted to leave as voted to remain. Criticality and information literacy are not panaceas, but they help shine a light that can be shone into the darkest corners. Ultimately, it is not truth alone that will determine voting intentions, but how heavy that truth weighs.

Dundee, Radical Librarianship and changing the world

The view on Dundee’s waterfront out across the River Tay.

A little while back I was approached to deliver a session at the CILIP Scotland conference on the concept of radical librarianship. I was delighted to be offered the opportunity to speak at the conference, not least because it also afforded me the opportunity to meet up with some of my favourite people on the internet (well, and generally some of my favourite people – hi Jennie, Lauren and Lisa!). I should make it very clear right from the start: I am not a spokesperson for the Radical Librarians Collective. If you are interested in someone coming to talk at your event about radical librarianship, then please do contact the Collective directly rather than me! Whilst I was delighted to be asked, we don’t want (I certainly don’t want) any one person to become the public face of the Collective. Ok, now that’s established, I guess I ought to talk about my talk and the conference itself…

As noted above, I was asked to basically do a talk explaining what radical librarianship is. Even for someone involved in it from the start, this was a fairly daunting task. I would argue that all of us engaged within the Collective have slightly different perspectives about what radical librarianship actually is. Not wildly different, but marginally different. This is probably not surprising, we come at this from different experiences, different backgrounds and environs, it’s not much of a surprise that we might have slightly different perspectives on the concept. For me, I hold to Angela Davis’ definition of “radical” – that it is about grasping things at the root. I see this in two respects: understanding the root causes of the issues we face (ie capitalism and, in particular, the neoliberal orthodoxy) and the roots of the profession (ie professional ethics and the values which are fundamental to the profession). So it was this dual interpretation that I decided to focus on.

I won’t go into the presentation itself in too much detail (I have a rough outline of a script here [ODT] and the slides are available below and original PDF is here – fonts render better on the original PDF compared to Slideshare), but I will explain the rationale behind the structure/content etc. Unlike some of my fellow RLC-ears, I’m not so good at the theory/philosophical stuff. For me, having come from an English Literature/History background, I tend to very much take an historical approach to my thinking. I look at and interpret historical events and use those to form the basis of my views and perspectives. For example, in my presentation I used the example of Chile, the coup against Allende and the policies of Pinochet to inform my views on neoliberalism, rather than the theories of Hayek and the economic thinking of Milton Friedman. I guess, ultimately, I’m more interested in the actual outcomes of political ideas than the theories and ideas that underpin them. I like to think (and I very much hope this is the case) that providing a historical perspective can be easier to engage with than heavy theory (although I appreciate not everyone is as enthused by history as I am).

The oppressed penguins of Dundee.

In terms of the structure, I decided early on I want to lay out a few themes and define them clearly to help establish some foundations on the talk. To that end I decided to outline how I interpret the word “radical” as well as explaining what “neoliberalism” is. Fortunately with the latter I came across an excellent article exploring neoliberalism which had a neat summary explaining the difference between laissez-faire, a planned economy and neoliberalism. It’s probably, for me, the clearest explanation I have come across and really underlines how it operates as a thing (hopefully if you read it you’ll agree!). As with other sources I used in preparing my presentation, I decided that I would add this to a list at the end of the presentation, highlighting not only resources I used in preparing it, but also other resources on related issues that I think people might be interested in. It did take up five slides, but I hope people find at least one text there of interest that they hadn’t come across before.

I also wanted to explore things such as surveillance and the myth of neutrality, as well as giving some examples of things that we have done in the Collective since it emerged. Surveillance in particular is a topic I’m very keen on us as a profession engaging in (this seems like a good place to plug my recent article…). Indeed, I was really pleased that that issue came up a few time throughout the conference in a number of different sessions and keynotes.

In terms of the other talks during the two day conference, all the keynotes were interesting in a variety of different ways. I was very much interested in the issues raised by Colin Cook, head of Digital Public Service for the Scottish government – I particularly liked the use of the term “digital participation” rather than “digital inclusion”. The former, for me, speaks of the importance of activity rather than just equal access. There’s something deeper and more meaningful about the notion of individuals participating rather than just being included. Again, this raises the question of surveillance and the impact of this upon the extent to which people can participate (marginally, because of the divide between those who can seek information online and those that cannot).

Gary Green talking about the most excellent Library A-Z Project.

These themes were again picked up by Stuart Hamilton, Director of Policy and Advocacy at IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). It was interesting to hear of the work of IFLA in this area, the importance of intellectual privacy and information rights in general. I think it’s fair to say Stuart’s talk was the one I really got a lot out of. If you could design a keynote that hits all my buttons, then Stuart’s was pretty close to nailing it. So much so that, contrary to my standard conference tactic, I actually pitched a question after his talk (an actual question too, not one of those “I am going to wrap my question up in a point that I think will make me look good because I’m less interested in your perspective and more interested in grabbing a platform for myself” type things…):

Given the #ipbill is going through parliament today and the historic issue around individual liberty/privacy in the UK, what do you see we can do to protect intellectual privacy here?

Stuart’s response was basically we need to keep engaging and pushing in this area…particularly working with other groups (for example Open Rights Group) to help push forwards with this. I certainly think collaboration with ORG could lead to some very profitable developments for the profession, and I really hope something can move forward and develop in this area.

Other keynotes included Jan Holmquist (who I finally met having first made contact with him back in about 2009 when my local authority were looking at introducing ebooks and I was charged with investigating the possibilities), who talked about some of the interesting initiatives he has been involved with, particularly emphasising the notion that we should “think globally and act locally”. And we also had author James Robertson who delivered an entertaining talk with some interesting reference points, not least the reference to v. by Tony Harrison (not the pink bladder from the Mighty Boosh obviously…).

Other sessions I attended during the conference included Scottish PEN talking about some of the assaults on free expression across the world (again, the Investigatory Powers Bill came up here), which was very interesting yet depressing at the same time. I also got to see my good friend and colleague Gary Green delivering a talk on the Library A-Z Project, how it came about, how it was delivered and where it is now. It’s a great project and one that deserves a huge amount of credit, not least in the original way in which it seeks to advocate for libraries with key influencers and decision-makers (to use those rather euphemistic terms we use to describe people that wield power).

I’ve not been to many CILIP conferences over the years (although I have been to a fair few conferences now), but I really did enjoy this one very much. There seemed a good atmosphere and everyone seemed positively engaged in the conference as a whole. I certainly came away with plenty to think about, which is always a good sign about a conference (who likes a conference where you come away never thinking about the issues raised?).

Couple of additional things I’ve been contemplating as a consequence of the conference…

Libraries as safe spaces

This came up a lot during many of the talks I attended. Now, I don’t want to disparage this idea too much. I understand the safety that libraries offer. What I would argue, however, is that they offer a particular kind of safe space – a safe space free from violence that manifests itself physically. I’d argue, however, that libraries are more vulnerable to the kind of abstract violence against the individual employed by the state and its actors. So, for example, I would argue that libraries are not (currently) immune from mass surveillance. As a consequence then, is the space offered in the library no longer a safe one? Because you are ultimately protected from physical violence by person[s], but you are not immune from state violations upon you mentally. In a library you can only ever be safe from physical violence, not other forms of violence, perhaps?

Changing the world

One of the questions that cropped up was one that I had pretty much expected: isn’t it already too late – too late to tackle neoliberalism and the state we are in? To which I return to my history (because that’s ultimately how I try to understand the world). In Chile during the height of the Pinochet regime, change seemed nothing but a hopeless dream. But change happened. Although progress is slow, the forces of opposition to the Pinochet reforms are gaining strength. Reversal of reforms looks like a realistic possibility at last. The same is true throughout history. Societies are never static, they are ever changing. The challenge is to ensure that we are the ones that seize the opportunity to achieve change. I think that is possible.

In addition to this the broader picture regarding professionals also cropped up (I forget where this came up, I think possibly this was also at the end of my talk, but forgive me if the detail is hazy). My wife works in a different profession and I see the same issues there. Professionals have been the biggest culprits of our current malaise. They have broadly become (you could argue they always have been) apolitical in nature. The politics has been completely stripped out of our professional existence. Some might argue this is a net consequence of neoliberalism which, ultimately, seeks to replace ethics and values with one sole consideration: market exchange (I would subscribe to this). What I see RLC doing is tackling this head on within our own profession. Forcing people to confront our values and seek out ways to ensure that our ethics are defended against an assault by an ideology hostile to ethics, values and principles (because they obstruct the process of market exchange). Librarians can’t save the world, but they can save their profession. Further, if all professions were to vigorously defend their values and principles and seek solidarity with others across professions then, yes, maybe we could effectively block some of the hostile forces ranged against us and our communities. Who knows, maybe collectively we could halt the progress of neoliberalism, push back and reclaim territory. Maybe. Can librarians change/save/liberate the world? No, emphatically not. Can people? Absolutely.

It is easy to be disheartened in the battle for change. The forces defending the status quo are very strong. Here in the UK, we very much exist in a country that has rarely seen dramatic change and has instead drifted down a particular course with very little deviation (I can think of maybe two real examples in the last century – the immediate post-war Attlee government and the Thatcher government). As I said in my talk, I know that the world I want to see won’t emerge in my lifetime (if at all). The important thing for me, and the thing that keeps me prepared to battle, is to remain idealistic in my goals, but realistic in my expectations. It’s the expectations that will kill you, it’s the idealism that makes you feel alive.

Further Reading

DEFINITION OF A RADICAL:   Davis, A. Y. (1984). Women, culture and politics, London: The Women’s Press Ltd

CORE PRINCIPLE OF NEOLIBERALISM: Fox, J. (2016). “Neoliberalism” is it? Retrieved from:

WHAT IS NEOLIBERALISM?: Martinez, E. & Garcia, A. (nd). What is Neoliberalism? A Brief Definition for Activists. Retrieved from

FREE MARKET LIBERALISM: Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.

NEOLIBERALISM AS TERRORISM: Letizia, A. (2012). A Conversation with Henry A. Giroux. Retrieved from:

LIBRARIES AS APOLITICAL INSTITUTIONS: Annoyed Librarian (2006). Libraries as Liberal Institutions. Retrieved from

ALL LIBRARIANSHIP IS POLITICAL: Jaeger, P. T. & Sarin, L. C. (2016) All Librarianship is Political: Educate Accordingly. The Political Librarian. 2(1), Article 8. Retrieved from:

NEUTRALITY: nina de jesus (2014) Locating the Library in Institutional Oppression. In the library with the lead pipe.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: CILIP (2015) Ethical Principles. Retrieved from:

LIBRARIES AND PERSONAL DATA: Travis, A. (2016). Snooper’s charter: cafes and libraries face having to store Wi-Fi users’ data. Retrieved from:

FEAR OF SPEECH BEING MONITORED: President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, (February), 1–342. Retrieved from

DECLINE OF WIKIPEDIA VIEWS: Penney, Jon, Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use (2016). Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2016. Available at SSRN:

THE CHILLING EFFECTS: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2016). Lack of Trust in Internet Privacy and Security May Deter Economic and Other Online Activities. Retrieved from

CITIZENS AS CONSUMERS: Mobiot, G. (2016) Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems. Retrieved from:

VOCABULARIES: Massey, D (2015). Vocabularies of the economy. Retrieved:

MORALITY OF NEOLIBERALISM: Amable, B. (2011). Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-economic Review, 9(1) 3-30. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwq015

NEOLIBERALISM IN CRISIS: Peck, J., Theodore, N. and Brenner, N. (2010), Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents. Antipode, 41: 94–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00718.x

IMMEDIATE RESULTS: Luxemburg, R. (1900). Reform or revolution? Retrieved from:

WHITENESS IN LIBRARIANSHIP: Hathcock, A. (2015). White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS. In the library with the leadpipe. Retrieved from:

JOURNAL OF RADICAL LIBRARIANSHIP: Barron, S. (2015) A radical publishing collective: the Journal of Radical Librarianship. In the library with the leadpipe. Retrieved from

CRITICAL THEORY: Smith, L. (2014). Radical Librarians Collective (Part Three): Critical Theory. Retrieved from:

RLC GATHERINGS: Radical Library Camp: in the fight over information, librarians start to get organised. Open Democracy UK. Retrieved from:

COMMODIFICATION OF INFORMATION PROFESSION: Lawson, S., Sanders, K. & Smith, L., (2015). Commodification of the Information Profession: A Critique of Higher Education Under Neoliberalism. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 3(1), p.eP1182. DOI:

RLC OVERVIEW: Arkle, S., Brynolf, B., Clement, E., Corble, A. & Redgate, J. (2016). Radical Librarians Collective: An Overview. Post-Lib, 79.

CRITICAL INFORMATION LITERACY: Tewell, E. (2015) A Decade of Critical Information Literacy: A Review of the Literature. Communications in Information Literacy. 9(1), pp. 24-43. Retrieved from

DISASTER CAPITALISM: Klein, N. (2008). The Shock Doctrine. Penguin.

LATIN AMERICA: Guardiola-Rivera, O. (2011) What if Latin America ruled the world? Bloomsbury | Galeano, E. (2009). Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Serpent’s Tail.

CHILE: Guardiola-Rivera, O. (2014). Story of a death foretold. Bloomsbury

SURVEILLANCE & LIBRARIANSHIP: Clark, I. (2016). The Digital Divide in the Post-Snowden Era. Journal of Radical Librarianship, Vol. 2. Retrieved from:


CRITICAL THEORY: Critical Theory in Library and Information Studies reading list

INFOLIT: The IL Articles That Blew Us Away in 2015-16. Retrieved from:

It Was Nationalism Wot Won It

Image c/o Brad Hammonds on Flickr.

It’s taken me some time to process the outcome of last week’s election. A part of me has been in denial ever since waking up that Friday morning and discovering that not only had the Tories garnered more seats than Labour, but had also managed to garner a majority (albeit a fairly slim one). The one small bright spot for me? That UKIP failed to succeed in increasing their number of MPs in Kent, indeed, managing to lose their only MP in the county. Small comfort when their share of the vote massively increased of course.

Of course, in many respects, I shouldn’t be too disappointed. I’m not a Labour voter after all. However, I am “of the left” so whilst I wasn’t a supporter I would obviously have preferred a Labour government to a Tory one, no matter how far to the right the Labour party resides (for all the predictable blather from the right-wing press, they hardly stood on a socialist platform). But the sheer horror of the reality of a majority government is already starting to unfold with the attack on Human Rights legislation and proposed restrictions on freedom of speech (who said the Right doesn’t do authoritarianism?). Whilst I have my issues with the Labour party, and whilst they may have a dubious record on surveillance, I certainly feel like my civil liberties would have been afforded more protection under Miliband than Cameron (again, political rhetoric in general would suggest this runs against what the left and the right stand for).

What is clear to me is that nationalism was the winner in this election. Varying types of nationalism of course, but nationalism nonetheless. A more benign, civic nationalism in Scotland, and a resurgent English nationalism (perhaps fuelled in part by Tory propaganda about the impact of SNP influence in Westminster). I have my issues with nationalism in general, but I understand that, on the face of it at least, Scottish nationalism is at least benign in comparison to its English counterpart. Racism and xenophobia certainly play no part in the agenda of the SNP. The same cannot be said for the English variant of course.

And this is where the problem lies, I believe, for the Labour party if it is to have any hope of forming a government of any description in 2020 (whether in coalition or, seemingly unlikely, a majority government). The 2015 general election seems, to me anyway, to be a classic case of the Conservative approach to limiting the power and influence of the working class. As has always been the case, nationalism seeks to divide the working class, playing on fear as well as evoking a sense of patriotism. It has been a long-held tactic of the right to play on these fears and thus divide the working class, ensuring that any party that represents their interests has little chance of gaining traction.

Indeed, this is evidence of precisely this tactic being employed by the Conservatives and the Liberals between 1918-1922, as Selina Todd explains in her excellent The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class:

“After 1918 both Liberals and Conservatives worked hard to forge mutually beneficial alliances in English, Welsh and Scottish municipal politics. These alliances were, as the historian James Smyth points out, ‘always for one purpose – to keep Labour out of office’. They did so primarily by courting the vote of those electors who swelled the ranks of organisations like the Middle Class Union, and whose anxieties about taxation and working-class independence most Liberal and Conservative politicians shared. But these parties also offered a negative appeal to working-class voters, by promoting an anti-socialist message that stressed its links to ‘foreign’ Bolshevism, violence, tyranny and economic instability. Voting Conservative was, for some working-class men, a vote that marked them out as patriots…”

In this case, whilst there doesn’t as yet appear to be any data to corroborate it, it would appear that playing on the ‘fear’ of Scottish nationalism influencing Westminster led to some voters swinging behind the Tories.

Certainly the decline in the working class vote has been identified as a prime cause for Labour’s failure to turn their expected minority government into a reality. Initial voting analysis provided by the House of Commons Library indicates that the steady decline of the working class vote has continued in this election. According to Jon Trickett, Labour MP for Hemsworth, the figures show that whilst the middle class Labour voter has remained steady, the working class has steadily declined:

2005 – 48% DE voters

2010 – 40%

2015 – 37%

For AB, C1 and C2 voters, Labour actually managed to make small increases on 2010.

As was expected, a Labour failure has brought out the Blairites who argue that a “return to the centre ground” is where electoral success lays. Of course, by “centre ground” they actually mean middle class voters, because that is the demographic New Labour acolytes are most interested in. “Aspiration” is already the keyword in the leadership campaign as the race to become The New Blair starts to take shape. Given Ed Miliband managed to marginally increase the middle class vote, it would appear that the “centre ground” should not be the prime concern for a party that was built to represent the interests of the working class.

For me it seems clear where the fault lines were in Labour’s election campaign. They made the grave error in 2010 of letting the Conservative party seize the narrative about the economic crisis. Whatever the reality of the situation (ie that Cameron and Osborne backed Labour spending and offered no alternative when the crash came), the image has stuck in the mind that Labour, once more, brought down the economy, like they always do (certainly that is a line that I often hear from my parents, both working class). That this was not effectively challenged was fatal and allowed the Tories to point the finger at Labour as a risky bet for a safe economy (of course, the Tories have pursued roughly similar policies since 2010, so not doubt there will be a further economic crash on their watch).

But they also failed to communicate a set of ideas that would alleviate the suffering of those at the bottom end of the income scale, those that have been hit hardest by five years of voodoo economics. The predatory capitalism analysis certainly rings true in terms of how our capitalist system operates in the United Kingdom, but what does it mean to someone being hammered by the bedroom tax, lower living standards, zero hour contracts and alike? It is the very people who the Labour party should represent that have been overlooked which has, as a result, hurt them greatly. It is not that Labour were too far left, nor even that they weren’t left enough, it’s simply that they didn’t manage to communicate effectively with those they were supposed to represent.

It would be, in my view, a fundamental mistake for the Labour party to further abandon the working class vote and chase after the middle class with talk of ‘aspiration’ and ‘wealth creators’. It is an extension of the same fundamental misunderstanding about the election in 1997 in which any Labour leader would have triumphed (I refuse to buy the narrative that Blair was somehow the man who rescued Labour, it was the Tories that rescued Labour). Of course, Labour may well choose this route in a desperate attempt to get to power by being ‘nice Tories’. I’m afraid that if they do, they will have already lost the election in 2020.

It’s the economics, stupid…

Thatcher economy

Just as a quick addendum to the last post…I randomly stumbled across this Thatcher quote last night:

What’s irritated me about the whole direction of politics in the last 30 years is that it’s always been towards the collectivist society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: do I count, do I matter? To which the short answer is, yes. And therefore, it isn’t that I set out on economic policies; it’s that I set out really to change the approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation. Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.

I think this really gets to the point of the matter. The game has changed. Simply focusing on “better advocacy” will not convince politicians that public libraries (or public services in general for that matter) should be “saved” or invested in. The whole thrust of twentieth century economics has been to change us from a society to a collection of individuals (no matter how nonsensical this philosophy is). The aim has been both to smash the post-war consensus and to devalue public services. Where economics has been the method by which to achieve this, no advocacy campaign can hope to turn the tide. The battleground is not our libraries or even our public services. The battleground is economic theory. If we do not collectively reject, and coherently argue against, the economic orthodoxy, then the battle is lost.

Why “better advocacy” won’t make any difference…

Better advocacy will not free us… (image c/o Edward Badley on Flickr – CC BY-NC 2.0)

A few years back, I wrote about the need to capture the narrative when it comes to public libraries. In the face of the challenges put before public libraries and librarians, it was clear that a change was needed. Librarians needed to seize the narrative and make it their own. However, I do not think I went nearly far enough.

There has been a growing trend in the past couple of years to use the language of radicalism and revolution in librarianship. I’m obviously a part of that having got involved in a group of self-identifying radical librarians. However, I would contend that most of the rhetoric has been misused and is, potentially, damaging because it presents a solution that doesn’t really exist.

The problem with much of the rhetoric is that it takes a somewhat liberal left position. Not a surprise in a profession that is dominated by those that sit on the liberal left of the political spectrum.  Those appropriating the language of radicalism and revolution contend that the system itself is not at fault, we have just failed to fully exploit the opportunities that it presents for us. There are two levels on which I find this train of thought problematic.

First, it implies that it is our fault. That if only we communicated our value better, we would thrive and prosper. The failure to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us is down to a lack of imagination on our part. If we came up with better strategies to communicate the value of libraries, we would find ourselves in a much better position. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the implication it is my fault, rather than the system. I’m not enamoured with the notion that I actually need to embrace the system to ensure a better environment for libraries and the profession.

Second, it implies that the current system is fine. That the neoliberal environment in which we exist is a good model. That we don’t need to change an inequitable economic system that sits at odds with our ethics and values. For how can a system that embraces profit over public good sit comfortably with a profession that fundamentally believes in free access to information? A profession that embraces the notion that all should have equal access, regardless of financial circumstance? The underlying message is clear: don’t rock the boat, you don’t really need to.

It is, without doubt, hugely naive to believe that if we just communicated better, the political elite would cast aside their deeply engrained political ideology and embrace the idea of the commons. This is a fairly standard position taken by the liberal left: the system is fine, let’s make the most of it. Such a position is understandable, the easy option is often the more attractive. The alternative is hard work, exhausting, unrewarding and will not be achieved in our lifetimes. Better to just accept the system and make the best of it.

Except that is exactly the position that plays into the hands of those that wield power. If we accept that the system is fine, doesn’t need changing and that we only need to take better advantage of the opportunities it affords, then we can be pushed a little further. Step by step those in power can push us into accepting the need for the system to expand. We may grumble but, ultimately, we will accept and work within the structures because we believe that we can make the best of it.

Better communication and better advocacy won’t save the day. They might make us feel better (in contrast to the alternative, they take little effort), but they will achieve nothing of any substance. Politicians will not be convinced by great advocacy because they have fully embraced an economic train of thought that rejects the belief in the public good in favour of private ownership and profit. Those schooled in the economics of Friedman and the ‘philosophy’ of Rand (such as it can be described as a philosophy), will not be convinced by some imaginative advocacy/communication/marketing. A lifetime of propaganda is harder than that to dislodge.

We need to stop ploughing the same liberal left, anti-intellectual furrow. It does not matter how well we communicate, how much better we advocate for public libraries, they will not reverse an overall political agenda that touches every aspect of public life on the basis of some great advocacy for libraries. Because the ideology that drives our politicians is not restricted to libraries, but applies to all public services. It is not that they can be persuaded by great library advocacy alone that they will retreat from a broader political belief that there is no such thing as a public good. That may have been true 10 or 20 years ago, it’s not true now. What needs changing is not the narrative about libraries, but the broader economic narrative. Until that is effectively challenged, advocacy will remain a blunt tool that makes us feel good, but achieves very little of substance, no matter to what extent we wrap it up in the flag of “radical revolution”. Ultimately, advocacy is a tool of conservatism, not of revolution.

How librarians became Thatcherite and the myth of TINA

Image c/o Simon Q on Flickr.

The end of the Second World War in 1945 saw not only an end to the global conflict, but also to the old economic order. The election of the first Labour government in the UK paved the way for a rejection of the economic policies practiced in the pre-war era, and the acceptance of a new model of economic governance – one based on a belief that government intervention in the economy is necessary to create stability and prosperity. However, this adoption of a new economic approach was not solely the preserve of the Labour party; it was also (broadly speaking) accepted by the Conservative Party in what became known as the post-war consensus.

From 1945 onwards, economic policies formulated by John Maynard Keynes were adopted by both the dominant political parties. There were, of course, tensions on the margins of both, but in the centre (where leadership tends to reside within political movements) there was a consensus that to ensure security and prosperity, the government of the day must adopt:

  1. The goal of full employment;
  2. The acceptance of the role of trade unions;
  3. A mixed economy, with a degree of state ownership of the utilities;
  4. A functioning, equitable welfare state;
  5. An adherence to progressive taxation and redistributive welfare spending.

From 1945 to the late seventies, this consensus remained in place with both parties, to varying degrees, ensuring that Keynes’ economic theories remained at the forefront of government policy. This ultimately led to a great post-war boom and a far greater degree of income equality. However, this “consensus” was not without its tensions, with the right-wing increasingly dismissive of this economic consensus. In the mid to late seventies, these tensions finally burst to the surface and led to the termination of the Keynesian approach to managing the economy.

The election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 led to the final breakdown of this post-war consensus (arguably this began with Callaghan’s government going to the IMF and obtaining a loan which came with a variety of conditions regarding the shrinking of the state). Having been largely dismissive of the post-war consensus and the restrictions it placed on corporate Britain, Thatcher launched a programme of (highly unpopular) reforms to the economy. Assets were sold off, old state industries were attacked and the post-war consensus which had at its heart the notion of the “citizen” and “society” was abandoned, explicitly rejecting the latter and embracing a renewed faith in freedom, choice and the power of the individual. The erosion of the “citizen” had begun, replaced with a belief that we are, effectively, no more than consumers and customers who must be unconstrained by the state in a truly free market economic system.

In 1983, Thatcher underlined this break from the post-war consensus when she gave a speech to the young Conservatives. Mocking the Opposition, Thatcher asked delegates:

“Could Labour have managed a rally like this?”

(The answer from the delegates was, of course, “no”.)

She went on to add:

“Well, in the old days perhaps. But not now. For they are the party of yesterday. And tomorrow is ours.

“We are all here to state our faith in Britain’s future and our determination to keep her strong and free.”

Whilst this was clearly an attack on Labour, it also signified that, under her premiership, the post-war consensus was dead. It was as much a message to her own side as to the opposition. When she refers to “the party of yesterday” she means a party wedded to the post-war consensus, as Labour remained in the early 80s. When she says “tomorrow is ours” she doesn’t just mean the Conservative Party, she means supporters of her particular brand of conservatism. The “tomorrow” evoked is, clearly, a Thatcherite vision and it is the Thatcherite vision of society that will, in her belief, endure. Indeed, as her next sentence makes clear, not only will it endure but it will be fundamental to a “strong and free” future. This vision was part of the overall belief pushed by her administration that “There Is No Alternative” (TINA). The only path to prosperity is the Thatcherite path; there are no other viable options (and certainly the ‘old’ approach was not to be considered viable).

For Thatcher, the only path to ensure security and prosperity was a shrinking of the state and an adherence to free market economics, influenced by figures such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. After the economic shock of the 70s and the subsequent IMF bailout, the only way to ensure the country was secure and remained one of the world’s leading economies was to fully embrace the free market, unencumbered by state interference (as they saw it). There was, as far as Thatcher and her supporters were concerned, no alternative. The alternative that was envisioned by Labour was considered archaic, a remnant from a previous age, alien to the realities of the modern world. A rejection of the Thatcherite path was considered a danger to the UK, a manifesto for instability and self-destruction. As far as Thatcher and her supporters were concerned, the monetarist counter-revolution influenced by Friedman’s economic ideas was essential to overturn the Keynesian orthodoxy that had existed in the post-war period.

TINA has become so deeply ingrained in our society that the Thatcherite ideology has percolated its way throughout our social and political life. We saw, with the emergence of Tony Blair, that even the Labour party cast aside any remaining adherence to the post-war consensus and accepted broad swathes of Thatcherite policy, dispensing with any remaining notion that they could in any way be considered a party of the socialist left. Under Blair, the party adopted the mantra of the free market and trumpeted its ‘values’, ushering in a new era of corporate influence of state infrastructure (see the infamous “Clause 4 Moment”). It now seems barely possible to consider alternatives (say, for example, the raft of policies that were accepted as part of the post-war consensus) without being painted as either a dinosaur from an earlier age, or a dangerous radical. What was once an accepted position across the political establishment, part of a broad consensus, has become either ‘radical’ or old-fashioned.

This market orientated doctrine has infiltrated all of our public services and is having a damaging impact upon professions. We have seen, as free market ideas have infiltrated public services, a growth of commercial, corporate language within the public sector. We have seen this in the rise of the use of terms such as “customer” and “marketing” in areas where they once had no place. Our language has become corrupted, commercialised in a way that wasn’t conceivable pre-Thatcher. Whereas once the rhetoric was about citizens and their rights, now it’s about consumers and their choices. This has become so deeply ingrained that rejecting the language of the market is considered backward or dangerous.

We have seen this within librarianship. We have had our own TINA moment. The embrace of consumerist language is, as Thatcher’s ideology always insisted, the only game in town. Increasingly we are led to believe that we have to adopt both the language and the approach of the market to ensure our security and prosperity. For example, in a document entitled “What Makes A Good Library Service”, CILIP (the professional body for library and information professionals) advised that for a service to be considered “good”:

Staff should be helpful, knowledgeable, welcoming and well-trained. They should be involved in a workforce development programme. Staff in front line customer service roles should be supported by specialists in service planning and promotion, leadership and management, and those areas of service delivery requiring specialist skills and expertise.

In 2010, the now defunct Museum, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) published a practitioner guidance document called “What do the public want from libraries”. The document contains 31 references to customers. One section, “Expanding the offer – target genuine customer needs, don’t squeeze out books… just add coffee”, advised (with fairly clear implications if not adopted):

Coffee bars should be seriously considered by all libraries who don’t have one already. As well as driving up visitor numbers they can generate income and are an opportunity to build links with a local business.

The Society of Chief Librarians recently trumpeted additional funding from Arts Council England (ACE) by claiming it would be used “locally in areas critical to customers’ lives and well being”. And ACE, recently given the task of overseeing libraries following the disbanding of the MLA, worked with Locality over a six month period last year to:

“…explore existing good practice and assess the potential to further enable income generation to support and enhance as well as to improve the overall resilience and sustainability of library services.”

Again, income generation (whereby citizens become customers) is seen as essential for “resilience and sustainability” (much as Thatcher’s reforms were supposedly, as her supporters presented it, crucial for the resilience and sustainability of the UK econonmy). The consumerist narrative that is a crucial foundation of current economic and political orthodoxy, has become central to the survival of public libraries. The implication of the work between the Arts Council and Locality being that without this “income generation” the future of library services is under threat (there is no alternative.)

Our need to accept this terminology is pushed at us from both within and without the profession. Its use by official bodies (particularly bodies representing the profession) normalises it. The shift to market-orientated approaches that has emerged since the counter-revolution has infiltrated not only our public services, but our professions. The only viable way forward, so it seems, is to accept this reality and orientate our services to ensure a degree of customer services excellence. If we don’t, we risk the stability and long-term future of the service. We are, as the country was in the mid-70s, at a point of crisis. Salvation will come by adopting the language and structures of those that prosper within the free market.

Of course there are alternatives. We can ensure the survival and prosperity of both the profession and libraries in general through alternatives to market-orientated rhetoric, just as there are alternatives to liberalised free market economies (see Syriza’s rejection of the austerity orthodoxy).  There is a very real danger that we could find ourselves boxed-in, only seeing solutions that have their roots in the market. We wouldn’t be the first profession to make this mistake. Economists themselves made the mistake of believing that the free market, unencumbered by the stabilisation of the state that Keynes advocated, would provide the answers to our economic woes and bring prosperity and stability. As the past seven years have demonstrated, they have been proved utterly wrong. As economist Paul Krugman notes, “Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions.” Economists made a mistake in rejecting alternatives because it believed in the market, we’d do well not to make the same mistake.

Creators not consumers: visualising the radical alternative for libraries

The following post was written in collaboration with Andrew Preater.

We are often presented with two choices within librarianship: a forward-thinking approach and a supposedly old-fashioned approach. These are sometimes characterised as progressive and conservative positions respectively. We argue, however, that this is a mis-characterisation and, in fact, the forward-thinking approach could be best described as conservative.

When considering what is progressive and what is conservative we need to consider our context. We exist in an environment that increasingly focuses on market fundamentalism as the default approach, and assumes markets as the most efficient path to provide solutions, drive progress, and ensure the most equitable outcome for all. Indeed, market fundamentalists argue that where there is a fault, it is due to a failure to make our economic system truly market-oriented. We see this for example in the way the cause of the current economic crisis is presented as rooted in public spending, rather than the failure of free market economics.

For us, this raises a question: what is progressive? Slotting in comfortably with the market consensus, the status quo, or embarking on a path that is visionary and alternative? Surely if we are to ponder what constitutes forward-thinking, we would want to consider alternatives that are original, distinct, and even radical?

The use of language is important. The packaging of certain ideas as “progressive” more easily allow questioning, protesting, or rejection of such ideas to be cast as old-fashioned or even regressive. Alternatives are, by their nature, a block on progress and their proponents unrealistic and outdated – perhaps even luddites selfishly putting their own interest above improvements for their service users. We see this abduction of language played out repeatedly throughout social and political discourse. A particular path – typically one that rejects a sense of ethics – is presented as inevitable, and any opposition can easily be dismissed as the archaic complaints of an isolated and outdated few.

Regarding libraries, a “progressive” approach has increasingly accepted marketised solutions to service provision. As a profession we have broadly accepted the idea of members or users as “customers” or “consumers”, and accepted the need to adopt market strategies to meet their needs. Within the broader context of a societal shift towards neoliberalism, it is hardly surprisingly the societal consensus – the common sense of our time – has been replicated within libraries. This is so accepted that a rejection of this approach, for example rejecting the label of “customer”, has become seen to be old-fashioned and outdated.

This progressive approach to libraries is problematic. It advocates a belief there is a market relationship between the service and the user, with barriers placed between the two, and reduces the relationship between libraries and users to a transactional one with the library supplying information – viewed as a commodity in a market setting. Strategies based on market approaches seek ways to overcome these barriers, to better understand users and research their needs to market the service more effectively and to more efficiently provide commodified information. However, we argue a more radical approach might see library users incorporated into the library service itself in a model of co-creation of service and co-production of knowledge, with librarians challenging dominant, marketised models of service provision. In a model of co-creation or co-ownership users would own the service as much as those running it. This would negate a need to “market” the service or to promote “customer service” as users would already be fully embedded within the service itself.

While not perfect by any means, the approach taken at Mondragon University in Spain offers an example of what can be possible if we re-calibrate the relationship between our services and our users. Rather than making the user distinct from the service, the user (in this case the student) is incorporated into the running of the university. Mondragon realises this through a democratic governance structure with a General Assembly composed of a third staff, a third students, and a third outside interested parties. As David Matthews’ article notes, this Assembly has significant powers from deciding priorities to dismissing senior managers. This is certainly radical in the current climate of higher education in the United Kingdom.

The Mondragon approach is far from ideal. It does, however, point to alternative ways of delivering HE and, potentially, for delivering services to students and our broader publics, and there are lessons we can learn and utilise for delivery of academic and public library services. There is no doubt this sits outside the normative discourse in UK HE. It is, in that sense, a radical and forward-thinking approach in opposition to the conservative marketised approach that dominates.

The problem we face is, increasingly, alternatives to the market-based approach such as that offered at Mondragon, seem so far removed from the dominant ideology as to be almost impossible to imagine within the existing framework. As we have moved further down a consumerist path, the default position of our profession has shifted further towards neoliberalism so alternatives become increasingly seen as too “radical”. Whereas a rejection of a market-based approach was once seen as acceptable, partly due to it being at odds with our professional ethics, such opposition has become seen to act as a barrier or an unnecessary restrainer on progress, and those expressing such moderate views have become irritants that “hold us back”. On the other hand, those enthused by commodification of information and market approaches are motivated and driven to enact changes they feel are necessary.

As once-moderate alternatives are seen as increasingly radical, so that creates a range of problems. Spaces for resistance shrink and the effect is to make a move to an alternative seem so large, that it seems barely possible to realise. Indeed, the effort to engender such change becomes so large as to encourage a sense of hopelessness at the task ahead. This hopelessness itself paralyses opposition to neoliberal approaches and even inhibits engagement with the issues at hand. People feel that the task is so substantial, so difficult, that it is not worth making an effort to challenge the dominant ideology.

This plays out against a backdrop of economic crises and austerity economics that make any form of resistance that much more challenging. For example, in public libraries we see fears that during cuts to public services those who speak against the dominant ideology will be those targeted first as trouble-makers. In higher education we see the use of political policing and other forms of repression of student and trade union protests as a warning not to resist.

The library profession is hampered by a growing apathy at its centre. There is a motivated or ‘activist’ core on both sides, both driven by ideological convictions to realise alternatives in the delivery of services. But there is a disengaged, detached middle who are less motivated. This middle are a powerful weapon for the forces of progression. They can be counted on not to protest or resist because they lack the motivation or will to engage on this level, due either to exhaustion or a more general apathy.

This is not to apportion blame, or pretend we can deliver a radical alternative by being a bit more professionally engaged. Across the board we see a tendency for people to engage less with the forces affecting them, evidenced by declining political party membership and declining trades union and professional organisation membership. Opposition is stymied and alternative paths are inhibited as we lack both spaces and structures within which to organise and the willingness itself to resist.

Herein lies a major challenge for radicals to overcome. The odds are stacked against them both in terms of those driving “progression” and an exhausted or disengaged middle. Disengagement benefits orthodoxy after all, not alternatives: the alternative requires action, progressives merely require a weak, ineffectual alternative to prevail.

Advocates for a radical alternative need to be patient. With the odds so stacked against them, an alternative approach will not be quickly accepted and adopted: it will take time. Radical alternatives must be constructed carefully and persuasively. At this stage, the most significant victory for the radical alternative can have is to open dialogue about the alternatives. Without dialogue, without alternatives being voiced and discussed, there is no hope for a radical alternative. So long as the progressive option is dominant and unchallenged, it will remain ascendant.

We need public discussion about the alternatives because it sparks interest, galvanises those who lean towards a radical alternative, and in doing so, builds momentum for a movement. But in sparking discourse, the radical alternative must capture the language. It has to re-frame the discussion. It has to be made clear that the “progressive” course is not forward-thinking, but rather sits within a conservative viewpoint that accepts the dominant ideology, rather than pushing against it to create something new and alternative. It is not true progression but rather it is drift – in part due to the lack of critical analysis that would accompany serious progression.

It is possible to create an alternative. We have the skill and imagination to construct an alternative vision to that which sits comfortably with the dominant ideology. But to do so we must communicate the alternative clearly and publicly. We must be careful in how we utilise language to ensure that the alternative is not perceived to be simply harking back to the past, but as something new and challenging. Something that has not previously been visualised or realised. Something that is distinct from the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy. Something alternative. Something radical.

How librarians enable neoliberalism and inequality, and what we can do to resist it

Paternoster Square, home to the London Stock Exchange, by David Edwards on Flickr

We live in an era dominated by the corrosive ideology of neoliberalism. Since the abandonment of the postwar settlement just over forty years ago, neoliberalism has become the dominant socio-economic ideology. The notion that an unconstrained private sector (via the profit motive and supposed greater efficiency) is best placed to deliver public service has been broadly accepted by the political establishment. Its successful dominance of political thought was confirmed with the arrival of Tony Blair and his embrace of a liberal economic agenda, casting aside the virtues upon which the Labour Party had been founded in favour of the market. But how has this ideology come to dominate? There is no single solitary component that has enabled its acceptance, rather a series of complex and varied factors that have been complicit in its dominance.

Neoliberalism disenfranchises citizens, converting individuals from citizens to consumers. No longer does the individual have ‘rights’ as citizens, rather they have the gift of “choice”. Choice in so far as the capitalist economic system permits. As Doreen Massey argues in Vocabularies of the economy [PDF]:

“It is one of the ghastly ironies of the present neoliberal age that we are told (as we saw at the outset of this argument) that much of our power and our pleasure, and our very self-identification, lies in our ability to choose (and we are indeed bombarded every day by ‘choices’, many of them meaningless, others we wish we didn’t have to make), while at the level that really matters – what kind of society we’d like to live in, what kind of future we’d like to build – we are told, implacably, that, give or take a few minor variations, there is no alternative – no choice at all.”

Image c/o Alex Proimos on Flickr.

The shift away from citizenry to a consumerist culture is one that particularly benefits those with the financial means with which to engage in such a culture (enabling access to the best healthcare, the best education and so on). It follows, therefore, that such a culture penalises those who lack the financial means with which to make the choices available to those who do. This, obviously and inevitably, breeds inequality. Neoliberalism is, essentially, a system that creates and entrenches inequality (and, arguably, inefficiency as a result) – see Piketty’s much reported (if little read) analysis.

Of course, neoliberalism needs a foundation upon which to grow and thrive. Arguably, no system would be able to do so without certain institutions of power enabling its spread. Without the enabling of such institutions, neoliberalism as an ideology would barely sprout roots. It needs the nourishment that only vital, trusted, public institutions can provide.

In Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, Louis Althusser argues that dominant ideologies are enabled primarily through the non-violent operation of “Ideological State Apparatuses” (ISAs). Chief amongst the ISAs referred to is the “educational apparatus”. Althusser argues that:

“…behind the scenes of its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the bourgeoisie has installed as its number-one, i.e. as its dominant Ideological State Apparatus, is the educational apparatus, which has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Church.”

Althusser argues the educational apparatus is key to consolidating the influence of the dominant ideology, and drawing on Gramsci’s (Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1971) concept of cultural hegemony, that it plays a role in ensuring that the establishment worldview is accepted as a cultural norm, as universally valid. Education is not the sole enabler of a neoliberal, consumerised society, but it plays a key and fundamental role in ensuring it remains dominant. When the language becomes embedded within an educational apparatus that is perceived to be apolitical in nature, the dominant ideology is strengthened. As Althusser goes on to argue:

“The mechanisms which produce this vital result for the capitalist regime are naturally covered up and concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the School, universally reigning because it is one of the essential forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology: an ideology which represents the School as a neutral environment purged of ideology…”

This lends itself to the defence utilised when employing neoliberal language: the terms are harmless as they are used in a neutral context, purged of ideology. We can employ these terms because we are not political and we’ve stripped away all political context.

In their article, The Counterhegemonic Academic Librarian: A Call to Action (Progressive Librarian #40), Stephen E Bales and Lea Susan Engle contend that higher education institutions are well positioned to perform this indoctrination considering their “place of high authority in western society”. They go on to argue that the academic library is a “necessary and inseparable component of the educational ISA, reproducing the political milieu through its collections and library staff or faculties”. The effect of this normalisation is a student class that is “steeped in the norms of the dominant culture that ultimately controls the means of production”. As David Sweeney, director for research, innovations and skills at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, recently argued, the UK has:

“…comprehensively failed to get away from the social elite in higher education…Do we want people like us leaving universities? Do we want our graduates to be engaged with society or part of an elite? Would it not be good to act as models for people who will tackle the big global challenges?”

Our system of higher education does not produce students who challenge the status quo, rather it produces graduates that will protect it, perpetuating and reinforcing the over-arching ideology of the political establishment. The educational ISA is a powerful tool in perpetuating the dominant ideology, ensuring its dominance and primacy. Any attempt to breakdown this dominant ideology, therefore, relies on challenging the status quo in our education system. Only by weeding this ideology out of our education system can we hope to breakdown the structures that create division and inequality.

Image c/o Pierre Metivier on Flickr.

This causes a number of problems in terms of the role of the librarian within the educational ISA. Our position as “neutral” figures of professional standing is a fallacy. Whilst we may strive to be “neutral” our actions are anything but. For example, as Bales and Eagle argue, the ALA “Code of Ethics” can be interpreted to mean that librarians must take a neutral stance on social justice issues, giving equal access to items that preserve the status quo and those that promote the advancement of marginalised groups (this is also reflected in point 7 of CILIP’s Ethical Principles – that we should remain “impartial” and avoid “bias”). The logical conclusion of such equal weighting, appearing to remain impartial, is to create a kind of equilibrium whereby to maintain inequality is as valid as to challenge it. When explored to its logical conclusion, is maintaining neutrality truly fitting with our ethical values? By giving an equal platform to materials that entrench social division, are we not taking a political position? In doing so are we not also undermining the very values we espouse?

Bales and Engle go on to argue that our position should not be of neutrality as imagined by the ALA “Code of Ethics”, but rather it should be:

“…one of social and moral responsibility to challenge the academic library as an ISA, to contribute to the creation of authentic knowledge and history, not simply the reiteration of canonical indoctrination.”

One of the key ways in which we can challenge the academic libraries as an ISA is through awareness of the language we utilise. The growing adoption of neoliberal language, normalises and legitimises it, reinforcing the consumerist culture. Through this use of language we endorse the use of words that are neoliberal by nature and have meaning that is contrary to our ethical values. Endorsement leads to acceptance of the terms as normal modes of language, as orthodox terminology. Using terms such as “customer”, “brand” etc imply an acceptance of the neoliberal driven transformation of citizens into consumers. This is, of course, problematic on a number of levels, not least because this normalisation embeds the discourse of the market in the minds of those who will join the ranks of the social elites, ensuring the consolidation of the dominant ideology. It also causes problems in terms of both our professional ethics and the future of the profession in general. As John Buschman argued in an address at Rider University in 2004, as such “business buzzwords” become ubiquitous:

“Thus does a privatized and economic vision of the library come to dominate discussions and assumptions about its future and define its purposes.”

The transformation of citizens into consumers results in the corruption and, ultimately, the destruction of publicly funded higher education (which has been privatised “further and faster than anywhere else“) and our public services. This transformation results in the adoption of market strategies, gradually eroding the notion that we are entitled to free education, healthcare etc.; instead convincing us that we are consumers without rights, only choice. For a profession steeped in the values of free and unimpeded access to information without discrimination, such an ideology presents a serious threat. A move towards marketisation means a move away from a service provided free and without discrimination, and towards a service for the few. We cannot tolerate a situation whereby we discriminate against those without the means to access the services we provide. Aping the language of business will not, as Buschman concludes:

“…save libraries, it transforms them into something else. We’re a profession and an institution in crisis because we have a structural contradiction between our purposes and practices as they’ve historically evolved and our adaptation to the current environment.”

Without challenging the use of the language of the dominant elite, we essentially become agents of the ruling bourgeois elites. The neutral academic librarian becomes, effectively, an agent ensuring that the dominant ideology is reinforced. As Massey points out [PDF]:

“The vocabulary we use, to talk about the economy in particular, has been crucial to the establishment of neoliberal hegemony.”

In Education Under Siege, Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux (quoted in Bales and Engle) described academics that work passively in the service of the controlling interests of society as “accommodating intellectuals” (expanding on Gramsci’s distinction between “organic” and “traditional” intellectuals). These “accommodating intellectuals” stand:

“…firm within an ideological posture and set of material practices that support the dominant society and its ruling groups. Such intellectuals are generally not aware of this process that they do not define themselves as self-conscious agents of the status quo, even though their politics further the interests of the dominant classes.”

Image c/o Daniel Horande on Flickr.

Such “accommodating intellectuals” are essentially, unaware that their posture reinforces and strengthens the status quo. They would not recognise, Aronowitz and Giroux argue, that that is what their actions enable, but they are working passively and, perhaps, unwittingly in the service of the elites, employing their language and ideology within the dominant ISA. The same might be said of the neutral academic librarian who through their passivity reinforces the ideology of the dominant classes. Whilst they might consider their passivity “neutral” it is, on the contrary, overtly political. They take a political position through the adoption of “material practices that support the dominant society and its ruling groups”. The normalisation of the language of the dominant class legitimises it, that process of legitimising is a political act because it validates language that is a key part of the political agenda. By utilising their language, the librarian demonstrates acceptance of the ideology of a political movement that wishes to transform citizens into consumers. They have, effectively, become active enablers, reinforcing the dominant ideology and ensuring its normalisation.

So, if the neutral academic librarian, or “accommodating intellectual”, is an agent of the dominant classes, what is the alternative? The alternative must surely be to position ourselves as, what Aronowitz and Giroux describe as “transformative intellectuals”? According to their definition, “transformative intellectuals” are those who:

“…earn a living within institutions that play a fundamental role in producing the dominant culture… [but] define their political terrain by offering to students forms of alternative discourse and critical social practices whose interests are often at odds with the overall hegemonic role of the school and the society it supports.”

In order to be consistent with our professional values and to work to create the conditions for an alternative to the dominant ideology that asserts information as a commodity, we must surely become “transformative librarians”? Rather than adopting the language and strategies of the dominant class, we should be challenging or rejecting it. The language of the market has become the dominant discourse within our profession, our libraries and higher education in general. We are too accommodating of neoliberal ideologies that are at odds with our ethical values. Remaining “neutral” is no longer an option. “Neutrality” makes us both accommodating intellectuals and enablers of the dominant ideology. Why should we enable an ideology that is in conflict with our values?

Neoliberalism is a corrosive, destructive ideology. It leads to an unequal society that transforms, without consent, citizens into consumers. Adopting the language of this dominant ideology legitimises and normalises it, ensuring a steady flow into the establishment of graduates “steeped in the norms of the dominant culture that ultimately controls the means of production” [Bales and Engle, PDF]. Rather than passively and uncritically accepting the use of terminology that is alien to our professional values, we should challenge its use and instead of accepting the language of the dominant ideology, we should offer students forms of alternative discourse that reject and challenge it. The prevalence of what Buschman terms as “business buzzwords” legitimise this dominant discourse and therefore cannot be considered neutral, but purely political. It is up to us to refuse to act as passive agents that reinforce the power of the dominant classes and to reject the legitimisation of language that act as tools of inequality. When neutrality reinforces a dominant ideology that runs counter to our values, we are no longer neutral. There is a choice before us: we either act as enablers or we act as transformative agents.

The marketisation of higher education – a warning from Chile

Several years before the 2010 election, the publication of a book by perhaps one of the most influential journalists of the 21st century hinted at the economic will of our political leaders.  It explored, drawing on historical record, how ‘massive collective shocks’ (natural disasters, wars, terrorist attacks etc) provided opportunities for those of a certain political outlook. Only last year, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman (awarded for “his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity“) claimed that the book “really helps explain a lot about what’s going on in Europe in particular”. In short, Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine sets out almost exactly the ideology behind the austerity programme. A programme that is not about returning individual states to economic equilibrium, but about taking advantage of  “economic distress” to push through unpopular ideological reforms, regardless of their economic and social impact.

What we are currently witnessing, through the drive to “austerity” and the overzealous pursuit of public sector cuts, is an ideological drive by those beholden to a destructive neoliberal economic philosophy. This is not about economic necessity, despite the oft-repeated rhetoric of Cameron, Osborne and Co. Indeed, we can see some similarities between the course of action being taken by our current Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition and previous examples of the pursuit of shock doctrine economics. The economic experiments conducted in late twentieth century Chile, for example, certainly provide a telling example in terms of where this neoliberal economic ideology may take us.

The experience of Chile in the latter half of the twentieth century tells us much about how some of those on the extremist fringes of the neoliberal right view the balance between the state and corporate interests. In short, the state needs to be scaled back and private control of public services and utilities needs to be expanded, regardless of the will of the people. To pursue these ideological goals was, evidently, near impossible so long as the people could exercise their democratic rights (why would the population support policies that weaken their influence?). Such actions were, therefore, needed to be built on the back of a tyrannical, oppressive dictatorship. An oppressive dictatorship that terrorised its people such that it prevented the emergence of any organised opposition and where, even if it does start to emerge, it is crushed at source.

Image c/o seven_resist on Flickr.

The Chilean economic experiment had its roots in the murderous overthrow of Salvador Allende, the destruction of its democratic institutions and its replacement with a military dictatorship led by General Augusto Pinochet. Allende’s crime? A programme of nationalisation of Chilean industries and a raft of reforms including: expansion of land redistribution (begun by his predecessor) and government administration of healthcare and education. What was to come following his overthrow was a very different Chile to that envisaged by Allende. One that was less democratic and one which significantly widened the divide between the richest and the poorest in Chilean society.

The shock of a coup against the democratically elected Chilean government provided the window of opportunity required for a number of University of Chicago educated neoclassical economists to seek to influence government economic policy.  Receiving their education via an exchange programme with the Catholic University of Chile, students sat obligatory classes on basic economic theory by Milton Friedman, a keen advocate for free market economics.  Friedman believed that markets, free from state interference, yielded better economic outcomes than those that resulted in state intervention. His economic thinking had a massive influence on these young Chilean students, who returned to Chile inspired by Friedman’s economic theories.  These students became known as “The Chicago Boys”.

Upon their return, after Allende’s successful bid for the presidency, they were so alarmed by the policies enacted by Allende and his adherence to the notion that the state must play a key role to ensure economic prosperity, beliefs that were so alien to the teachings of Friedman et al, that they set about drawing up alternative economic proposals. Upon the conclusion of the coup against Allende, they presented a “189-page draft of diagnosis and proposals“, which they gave to the generals”. By 1975, two years after the coup, Pinochet moved to install a number of Chicago Boys to positions of power in the government.  After their installation, the Chicago Boys set about introducing the economic policies inspired by the teachings of Friedman, removing the influence of the state from every aspect of Chilean life. Chief amongst their proposals were the moves to privatise both healthcare and higher education.

The economic experiments in Chile were observed closely by many in the West, keen to move towards a neoliberal economic model, shrinking the role of the state and embracing free markets.  This was particularly true in the United Kingdom as the free-marketeers looked to smash the post-war economic orthodoxy founded on the political consensus around Keynesian economic principles (ie that optimal economic performance requires economic intervention by the state). The impact upon higher education was particularly devastating, and some of the consequences of the shift towards privatisation are only just starting to be realised.

Following the coup in 1973, and acting on the guidance of the ‘Chicago Boys’, Pinochet and his accomplices began to radically overhaul the education system. Chief amongst their reforms was the decision to move funding of higher education away from the state and towards the individual. As a result, university students were required to pay tuition fees, either directly or through taxes after graduation. Due to this drive to create a “classic non-interventionist state” under the influence of the Chicago Boy’s economic vision:

“The education system is the most market-driven on the planet with 90 per cent of university education and 35 per cent of secondary schools run by the private sector.”

Such was the depth by which the Chilean education system had been handed over to the market that, in a 2013 OECD report, Chile was found to have the lowest proportion of public expenditure on all four levels of education (pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary with 57.9% of education spend coming from public sources (see table B3.1 – PDF).

In terms of higher education, the state contributes approximately 22.1% of the cost of higher education (the UK spends 25.2%), whilst Denmark, Sweden and Norway all spend over 90% (see table B3.2b -PDF). As for Chilean society in general, the country has, according to the Gini index score (which rates the degree of income disparity) the worst score amongst OECD members (it is worth pointing out that the OECD itself does not advocate a system of free higher education). The education system as it has developed in Chile is clearly a reflection of the neoliberal agenda pushed by Milton Friedman via his foot soldiers, the Chicago Boys.

Image c/o Emilia Tjernström on Flickr.

Whilst the reforms in Chile, pushed through by Pinochet under the guidance of the Chicago Boys, were watched with interest by liberal Western governments (not least by those who embraced Friedman’s economic theories) they were not wholly and immediately adopted by his Western admirers. Indeed, there was an understanding that such reforms could prove difficult in a democracy, even zealous advocates such as Margaret Thatcher understood there were limits as to what they could impose.  Not least due to an awareness that the introduction of such reforms would run contrary to long-held democratic principles. In an exchange with Friedrich von Hayek, another of Thatcher’s ideological heroes, she flatly rejected his call to fully adopt Pinochet’s economic model, arguing that:

“…in Britain, with our democratic institutions and the need for a higher degree of consent, some of the measures adopted in Chile are quite unacceptable. Our reform must be in line with our traditions and our Constitution. At times, the process may seem painfully slow.”

Despite a shared ideological zeal for the free market ideology preached by Friedman, it was clear that forcing such policies through, without the economic shock to smooth its path, would not be possible in a democratic society with liberal traditions.  Some might argue that the necessary ‘shock’ to ensure the safe passage of such reforms came twenty years too late for Thatcher.

Although there was a reluctance to embrace the Chilean economic model in the late seventies/early eighties, there certainly seems to be parallels in this post-economic shock era with the neoliberal reforms enacted by Pinochet and the Chicago Boys.  For example, due to the shifting of responsibility from the state to the individual, the majority of students in Chile rely on government-subsidised loans, which often results in substantial debt.  In 2012 alone, more than 100,000 students defaulted on their loans owing an average of $5,400, about a quarter of the average annual income. Interestingly, and in a striking parallel, a year earlier in the UK the average student debt was £5,680. The average salary in 2011? £26,200. Debt was, therefore, just under a quarter of the average annual income in the UK. And yet there has been a substantial difference in the way these two societies have reacted to the same problem. Of course, the average debt in the UK is now significantly higher due to increased fees, which underlines the difference in student tolerance levels in the two countries.

Image c/o on Flickr.

In response to these reforms, the student protest movement in Chile has been gathering momentum for some time, with students no longer prepared to accept an enforced ideology that has been in place for many years, despite the recent shift towards a democratic system. The protests reached their peak in 2011 with the “Chilean Winter” protests led by various student leaders including Camila Vallejo, then president of Chile’s main students’ union. Chief amongst their demands: free and equal public education. Specifically, the students demanded (original text in South American Spanish):

  • increased state support for public universities
  • creation of a government agency to apply the law against profit in higher education and prosecute those universities that are allegedly using loopholes to profit.
  • more equitable admissions process to prestigious universities

The popular support behind the protests was such that it has begun to have a significant impact upon the democratic process in Chile. Michelle Bachelet, elected President towards the end of 2013, vowed to radically overhaul the Chilean economic system with free higher education for all being high on the agenda. Of course, this is deeply troubling for those who profit from the status quo and vehemently oppose a policy of free public higher education, a system common across Latin America. Indeed, so troubling do they find it that Forbes, a publication that is firmly in the free market camp, published an article headlined:

Is This The End Of The Chilean Economic Miracle?

A somewhat interesting and alarmist (if unsurprising) take on the future prosperity of Chile composed by an Executive Director of a think tank that advocates for:

“…limited government, private property, entrepreneurship, private enterprise and a free market economy.”

It’s little surprise that a keen advocate for free markets and private enterprise in Chile is alarmed by the emergence of a leader that has supposedly (and it remains to be seen whether she will make good on her stated intentions) committed to reversing some of the negative impacts of such a system.

Camila Vallejo – one of the leaders of the student protests, elected to Congress in 2013. (Image c/o Eneas on Flickr.)

But the movement against the existing model is growing in Chile and momentum seems to be building for a rejection of the model that has held sway since the Chicago Boys first began to influence government policy in the early seventies. So much so that former leading figures in the student protest movement, (including Vallejo, Karol Cariola, Giorgio Jackson and Gabriel Boric) won seats in Congress following the 2013 election. Whilst there is still a long way to go to reform higher education in Chile, there are signs that the protest movement is on the verge of a breakthrough, a wholesale rejection of neoliberal economic policies in regard to higher education. Interestingly, their rejection comes around the same time as the government in the UK are turning towards the Chilean model as an answer to a supposed funding shortage. The 2008 ‘shock’ providing the cover that Thatcher did not have at her disposal. Will it be another 40 years before we start to see a rejection of this model in the UK?

If there was any doubt about the extent to which the Chilean economic model influenced the West, one need only consult this article from 1993, three years after the dictatorship came to an end, published in Foreign Affairs (the journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations):

Chileans are bemused by the attention paid the robust economy bequeathed them by General Augusto Pinochet. Reformers as far afield as Europe and America have taken special note of his reform of health care, education and social security…If the Chile model holds, then, nations only learn the hard way – that is, by their own trials and experiences. Nonetheless, Chile’s revolutionary example – the withering away of the state – stands for those inspired to follow.

They certainly did take note.  Over twenty years since the people of Chile rejected the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, the so-called “Chile model” still influences those of a certain political mindset. In the 1980s the United Kingdom lacked the “shock” required to instigate many of the economic policies adopted in Chile. The global economic crisis in the early part of the twenty first century provided that “shock”, and it also provided the opportunity that many had been waiting for.

There are signs already of what the future might hold should the UK government continue to pursue a course of self-funded higher education. After years of rather timid student action, protests are becoming increasingly common as financial pressures begin to take their toll. If the Chilean experience is any indicator, such protests will grow, becoming more vociferous and influential before, potentially, challenging the orthodoxy and leading to a radical re-think by our political leaders. However, just because a policy creates a certain reaction in one country, does not mean it will be repeated in another. Conditions vary, environments vary, history and culture varies. It would be unwise to predict that the reaction in Chile will be replicated exactly here.

But if there is one thing we can be sure of, there will continue to be reactions. They may be small and sporadic, they might not lead to the kind of organised opposition witnessed in Chile and they might not have an impact that comes even close to that experienced in South America. But, as we continue to follow the path set out by the Chicago Boys in Chile during the 1970s, we may well find there is an increasing reaction against the continued marketisation of higher education.

What is the radical alternative to austerity?

I’ve just recently started reading David Graeber’s The Democracy Project. A History. A Crisis. A Movement, an interesting look at the Occupy movement by one of the leading figures involved in its emergence. Graeber explores the rise of the Occupy movement and explains why he felt it struck a chord with a broad cross-section of society in the fight against neo-liberal economic policy. Unlike many other protest movements, it drew support beyond the traditional middle/educated classes and tapped into something that other movements had failed to manage, despite the similarity in aims and objectives.

It’s an interesting read and has much to say about organising protest movements in the face of dramatic (and unnecessary) cuts. One section particularly stood out for me [pg. 27]:

“The main thing that stuck in my head about the talk about Bloombergville,” I volunteered, “was when the speaker was saying that the moderates were willing to accept some cuts, and the radicals rejected cuts entirely. I was just following along nodding my head, and suddenly I realized: wait a minute! What is this guy saying here? How did we get to a point where the radical position is to keep things exactly the way they are?”

“The Uncut protests and the twenty-odd student occupations in England that year had fallen into the same trap. They were militant enough, sure: students had trashed Tory headquarters and ambushed members of the royal family. But they weren’t radical. If anything the message was reactionary: stop the cuts! What, and go back to the lost paradise of 2009? Or even 1959, or 1979?”

Of course, this is entirely the case. The popular movement against cuts has not really been particularly radical. All it has done is called for a halt to cuts to public services, hardly a radical perspective. Since when has maintaining the status quo been a radical proposition? Indeed, when one considers the broader spectrum, maintaining public services at pre-2008 levels (or arguing against the cuts) is a relatively conservative (small ‘c’) position. The radical positions, it seems to me, are to argue for the cuts with increased deregulation of the private sector or to argue for increased spending coupled with a reversal of thirty years of deregulation.

That said, even the argument to increase investment isn’t really a radical notion. It certainly wouldn’t have been considered radical in the pre-Thatcherite era when Keynesian economics was the dominant force. Recent evidence certainly furthers the argument that the programme of austerity undertaken by the coalition is both unnecessary and damaging.

The programme of austerity owes some of its existence to a study published by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in 2010. The study concluded that “median growth rates for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP are roughly one percent lower than otherwise; average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower.” In other words, countries with a debt to GDP ratio above 90% have a slightly negative average growth rate.

However, it has now emerged that the study was filled with errors as revealed in “Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff,” by Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. As the Roosevelt Institute notes:

“[The authors] find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don’t get their controversial result.”

(You can read a further explanation of the flaws on the Roosevelt Institute blog.)

In essence, the premise behind the programmes of austerity around the world have been based on, as the Roosevelt Institute put it, “someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.”

Of course, most of the rhetoric around the need for austerity was deeply flawed even before the news that Reinhart and Rogoff’s conclusions were built on shaky foundations. Take the infamous, oft-repeated, national debt is the same as household debt claim. Leaving aside the idea that a household has the ability to print its own money (don’t try this at home!), the argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

When looking at household finances, is taking on more debt always a bad thing? Or are there circumstances where it is both justifiable and logical? Take, for example, someone in a job earning £20k. They don’t own a car and rely on public transport. They are offered a job paying £40k per year but the job is located further away and public transport is not feasible. They then decide that the best course of action is to take out a loan to buy a car, substantially increasing their debt. The car enables them to travel to their new job and double their annual salary. In the short term they have substantially increased their debt, however now they are earning twice as much, this debt will be cleared within a few years of earning a greater income. Once the debt is cleared, they are clearly in a much stronger financial situation. The debt is gone and they are now £20k better off per annum and their standard of living is sufficiently higher. So was the greater short-term debt burden worth it? The answer is obvious.

And I think this underlines part of the problem. Capitalist systems seem to lend themselves towards short-term measures. Instead of looking to the long term and building long-term stability and prosperity for future generations, it lends itself to short-term solutions that will yield immediate profits, until the next short-term plan is required. Of course, it doesn’t help that the political cycle also lends itself to short-term solutions, solutions that can be used to aid re-election without dealing with long-term effects.

It is certainly clear that the current strategy isn’t working. Borrowing has increased by £245bn more than was originally planned. Consider that for a moment. If £245bn had been pumped into the economy in 2010 to support infrastructure projects and build public services, would our economy still be suffering? Would such investment have sparked growth as money flowed into the economy, into people’s pockets and encouraged greater spending? Quite probably. And yet £245bn has been borrowed with no real purpose or plan. That is a catastrophe and a worrying sign of economic incompetence.

So I look at the current picture and I wonder, what is the radical position? For me the radical answer has got to be to increase spending and reverse deregulation of the private sector. For library campaigners it means the fight needs to be more than against closures and de-professionalisation. The argument needs to be about increased spending. It needs to be about investment in libraries. It needs to be about laying out a clear case for what libraries can offer communities if money is pumped into them rather than taken away. It’s about proposing what can be built rather than simply preventing their demolition. And not just libraries (before anyone thinks I am suggesting cuts to other services to enable spending on libraries – I pick libraries because that’s an area I am particularly focused on). All services should argue the casestrongly and persistently for investment. We should not accept that cuts and austerity are a necessity and must be accepted. We need to argue that the reverse is true: spending and investment are the answer.

This may be seen as naïve (who am I kidding, it will be seen as naïve), but the argument should be made and with great vigour. Rather than meekly accepting cuts as an inevitability and buying into the “greater debt is bad” argument, we need to take the battle to those arguing in favour of austerity. They are not expecting an assault on these terms but rather that the opposition will take the moderate halt (or slow) the cuts position. The position for increased investment should not be allowed to crumble when it is faced with the arguments used by the austerity drivers. Instead, the argument should be intensified, not abandoned. The longer people suffer as a result of austerity measures, the more they see wages stagnating and opportunities restricted, the more recovery seems a distant unobtainable fantasy, the more that alternatives will begin to appeal. The trick is to maintain the argument, consistently and coherently. It is this very trick that the right have used to convince people to accept policies that are counter to their own interests. The persistent drumbeat will build support in the long-term and pressurise those driving austerity. The longer we persist in arguing for greater spending, the louder our voices become and the greater support we can mobilise.

But then again, maybe I am just a naïve dreamer…