I have long ago stopped predicting the future. It is possible to spot trends and see where they will lead if nothing else changes, but something else always changes and acts upon those trends which then slow, reverse themselves, or find completely new directions to move in that no one could have forseen. That is, of course, because so many things are always happening at the same time that keep anything from flowing in a predictable straight line. That approach seems to me more realistic than outright pessimism or optimism. (Besides, I cannot afford to be a pessimist.)
This entry is in response to John N. Berry's article in Library Journal, "The Vanishing Librarian." http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6529375.html Librarians the web over are commenting on it for good or for ill, and I add my own strong reaction. Anyone familiar with my blog will know better than to tell me to simply get with the times. I covered that line in an earlier entry. Change just is, and just because you are smart enough to know that a change is in the wind doesn't mean you automatically have the knowledge that that change is for the best. And no, I'm not talking about turning back the clock. Continuing education is always on my agenda. It isn't always easy to know exactly how to prioritize the things I need to learn in order to function in this new world of astonishing technology, but I am keeping up as best I know how. The fact that I am maintaining this blog is evidence of that. Like change is just change, technology is just technology. It is an enabler. We can choose to be really smart and knowledgeable and superciliously sophisticated and say, "We gotta use it now! And anyone who is having trouble with it better just git over it and start usin' it, buster, 'else you're gonna git left behind in the mad rush to git where we're all goin'." I rather enjoy taking that attitude myself after I've just learned a new technology, like blogging. I'm not up to taking it with RSS feeds, online image generators, LibraryThing, Technorati, Social Networking and other online tools yet, but the day will come soon because I'm working at it.
No, it's not technology I'm complaining about. It's another kind of trend. It's the trend that assumes that if you can do something because it makes life easier for one person for a short time, you should do it regardless of the consequences. If we can save money by paying people less, let's do it. If we can be more efficient by hiring less knowledgeable employees, let's do it. If people are satisfied when they come into the library, thinking that they can find any piece of information they want with google or wikipedia, let them think that, especially if the "librarians" you've hired don't know any better, either. (And don't for a minute think I am dismissing the brilliance of many well-rounded and well-educated reference librarians who merely lack the benefit of an MLS. I'm talking about hiring Joe Blow off the street whose main qualifications are that he can count to two and sign his name "because people only ask directional questions anymore, anyway.") If a dumbed-down society of knuckleheaded klutzes makes for efficiency and profit, let's have it.
Now, that sort of thing appeals to some people, and I'll let them have their preferences, although I think their tastes are dull and bland and insensitive, and Renaissance Man will fight to the death to keep the dark ages from returning. (After I'm dead, I won't care anymore and you'll have to fight your own battles.) Many of those people to whom the dark ages have appeal as the next new, mod, "in" thing will say I am critical of capitalism. Let me remind them that today's public libraries are the result of Andrew Carnegie's dream. He supported and funded libraries because he loved learning for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of profit and efficiency. He didn't spend his leisure time reading about business cycles and economic forecasting to advance his career. He was interested in history, poetry, literature, philosophy, astronomy, theology. He made his fortune so he could retire early and travel in Europe and associate with the greatest minds of his day and learn for the sheer joy and fulfillment it brought him. His aim was to live life to the fullest, and, believing it a sin to die rich, gave an entire nation an abundant number of public libraries in order that all Americans could enjoy what he had to struggle for in his youth. Last time I checked, Bill Gates had similar values.
So yes, we have to keep up with technology. Its flow is out of our hands. We can only learn to swim in that new world. But the kind of world we will live in as human beings, the way people treat one another, the values we place on human relations and learning and joyful and abundant living, is not a foregone conclusion. Technology does not and cannot make those decisions for us. We will make those decisions or we will allow someone less scrupulous than we are to make them for us. And those are decisions no one is exempt from. "But," someone argues, "how can everyone make those decisions when everyone isn't knowledgeable enough?" If you value your public libraries and the knowledge your public librarians have to offer, you won't have to ask that question.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Ric's
Someone reminded me today that the convenience of e-mail, message boards, chatrooms, etc. cannot replace the delights associated with letters received via snail mail. When things become unnecessary, they may still retain value, albeit for different reasons. Photography has been invented, but people still paint. Film technology is out now, but stages are still in use. An example I was reminded of just a second ago was camping. Someone just pointed out a brochure touting wi-fi availability at campgrounds. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of campgrounds?
Similarly, some things are possible but should simply not be done. The mass-produced printout in lieu of a hand-written thank-you note I once received from a high school graduate was not a proper substitute, in my opinion, for the personal note requiring a bit of otherwise unnecessary effort in order to provide the necessary value. Self-checkout lanes at supermarkets are another.
I can hear the old canard now. "Change is good! Get used to it!" Change isn't good or bad. Change is just change. That line has proven useful, however, since I was a child and the "now generation" proclaimed the inevitable emergence of a society in which people took better care of themselves and each other, and it was something the elder generation was going to have to get used to. But someone out there wants us to think it's the same thing in this case. It's not, nor is it all that hard to illustrate. Imagine two change scenarios: a world in which everyone, for a change, smiles and greets every passing stranger - now that would be a change. OK, now imagine a world in which everyone took up smoking and went around seeing how many strangers' faces they could blow smoke into. That too would be a change. Which would you prefer? "Either one, because change is good?" That doesn't make sense, does it?
I'm all for change, all right. Positive change. Improvement. Progress. Self-checkout lanes are not positive for anyone but the retailer's bottom line. It doesn't help cashiers. It puts customers to work. A retailer once defended self-checkout lanes by saying that customers would get used to them and like them. Not me. Then they mentioned that "actually" they would end up hiring more cashiers. Now what sense does that make? The machines and the new cashiers they make inevitable (without saying how) will only cost more money (in this cost-cutting age!). Finally, they argued that 67% of their customers were using them. Well, I thought, get rid of the human cashiers and 100% of their customers will use them. But I won't be one of them.
One way to beat the trend is to shop at supermarkets that don't have self-checkout lanes and help keep them in business. At first I thought I would find only a few surviving hangers-on from a bygone era. But then I saw an article in the paper about a "traditional" supermarket opening up in the area, one whose selling points included NOT having self-checkout lanes. (What are we doing? Going backwards? Regressing? Refusing to face inevitable change toward an impersonal, mechanized world of lonely strangers without jobs?) Well, apparently people want it or it wouldn't be a selling point. And Ric's on the corner of Belding Road and Myers Lake in Rockford, Michigan is a NEW option for those who wish to go that route. Old-fashioned or not, I like the experience of being fawned over by a half-dozen friendly employees when I walk in the door. Technologically unnecessary though they may be, I find cashiers valuable not because they are necessary in order for me to pay. (What are people going to do if technology renders all jobs obsolete? It may seem like an exaggeration, but these days one can't be too sure.) If I have to explain to you why I find cashiers valuable, you need read no further. But if you are in sympathy with anything I have said, you might stop in at Ric's some time and take in the experience. I think you'll like it.
Similarly, some things are possible but should simply not be done. The mass-produced printout in lieu of a hand-written thank-you note I once received from a high school graduate was not a proper substitute, in my opinion, for the personal note requiring a bit of otherwise unnecessary effort in order to provide the necessary value. Self-checkout lanes at supermarkets are another.
I can hear the old canard now. "Change is good! Get used to it!" Change isn't good or bad. Change is just change. That line has proven useful, however, since I was a child and the "now generation" proclaimed the inevitable emergence of a society in which people took better care of themselves and each other, and it was something the elder generation was going to have to get used to. But someone out there wants us to think it's the same thing in this case. It's not, nor is it all that hard to illustrate. Imagine two change scenarios: a world in which everyone, for a change, smiles and greets every passing stranger - now that would be a change. OK, now imagine a world in which everyone took up smoking and went around seeing how many strangers' faces they could blow smoke into. That too would be a change. Which would you prefer? "Either one, because change is good?" That doesn't make sense, does it?
I'm all for change, all right. Positive change. Improvement. Progress. Self-checkout lanes are not positive for anyone but the retailer's bottom line. It doesn't help cashiers. It puts customers to work. A retailer once defended self-checkout lanes by saying that customers would get used to them and like them. Not me. Then they mentioned that "actually" they would end up hiring more cashiers. Now what sense does that make? The machines and the new cashiers they make inevitable (without saying how) will only cost more money (in this cost-cutting age!). Finally, they argued that 67% of their customers were using them. Well, I thought, get rid of the human cashiers and 100% of their customers will use them. But I won't be one of them.
One way to beat the trend is to shop at supermarkets that don't have self-checkout lanes and help keep them in business. At first I thought I would find only a few surviving hangers-on from a bygone era. But then I saw an article in the paper about a "traditional" supermarket opening up in the area, one whose selling points included NOT having self-checkout lanes. (What are we doing? Going backwards? Regressing? Refusing to face inevitable change toward an impersonal, mechanized world of lonely strangers without jobs?) Well, apparently people want it or it wouldn't be a selling point. And Ric's on the corner of Belding Road and Myers Lake in Rockford, Michigan is a NEW option for those who wish to go that route. Old-fashioned or not, I like the experience of being fawned over by a half-dozen friendly employees when I walk in the door. Technologically unnecessary though they may be, I find cashiers valuable not because they are necessary in order for me to pay. (What are people going to do if technology renders all jobs obsolete? It may seem like an exaggeration, but these days one can't be too sure.) If I have to explain to you why I find cashiers valuable, you need read no further. But if you are in sympathy with anything I have said, you might stop in at Ric's some time and take in the experience. I think you'll like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
