A New History of the English Public Library: Intellectual and Social Contexts, 1850–1914 by Alistair Black (1996)

A New History of the English Public Library: Intellectual and Social Contexts, 1850–1914 by Alistair Black. London: Leicester University Press, 1996. 353 p.

This blog is a condensed version of my review that appeared originally as “In review: the new history for public libraries,” Epilogue; Canadian Bulletin for the History of Books, Libraries, and Archives 11, 2 (1996): 27–35 published by Dalhousie University.

-------------------------------------------------

Alistair Black recently published an important book on public library history in England. His timing is apt because it appears when speculation and pessimism about the prospect for library history exists. To distinguish his new history, Black has used a theoretical perspective and model for public library development in the Victorian-Edwardian period and presented his ideas using a non-narrative historical mode. As well, this New History explores the dimensions of the two library histories: history-as-event (the actual past) and history-as-account (past recorded by historians). His valuable work merits a critical review and it invites a short discussion about the study of library history from a Canadian context and a general historiographic perspective.

Black’s publication encompasses the period from the mid-Victorian years to the onset of the Great War. His main arguments are as follows. Beginning in the last part of the nineteenth century the public library as a social institution inspired and promoted an agenda of societal progress and individual self-realization that incorporated intellectual, aesthetic ideas, and material, practical concerns. Black contends that libraries were considered to be a stabilizing force because they were part of an overall civilizing process and because they incorporated existing elements of social control along class lines between 1850–1914. To organize his arguments, the author introduces a model composed of idealist and utilitarian “flywheels.” At the societal-structural level, each of these revolving, conceptual movements were a source of aesthetic and practical arguments to encourage access to resources in municipal rate-supported public libraries.

The cultural uplift and stabilizing missions that libraries undertook are historical reconstructions that are relatively familiar and less controversial territory for library historians today than more than two decades ago when Michael H. Harris published a thought-provoking revisionist article on social control concerning the origin of the Boston Public Library in the 15th September 1973 issue of Library Journal. What is new is Black’s over-arching interpretation of library growth and the non-narrative basis of his work. He provides convincing deductive, theoretical statements about the general nature of culture and the relevance of social stability. In addition, he deliberately eschews the methodology that library historians have traditionally employed: various chapters of the New History focus on questions or issues rather than chronology, description, and narration of events. It is intellectual history at work, the viewpoint that ideas are major factors in shaping historical events.

I would encourage readers to explore the New History, for many stimulating ideas can be found. However, for the purpose of this review, I must be content with a brief summary.

In chapters 1–2, Black’s definitions of culture and social stability are discussed. As well, the public library goal of free service and tax-based funding is viewed from the different outlooks of the English social classes. In this context, the public library’s role in easing social tensions becomes a central part of its early development during a period of class conflict and the extension of political rights to the working class. The first part of Black’s book provides essential structural and theoretical information for the reader.

Next, the utilitarian promotion of public libraries by philosophic thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill, William Ewart, Edward Edwards, and the 1849 Select Committee parliamentary inquiry, is investigated in chapters 3–5. Material issues—the library’s contribution to the value of useful knowledge, the achievement of economic well-being by individuals through lifelong learning, and the demonstration of political economic benefits (e.g., the growth of a skilled workforce for labour markets)-are covered in chapter 6. Obviously, the utilitarian flywheel helped generate library development during the birth of the public library movement at mid-century.

In chapter 7, the idealist flywheel, particularly reform liberalism that encouraged state intervention, a more informed citizenship, and equality, is introduced. The influential idealist philosophy of Thomas Hill Green is especially relevant here. In the following chapter, Black argues that many idealist elements became the principal concerns of an assertive middle class which endorsed the concept of cultural advancement associated with free libraries. This process included support for ideas related to social control and emulation of many worthy Victorian virtues, such as success, that harmonized social relations in the later part of the nineteenth century.

Black proceeds in chapters 9–10 to analyze and describe an emerging profession of librarians and public library design. As librarians gradually adopted an expanded public service ethic, they also advanced scientific claims for their own profession. These developments are discussed in terms of power and status and their properties in society. As well, the design of social space in libraries exhibited changing architectural styles and plans; for example, open access to collections recognized democratic reforms and monumental, decorative exteriors reflected the public’s preference for expressing civic prominence and dignity. By 1914, Black deems that the major phases of development in the New History had evolved fully.

In his concluding chapter, Black discusses his main arguments about the public library’s important stabilizing societal role before 1914 in dispensing humanistic and scientific education that satisfied the aesthetic and material concerns of all classes. Here, and throughout New History, I find his arguments informative, balanced, and convincing in terms of an historical account for England. The reader is not at a loss for definitions and relationships between variables. Within each chapter, Black identifies social terms (e.g., hegemony, status) and conducts an extensive examination of the connections that library promoters had with the two main conceptual flywheels. As he notes at an early stage, this can be a “heavyweight treatment” (p. 4), and, in the case of how much idealist philosophy the public library promoters read, he acknowledges that the evidence is slight in chapter 7 (p. 157). Akin to other British and American library history colleagues who have recently developed new research fronts, Black has launched a fresh approach and navigated his subject with vigour and candour.

Other library historians also believe the use of theory and hypotheses may serve us well. Clearly, Black favours using rigorous historical methodology common to the social sciences. He feels, for many reasons, that traditional event-based historical works lack a focus or do not effectively serve contemporary librarianship. Conceptual frameworks, structural inquiries, and non-chronological presentations can be difficult to read, but they have merits that appear in New History. First, there is a more explicit approach to historical assumptions about chronological periods and the social structure within which library development occurred. This approach allows a theory of library development to be elaborated without the interruption of any [hi]story. Second, ideas about library growth and progress are set out as theses to be tested from the available evidence rather than sequences of events to be followed step-by-step. Third, terminology from the social sciences, e.g., social hegemony (how the domination of a group or groups is achieved by political and ideological means) or culture (the beliefs, customs, and way of life of groups), are presented in a more precise way. Finally, the use of models, the energizing, methodically revolving flywheels in this case, is introduced for specific purposes to represent the real world.

The use of theory and models in the New History requires some examination. It is not theory on a grand scale: its role is more humble. We are not dealing with the Frontier, Staple, Laurentian, or Metropolitan-Hinterland Theses that Canadian history students study from a national perspective to explain Canada’s development. Black’s use of theory provides a conceptual framework for historical inquiry, a means to describe and to understand library development by testing evidence for the utilitarian-idealist model. This application allows for a certain coherent, structured analysis throughout. After the evidence has been interpreted, analyzed, and presented, the reader should give some thought to the overall hypothesis of the “why” of development. Of course, the place of theory in history is a matter of continuing debate. Some historians, especially in Britain, would reject the use of theories in their inquiries because they believe that people and events have a uniqueness and singular importance each of their own.

Black’s modelling effort for the 1850–1914 period also presents an opportunity to be creative. Historical models can be helpful frameworks that set out the major components involved and indicate their importance. In this way, unconscious assumptions cannot impose upon the “facts” (judgements on the past which historians usually agree upon), the historian of libraries must focus upon how components relate to one another in the historical process. The reader profits from a more systematic presentation of issues. Of course, any model is not an actual replica of a process: one important criticism of structuralism is that it discounts the struggles that individuals and groups engage in to achieve their goals. Models should act as a link between theory, hypotheses, and observations and the historical field of study. They should not displace people and events in historical reconstructions.

At a more general historical level we could ask: what are historians attempting to do, and what is history about? After all, Alistair Black refers to the present unrest in library history (pp. 16-19), and, in his concluding chapter, entices his readers (myself at least) to explore the interrelationships between history-as-event and history-as-account by discovering how contemporary late twentieth-century public library viewpoints of service may be invigorated by observing more proactive Victorian and Edwardian precedents. He is especially concerned that today’s libraries and librarians make modest societal claims; indeed, they appear to have lost the ability to stake out valuable positions that would attract widespread support and actively promote further library growth. But we must understand that introspection is not limited to the field of library studies. The entire historical profession has been engaged in serious self-analysis for some time. Today there are numerous historical schools of thought, but, in general, there are four main groupings. There are those who continue to narrate the events of history and use a chronological format for their presentations. Typically, this is the “old history,” but there have been new converts to narration in the last twenty years. There are social-scientific oriented historians who employ a broad range of analyses and quantitative techniques. There are Marxists. And there are many followers of the French Annales school, a very diverse group which explores all aspects of history, the events of everyday life and the subconscious. In fact, these four groupings have existed for decades and it is difficult to say what is old or new about their approaches or selection of subject matter. The old history is not a monolithic edifice by any means because it is continually refreshed by new ideas and methods.

Increasingly, postmodern concerns intrude on the study of history. Postmodernism presents a challenge to the historical profession at the same time that, in its own way, it provides fresh historical insights. Generally, postmodernists dismiss history: they declare it is empty of meaning for individuals, groups, or nations; or conversely, say that “everyone is his/her own historian” in the search for past meanings. There are many arguments to be presented against the linearity of time, the objectivity of historians, and the conventional, narrative explanations frequently presented in history books. The “end of-history” is a phrase now often raised by contemporaries; it seems to signal the end of identifiable historical directions; the rejection of progress or evolutionary historical explanations; and skepticism about the value of historical narratives, theory, models, and explanation.

Postmodern critics challenge the very basis of historical inquiry. They reject the view that historians should or can be objective; they scoff at the idea that history-as-account can help interpret or transmit our cultural heritage to future generations; they deny that reason can be used to explain history-as-event, the past we all view from different perspectives; and, further, they deny that there is a real, knowable past. History for many postmoderns is a very limited, personal inquiry with mostly contemporary time frames; discontinuous events; and stories drawn from memory, interpreted texts, as well as a great variety of non-traditional documentary sources. It is as important to feel history as it is to understand it. These redefinitions have serious consequences. Without the concept of linear time and the status of scientific objectivity, historians find the creation of causal explanations an impossible task. Theory making at any level, on a meta- or micro-scale, becomes a transient activity with relatively few definite consequences.

What then can we be sure of? Library historians deal with what has taken place. In my view, historical knowledge cannot be an exact set of true statements, completely accurate descriptions, or definitive representations of the past. We must acknowledge limits to our understanding and the potential for different interpretations of events, facts, and evidence. Historical knowledge, like the science of physics or chemistry, must rest on understanding existing evidence. Because we cannot be certain that all relevant evidence is available to us in our present, there can be no closure on historical explanations, cause and effect relationships, structural analysis, or chronicle of past deeds and events. The dimension of time is always with us, and within it, we will constantly change our perspectives between the present and points in the past. The pursuit of new possibilities seems limitless.

Black’s New History should be viewed in this light. In the past half-century, a number of classic histories on public library development in the United States and Britain have focused on the “why” of public library growth. However, I believe library historians should not be too preoccupied with explaining why things have happened. Instead, they should also explain the how, what, when, who, and where of library history. These explanations require different questions: “What restrictions should be placed on the contents of a public library?”; “How did the practice of open access to public library collections come about?”; “Who was responsible for promoting public library growth?”; or “When did classification systems become standardized in public libraries?” The events and agents of change are as important as the concept of causation in history, and depending on the question or audience the historian is addressing, different forms of presentation will be employed.

At times, it is very difficult to separate history-as-account from history-as-event. The past shapes much of the present. What is written about the past and the way it is presented can influence contemporary historical events. Exactly how the past affects the present can be a historical and even a philosophical problem. Perhaps it is best to view the past as an open book, with many pages and many possibilities for additional pages. Historians have many procedures and methods which help us explore the past. Alistair Black’s New History has a lasting value. His book offers us new perspectives and explanations about the development of public libraries, and at the same time he encourages us to attempt to use different historical methods which lead to new discoveries about past and contemporary libraries and librarians.

The old history will always be with us, ready to be infused with the new history. In time, the new history itself will be challenged by even newer historical perspectives and methodologies and face the prospect of change. In many ways, the past is before us and the history of public libraries is ripe for (re)exploration, (re) interpretation, and, ultimately, revitalization.