Academic Librarianship labour: we ARE failing the Indigenization test

Consider this: 

Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS)*, from what I understand, represent many layers and interconnections of being, knowing, and methods of expression, which are neither static nor homogenous, and are rooted in the different lands and environments of Indigenous Peoples. TKS promote practices that are sustainable, equitable, peace building, community centered, provide a good life within natural surroundings, and also critically interrogate and examine challenges to their continued existence. 

TKS includes language and/or traditional customs including protocols, spirituality, traditions, practices, ceremonies, histories, and teachings of a particular group of Indigenous people or peoples. This knowledge may be acquired through lived experience including listening and learning in an Indigenous language and within the contexts of living on the land, active and lengthy participation in Indigenous forms of self-determination and governance, cultural structures, and processes; and a careful study and reflection of philosophical underpinnings. Aspects of TKS may or may not be acquired through written documents, as acquiring this knowledge will have involved studying with an Indigenous Elder or Traditional Knowledge Carrier/Keeper.

Consider this: 

North American Librarianship is predicated on inculcation into Western ways of knowing and seeing, culminating in an accreditation that states, yes, you attended a library school that appropriately inculcated you into Western ways of knowing and approaching knowledge, specifically these days, into the Library of Congress or Dewey-based approaches to the organization of all knowledge, irrespective of any other cultures and frameworks prevalent within those cultures.

The problem:

Why do we require those inculcated into TKS to have a degree in our Western knowledge systems in order to promote their own TKS within the library? If the position is predicated on only representing TKS within the library, and as part of the hiring process they present a letter from an Elder or Knowledge Carrier/Keeper that states their expertise in sharing this knowledge (their proof of accreditation perhaps?) then why are we not hiring them? Why are librarians pushing for an ALA accredited degree? In what way does our Western accreditation apply to the TKS? Oh look, it does not. We have ALA-accredited degrees and cannot represent TKS effectively, as has already been noted in various venues within LIS.

Now if you want someone with expertise in both TKS and our Western knowledge systems because they are required to promote both aspects within the library, then having both (the letter as noted above and an ALA-accredited degree) makes sense…as long as the position requires both knowledges. Or if the Indigenous person in a non-TKS position wishes to shift that position to actively incorporate their TKS alongside their ALA-accredited knowledge, then having both makes sense. If they wish to shift to TKS alone, then just the letter. And give them a process to do so.

So STOP it. Stop trying to colonize TKS by requiring an ALA-accredited degree for those interested in working in TKS alone, within libraries. (And yes, I note even having a letter is a form of colonization that our HR departments will require). And by the way, stop trying to catalogue their system into ours for pete’s sake. One ring no longer rules them all. Seriously. Not with the commitments librarianship has, or our libraries have made, to TRC and MMIWG2s+.

The solution: Let them represent themselves in all ways. It is way past time. And write collective agreement language, policies and processes that allows for this. Our current trajectory I find shameful.

*Settee, P. (2007). Pimatisiwin: Indigenous knowledge systems, our time has come (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan; Brock University collective agreement language; feedback from academic colleagues.

Aspirational Statement in response to the draft Competency Statement for CARL/ABRC Librarians

I've been meaning to create a statement that encompasses my feelings and aspirations for librarianship, in response to and refuting the competencies statements that breed like deformed rabbits. Please let me know what you think.

My first draft/beginnings: "I am a Librarian"

 

We are academic librarians who are members of a knowledge-based community called LIS, who leverage knowledge and expertise in service of furthering knowledge, as individuals and as groups of interested parties. We do not work in isolation as we are deeply connected to others, people working within and beyond our field in service to the dream of expanding knowledge. We are grounded within our own knowledge even as we expand that knowledge, and the majority of us consider central to our activities the historic core principles, values and ethics of our field, originally created as the fundamental building blocks of our community. We may have offices and home libraries, but we tend to congregate where information aggregates or where creativity happens that fosters new knowledge, and continue to respond to the needs of those communities aggregating information and knowledge, and create opportunities to respond (including curation and storage) in whatever form is desirable.

As academic librarians we formulate careers and expect workplaces to respect and incorporate those careers in complement to the needs of those units called research or academic libraries, and with respect to the needs of the members of the university. We expect a complementary relationship to be more than the sum of its parts, driving both the library unit and librarians to greater successes. These libraries are run by both librarians and administrative librarians and as such expect administrative librarians to reflect the values, principles and ethics of the profession. If those administrative librarians are to be leaders, we expect them to nurture and lead in exemplifying the values, ethics and principles of the profession. 

I am still processing the CARL statement. I have huge concerns but I needed to cleanse the air, thus I have started by refuting their version of an aspirational statement with the beginnings of my own.

neoliberalism as a form of colonization?

Interesting metaphor. Implies another empire imposing its will on currently existing empire.

In reality, neoliberalism was invited in by those for whom maximization of profit was the most desirable outcome. I suspect the redistribution of income under social democracy was what the companies and their 1% were hoping to avoid. Though it seems common knowledge you can avoid Revenue Canada -since their workers become corporate workers, as seems to be the career trajectory for them- and by using off-shore accounts because it is too expensive for the government, apparently, to sue you for owing taxes. I'm not rich enough to be able to confirm those supposition though. Plus I believe in a social democracy and that makes my values and ethics inherently incompatible with neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism has successfully displaced democratic values and moral choices though. Just read the literature on it. Maximization of ROI, getting value for our money, #buckabeer = competition = survival of pre-existing large companies over small beer companies thus in reality reducing competition, .... You get the idea. The newspapers are full of foolish, non-democratic values laden content. Life is supposed to get nasty, brutish and short otherwise the funneling of monies "through competition and fitness" wouldn't be working. Or phrased slightly differently, inequality is an integral feature of neoliberalism.

For big picture, research-based why this horrible thing happened, you will likely wish to start by reading  Breaking the WTO...as an exposé on the USA implementing neoliberalism in order to remain dominant economically...and how it worked for many years but as greed moved manufacturing and innovation offshore, it has come to bite the USA in the ass with China now becoming the dominant economic power.

This is all opinion about why neoliberalism came about, based on bits and pieces of my readings.  FYI, I did want to create a reading list for #neoliberalism but I'm not there yet. But start with Breaking the WTO, Philip Mirowsk (and et al's) books to place neoliberalism smack dab in history, along with Killing the Host by Michael Hudson. One of the most important things to refute about neoliberalism are its claims: to be ahistorical and thus irrefutable because it is new and shiny and we don't know enough about why/where it came from...and that there are NOT better options out there (not even democracy!).

But enough diatribe/musings for now.