(no subject)
In a refreshing contrast to my last post about school, I have just had a lot of fun writing my response essay to a book we read for Public Libraries. It's good to have fun with school again.
Dungeons, Dragons and...Librarians?
Applying Character Alignment from D&D to Questioning Library Neutrality
In the library world, much controversy exists over the question of whether or not librarians should take a public stand on divisive social issues. Some librarians argue that neutrality is the best option, offering information on all sides of a controversial issue without offering judgment. Others argue that such neutrality leaves the librarian in a dangerous position of moral relativity, poised on the brink of irrelevancy. The ideas behind the discussion of a librarian's so-called neutrality are not unlike the concept of character alignment in the tabletop roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons. Applying a "library alignment" to the profession provides a metaphor to better understand the nuances of the widely contested issue of library neutrality. Several perspectives on library neutrality are examined in the essays collected in Questioning Library Neutrality, making it an excellent example of the way that D&D character alignment can be applied to the library profession.
In the game Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), players create a character that they control in a fantasy environment. Players choose every aspect of their character, from its race to its vocation to its hair color (PHb, 4th Ed., p. 12). Towards the end of the character creation process, players select an alignment for their character. A character's alignment provides an indication of how the character will act in a variety of situations; in effect, it is the character's "moral compass" (PHb, 4th Ed., p. 19). An alignment is constructed by deciding the character's position on two spectrums: Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. Good vs. Evil indicates the player's position on moral issues while Law vs. Chaos indicates the player's ethos regarding the necessity of order and government in society. A player has three choices for each spectrum: he can be at either end or he can choose to be right in the middle. By combining the two spectrums in various ways, nine distinct character alignments are possible, such as Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral (neutral on both spectrums) and Chaotic Evil (PHb, 2nd Ed., p. 46-7). Several of these alignments can be applied to the debate over library neutrality as raised in Questioning Library Neutrality.
Since the current debate in librarianship ranges from a perspective of neutrality to a perspective of social progressiveness, librarians will be assumed to never fall into the Evil end of the Good vs. Evil spectrum for the purposes of this essay. It would be interesting to consider the perspective of a librarian willingly working for a totalitarian regime bent on spreading hate speech and misinformation, but this perspective is not part of Questioning Library Neutrality, which is the focus of this paper. Furthermore, it will be assumed that advocating for a progressive approach to social issues constitutes a Good alignment. Most of the essays in Questioning Library Neutrality focus on the argument between the positions of Good and Neutral in the morality spectrum, though a few offer perspectives on the Law vs. Chaos spectrum. Overall, Questioning Library Neutrality advocates for a library alignment of Lawful Good. According to the D&D Player's Handbook, 4th Ed., "If you're Lawful Good you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. ... Lawful Good characters believe ... in the value of life and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden" (p. 19-20). This attitude can be seen very clearly in a number of essays from Questioning Library Neutrality.
Several authors advocate directly for a Lawful Good alignment. In Iverson's essay "Librarianship and Resistance," she argues that "Librarians must be challenged to treat racist materials as racist materials" rather than to simply classify them according to their type, such as historical document or literature. (QLN, p. 27). Steven Joyce, in his essay "A Few Gates Redux," contends that because librarians are concerned with literacy, intellectual freedom and equal access to information they cannot "ignore issues concerning basic human dignity and the social conditions in which human culture develops" (QLN, p. 35). In "Activist Librarianship: Heritage or Heresy," Ann Sparanese writes that "the role of the librarian, as the role of the citizen, was to concern him or herself as a professional, with human rights as well as abstract principles such as intellectual freedom" (QLN, p. 76). These authors advocate using professional codes of conduct to advance progressive stances on human rights issues, a distinctly Lawful Good perspective.
Other authors, rather than explicitly arguing for a Lawful Good alignment, choose instead to argue against the more traditionally assumed library alignment of True Neutral. In D&D, "True Neutral [characters] do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention" (PHb, 2nd Ed., p. 47). Traditionally, librarians have adopted this kind of neutrality, as evidenced by the Library Bill of Rights, Article 2, which states that "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical materials" (QLN, p. 1). However, the very commitment to a Library Bill of Rights and belief in the authority of the American Library Association immediately discounts the idea that librarians could ever be perfectly True Neutral. Instead, librarians tend towards the Lawful Neutral alignment, which emphasizes adherence to law, tradition, or a personal code of conduct over concerns of moral issues (PHb, 3.5 Ed., p. 105). Robert Jensen argues this point precisely in his essay "The Myth of the Neutral Professional," when he points out that when "professionals are encouraged to be politically neutral, but within [a] narrow framework that takes the legitimacy of state power and corporate power as a given," they are not completely neutral because they choose to work within the existing power structure (QLN, p. 92). Joseph Good strongly advocates for the abandonment of neutrality in librarianship in his essay "The Hottest Place in Hell" by arguing that adopting neutral positions on divisive social issues puts the library at risk of becoming irrelevant in contemporary society (QLN, p. 144). By focusing on the problems posed by a True Neutral alignment, these authors implicitly demonstrate their commitment to the Lawful Good alignment.
Though the game of D&D might seem far removed from the library profession's conflict over the issue of library neutrality, the two can be connected. Using the principles of character alignment from D&D provides an excellent metaphor for the complex issues which are at the forefront of modern librarianship. The essays collected in Questioning Library Neutrality fit the Lawful Good alignment especially well, arguing for a commitment to using a professional code of conduct to advance human rights and progressive social ideals.
Works Cited
Cook, David. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 2nd ed. Lake Geneva, WI: T.S.R. Inc., 1989.
Cook, Monte, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams. Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 3.5 ed. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., 2003.
Heinsoo, Rob, Andy Collins and James Wyatt. Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 4th ed. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., 2008.
Lewis, Alison, ed. Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian. Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 2008.
This is just the first draft. The conclusion's a bit weak but I was kind of tired of writing by the time I got to that. It'll be revised. :)
Dungeons, Dragons and...Librarians?
Applying Character Alignment from D&D to Questioning Library Neutrality
In the library world, much controversy exists over the question of whether or not librarians should take a public stand on divisive social issues. Some librarians argue that neutrality is the best option, offering information on all sides of a controversial issue without offering judgment. Others argue that such neutrality leaves the librarian in a dangerous position of moral relativity, poised on the brink of irrelevancy. The ideas behind the discussion of a librarian's so-called neutrality are not unlike the concept of character alignment in the tabletop roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons. Applying a "library alignment" to the profession provides a metaphor to better understand the nuances of the widely contested issue of library neutrality. Several perspectives on library neutrality are examined in the essays collected in Questioning Library Neutrality, making it an excellent example of the way that D&D character alignment can be applied to the library profession.
In the game Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), players create a character that they control in a fantasy environment. Players choose every aspect of their character, from its race to its vocation to its hair color (PHb, 4th Ed., p. 12). Towards the end of the character creation process, players select an alignment for their character. A character's alignment provides an indication of how the character will act in a variety of situations; in effect, it is the character's "moral compass" (PHb, 4th Ed., p. 19). An alignment is constructed by deciding the character's position on two spectrums: Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. Good vs. Evil indicates the player's position on moral issues while Law vs. Chaos indicates the player's ethos regarding the necessity of order and government in society. A player has three choices for each spectrum: he can be at either end or he can choose to be right in the middle. By combining the two spectrums in various ways, nine distinct character alignments are possible, such as Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral (neutral on both spectrums) and Chaotic Evil (PHb, 2nd Ed., p. 46-7). Several of these alignments can be applied to the debate over library neutrality as raised in Questioning Library Neutrality.
Since the current debate in librarianship ranges from a perspective of neutrality to a perspective of social progressiveness, librarians will be assumed to never fall into the Evil end of the Good vs. Evil spectrum for the purposes of this essay. It would be interesting to consider the perspective of a librarian willingly working for a totalitarian regime bent on spreading hate speech and misinformation, but this perspective is not part of Questioning Library Neutrality, which is the focus of this paper. Furthermore, it will be assumed that advocating for a progressive approach to social issues constitutes a Good alignment. Most of the essays in Questioning Library Neutrality focus on the argument between the positions of Good and Neutral in the morality spectrum, though a few offer perspectives on the Law vs. Chaos spectrum. Overall, Questioning Library Neutrality advocates for a library alignment of Lawful Good. According to the D&D Player's Handbook, 4th Ed., "If you're Lawful Good you respect the authority of personal codes of conduct, laws and leaders, and you believe that those codes are the best way of achieving your ideals. ... Lawful Good characters believe ... in the value of life and they put even more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect the weak and lift up the downtrodden" (p. 19-20). This attitude can be seen very clearly in a number of essays from Questioning Library Neutrality.
Several authors advocate directly for a Lawful Good alignment. In Iverson's essay "Librarianship and Resistance," she argues that "Librarians must be challenged to treat racist materials as racist materials" rather than to simply classify them according to their type, such as historical document or literature. (QLN, p. 27). Steven Joyce, in his essay "A Few Gates Redux," contends that because librarians are concerned with literacy, intellectual freedom and equal access to information they cannot "ignore issues concerning basic human dignity and the social conditions in which human culture develops" (QLN, p. 35). In "Activist Librarianship: Heritage or Heresy," Ann Sparanese writes that "the role of the librarian, as the role of the citizen, was to concern him or herself as a professional, with human rights as well as abstract principles such as intellectual freedom" (QLN, p. 76). These authors advocate using professional codes of conduct to advance progressive stances on human rights issues, a distinctly Lawful Good perspective.
Other authors, rather than explicitly arguing for a Lawful Good alignment, choose instead to argue against the more traditionally assumed library alignment of True Neutral. In D&D, "True Neutral [characters] do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention" (PHb, 2nd Ed., p. 47). Traditionally, librarians have adopted this kind of neutrality, as evidenced by the Library Bill of Rights, Article 2, which states that "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical materials" (QLN, p. 1). However, the very commitment to a Library Bill of Rights and belief in the authority of the American Library Association immediately discounts the idea that librarians could ever be perfectly True Neutral. Instead, librarians tend towards the Lawful Neutral alignment, which emphasizes adherence to law, tradition, or a personal code of conduct over concerns of moral issues (PHb, 3.5 Ed., p. 105). Robert Jensen argues this point precisely in his essay "The Myth of the Neutral Professional," when he points out that when "professionals are encouraged to be politically neutral, but within [a] narrow framework that takes the legitimacy of state power and corporate power as a given," they are not completely neutral because they choose to work within the existing power structure (QLN, p. 92). Joseph Good strongly advocates for the abandonment of neutrality in librarianship in his essay "The Hottest Place in Hell" by arguing that adopting neutral positions on divisive social issues puts the library at risk of becoming irrelevant in contemporary society (QLN, p. 144). By focusing on the problems posed by a True Neutral alignment, these authors implicitly demonstrate their commitment to the Lawful Good alignment.
Though the game of D&D might seem far removed from the library profession's conflict over the issue of library neutrality, the two can be connected. Using the principles of character alignment from D&D provides an excellent metaphor for the complex issues which are at the forefront of modern librarianship. The essays collected in Questioning Library Neutrality fit the Lawful Good alignment especially well, arguing for a commitment to using a professional code of conduct to advance human rights and progressive social ideals.
Works Cited
Cook, David. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 2nd ed. Lake Geneva, WI: T.S.R. Inc., 1989.
Cook, Monte, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams. Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 3.5 ed. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., 2003.
Heinsoo, Rob, Andy Collins and James Wyatt. Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook. 4th ed. Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast, Inc., 2008.
Lewis, Alison, ed. Questioning Library Neutrality: Essays from Progressive Librarian. Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 2008.
This is just the first draft. The conclusion's a bit weak but I was kind of tired of writing by the time I got to that. It'll be revised. :)