4 Libraries Role in Deliberative Democracy

In this chapter I examine Freeman and Blomley’s conceptualization of public libraries as public space “for the people,” and how the contradictions that arise could be justly solved through deliberation. I provide a brief introduction to deliberative democracy. Then, I examine how educators–and especially school librarians–can enact publicness with a deliberative and empowering pedagogy.

In their article “Enacting property: Making space for the public in the municipal library,” Freeman and Blomley (2018)  explore the complications that public librarians face in their task of managing library spaces. These complications arise from competing conceptions of who the ‘public’ is that they are meant to serve and what conception of ‘public property’ they adopt. These ideas are explored through a case study of a policy change at Edmonton Public Library’s Central branch, using a property lens. The policy allowed patrons to openly sleep in the library, but was rescinded four years later.

Freeman and Blomley frame library policies (e.g. on noise, food, and sleeping) as ways libraries, and librarians, enact publicness. They argue that public libraries are distinctive from bookstores and private libraries because their policies give, or ought to give, priority to the interests of the public. They clarify that ‘publicness’ is not inherent or given, but rather an ‘effect’ that may shift “in moments of experimentation and improvisation” (p. 202). With libraries being heralded as the “last true public space,” it’s implied that this ‘publicness’ is something worth preserving and nurturing (Leckie, 2004, cited in Freeman & Blomley, 2018). This raises the question: who is the public? They present two lines of thought, which come from ancient republicanism and Roman thought:

1. 1. The self-governing polis or republic (res publica, literally “public thing”), from which we inherit a notion of politics as citizenship, in which individuals, in their capacity as citizens, participate in an ongoing process of conscious collective self-determination.
   2. The Roman empire, from which we get the notion of sovereignty: of a centralized, unified, and omnipotent apparatus of rule which stands above the society and governs it through the enactment and administration of laws. The ‘public’ power of the sovereign rules over, and in principle on behalf of, a society of ‘private’ and politically passive individuals who are bearers of rights granted to them and guaranteed by the sovereign (Weintraub, 1997, cited in Freeman & Blomley, 2018, p. 202)

   In the first conception, the ‘public’ denotes a world of collective decision-making and

   deliberation. In the second meaning, the ‘public’ signifies the administrative state. These two

   notions of the public rest on crucially different images of politics and society, and a good

   deal of modern thought reflects the tension between them. (Weintraub, 1997, cited in Freeman & Blomley, 2018).

Freeman and Blomley refer to the first conception as people’s property and the second as state property. Under state property, libraries are viewed as institutions managed by the state and held “in trust” for the public (Freeman & Blomley, 203). It frames the government as a paternalistic force, bestowing knowledge to citizens through libraries and keeping order. Whereas the concept of people’s property places the power of the library in the people’s hands. Therefore, policies must promote openness and access. Under state property librarians act as trustees of the public. Under people’s property librarians act as facilitators of democratic deliberation and collective self-determination for a diverse public.

Freeman and Blomley explore the contradictions that arise for librarians while attempting to uphold these values of access. The policy that permitted sleeping was a direct result of Edmonton Library’s implementation of Community-Led Librarianship, an approach that “seeks to reach out to urban communities deemed marginal” (Freeman & Blomley, 2018, p. 202). It sought to increase inclusiveness toward homeless patrons by fulfilling their need for a safe, warm place to sleep. Yet, for another group this policy had the opposite effect; some women, primarily immigrant and refugee women, expressed feeling less safe, therefore excluding them from comfortable access to the library. This tension was discussed amongst librarians and they gathered information from patrons in their goal of finding a just solution. Ultimately, the decision was made to rescind the policy, making sleeping no longer permissible.

Deliberation is needed to navigate the contradictions that arise in making public space accessible for all. The acts of librarians to investigate patrons’ experiences and needs show a commitment to the people’s property conception. The ultimate decision was made through deliberation amongst the librarians. Publicness is enacted by policies that are determined by librarians and boards of trustees. Their power and autonomy places them in an “in-between” space (Freeman & Blomley, 2018, p. 214). Theories of deliberative democracy demonstrate how policy can be made directly by the public, without intermediaries acting to represent them. Through my exploration of deliberative democracy and its application in schools, I aim to show how deliberation can make policies more sound and equitable, and make citizens more invested in public institutions.

A Brief Introduction to Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy departs from traditional understandings of democracy, where policies are made by simply aggregating individuals’ opinions, through directly voting or through representatives voting. Deliberative democracy injects a step before opinion aggregation: authentic deliberation. I define democratic deliberation as the process of open discussion and debate between equal citizens on all questions of how we ought to live together, with the goal of consensus.

Consensus is sought through citizens giving reasons for policies (or in opposition) and fairly considering others’ reasons. These reasons are restricted to those that serve the common good, rather than solely personal or factional interest (Cohen 2009, 18; Williams 2000, 4). Citizens are expected to argue (and vote) for not what most benefits them, but what they believe is best for all. Under his requirements of ideal deliberation, Cohen (2009) explains that citizens internalize an orientation towards the common good. While one’s preferences may start with self-interest (e.g. desiring personal wealth), deliberation requires them to create reasons that are broadly acceptable (e.g. desiring a level of wealth consistent to the level of others, on the basis of equality) (Cohen, p. 26, 27). Preferences that are self-interested and not broadly acceptable become understood as weak (Cohen, p. 26). Under this theory, citizens agree that policy is made legitimate through deliberation and must be obeyed. Issues are ideally solved unanimously through consensus, but unavoidable disagreement requires voting where some form of majority rules.

In the context of the sleeping policy, librarians could have chosen to hold a sort of town hall, where patrons could express their opinions on the reasons for and against allowing sleeping. Ideally, the two factions on this issue would come to understand the other’s perspectives. Housed patrons would come to understand the difficulties homeless patrons face in finding safe, warm places to sleep. Male patrons would seek to understand the feelings of discomfort women felt in spaces with many men and homeless men. Ideally arguments made would be oriented to what is the common good. It is important to note that the common good is not necessarily what is best for the majority. The town hall could reach a consensus that, despite being a minority need (the majority has a home to sleep in and does not need the library as a place to sleep), sleeping should still be allowed. Housed patrons may come to see that the disadvantages they face in accessing the library are marginal when compared to the advantages they give to homeless patrons. Or, the consensus may be that the sleeping policy should be rescinded, perhaps because participants believe the private act of sleeping is incongruent with library aims. Regardless of the outcome, the decision of the town hall is made more rigorous by the exchange of ideas and experiences. Patrons are more likely to understand and support the outcome. Of course, the quality of the outcome is dependent on the quality of the deliberation. In practice, town halls often lead to shouting matches and further factionization.

Deliberative democracy is often criticized as being utopian and requiring an unreasonable level of impartiality in its participants (Williams, 2000, 18). Williams (2000) points out that ideal theory can obscure the aims of justice when it fails to take into account the ways marginalized groups may be disadvantaged in deliberation. How could such a town hall be fair for homeless participants, who constitute a minority of the general population and are likely to be discriminated against by housed participants, their experiences and needs unfairly discounted? Thus, Williams calls theorists to focus not solely on ideal theory but also on questions of institutional design, in a way that is responsive to the imperfections of society. I take up this call by fleshing out how educators and pedagogic reforms can bring about a just transition to deliberative democracy.

Education and Deliberative Democracy

The role of education in realizing deliberative democracy is most relevant to the tenet of equal citizenship in deliberative democracy. In deliberation all citizens must be treated as equals by the rules of the forum as well as by each other. Cohen (2009) requires that “the existing distribution of power and resources does not shape their chances to contribute to deliberation, nor does that distribution play an authoritative role in the deliberation” (p. 24). Inadequate education could lead to self-exclusion, if one feels too unqualified to participate, or exclusion by others, if one’s reasons are unfairly discounted by others. Thus, deliberative theorists often speak of vague “educative mechanisms” that create a baseline for participation and fair consideration (Williams, 2000, p. 5). I believe this role of education in equalizing citizens as political actors deserves more in depth consideration.

Education is also an important mechanism in avoiding manipulation. Wilson (2019) uses the term “autonomy protection” to describe the freedom to make one’s own judgment, not generated or controlled by another (p. 244). Having autonomy protection is “primarily a matter of access to education early in life, but also requires reasonable access to information necessary to evaluate actual or possible attempts at manipulation” (Wilson, p. 244). I take manipulation to mean acts of persuasion that intentionally deceive or misconstrue information. The American Library Association has long expressed a commitment to intellectual freedom, the right to read, seek information, and speak freely (ALA, 2021). Throughout this chapter I will use the term educators to encompass all those that educate in schools, including teachers, librarians, and administrators. But now, I think it is important to highlight the unique role that school librarians have in actualizing deliberative democracy. School librarians facilitate access to information, through locating materials, recommending materials, and answering reference questions. They also teach skills to aid students in navigating information systems independently. Going beyond access, school librarians teach students how to critically evaluate and utilize information, through techniques like lateral reading. The quality of deliberation is limited by the quality of information citizens have access to. School librarians are essential in creating citizens who can find relevant, high quality evidence to inform their opinions, and identify misinformation and disinformation.

Public schools provide a unique opportunity to create diverse social relations, which improve deliberation and reduce bias. Besides prisons and the military, public education is the only example in which the state currently has direct influence over social interactions. Therefore, schools provide an avenue, quite unique in the status quo, for the creation of diverse deliberative arenas. An understandable critique of deliberative democracy comes from the great amount of resources and citizen buy-in that is necessary to have diverse attendance to deliberative arenas. For students, the arena already exists (schools) and attendance is mandatory (with the exception of those homeschooled). Students’ assignments to schools can be done with creating diversity in mind.

Diversity of many forms improves deliberation by making decisions more sound. A plurality of voices expands understanding of a problem because more life experiences, new evidence, and new considerations are added. Marginalized groups may offer even greater improvement to decision-making than other groups because their perspectives have been historically ignored (Williams 2000, 8). Therefore, diversity in classrooms is essential.

Theorists believe that a person’s reasoning is affected by their learned experience. Williams quotes Rawls, “To some extent (how great we cannot tell) the way we assess evidence and weigh moral and political values is shaped by our total experience, our whole course of life up to now; and our total experiences must always differ” (Rawls 1993, 56-57). Even though in ideal deliberation all citizens seek the same aim, common good, differences in life experience will often cause diverging conclusions of reasoning. Rawls considers these to be sources of reasonable disagreement. Sources of unreasonable disagreement include ‘prejudice and bias, self‐and group interest, blindness and willfulness’ (58). While it is impossible to achieve a level of impartiality to root out reasonable sources of disagreement, diverse classrooms with proper instruction can reduce sources of unreasonable disagreement.

Diverse, deliberative classrooms can reduce prejudice. Gordon Allport (1954) is credited with founding contact theory, an influential theory that supposes that intergroup contact reduces prejudice when contact follows these characteristics, summarized by Banks (2002):

• They are cooperative rather than competitive.
• The individuals experience equal status.
• The contact is sanctioned by authorities such as parents, principals, and teachers.

These criteria are highly reminiscent of ideal deliberation. Citizens cooperate with the shared goal of consensus, motivated by the common good, and citizens are treated as equal. The third criteria, sanctioned by authority, is an important one that will be explored later on. School deliberation would be facilitated by an educator. All of this implies that properly facilitated deliberation in diverse schools will reduce prejudice. Indeed, empirical studies in schools have supported this theory in relation to disability (Consiglio et al. 2015), religion (Francis et al, 2020), and race/ethnicity (Rivas-Drake et al. 2019), to name a few examples.

Diverse deliberation in youth can reduce challenges marginalized groups face under deliberative democracy. Williams is critical of deliberative democracy’s potential to ameliorate group-structured inequality because of possible disagreement over marginalized groups interpretation of social meaning of those practices (Williams, 2000). Williams is persuasive in her evidence that privileged groups have a “systematic tendency to reject marginalized group interpretations of social practices as unreasonable (even in cases where that rejection is not a product of overt prejudice)” (p.10). Privileged groups, even if they view marginalized people as political equals, may still not see marginalized groups’ reason as reasons, because their lived experience differs.

Bridging the gap of lived experience requires privileged groups to have empathy (Williams 2000, 14). The very act of diversifying schools reduces the divergence of lived experience between races, classes, and other groups, because primary and secondary schooling itself is such a lengthy and formative life experience. More importantly, if equal citizenship is taught throughout schooling, throughout the development of a student’s logical reasoning and empathy, the standard of impartiality required under deliberative democracy seems much more attainable. As Vivian Paley (1992), a philosopher and kindergarten teacher, explained, “The children I teach are just emerging from life’s deep wells of private perspective: babyhood and family. Then, along comes school. It is the first real exposure to the public arena” (p. 21). If the first transition to public life and social difference is accompanied by strong demonstrations of equality and cooperation, students have a real shot at realizing the lofty requirements of empathy Williams sets out in her deliberative politics of difference.

Educator authority plays an important role in autonomy protection. Deliberation in schools differs from ideal deliberation in that the teacher holds more authority than their students, rather than all being perfectly equal. The educator can “protect” the autonomy of students by pointing out manipulation and misinformation. Students will develop a more and more attuned ability to differentiate persuasion from manipulation. This will be taught through demonstration by the educator, as well through lessons on logical reasoning, research and statistics. This is a reasonable method to the internalization of deliberative ideals that Cohen (2009) describes. Eventually, students will be prepared for deliberation with no facilitator, where management of ideals and protection of autonomy is left up to them. The educator as the protector reduces the implausibility of deliberative democracy. It’s unclear how Cohen expects all citizens to accept his tenets of deliberation, to uphold them and refrain from manipulation. What’s more plausible is that a faction of all citizens, educators, might internalize these tenets and pass them on through education.

Deliberative, Critical Pedagogy

Thus far I have argued about the potential that the institution of public education has in the implementation of deliberative democracy. Now, I will go into more depth about the specific pedagogy educators should adopt for this goal. The major aim of this pedagogy is to prepare for, practice, and internalize deliberation.

Deliberation, oriented to the common good, should be conducted in all grades. Paley (1992) proves that even kindergarteners are not too young to deliberate. She told her class about a rule she was considering: you can’t say “you can’t play.” Or in other words, students couldn’t exclude others from playing with them. Summarized by Parker, “The inquiry focuses on two questions: Will the rule work? Is it fair? These questions are compelling, moral questions for the children. They have memories and opinions immediately” (Parker 2003, 82). These questions are exactly the type that deliberative democracy seeks to resolve: How do we ought to live together? What are the consequences of a policy? This example shows young children can and want to deliberate over big questions, so long as the questions are relevant to their world. In the deliberation Paley pointed out, “After all, this classroom belongs to all of us. It is not a private place, like our homes” (Paley 1992, p. 4). In this comment she pushes students to question their self-interest to exclude others. Framing the classroom as a public space orients the discussion toward the common good.

The first norm establishes equality of participation and attempts to address the most prevalent causes of exclusion in classrooms: perceived inequalities in intelligence and social standing. The second norms address impartiality, asking students to objectively listen to and fairly weigh other’s reasons. The third norm addresses the importance of empathy revealed in William’s deliberative politics of difference. It asks students to respect the lived experiences of others and try to understand them, especially if they have not had similar experiences. The fourth norm establishes an orientation toward group values and common good. It discourages students from making arguments based on beliefs that are not shared, such as arguments based on religion. I believe these should serve as a baseline for deliberation that educators can present to their classes and discuss their meaning on the first day of class. Then, the norms should be deliberated by students. The educators should accept changes that the class agrees to so long as the educator believes that the spirit of the tenets remain. The educator should make clear that students may suggest changes or additions throughout the year, subject to deliberation. The deliberation encourages reflection on the meaning and implication of the norms. This will set a precedence of consciousness in the ways students communicate.

Student deliberation should have real power over schools. Deliberation should not be treated as a thought experiment or as practice for adulthood. Students should possess increasing power over school policy as they age, even beyond class norms. This gives students a reason to participate and buy into the tenets of deliberative democracy. Kohlberg wrote “the only way school can help graduating young people become persons who can make society a just community is to let them try experimentally to make the school themselves” (1971, 82). Students must have real power through deliberation if we expect them to utilize it in adulthood. Tangible success through deliberation in schools today will breed success in future deliberative institutions.

Deliberation should be incorporated in all subject areas. In part, due to the rise of standardized testing, most classrooms are far more devoted to content memorization than to deliberation. Even in social studies, where political and social problems are at the forefront, discussions are rare (Kahne et al. 2000). Deliberation can be used to revitalize these classrooms into places where knowledge is complex and in depth. English classes can deliberate and critique an author’s intent. In art students can explore the way the medium extends social commentary. There are many opportunities for deliberation no matter the subject area.

To further empower students, educators should also adopt a critical pedagogy. Duncan-Andrade’s (2008) teaching in an English class shows the potential of critical pedagogy to create empowered citizens. He sought to reduce the intimidation of hegemonic, canonical texts. This was a part of his broader pedagogy “to help make students more critical consumers of all information they encounter in their daily lives and to give them the skills to become more capable producers of counter-information” (53). He argues that the act of students voicing critiques on texts such as Shakespeare, which are seen to have “ultimate authority,” empowers students to critique other hegemonic texts (53). Texts such as legislation, professional contracts, and report cards serve to “limit, constrain, or control actions or thought” (53). The ultimate aim of critical pedagogy is to provide students with the literacy and empowerment to critique, contextualize, and ultimately rewrite these hegemonic texts. Duncan-Andrade empowered his students to be critical of everything from The Odyssey to mayoral policy (Duncan-Andrade 2008). This type of teaching is essential to creating citizens who are conscious of potential manipulation. It also creates citizens who are unafraid to challenge the status quo. Under deliberative democracy, no laws or rights are sacred except those supporting deliberation (Cohen 2009, 24).

In this chapter I explored just one institution of many that will need to be deeply restructured and revitalized in the path of pursuing justice. Libraries and schools can serve as empowering places, where people meet formally and informally, exchange ideas and pursue change. Conversely, these can be sites of oppression, when marginalized voices go unheard or misunderstood. Incorporating participants in real decision making should be the ultimate goal of these institutions. Deliberation in these spaces creates momentum for collective action that can radiate to further institutions. Libraries and education provide the tools to speak truth to power. Deliberation makes that voice harmonious and loud.

Resources

ALA Statement on Book Censorship. (2021, November 29). [Text]. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/statement-regarding-censorship

Allport, G.. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Banks, J. A. (2002). Teaching for diversity and unity in a democratic multicultural society. In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Education for democracy: Contexts, curricula, assessments (pp. 131–150). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Cohen, J. (2009). Philosophy, politics, democracy: Selected essays. Harvard University Press.

Consiglio, A., Maria Guarnera, and Paola Magnano. “Representation of Disability.

Verification of the Contact Hypothesis in School.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (June 2, 2015): 1964–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.408.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang. Chapter 3

Francis, L. J., Ursula McKenna, and Elisabeth Arweck. “Countering Anti-Muslim Attitudes among Christian and Religiously Unaffiliated 13- to 15-Year-Old Students in England and Wales: Testing the Contact Hypothesis.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 41, no. 3 (January 1, 2020): 342–57.

Freeman, L. M., & Blomley, N. (2019). Enacting property: Making space for the public in the municipal library. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 37(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418784024

Kahne, J. & Ellen Middaugh. “High Quality Civic Education: What Is It and Who Gets It?” Social Education 72, no. 1 (January 1, 2008): 34.

Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971) ‘Stages of Moral Development as a Basis for Moral Education’ In C. M. Beck, B.S. Crittenden, & E. U. Sullivan (Eds) Moral Education: Interdisciplinary approaches Toronto, University of Toronto Press

Paley, V. You Can’t Say You Can’t Play. Harvard University Press, 1992.

Parker, W. Teaching Democracy: Unity and Diversity in Public Life. Multicultural Education Series. New York: Teacher’s College Press, 2003.

Rivas‐Drake, D., Muniba Saleem, David R. Schaefer, Michael Medina, Robert Jagers, and Deborah Rivas-Drake. “Intergroup Contact Attitudes Across Peer Networks in School: Selection, Influence, and Implications for Cross-Group Friendships.” Child Development 90, no. 6 (December 11, 2019): 1898–1916. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13061.

Williams, M. (2000). The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy. In W. Kymlicka & W. J. Norman (Eds.), Citizenship in diverse societies. Oxford University Press.

Wilson, J. L. (2019). Democratic Equality. Princeton University Press.