I generally liked the way the arguments were paraphrased and critiqued. I especially appreciated how Fain places Garrison’s “homey, passive, and suppliant” view of libraries in contrast with Harris’ “cold, moralistic, and elitist enterprise” view throughout the article. Critiques of each author I thought were well-written. The text about how female staffed libraries-and yet not schools-were feminized was well-put and criticized Garrison’s argument reasonably. I also like that the author points to Harris with the public school/public library comparison as someone that did not fully recognize the vital differences between and voluntary and compulsory institutions. That is a valid facet that Harris ignored .
Fain does very well near the end of the article when she talks about what is left lacking by both Harris and Garrison: the lack of precision in defining terms was what struck me about academic soundness when reading the Harris article. From a historical perspective, definitions are paramount for the reader and for clarity when writing. A paper can be fabulous in its evidence and conclusions, but without a working definition stated at the beginning, there is bound to be some confusion or ambiguity about the real meaning of a specific term.
The second-to-last sentence in this article, however, disturbed me. Fain writes that, “library manners and morals can be examined historically…without accompanying denunciations of the profession…” However, who is she to censor the conclusions that historians will inevitably make after doing legitimate research? It could be possible she is trying to shield librarians from criticism from within to save face or avoid confrontation. The tone, certainly, is a defensive one, and should not have been hidden in the last few lines of the article if those are her true beliefs about historical research.
No comments:
Post a Comment