The Future Ain't What It Used to Be (Or Is It?)

John M. Budd

Futurology is a cottage industry; the Tofflers and Naismiths of the world make good livings telling us what will be (in fact, a book by Michael Dertouzas, from the Media Lab at MIT, is titled, What Will Be ). The errors of prediction seem not to deter either the futurologists or those who listen to them. In 1995 Nicholas Negroponte, in Being Digital , tolled the demise of “atoms” as information moved to “bits.” More telling, perhaps, was his admission at the very beginning of the book that he is dyslexic and hates to read. A year earlier Sven Birkerts came out with Gutenberg Elegies , in which he bemoaned the attention-busting capabilities of media other than print. At about the same time Clifford's Stoll, in Silicon Snake Oil , reminded us that technology is powerful and sometimes liberating, but that the world of the 22 nd century would likely still include taxi drivers, plumbers, and bartenders. So whom do we believe? The short answer is all of them and none of them.

When the future of libraries is discussed, technology is frequently mentioned first. I don't have a complaint with technology featuring rather prominently, but building a future around the most highly variable element of our work is a problem. Yes, technology can be used to provide widespread, simultaneous, efficient access to a large amount of information. In the future the reach, the amount, and (in some ways) the efficiency that technology can provide will increase. I state this as a fact because I can't see any reason at all for this increase not to occur. If I'm wrong, sue me (but I think I'm on safe ground here). People frequently go to libraries so that they can find discreet bits of data, but they might be able to locate the data on their own via some search engine— if they possess the technology. Information technology can also be used to connect complex texts in complex ways, to examine similarities and differences in what people say. Is this all new? Without question the technologies and media are new, but the essential objectives that people have are not new. Folks want those discreet bits of data; they want to connect those complex texts; they want to learn about myriad things; and they want to read. These wants, desires, and needs aren't new. Moreover, the wants, desires, and needs have paralleled the development of libraries, from the elite scholars working in the Alexandrian Library, to the “people” turning to Anglo-American libraries from the 18 th and 19 th centuries to the present.

As the quest for learning, knowledge, data, and reading matter has become more democratized libraries have adopted ways both of providing what communities want and enabling people to see new possibilities for learning, becoming informed, and reading. Libraries have never been cloisters for Luddites; the purposes of school, public, academic, and other libraries have always been outwardly oriented. Librarians have sought content, organizational structures, and technologies that can help these purposes. Futurologists aside, people have turned to libraries (including by virtual means) to enrich their lives. So here are some predictions.

  1. Libraries and librarians will be ever vigilant when it comes to reaching their communities. Outcomes that focus on what the library means to, and can better the lives of, community members will receive more attention and will help strengthen community-library connections.
  2. Technologies will emerge and will be adopted by libraries so the purpose (making a difference to community members) can be realized fully. The technologies' sophistication will present ever more informative possibilities, and libraries will employ the technologies explicitly to that informative end.
  3. After a period of popular skepticism (and we're in the midst of this period today), libraries of all types and in all environments will, largely through the efforts of librarians, thrive. It will become obvious, painfully obvious to some, that the organization and mediation that are at the heart of librarians' work are materially and metaphysically invaluable.
  4. Some people—especially some that administer school systems, colleges and universities, towns and cities, etc.—will be persistently dense. The ideological hype that can attach to technologies will always attract some of the more “limited” of these officials. Conversely, most of the people in these positions will exhibit practical reason and will understand libraries' purposes.
  5. Media ownership will continue to operate against the interests of citizens in a democracy. The consolidation and profiteering can't help but continue for the foreseeable future; the direction that the US is taking, while questionable, will continue for some time to come.

Okay, predictions are all well and good, but I actually mean some of these to be calls to action. I don't believe that the future is determined, that it is set on its course and can't be diverted. I do agree with the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume when he emphasized that “is” and “ought” are two different things. What is may not be what ought to be, and what ought to be isn't necessarily what is. The future of libraries will be shaped by librarians who envision what ought to be and strive to make that “ought to be” a reality. We come back to purpose. I can imagine a bleak future where purpose is forgotten and a public good disappears. The action of librarians is required to avoid such a future. A key part of the action must be keeping the purpose of enhancing the lives of community members in mind. We can't afford to fetishize books; we can't afford to fetishize technology. The desired future of providing learning, opportunities for becoming informed, reaching imaginations through reading, and practical success with the help of data will not create itself. What's in your future?