..home

about (draft)

A reaction

• The “anti” prefix implicit in words like obfuscation, inefficiency, non-future oriented, skill-less is ultimately a reaction to current modes of approaching work, views on technology and ways of thinking in the libraries. The sentiment goes that to be reactionary can exclude proactiveness. I disagree. I agree that these words are reactive but my impulse in using them is different than how reactionary is used in our current poliltical environment. These reactive words come from an acceptance (but not resignation) that we are in a kind of realism. Mark Fisher wrote about a “Capitalist Reaslim” which holds us captive to our present without the ability to imagine an alternative. Taking this reactive approach is an acknolewgement that we start from an unimaginative place and that our only alternative is to react.

Origin

• In attending talks, conferences, meetings, getherings, etc… the mode of thinking (the status quo) is always a yes and no to questionable technology and its uses. The no comes from a moral imperative and thoughtfuless that certain technological tools and methods are anithetical to what we claim in libraires. The yes to the tool comes from a resignation that we can’t do anything in affecting the structure of our organizations and we must say yes to these technologies while keeping a critial stance (a no hidden in a yes). I would like to move away from this yes and no tug. This yes and no tug implies “even though your are stuck with this tool, you also are not allowed to react nor deconstruct it, at least not without propossing a solution.” In other words, it implies: “say no all you want, criticise all you want but don’t forget your no is meaningless.” This is reflected in the often asked question, usually after a talk critial of technologies used in libraries, that goes something like this: “I agree with you (this so and so technology has a lot of issues) but we can’t do anything to change” or “I agree with you but what would you propose differently?”. We live in a system that deadeness our imagination. A realism that sucks out even the desire to question technologies without the need to feel productive. So, to move a way from the yes and no, from the “it depends” apporach to harmful technologies, the only thing we can do is react without the need to feel like we are producing a change. To embrace this expectation to produce a practical solution, is to give into the strucure’s assumption (“you can only critizise if you have a solution”). In other words, if our ourganizations’ imperative on us is to produce / be proactive then to say we can’t react because it is not producing is to limit ourselves to the imperative of what we are trying to change. Surely, we don’t assume that the only possible way to react is when it produces something. We are free to react without producing

FAQ

• What is your responsability towards students who want to have a specific skill?
• Some technologies are here to stay?
• Technology is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you use it?