Intellectual freedom and social responsibility in library and information science: A reconciliation

Abstract

This article presents a reconciliation of intellectual freedom and social responsibility in library and information science (LIS). The conflict between traditional intellectual freedom and social advocacy, integral to understanding a range of issues in LIS ethics, juxtaposes a laissez-faire freedom with social intervention. This study, by contrast, engages with conceptions of freedom within philosophical and LIS literatures, presenting a descriptive conceptualisation of both values through the common rubric of freedom. This method, influenced by the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, echoes Solove’s conceptualisation of privacy and provides a conceptual clarity lacking in existing LIS literature. This clarity, it is argued, suggests a path of reconciliation for both values. The argument unfolds in three stages. First, the prominent conception of intellectual freedom within LIS represents an ‘anti-censorship’ conception. This conception, restricted to passive physical accessibility, conflicts with literature promoting social responsibility. Second, an analysis of freedom within philosophical literature picks out three conceptions: negative, positive and republican. These conceptions, it is argued, translate to LIS literature and represent a full spectrum of viewpoints within the ‘intellectual freedom vs social responsibility’ debate. Five conceptions in LIS are identified: ‘negative conservative’, ‘negative progressive’, ‘content neutral’, ‘republican’ and ‘freedom as moral action’. The conflict within the ‘intellectual freedom vs social responsibility’ debate, therefore, represents conflict between conceptions of freedom. Third, this insight paves the way for a reconciliation that tempers and ameliorates the tension between both values. Dimova-Cookson’s ‘producer-recipient’ model suggests how a negative intellectual freedom and a positive social responsibility may sit together in a symbiotic relationship. This understanding, illustrated by practical case studies, provides a fresh perspective on the complex interaction of both values within the LIS profession.

Of acquisitions and interference: accounting for systemic threats to the freedom to read

“…The freedom to read, on librarianship's mainstream understanding, is just such an absence of coercion: the freedom from intentional obstacles and influences, wherein I am free qua reader "to the extent that I enjoy unimpeded and uncoerced choice" of reading material (Pettit, 1997, p. 18). In a broader sense, this account is consistent with what Stephen Macdonald (2023) characterizes as the library profession's "narrow 'anti-censorship' conception of intellectual freedom," in which "freedom is impaired when barriers, erected by others, prevent access, or prohibit free expression" (emphasis original). These barriers exist outside the agent in question-that is, they do not include features of a reader's "inner psychological makeup or motivation," nor the nature or source of their beliefs and tastes (Macdonald, 2023).…”

“…In a broader sense, this account is consistent with what Stephen Macdonald (2023) characterizes as the library profession's "narrow 'anti-censorship' conception of intellectual freedom," in which "freedom is impaired when barriers, erected by others, prevent access, or prohibit free expression" (emphasis original). These barriers exist outside the agent in question-that is, they do not include features of a reader's "inner psychological makeup or motivation," nor the nature or source of their beliefs and tastes (Macdonald, 2023). The reader's freedom, then, is defined by the degree to which their choices are free, in the sense that they are made in the absence of external constraints on picking what the reader in fact prefers.…”