One perspective on the ALA Traditional Cultural Expressions statement

The following are some potential questions and answers developed during correspondence regarding the ALA Traditional Cultural Expressions document posted as of 5/5/2010:

http://wo.ala.org/tce/

Specifically (in case the information at that link should change), here is the document version addressed in this review:

Download 26224547-Librarianship-and-Traditional-Cultural-Expressions

[© 2010 American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy]

Question: What is a Traditional Cultural Expression?

Answer: There seems to be no concise, legal definition. According to a brief by Janice T. Pilch:

The term TCEs is sometimes interchangeable with expressions of folklore. The term folklore was used in early discussions, but was replaced by the broader and more neutral term TCE in the international arena. Some nations, however, still prefer the term folklore or folk works, and use these terms in national copyright legislation.

TCEs are tangible and intangible forms in which traditional culture and knowledge are expressed,
communicated, appear, or are manifested. They include:

• Verbal expressions or symbols (stories, epics, legends, tales, poetry, riddles, etc.)
• Musical expressions (songs, instrumental music)
• Expressions by action (dances, plays, ceremonies, rituals, other performances)
• Tangible expressions (drawings, designs, paintings, including body painting,
carvings, sculptures, pottery, terracotta, mosaic, woodwork, metalware, jewelry,
baskets, needlework, textiles, glassware, carpets, costumes, musical instruments)
• Intangible expressions reflecting traditional thought forms
• Architectural forms

Question:

Does it create a First Amendment/Library Bill of Rights conflict to officialize a document asserting that libraries should participate in the restriction of content when a cultural or religious group asks us to, whether by actually restricting the content in-house, or by returning it to the group so that they may do so themselves?

Answer:

The current document states:

"Indigenous communities understand that some traditional cultural expressions are private or sacred knowledge and share this insight with libraries that may have these works in their collections. Libraries that hold private or sacred knowledge should consider returning those materials to the indigenous communities or to institutions in which such restrictions are appropriate."

While some assert that the call to return materials in response to the cultural or religious beliefs of a particular group is not intended to be a "backdoor means of restricting access," that is nevertheless the end result. We are participating in the restriction of library materials because of someone's belief system--something we have until now pledged not to do. Consider what it would sound like if we were to substitute some other group:

"Devout Ones understand that depictions of the Ultimate Spirit are sacred, and share this insight with libraries that may have these depictions in their collections. Libraries that hold sacred knowledge should consider returning those materials to Devout Ones institutions in which restrictions are appropriate."

The proposition that "sacredness" should become a reason to treat some material differently should be subject to serious scrutiny.  The next example really isn't too far off the mark from actual situations that have occurred:

"Devout Ones of the Ultimate Spirit understand that anatomically correct illustrations are an abomination to Him, and share this insight with libraries who may have these abominations in their collections, thereby helping the poor misguided librarians to understand that exposing children to these depictions will condemn the poor little innocents to eternal brimstone. Libraries that hold religious abominations should be sensitive to their communities and send all such materials to Ask Alice, where everyone has already lost their souls."

"X understands that Y is so." This implies that the group in question has the real and most important truth about the material in question. In other words, the group's perception of sacredness trumps the responsibility of the library to maintain access.  It is not clear how this response to considerations of "sacredness" could fairly or reasonably confined to indigenous peoples.

Question:

Isn't this a justice issue? If some ethnic group claims that the material is rightfully theirs, there might be legal and ethical reasons to return it.

Answer:

If it is a legal ownership issue, then we shouldn't issue a blanket statement--we should get legal advice for each particular assertion of ownership. Furthermore, it may be perfectly appropriate to return an original artifact, but inappropriate to remove all copies of it; the two issues should be addressed separately. Finally, if it is in fact important for intellectual property laws to be overhauled so as to allow ethnic or cultural groups to assert ownership rights to things previously considered "folklore," then that assertion should be made clear in the document.

Question: I would rather expand, rather than shrink, the public domain.  If we start copyrighting folklore and pulling things out of the public domain, mightn't this result in even further restrictions to fair use and knowledge growth?

Answer: That would seem to be one logical outcome. 

Question:

Don't libraries already discriminate against some beliefs by cataloging and housing them separately from "religion"?

Answer:

If so, then let's pass a resolution calling for all beliefs to be cataloged and arranged together; this document doesn't do that.

Question: Has any other unit of the Association developed any guidelines?

Answer: ARL has posted a document entitled Special Collections in ARL Libraries here:

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/scwg-report.pdf  (aka Download Scwg-report )

which says, in part:

Restrictions on AccessPotential use is a vital consideration when the decision is made to acquire a collection. The goal of acquisition should be access. The Society of American Archivists’ Code of Ethics asserts that, "archivists recognize their responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives."5 In an era when convenient access can trump quality of content as far as the user is concerned, delaying access to collections—particularly digital collections—can have a deleterious effect on an institution’s ability to manage that material over time. As part of their commitment to developing a culture of stewardship and respect for cultural records in our society, one task for archivists, curators, and librarians is to educate donors to the dangers and consequences of lengthy restrictions on access to materials. They have to develop means for expediting access that balance donors’ rights, privacy concerns, and scholarly use.

At a minimum, the acquiring organization should require a timetable for access—including the possibility of staged access to portions of the collection—and the removal of restrictions as part of its negotiations with donors. The conditions of acceptance and use of a collection need to be clearly understood by both parties and shared with the research community. This is an area where professional organizations could help by providing accessible guidelines for use in negotiations with donors.

There are probably others; this is one example.

Question:

Indigenous peoples have suffered terribly. Isn't this document an important step toward addressing these historical inequities?

Answer:

That dreadful things have been done to oppressed indigenous peoples is abhorrent. The fact that humankind perpetuates such inhumanity upon humankind daily throughout history should be of concern to us all. However, if we move forward with this TCE document, we will have taken a new, subjective position toward a particular set of religious and cultural beliefs, and we must, IMO, be prepared to explain our actions to people who usually partner with us:

-------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4673908.stm

"The row intensified on Wednesday when France Soir, alongside the 12 original cartoons, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."

Publications in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain also re-ran the Danish cartoons to show support for free speech.

Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet or Allah."

____________

In other words, we should be clear about the fact that we will be putting our social responsibility toward a cultural group ahead of our professed objective treatment of a vast quantity of other content that that is (and will continue to be) considered sacred cultural expressions. It seems very likely that other groups will demand equal treatment.

If that's where we need to go in this postmodern world, then of course, we must. We should really think about it first, though, and be clear about what we are doing and why.

Question:

How can you tell us not to negotiate with community groups or make special arrangements for special collections?

Answer:

This critique does not suggest that libraries shouldn't negotiate or make special arrangements.

Question:

Isn't it really impossible to live up to the LBOR anyway?

Answer

Practically speaking, probably not 100%. However, we undermine the LBOR's effectiveness if we pass policy documents that contradict it.

Question:

Isn't it ok to restrict access to sacred documents to members of a particular cultural, ethnic, or religious community?

Answer:

Only if we are abandoning our historic stance that the only appropriate restrictions to content are those of "time place and manner." 

Remaining Questions

• If ALA approves this statement, how is it *not* setting a dangerous precedent calling upon libraries and librarians to treat a particular category of information differently because of" . . the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation"? In other words, might the TCE statement in any way undercut the assertion that"Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues"?
• If we are to accept the argument that TCEs constitute PII, what should we do with similar requests for people wanting us to restrict access to documents for similar reasons, public or otherwise?
• If we are to be concerned about the laws and rules of a particular culture when it comes to treatment of information by or about that culture, how can we refuse to provide that same respect and service to other cultural groups when it comes to information they deem equally critical to the preservation and protection of their own cultural norms, standards, or identities?
• Is the TCE document that was not passed being used as an official document anyway?
• How would we respond to other religious and cultural groups if they were to say that they wanted equal treatment for the expressions they find sacred? Does anyone have a response that would clear that up or show it to be a misguided concern?
• Isn't one person's Bible another person's textbook?

References:

The American Library Association Library Bill of Rights: Download Librarybillofrights

　

Comments

[Melora]

Yes, I understand that the TCE document represents a postmodernist, anti-global response to the perceived impact of traditional Western thought on specific ethnicities--primarily the fear that all will be forced to assimilate and become more or less homogenized. That is one point of view. As I say in my original post, if we are throwing out the entire Enlightenment view upon which things like the LBOR are based, then we should simply be very clear about what we are doing and not just slide into it due to a vague fear that we may be viewed as "anti" different peoples and cultures. While inequities do exist, and modernism and globalism have indeed left significant wreckage in their path, I suggest that the many interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights that have been passed by ALA Council over the years are based on a foundation that should be overturned with extreme caution.

For instance:

"Diversity in Collection Development
Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored"

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/librarybill/interpretations/default.cfm

(Note: While it may be purist, I can't claim any responsibility for having written it)

[Rory Litwin]

The great thing about this conflict is that it represents indigenous resistance to the European philosophical tradition that most of us take as a given. Within the context of European history, and American history considered as an extension of the European tradition, intellectual freedom represents something at the foundation of liberalism. But also at the foundation of liberalism is openness to other ways of looking at things, which we encounter as colonial peoples. So yeah, that this issue is coming up now is very important - it represents the irony of Enlightenment liberalism. Europe is having a related issue in trying to assimilate a large number of Muslim immigrants.

The situation in which it places a committed civil libertarian - and I think there is no way out of it - is that of having to justify a philosophy whose own intellectual tradition has already effectively undone, and to make it worse, in a dialog with a completely different tradition, and one that has a prior claim to the whole context of the discussion. This is not as easy as simply re-asserting civil libertarian principles.

Aside from that, one minor quibble: You referred to a "first amendment/library bill of rights" conflict with the new recommendations, as though the first amendment and the library bill of rights are the same thing and as though an analysis in terms of the one applies to the other. That is not accurate. The first amendment has a legal history that does not apply to the library bill of rights, and in many cases the library bill of rights could be taken to go much farther. First amendment law is nowhere near as purist as your interpretation of the library bill of rights.

[You Wouldn't Believe Me If I Told You]

How is the loss to history of extinct or dwindling belief systems more beneficial than having these belief systems documented somewhere and understood by more than the practitioners?

Many belief systems are on their way to myth, obscurity, or complete loss, as oral traditions dwindle in today's world.

Returning all artifacts of a belief system to its practitioners, especially when the tradition requires keeping the beliefs a secret from the non-initiated, appears to be a roadmap to oblivion.

If anything, libraries are about dissemination of available information to any seeker.

Why would libraries want to reduce the amount of verifiable, documented, currently available information?

This is almost diametrically opposed to the goals of libraries and the public interest.

[Sue Kamm.]

I have the same concerns as you, Melora. IMNSHO, the document creates exceptions to the Library Bill of Rights. It's not clear to me what a TCE is, and whether there have been problems.

My main semantic quibble with the document is the word "libraries." In many of our statements, we say that "libraries should..." Libraries are not people. Shouldn't we be using "librarians" in those contexts?