One of the sadder aspects of online hyperpartisanship, especailly on social media sites designed to farm outrage, is the need by some people to fall into a false dilemma fallacy of pure contrarianism against anyone who disagrees. Such a contrarian self-positioning happened recently in a response about libraries in rural areas.
A person posted a tweet on Twitter/X mentioning that they noticed on a drive between two rural locations they saw many churches and Trump signs, but no libraries. Another persons on Twitter responded with not only a defense of churches, but a belittlement of libraries—which rural areas and their churches apparently don’t need—to the point where libraries had become synonymous with “authoritarian control-freaks and “ignorant SNOBS”.
It is as if a bad thing becomes bad because a bad person thinks they are good. This is a very, very manichean view of the world.
Ignoring the fact that many urban cores and others outside rural areas also tend to have many more churches than libraries, this person who posted this tweet is equally guilty of derisive scorn against non-rural people as the original poster was guilty of derision aimed at rural people.
Plenty of people in urban, suburban, and exurban places indeed do have many friends, just as there are people in rural areas who feel isolated and alone (typically leaving the rural area if they have a chance), just as much as the opposite can be true. The value of books and learning, and the importance of education and libraries has been recognized for generations, especially amongst those who built this nation.
When libraries become a symbol of evil, perhaps it is you who need to reevaluate your views if not your life.
P.S. Large libraries are indeed awesome and access to the wealth of tangible knowledge in a university library is often well worth the cost of tuition alone.
The point of your essay is well intentioned, I think, including the good use of a bad term, othering. But reading the original post it seems you badly missed the point. Libraries of all kinds are a site for accumulating and accessing knowledge from a world of sources and provide platforms for uncountable springboards for progress along every point of any compass. To dismiss the value of a notably valuable thing is a sure path to intellectual incest if not destruction, and to all the accompanying destitution guaranteed to follow. So we can agree on the value of libraries to a community of any size and in any geography or demographic.
The author was not damning libraries nor knowledge, but the curious infuriating elitism on display by the X post. “I think we found the problem” was a straight thrust at the people of the area (Western NC and Eastern TN), their spirituality, and a political ideology separate from that of the self-appointed knower of all things good. No wonder the writer was stifling rage.
But some explanations are needed for a better understanding of your points. The reply from a reader to an X post that libraries are counter-intellectual and provide a platform for snobbery and elitism is not based on any metric, is not a popular sentiment, and should not be used as primary evidence for exclusion of intellectual curiosity. It is a reflex, a knee-jerk, and though likely not uncommon, is not the product of thoughtful commentary. The author of that comment might dull it a bit upon reflection and discussion, but that is conjecture on my part.
You are not correct that the reply showed someone “guilty of derisive scorn against non-rural people”; that division of us-and-them is one of many tribal associations civilization should hastily discard. Both libraries and churches could be sites for correcting those misconceptions but the ages have not been kind to that theory. The reply was to the original post, the one that sneered and made conclusions based not on reason but on arrogance that theirs is the correct point of view, and yours, because it differs, is patently false – there can be no discussion.
“—which rural areas and their churches apparently don’t need—” is an example of what sort of derisive scorn? Unintentional maybe, but revealing, and a very good reason for a personal re-evaluation as you suggested. What could other reasons could there be for the rural areas in question not having public libraries, at least those not visible from a highway? There could be an inherited bias against intellectual achievement, the sort of characteristic made popular in entertainment and works of fiction about citizens of the rural south – Green Acres and The Beverly Hillbillies for example. Other more likely answers include financial limits, and a short supply of charitable donors outside the forced tax income source. Priorities for funding, public and private, follow the hierarchy of needs; it is an unfortunate fact that food and shelter are more likely to be funded than intellectual curiosity despite the value of the latter.
And can you supply an example, a tangible one, of how access to the wealth of knowledge in a university library is worth $35,000 per semester? There is no doubt about the value of knowledge, but your position was the access to it and the tangible value created, not the use of the knowledge.
The point of churches outnumbering libraries is a valid one; draw a 5-mile circle in an urban or rural setting and do the count. What does that information tell us? Possibly that churches can be more easily created than libraries and the public they serve are generous to that cause; a market force if you will. Start a private library built on contributions and the generosity of the community, and do that in an area with sparse resources, urban or rural, and let’s discover how well it performs. Sort of a food co-op versus grocery store comparison.
The original post on X and your response was very interesting and could be a subject for continued discussion.
In regards to the worth of attending a college, I did not mean to imply that mere access to a wealth of knowledge per se was always financially beneficial or fiscally was always a beneficial exchange. Thankfully, not all colleges charge $35,000 a semester (a truly scandalous thing), and many graduate programs outside of the “professional” fields actually pay graduate students for the privilege of indentured servitude. But the value and worth of a college should not be limited to merely increasing one’s future financial prospects or be seen as nothing more than job training. Colleges are, despite the attempts of so many to coopt them as vehicles for indoctrination, a value in and of themselves—not just to society at large—but for the individuals who endeavor to make it so.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.16.24 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain