There is no doubt that all of us have the desire to know. It
has been said that “knowledge is power” and while that is undoubtedly true, we
are not only trying to simply gain more control of the cosmos when we endeavor
to learn. There are many things in life
that we are simply curious about. We
seek “knowledge for its own sake” even as we sometimes seek to know things that
others around us may not deem to be appropriate, relevant, or even true. This was true of human beings even before the
Enlightenment.
That said, perhaps even this should give us pause,
especially after considering the metaphysical claims of the Sprint ad embedded here (take some time to look at it). Consider these challenging words from Parker
Palmer’s To Know As we Are Known:
Education as a Spiritual Journey:
Curiosity sometimes kills, and our desire to control has put
deadly power in some very unsteady hands.
We should not be surprised that knowledge launched from these sources is
heading toward some terrible ends, undeflected by ethical values as basic as
respect for life itself…. If curiosity
and control are the primary motives for our knowing, we will generate a
knowledge that eventually carries us not toward life but death.
But another kind of knowledge is available to us, one that
begins in a different passion and is drawn towards other ends. This knowledge can contain as much sound fact
and theory as the knowledge we now possess, but because it springs from a truer
passion it works towards truer ends.
This is a knowledge that originates…. In compassion, or love (pp. 26-27,
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, quoted in Christensen, p. 99)
In addition, wisdom would
tell us that some knowledge is dangerous in the wrong hands, some
knowledge is simply dangerous, and all will agree that there are at least some
things we know (until they are shown to be false!) that
need not and perhaps should not be doubted!
All this said, what does this mean for our conversation
about this issue of neutrality? Can more
be said? Is this something that we
should strive for at all, even if it is nothing more than an ideal?
While there are certainly times in life where it is wrong to
be “neutral”, I do think that there are times and places to strive for this –
and to encourage such efforts – as much as possible. By “neutrality” I simply mean giving a voice
to persons who attempt, by their education and reasoning, to persuade others
regarding issues that are very important to them and others. In times such as these, it is a very special
teacher who can hold student’s interest and is able to not tip his or her hat
as to which way she leans about what she thinks about this or that – even if it
is philosophically naïve to say that any person can truly be neutral! As regards libraries, striving for some kind
of neutrality – across a narrow or broad selection of topics – may not be able
to be much of a focus for some as their missions will understandably guide the material
that they select. That said, libraries
in aggregate can get very close to just this ideal, via the modern marvel of
interlibrary loan, allowing the exchange of perhaps very disparate materials
from very disparate institutions!
In the end, I think all real neutrality is impossible: we
are all idealogues, every one. The fact
that evidence which is public, relevant and convincing is (evidently) important
to many of us cannot change this fact – a fact that I do not think is
necessarily bad. The real problem and question,
I suggest, is what kind of idealogues are we?
It seems to me that libraries are often made up idealogues who at least occasionally
like to have their views challenged, which is another thing that attracted me
to the profession.
That said, I can’t necessarily say the same thing for some other
persons of the “liberally educated persuasion”.
Just the other day while listening to N.P.R., I heard a program in which
highly educated men – men whom I have generally found to be quite reasonable –
made it clear in no uncertain terms that “religious freedom” – that is the
practices which flow from the beliefs I have discussed in this series – will
need to be a casualty of the continued march of progress (ah, progress). It was a jarring and disconcerting experience,
even as I certainly am not ready to resort to feverish language about
persecution. : )
Nevertheless, experiences like these makes statements like
the following, from Wayne Bivens-Tatum’s book “Libraries and the
Enlightenment”, all the more interesting to me: “Devout religious believers who
also believe that everyone should worship as they do understandably dislike or
even fear freedom and autonomy” (p. 35)
Is it possible that the “devout religious believers” Bivens-Tatum
mentions might be a broader category than he thinks? Is it possible that the number of those who
fear “freedom and autonomy” might be more than he suspects? In any case, I am always curious to know
where men and women who sign on to the purely secular version of Enlightenment think
“the rights of man” came from – if not simply from the “will to power”! It seems to me that even highly educated
persons can be as unreflective about questions like these as can those who
produced the mind-blowing (or destroying!) Sprint ad above. No, if this series of posts has caused anyone
to even doubt the veracity of Bivens-Tatum’s statement above – as regards some
devout Christians at least – it will have been worth my efforts.
Just because I, for example, might have extremely strong
convictions about what is true – that I generally don’t think are good to doubt
– does not mean that I can’t genuinely engage other’s views and “learn from the
disagreement” (the Catholic Christian and librarian Gabriel Naude [1600 – 1653]
said: “God permits us to profit from our enemies”, quoted in Bivens-Tatum,
153). And it definitely does not mean
that I do not sometimes wonder whether I could be wrong about this or
that. And if even after confronting
numerous persons and books of the contrary opinion I continue to hold on to a
fierce conviction that everyone should indeed worship Christ, this certainly
does not mean that I need to, as Christensen says, “beat someone over the head
with [my] version of reality, truth, beauty, or goodness”. Much less that I need to, as some frequently
imply, pick up the sword about it if we disagree, i.e. be a “human[] willing to
destroy for the sake of their abstractions”!* (p. 79, 80, The Gift and Task of Lutheran Higher Education, 2004 ; see p 123
and 192 as well)
The New Testament, after all, informs those who believe that Jesus
Christ is God speaking to them in these “last days” that their weapons are not
fleshly, but spiritual. There are some
judgments that only God is meant to administer.
But here is one judgment I feel confident in making: libraries
– and perhaps “Enlightenment libraries” most of all – are a wonderful gift of
God.
Soli Deo Gloria.
FIN
*though I certainly consider
Christian doctrine more than an abstraction!
No comments:
Post a Comment