peculiar crowd or group psychology--owing to which a collected body of men
may feel as a group and act as a group, differently from the way in which
any one of its components would feel or act--we must see that our group is
properly selected and constituted. This does not mean that we are to go
about and choose individuals, one by one, by the exercise of personal
judgment. Such a method is generally inferior and unnecessary. If we
desire to separate the fine from the coarse grains in a sand-pile we do
not set to work with a microscope to measure them, grain by grain; we use
a sieve. The sieve will not do to separate iron filings from copper
filings of exactly the same size, but here a magnet will do the business.
And so separation or selection can almost always be accomplished by
choosing an agency adapted to the conditions; and such agencies often act
automatically without the intervention of the human will. In a voluntary
association formed to accomplish a definite purpose we have a
self-selected group. Such a body may be freely open to the public, as all
our library clubs and associations practically are; yet it is still
selective, for no one would care to join it who is not in some way
interested in its objects. On the other hand, the qualifications for
membership may be numerous and rigid, in which case the selection is more
limited. The ideal of efficiency in an association is probably reached
when the body is formed for a single definite purpose and the terms of
admission are so arranged that each of its members is eager above all
things to achieve its end and is specially competent to work for it, the
purpose of the grouping being merely to attain the object more surely,
thoroughly and rapidly. A good example is a thoroughly trained military
organization, all of whose members are enthusiastic in the cause for which
the body is fighting--a band of patriots, we will say--or perhaps a band
of brigands, for what we have been saying applies to evil as well as to
good associations. The most efficient of such bodies may be very
temporary, as when three persons, meeting by chance, unite to help each
other over a wall that none of them could scale by himself, and, having
reached the other side, separate again. The more clearly cut and definite
the purpose the less the necessity of retaining the association after its
accomplishment. The more efficient the association the sooner its aims are
accomplished and the sooner it is disbanded. Such groups or bodies, by
their very nature are affairs of small detail and not of large and
comprehensive purpose. As they broaden out into catholicity they
necessarily lose in efficiency. And even when they are accomplishing their
aims satisfactorily the very largeness of those aims, the absence of sharp
outline and clear definition, frequently gives rise to complaint. I know
of clubs and associations that are doing an immense amount of good, in
some cases altering for the better the whole intellectual or moral tone of
a community, but that are the objects of criticism because they do not act
in matters of detail.
"Why don't they do something?" is the constant cry. And "doing something,"
as you may presently discover, is carrying on some small definite,
relatively unimportant activity that is capable of clear description and
easily fixes the attention, while the greater services, to the public and
to the individual, of the association's quiet influences pass unnoticed.
The church that has driven out of business one corner-saloon gets more
praise than the one that has made better men and women of a whole
generation in one neighborhood; the police force that catches one
sensational murderer is more applauded than the one that has made life and
property safe for years in its community by quiet, firm pressure.
There is no reason of course, why the broader and the more definite
activities may not be united, to some degree, in one organization. Either
smaller groups with related aims may federate for the larger purpose, or
the larger may itself be the primary group, and may subdivide into
sections each with its specified object. Both these plans or a combination
of the two may be seen in many of our large organizations, and it is this
combination that seems finally to have been selected as the proper form of
union for the libraries and the librarians of the United States. We have a
large organization which, as it has grown more and more unwieldy, has been
subdivided into smaller specialized sections without losing its continuity
for its broader and perhaps vaguer work. At the same time, specialized
bodies with related aims have been partially or wholly absorbed, until, by
processes partly of subdivision and partly of accretion, we have a body
capable of dealing alike with the general and the special problems of
library work. It should not be forgotten, however, that its success in
dealing with both kinds of problems is still conditioned by the laws
already laid down. The general association, as it grows larger, will be
marked less and less by the enthusiasm of the specialist, will be less and
less efficient, will move more slowly, will deliver its opinions with
reticence and will hesitate to act upon them. The smaller constituent
bodies will be affected by none of these drawbacks, but their purposes
appeal to the few and their actions, though more energetic, will often
seem to the majority of the larger group devoid of meaning. This is, of
course, the case with the National Educational Association, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and hosts of similar bodies
here and abroad. To state the difficulty is merely to confess that all
attempts hitherto have failed to form a group that is at once
comprehensive, powerful and efficient, both in the larger matters with
which it deals and in details.
Probably the most successful attempt of this kind is formulated in the
Constitution of the United States itself and is being carried on in our
country from day to day, yet successful as it is, our history is witness,
and the daily press testifies, that the combination of general and local
governments has its weak points and is dependent for its smooth working on
the cordial consent and forbearance of the governed. This is true also of
smaller combinations. In our own organization it is easy to find fault, it
is easy to discover points of friction; only by the cordial effort of
every member to minimize these points can such an organization begin to
accomplish its aims. Failure is much more apt to be due to lack of
appreciation of this fact than to any defect in the machinery of
organization. This being the case we are thrown back upon consideration of
the membership of our institution. How should it be selected and how
constituted?
The constitution of the association says that "Any person or institution
engaged in library work may become a member by paying the annual dues, and
others after election by the executive board." We have thus two classes of
members, those by their own choice and those by election. The annual lists
of members do not record the distinction, but among those in the latest
list we find 24 booksellers, 17 publishers, 5 editors, 9 school and
college officials, 8 government employees not in libraries, and 24 wives
and relatives of other members, while in the case of 132 persons no
qualification is stated in the list. We have or have had as our
associates, settlement workers, lawyers, lecturers, indexers, binders, and
so on almost indefinitely. Our membership is thus freely open to
librarians, interpreting this word very broadly, and to any others that we
may desire to have with us, which means, practically, any who have
sufficient interest in library work to come to the meetings. We must,
therefore, be classed with what may be called the "open" as opposed to the
"closed" professional or technical associations. The difference may be
emphasized by a reference to two well-known New York clubs, the Players
and the Authors. These organizations would appear by their names to be
composed respectively of actors and writers. The former, however, admits
also to membership persons interested in the drama, which may mean little
or much, while the Authors Club, despite repeated efforts to broaden it
out in the same way, has insisted on admitting none but _bona fide_
authors. In advocacy of the first plan it may be said that by adopting it
the Players has secured larger membership, embracing many men of means.
Its financial standing is better and it is enabled to own a fine club
house. On the other hand, the Authors has a small membership, and owns
practically no property, but makes up in _esprit de corps_ what it lacks
in these other respects. It is another phase of the question of
specialization that we have already considered. The larger and broader
body has certain advantages, the smaller and more compact, certain others.
We have, doubtless been right in deciding, or rather in accepting what
circumstances seem to have decided for us, that our own association shall
be of the larger and less closely knit type, following the analogy of the
National Educational Association and the various associations for the
advancement of science, American, British and French, rather than that of
the Society of Civil Engineers, for instance, or the various learned
academies. Our body has thus greater general but less special influence,
just as on a question of general scientific policy a petition from the
American association might carry greater weight, whereas on a question of
engineering it would be incomparably inferior to an opinion of the civil
engineers. There is in this country, it is true, a general scientific body
of limited membership--the National Academy of Sciences, which speaks both
on general and special questions with expert authority. In the formation
of the American Library Institute it was sought to create some such
special body of librarians, but it is too soon to say whether or not that
expectation is to be fulfilled. The fact remains that in the American
Library Association we are committed to very nearly the broadest plan of
organization and work that is possible. We are united only by our
connection with library work or our interest in its success, and are thus
limited in our discussions and actions as a body to the most general
problems that may arise in this connection, leaving the special work to
our sections and affiliated societies, which are themselves somewhat
hampered by our size in the treatment of the particular subjects that come
before them, inasmuch as they are not separate groups whose freedom of
action no one can call in question.
In illustration of the limitations of a general body of the size and scope
of our Association, I may perhaps be allowed to adduce the recent
disagreement among librarians regarding the copyright question, or rather
regarding the proper course to be followed in connection with the
conference on that question called by the Librarian of Congress. It will
be remembered that this conference was semi-official and was due to the
desire of members of Congress to frame a bill that should be satisfactory
to the large number of conflicting interests involved. To this conference
our Association was invited to send, and did send, delegates. It is
obvious that if these and all the other delegates to the conference had
simply held out for the provisions most favorable to themselves no
agreement would have been possible and the objects of the conference would
have been defeated. Recognizing this, all the bodies and interests
represented worked from the beginning to secure an agreement, striving
only that it should be such as would represent a minimum of concession on
all sides. This view was shared by the delegates of this Association. The
law as it stood was, it is true, most favorable to libraries in its
provisions regarding importation, and the retention of these provisions
might have been facilitated by withdrawal from the conference and
subsequent opposition to whatever new bill might have been framed. But the
delegates assumed that they were appointed to confer, not to withdraw, and
that if the Association had desired to hold aloof from the conference that
result would have been best attained by appointing no delegates at all.
The Association's delegates accordingly joined with their fellows in the
spirit of compromise to agree on such a bill as might be least
unacceptable to all, and the result was a measure slightly, but only
slightly, less favorable to libraries than the existing law. With the
presentation of this bill to the proper committees of Congress, and a
formal statement that they approved it on behalf of the Association, the
duties of the delegates ended. And here begins to appear the applicability
of this chapter from library history to what has preceded. The action of
the delegates was officially that of the Association. But it was
disapproved by very many members of the Association on the ground that it
seemed likely to result in lessening the importation privilege of
libraries. Whether these dissidents were in a majority or not it seemed
impossible to say. The Association's legislative body, the Council, twice
refused to disapprove or instruct the delegates, thus tacitly approving
their action, but the dissidents asserted that the Council, in this
respect, did not rightly reflect the opinion of the Association. The whole
situation was an instructive illustration of the difficulty of getting a
large body of general scope to act on a definite, circumscribed question,
or even of ascertaining its opinion or its wishes regarding such action.
Recognizing this, the dissidents properly and wisely formed a separate
association with a single end in view--the retention of present library
importation privileges, and especially the defeat of the part of the bill
affecting such privileges as drafted in the conference. The efforts of
this body have been crowned with success in that the bill as reported by
the committee contains a modified provision acceptable to the dissidents.
Thus a relatively small body formed for a definite purpose has quickly
accomplished that purpose, while the objects of the larger body have been
expressed but vaguely, and so far as they have been definitely formulated
have failed of accomplishment. There is a lesson in this both for our own
association and for others.
It must not be assumed, however, that limitation of action along the lines
I have indicated means weakness of organization. On the contrary, foreign
observers have generally testified to the exceptional strength and
efficiency of societies and groups of all kinds in this country. It may be
interesting to quote here what a recent French writer on the United States
has to say of the part played by associations of all kinds in our national
life. And, in passing, he who is proud of his country nowadays should read
what is said of her by French and German, and even English writers. The
muck-raking is all on this side of the water. The writer from whom I
quote, M. Paul de Rousiers, author of "La Vie Américaine," does not
commend without discrimination, which makes what he has to say of more
value. He notes at the outset that "the spirit of free association is
widely extended in the United States, and it produces results of
surprising efficiency." There are two motives for association, he thinks,
the consciousness of weakness, which is generally operative abroad, and
the consciousness of strength, which is our motive here. He says:
The need of association comes generally from the conscience of
one's own feebleness or indolence.... When such people join they
add together their incapacities; hence the failure of many
societies formed with great eclat. On the contrary, when men
accustomed to help themselves without depending on their neighbors
form an association, it is because they really find themselves
facing a common difficulty ... such persons add their capacities;
they form a powerful union of capables, the only one that has
force. Hence the general success of American associations.
The radical difference in the motives for association here and in the old
world was noted long ago by De Tocqueville, who says:
European societies are naturally led to introduce into their midst
military customs and formulas.... The members of such associations
respond to a word of command like soldiers in a campaign; they
profess the dogma of passive obedience, or rather, by uniting,
they sacrifice entirely, at a single stroke, their judgment and
free will.... In American associations, on the other hand,
individual independence finds its part; as in society every man
moves at the same time toward the same goal, but all are not
forced to go by the same road. No one sacrifices his will or his
reason, but applies them both toward the success of the common
enterprise.
Commenting on this, De Rousiers goes on:
This is not to say that the discipline necessary to the pursuit of
the common end is less exact than with us. As far as I can judge,
the members of an American association, on the contrary, take
their obligations more seriously than we, and precisely because
they have undertaken them very freely, without being forced into
them by environment or fashion, and also because the heads of the
association have not sought to make it serve their own interests.
In fine, their discipline is strong, but it is applied only to one
precise object; it may thus subsist intact and without tyranny,
despite the most serious divergences of view among the members
regarding objects foreign to its aim. These happy conditions--this
large and concrete mind, joined to the effective activity of the
Americans, have given rise to a multitude of groups that are
rendering the greatest service.
De Rousiers enlarges on this point at great length and gives many
illustrations. He returns to it even when he appears to have gone on to
other subjects. In an account of a visit to a militia encampment in
Massachusetts, where he was inclined at the outset to scoff at the lack of
formal military training, but finally became enthusiastic over the
individual efficiency and interest of the militiamen, he ends by saying:
What I have seen here resembles what I have seen everywhere
throughout the United States; each organism, each individual,
preserves all its freedom, as far as it can; hence the limited and
special character of the public authorities, to whom little is
left to do. This doubtless detracts from the massed effects that
we are in the habit of producing; we are apt to think that this
kind of liberty is only disorder; but individual efforts are more
energetic and when they converge toward a single end, by
spontaneous choice of each will, their power is incalculable. This
it is that makes the strength of America.
An interesting and satisfactory summary. There is, however, another way of
looking at it. A well-known scientific man recently expressed to me his
conviction that an "American" association of any kind is destined to
failure, whether it be of scientific men, commercial travellers or
plumbers. By "American" here he meant continental in extent. There may
thus be, according to this view, a successful Maine hotel-keeper's
association, a New York bar association, or a Pennsylvania academy of fine
arts, but no such body truly representative of the whole United States.
Many such organizations are "American" or "National" in name only; for
instance, the "American" Academy of Sciences, which is a Boston
institution, or the "National" Academy of Fine Arts, which belongs to New
York City. Many bodies have attempted to obviate this trouble by the
creation of local sections in different parts of the country, and the
newly-formed Society of Illuminating Engineers has, I understand, in mind
the organization of perfectly co-ordinate bodies in various parts of the
country, without any attempt to create a central body having headquarters
at a definite place. This is somewhat as if the American Library
Association should consist of the federated state associations, perhaps
with a council consisting of a single representative from each. It would
seem to be a workable and rather attractive plan. We may remind ourselves
again that the United States itself is the classic example of an American
association, and that it has been fairly successful by adopting this very
system. Our recognition of the necessity of local divisions in our own
association and of close affiliation with the various state bodies is
shown by the recent resolution of the council providing for sectional
meetings and by the presence at this and several other state meetings in
the present month of an official representative of the American Library
Association. That these, or similar means of making our national body
continental in something more than name are necessary we may freely admit.
Possibly it may take some years of experimentation, ending perhaps in
appropriate constitutional revision, to hit upon the best arrangement. Too
much centralization is bad; but there must be some centralization. We must
have our capital and our legislative and administrative machinery, as the
United States has at Washington. For legislative purposes our Washington
is a shifting one. It is wherever the Association may hold its annual
meeting and wherever the Council may convene in the interim. For such
administrative and executive purposes as require a fixed location, our
Washington is for the present in Boston. Next year it may be elsewhere;
but whether it shall remain there or move to some other place would seem
to be a matter of small importance. Wherever it may be, it will be
inaccessible to a large majority of American librarians. If immediate
accessibility is a requisite, therefore, some of its functions may and
should be divided. It may not be too much to look forward to a sectional
headquarters in every state in the Union, related perhaps to the general
headquarters somewhat as branch libraries to a central library, or,
perhaps, carried on under the auspices of the state associations. At any
rate, it is encouraging to reflect that we are not insensible to the
obstacles in the way of making our own, or any other association truly
American in scope, and are experimenting toward obviating them.
All these considerations appear to me to lead to one conclusion--the duty
of every librarian to become and remain a member of the American Library
Association. I do not desire to dwell on the direct advantages that
membership offers--these are not few, and they are sufficiently obvious.
Possibly most of those who are likely to be affected by them are already
members of the Association. I would recommend for consideration higher
grounds than these. Instead of asking the question, "What is there in it
for me?" I should inquire, "What is there in it for other people?" How
will it benefit the general status of library work, the general standing
of librarians in the community, the influence of libraries on those who
use or ought to use them--these and a hundred other elements of progress
that are closely bound up with the success of library effort, but that may
not add to the welfare of any one individual.