something like the concept of place two decades ago, they did not attempt to define it, to identify it in any specific way with the purposes of the library, or to assess its importance. ‘‘The desired ‘feel’ of a space,’’ they write, ‘‘is at best difficult to establish in words. Words such asinviting,stimulating,low key,quiet,durable,pleasant,easy to maintain,vandal resistant,student proof, conducive to research or reading, and comfortableare common descriptions of the desired effect’’ (Metcalf, 1986, p. 115). But these simple qualifiers could just as well be applied to any number of architectural and design projects.
Now, however, the apparently wide-spread aversion to the slippery con- cept of place is slowly beginning to be addressed in librarianship. This is demonstrated not only by the recent flurry of publication about the library as place, as is reflected in the list of references appended to this essay, but also by more formalized means: The 2005–2006 American Library Asso- ciation president’s six-point recommendation for libraries to become more competitive in securing their resources includes the objective of ‘‘promoting the cultural and social value of the library as place’’ (Gorman, 2006, p. 4).2 The history of the concept of place throughout the past four decades or so raises several provocative questions, the consideration of which should cast light on the concept’s value to the planning and presentation of library services over the long term. For example: Why did place experience a decline in attention, generally, and with regard to the library as place, specifically.
Why are these positions turning around? What, indeed, does the concept of place signify, and what does it mean for the library? What is the role or fit of the concept in library management? Consideration of these issues is essential to answering the question that ultimately is so timely at this moment, which is why, in a society whose thirst for information is quenched so effortlessly by the push-button transaction, would the place matter if appropriate information can be retrieved from virtually any place?
in an apparent life-and-death conflict. Thus, ‘‘at the root of the intellectual devaluation of place in orthodox social science is the oppositional dichot- omy of community and society and its image of total temporal discontinuity between two totally different forms of human association’’ (Agnew, 1989, p. 16). Accordingly, the theory of social change incorporated a specific transformation of life, whereby its emphasis moved from the concept of community to the concept of society; and in this process, Agnew argues, ‘‘as society displaces community, place loses its significance since it is closely intertwined with community’’ (p. 16).
The other development Agnew interprets as a force for the devaluation of the concept of place is the powerful influence of the natural sciences, especially theories of evolution, on late 19th-century social thought. There were various motivations for the adoption of these ideas by the social sci- ences, but one of the more forceful attractions, according to Agnew, was the thought that natural explanations ‘‘would be free of the tinge of religion, ideology, and ‘free opinion’ that had previously characterized social thought’’ (Agnew, 1989, p. 17). Thus, objectification, functional relation- ships between individuals and things, and exclusion of exception or idio- syncrasy became the dominant considerations of social theory, crowding out the more subjective – some might well have said foggy – notions inspired by perceiving and feeling. J. Nicholas Entrikin explains the stance of those who write about the significance of place but have avoided justifying their con- cepts in terms of prevailing standards of scientific concept formation. They have done so, he reasons, because they find that scientific concept forma- tions are misleading through their limitations. He argues further that, from an academic perspective, place is a poorly understood concept because it does not fit into standard methodological and epistemological categories and does not lend itself to the conventional thinking that separates objective and subjective approaches (Entrikin, 1991, p. 57).
Within the social sciences, the field of psychology had long relegated place to an inferior position even though it had been known through published research since the 1930s that the environment exerts an influence on human behavior. In her review of the early research in environmental psychology, Claude Le´vy-Leboyer finds that field work emphasized relationships between the individual’s psychological traits and behavior, while laboratory tech- niques investigated environmental/behavior relations ‘‘at the micro- rather than macrolevel, thus having little relevance to real life’’ (Le´vy-Leboyer, 1982, p. 11).
Philosopher Edward Casey observes that even the philosophical under- pinnings of the concept of place have just recently become the object of
analysis. ‘‘It is only with extreme belatedness in the history of philosophy thaty place is considered with regard to living organisms and, in partic- ular, the lived human body’’ (Casey, 1997, p. 332). Casey traces the vagaries of place in philosophical thoughts from its prime position with Aristotle through a long period of decline in importance, leading to its present resurgence as an enlightening area for exploration. More pointedly, the geographer Entrikin would support this observation with his own that the term ‘‘placelessness’’ (more about which is discussed below) signifies
‘‘one aspect of the loss of meaning in the modern world’’ (Entrikin, 1991, p. 57). If place is powerful in its absence, it must be doubly so in its presence.
More cogent to the library profession, place also was submerged in thought partly owing to the influence of contemporary research and theory in the social sciences, and even more simply because of the increasing press of daily business. The latter phenomenon was experienced most forcefully during the last two decades of the 20th century due to the competition of professional principles, such as ownership and access, and concepts, such as patron and client, as the practice underwent far-reaching transformation.
Sam Demas captures the spirit of that time, which he characterizes as euphoric in the midst of this unsettling experience of innovation:
A kind of siege mentality developed in the library profession, reinforcing a narrow view of libraries as being solely about access to informationyDiscussion about library as place and about the larger cultural and educational role of academic libraries was mar- ginalized by many librarians’ determination to ‘get with the digital program’. (Demas, 2005, p. 27)
The spiritual sense of the library experience thus lost whatever priority it may have held previously. It was set aside as priority was assigned to the expediency of labor-saving devices, questions of access and ownership, insecurities of personal and professional status, and issues of technological ambiguity. To some extent, it was a brief era of convenience over substance and of operations over service. Image became paramount in a very new way, as the need to appear ultra ‘‘21st century’’ in rejection of the 20th guided response to change. ‘‘We have come to believe,’’ writes Theodore Roszak,
‘‘that mankind is never so essentially human as when it is cast in the role of homo faber’’ (Roszak, 1972, p. 14). Some librarians seemed to become fear- ful even that the library was no longer a legitimate place in the new age.
Innovation of function was privileged over significance of form. And in that regard, art philosopher Susanne Langer’s admonition about the role of art seems highly applicable, even if paradoxical: ‘‘Indifference to art is the most serious sign of decay in any institution; nothing bespeaks its old age more
eloquently than that art, under its patronage, becomes literal and self- imitating’’ (Langer, 1953, p. 403). Librarianship may be a science, but the best librarianship combines it with art.