Human Library

[Fiona]

I came across this.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturev..._overdue_.html

Do people think a living library is a good idea. I think I do.

[dragon wench]

I think that in theory this is an amazing idea. Though, I can't help but wonder at some of the practical issues and potential ethical problems...

There is a lot involved here, and much reminds me of the oral interviews I conducted for my History MA....

More on this later... I need to run, owing to a family dinner .

[Dottie]

I know a person who used this service. She intended to borrow a muslim, but unfortunatly there were another person there who had never been borrowed, Don't recall what he represented, so she borrowed him instead out of pity. Made for a less interesting time, so she couldn't give a particularly valuable review afterwards.

[Chimaera182]

Well, that's odd. And covert dating service? lmao

It would certainly be better to go to a Spanish person like that for help in Spanish. We may have to listen to the teacher speak Spanish and speak it ourselves in the classroom, but it's not enough. It would be nice to speak to someone every once in a while for practice in speaking it so we have that down pat instead of just writing and reading it. My ex was gonna help me with that end, but the idiot stick-figure with no soul decided to break up with me instead.

[Hill-Shatar]

I read through it, and its basically for culture, and learning what it is like, right? That would be a good idea... actually being able to ask about certain communities other than getting warped views from others, and being able to meet real people face to face to discuss important things, all in a safe enviroment...

Would ther be certain things that you could not ask about though? Most likely, such as certain ritualistic diagrams, or such a thing... where wouyld the line lie in this investment?

Pretty good idea though...

[SyntheticD]

i would be worried that the veiws of history would be more tainted come from some ones mouth than from a book

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by SyntheticD

i would be worried that the veiws of history would be more tainted come from some ones mouth than from a book

It's not about history, Like Hill says it supposed to be about culture. The point is that you should confront your prejudices, and learn that humans generally are the same, while culture differ.

Of course one person can not be a representative for any large group, but that's not necessary to achieve some understanding.

[Demortis]

its a great idea, to beable to let children find out if what they hear about a culture is true or not form someone that is from that culture. i really hope that they manage to some how get it to work properly.

[C Elegans]

This concept have existed in Sweden for several years, it's called "The Prejudice Library" and is administered by the normal libraries. After the 9/11 WTC attack in the US, it became quite popular to borrow a muslim
Like Dottie points out, the idea is not that you borrow this person for factual knowledge about a topic but rather in order to increase your understanding of a culture or a group of people by social conversation with this person. As long as you view the person you borrow as an individual with certain characteristics that make him or her a member of a specific group of people, and realise that this individual is not a prototype or representative for all people in this specific group, I think the idea is great.

Currently in Sweden I know you can borrow a muslim, a christian, a handicapped person, a gay, etc. In Copenhagen in Denmark I know you can borrow a muslim (he is very popular), a journalist, politicians from different parties, an animal rightist, a christian priest, a policeman and more.

[dragon wench]

Regardless of whether we are talking about history or culture (which are really too closely linked to be cleanly separated anyway), some of the same issues apply.

First of all, information that comes from a book is not necessarily going to be more accurate than what you will hear from a real person. Everything that has been written comes from a particular viewpoint or bias (no matter how objective it claims to be). Further, where do you think this information comes from in the first place? It comes from people in one form or another. Most often information is derived from "primary" sources (i.e newspapers, personal diaries etc.), and "secondary" material, usually in the form of scholarly writings and research. Now, it may surprise people that often primary sources are considered more valuable because they have been through less filters, and they come from that time and place. Every time material is interpreted, a new layer or perspective is added.
Oral sources of information are probably more accurate than many books simply because there does exist a perception that any book is naturally authoritative, which means people are far less likely to question any information provided.
If we actually speak to somebody, we can engage them, we can question them, and we are able to connect with something real and tangible.

I am strongly in favour of this type of information gathering. For one, I like the idea of letting people speak for themselves; it is much more immediate.

But, I do think ethical issues exist:

*Sometimes, a question might prompt a highly intense personal recollection, one that could actually be quite traumatic. So, how are these 'human books' selected? Or, do they volunteer? Is everyone concerned aware of the potential for emotional or psychological impacts?

*Where does the meeting/interview occur? Location can have an enormous effect on the way information is conveyed, since it influences both comfort levels and the degree of formality; it can also trigger particular recollections.

*What about the person's background? How representative are they? How will their own experiences colour the information they provide?

[fable]

Like Dottie points out, the idea is not that you borrow this person for factual knowledge about a topic but rather in order to increase your understanding of a culture or a group of people by social conversation with this person.

Exactly. Cultures aren't about "truth." They're about what a culture believes to be true. That's why Mein Kampf, as hideous as it is, still manages to make a useful cultural artifact.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by fable

Like Dottie points out, the idea is not that you borrow this person for factual knowledge about a topic but rather in order to increase your understanding of a culture or a group of people by social conversation with this person.

Exactly. Cultures aren't about "truth." They're about what a culture believes to be true. That's why Mein Kampf, as hideous as it is, still manages to make a useful cultural artifact.

And how do we distinguish between what is true and what a culture believes to be true about itself? Sometimes this is indeed obvious, but on other occasions it can be an extremely fine line.

To play the relativist card for a moment, what is to say that what a culture believes to be true about itself is more or less accurate than what an outside observer considers true?

I'm not actually a relativist btw, but I wanted to throw that train of thought out there

[fable]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

And how do we distinguish the differences between what is true and what a culture believes to be true about itself? Sometimes this is indeed obvious, but on other occasions it can be an extremely fine line.

Research. It's the only way. For instance, the culture of US public opinion has shifted over from strong support for the Iraqi invasion to lukewarm support, but does that mean the "truth" about the reasons behind the invasion and Bush administration's statements have shifted? No; the reasons were out there, stated all along in the PNAC Manifesto. Neither Bush's lies, nor the beliefs of those who followed them, were the truth. But these same lies and beliefs tell us something about American national myths.

I'm not actually a relativist btw, but I wanted to throw that train of thought out there

Hey, you raised a good point.

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by fable

Research. It's the only way. For instance, the culture of US public opinion has shifted over from strong support for the Iraqi invasion to lukewarm support, but does that mean the "truth" about the reasons behind the invasion and Bush administration's statements have shifted? No; the reasons were out there, stated all along in the PNAC Manifesto. Neither Bush's lies, nor the beliefs of those who followed them, were the truth. But these same lies and beliefs tell us something about American national myths.

I'm not actually a relativist btw, but I wanted to throw that train of thought out there

Hey, you raised a good point.

I very much agree on the above. I guess, ironically enough (), my own background is influencing my take on all of this. Anyone who goes through history grad school is trained to carefully question all research and sources, even if it is scholarly and well-respected. So that is where I am coming from. Research can be (and often is) biased, as you no doubt know.
And that goes for personal research as well. I research almost anything, especially current events. To employ your example, I am personally opposed to the Iraq invasion. This means I have to exercise strong personal discipline in the consideration of my sources, lest everything I find agrees with what I already consider to be true.
IMO, it is critical for any scholar or academic to be aware of any possible personal influences when publishing material.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

*Sometimes, a question might prompt a highly intense personal recollection, one that could actually be quite traumatic. So, how are these 'human books' selected? Or, do they volunteer? Is everyone concerned aware of the potential for emotional or psychological impacts?

*Where does the meeting/interview occur? Location can have an enormous effect on the way information is conveyed, since it influences both comfort levels and the degree of formality; it can also trigger particular recollections.

*What about the person's background? How representative are they? How will their own experiences colour the information they provide?

I think it's supposed to have psychological and emotional impact, since it deals with peoples prejudices. I'm not sure of the actual selection process, but I very much doubt they are forcing people to take part against their will, and if you agree to work as a human book I think it is quite likely that you don't mind getting a few personal questions.

Here the meeting takes place in the library.

They are of course not representative, But as I understand things it's not the point. They are not there to give you factual knowledge of cultural history. They are there to give you an opportunity to have a direct conversation with a member of a particular culture, and give you their personal views.