A bit of a play here on the name of this blog and a topic that is sure to polarize many in the profession of librarianship is the question of being a so-called authoritarian librarian. If you've been a consistent follower of The Nonsectarian Librarian, you might have noticed numerous hints and indications along the way of my Libertarian inclinations. Therefore, it's not all too difficult to assume which camp I tend to tend to fall into on this issue.
Not that I would be in favor of any radical transformations in the age old institution of the library or encourage a total free-for-all when it comes to rule enforcement. The truth is that libraries still need rules and regulations as much as they require a physical structure within which to house their materials. A framework of some kind must exist in either case or the library will simply cease to exist. However, as is the case with the determining physical structure of the library, the question of rules is in a certain sense, also one of design.
What is meant by "design" in this case encompasses the rules (for patrons) that have been drafted for the library and how they are subsequently interpretted and implemented by its staff. As non-administrative employees of the library, we tend to have rather limited, if any, influence over the creation of these rules, though we do however have some say at least as to how we enforce them.
The authoritarian librarian, as the title suggests, is a breed of librarian that applies the law precisely by the book. There are no exceptions, no consideration given to the unique context of a particular scenario, just strict, universal application of the dictates of the library. They do so either like an automaton, a company yes-man, or in some unfortunate cases, as a petty individual who actually finds pleasure and satisfaction in lording over others, even where the extent of control is so marginal. Not only does the authoritarian librarian behave in this manner, they also tend to lack the sort of social graces and sophistication to enforce the rules without angering or alienating the patron in the process, thereby escalating the situation.
Furthermore, on a more philosophic note, the result of consistently having all these negative interactions with patrons by having to reiterate, "no - this", and "no - that", doesn't exactly engender a sense of enpowerment that a library ought to be instilling, but rather feelings of restriction and limitation, which are by the way both entirely inconsistent with the higher purpose of the library, that being to lift up and enlighten its users.
I would be dishonest not to admit there are certain noteable benefits to a uniform, inflexible enforcement of the library's rules. Doing so creates a wall of constistency, which in turn prevents certain patrons from feeling singled out for their transgressions or on the other side of the coin, think they are getting a free ride. Consequently, consistency in the staff's approach can make dealing with patrons in this way generally a bit easier.
Whatever the merits or drawbacks of being an authoritarian librarian might be, it is my opinion that librarians should be primarily focused on emphasizing to the patron what they can do at the library and perhaps more importantly, what the library can do for them instead of concentrating on what is not permitted within its walls.
