Politeness? Overrated.

(Heidi Dolamore offers a companion piece about the plague of politeness at Quiddle. Thanks to Heidi for her ideas and comments.)

In my new year's post, I mentioned that I was thinking a lot about the direction of Tinfoil+Raccoon, and about the state of the biblioblogosphere in general, and promised a follow-up.  At the time, I was giving serious consideration to backing way off from writing about library issues because I've felt like I haven't had much original to say lately.  There are a lot of people blogging about library issues, and I've tried to resist the pull of me-tooism.  I've also been a little discouraged because of what I think of as politeness gone amok. I'm sure it's hard to read that without thinking that I'm a total ass, but let me explain.

In a recent post, It's Not Only the OPACs that Suck at Information Wants to Be Free, Meredith Farkas was taken to task for using the word "suck."  The commenter thought that it was unprofessional and unnecessary for someone as talented as Meredith to use that sort of language.  I disagree. Most of us don't count our blogs as professional pubs, so I don't see any need for more formal writing.  I read Meredith because she writes not only from her head, but from her heart. She is genuine and honest and direct--all qualities I value far above politeness.   And we, as a profession, are too damn polite. Polite, from Merriam Webster Online:

1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2 a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities

After I decided that "too polite" was, in fact, what I meant, the word "effete" popped into my head.  Like, so much politeness makes us effete. Again, Merriam Webster confirmed my hunch.

1 : no longer fertile
2 a : having lost character, vitality, or strength

Excessive politeness, I'm convinced, makes us weak and vulnerable and is directly responsible for many of the things that make libraries suck--OPACs, dysfunctional architecture, outdated service models and collections.  A lot of librarians are hesitant to step on toes, speak up, say no, or demand the best from each other.  Certainly, be polite with the people who walk in the door (physical or virtual) to use your services and facilities. Exercise politeness much of the time with your officemates, board members, staff, and outside colleagues.  But when preparing to hand over loads of taxpayer money to vendors, jobbers and consultants, politeness should be one of the the last considerations in your interactions.

I think it's time to stop using the excuse of politeness to sweep the suckiness under the rug.  Once in awhile, you have to put on the gloves and have a good, fair, honest, passionate duke-out.  It's not a bad thing, and it's not hard: know the rules before you start, keep them in mind as you parry, take off your mask (no luchadores allowed!) and shake hands when it's over.  Heck, offer your partner a raw steak to put on her black eye and accept her offer of a towel to sop up your bloody nose.  Agree to disagree. Hug if that's what you need. But for Pete's sake, don't believe for a minute that we can solve all our problems or grow as a profession or an institution by sitting down over tea and cookies and exchanging platitudes.

Criticism is not only good, it's essential.  As a lifelong writer, I'm here to tell you that the last thing I want is for someone to read my work and respond with a smile and tell me "that's really nice."  I want to see a furrowed brow and a red pen and I want to hear an honest response. If I were writing just to please myself, it wouldn't matter.  But I don't write merely to please myself.  I write for an audience.  I want to amuse, provoke and influence.  I hope that's what we want from and for each other.  It should be want we want.  What we do is not about us, and we had best be prepared to take it on the chin and put up our dukes in order to defend our work and beliefs.  Doing it in front of a crowd lends transparency to our work.  There's a huge difference between slagging someone and offering criticism. Offering candid, constructive response is not a negative act.  There are a lot of cheerleaders among us. It's awesome that we acknowledge and celebrate each other's work and successes. I really do value being part of such a caring, communicative community, but some days, it feels like more of a beige suburb where everything looks good, even though you know there's more going on than meets the eye.

I'm not much for making New Year's resolutions as they tend to lead to disappointment in oneself (at least among we less resolute).  Instead, I offer my hopes and goals for the coming year:

• I hope that the biblioblogosphere gets a little less echoey.
• I'm throwing out 2.0 as a fetish.  I'm snatching if off my alter and tossing it into my toolbox.
• I will continue to praise innovation, acknowledge success, and offer my thoughtful criticisms of ideas and projects that others actively promote. If you don't want honest response, keep it in the basement or garage until you're ready to talk about it.
• I fully expect others to challenge my writing and ideas in thoughtful, honest, open ways.
• I will continue to allow anonymous comments, but will not necessarily recognize them as valid.
• I will continue to fight my brain chemistry and strive for more thoughtful, and less reactionary writings and responses.
• If you ever watch me eat, you'll notice that I like to mix things up on my plate. I like to combine textures and flavors and experience it all at once. Every once in awhile I consider separating this blog into two parts--one for the personal me and one for the professional me. Not gonna happen. Tinfoil+Raccoon will continue to be a mushy casserole of all my experiences.  (Or, a hot dish, if you will, since I am now a resident of the northern climes.)

I've got my iodine, mouth guard and ibuprofen at the ready. Let's rumble.

Comments

[Lee Weinstein]

I agree that politeness if over-rated. I think it is also frequently a word used to describe what is really a weakness that comes from fear of addressing an issue. Perhaps if we don't have our mouth guard ready for a rumble, we wind up needing to use it later for tooth grinding.

[Carleen]

I know I'm a little late here, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate this post. It's been awhile since I've read something so "smart" and honest on a blog.

[Jenica]

The OPAC as unit of suck made me spit tea on my computer, and, dammit, I already took it apart once to dry it off from the Diet Coke incident.

Y'all are awesome.

[Juniorette]

Here, here! Way to stick it to the man.

Yes, I finally got around to reading this. Hurrah.

[joshua m. neff]

I won't be at Midwinter either. But we should all log into Skype or something at the same time and share a drink. It'll be Drinking 2.0!

[rochelle]

Aside from the banter from the Smartass Brigade (which I treasure in a different way), I can't tell you how much I value the conversation going on here and elsewhere. What I value above all is hearing from people who haven't commented here before, and who I didn't know before this exchange. It's fattened my Bloglines account quite a bit! --rochelle

[Steve Lawson]

I won't be at Midwinter, I'm afraid. I'll have to drink by myself. Which sucks.

[rochelle]

Okay...who here in the Smartass Brigade is going to be at Midwinter? Drinks are on me. Well...as long as we're at a free reception.

[Steve Lawson]

Dorothea, I have people in the lab working on that right now. It is dangerous work, with a high burnout rate.

I can tell you that we have determined a few relative values. For example, Flickr has .06 OPAC of suckitude, the NCSU catalog has .6 OPAC of suckitude, OpenWorldCat .72 OPAC , while a default CONTENTdm installation actually has 1.8 OPAC.

I'm seeking grant funding at the moment.

[Dorothea]

Wow. We have a new unit for suckitude: the OPAC. Steve, how is this unit calibrated? How much suck is there in one OPAC? Ten OPACs? A hundred OPACs?

Not meaning to derail the conversation... just highly amused!

Karen, I wish I didn't think you were right... but I do think you're right. Sigh.

[moonflowerdragon]

I enjoyed your linking of polite, too polite and effete to point out the potential risks of politeness.

My 9yo son described to me last night his own dislike of polite responses to his works - I think most of us would have felt it first as young children.

So I felt very interested when I noticed here and there in your post some of what I think is needed. Marshall Rosenberg's first labelled it for me: compassion.

Although Merriam-Webster's definition is:
"sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it" that definition lacks the to me obvious inclusion of 'and a desire to not cause it'.

Marshall Rosenberg's language of compassion (open-hearted objective listening to feelings and needs and requesting rather than demanding) is how honest criticism or commentary or even praise can be contributed without carelessly creating hurt. (Maybe we don't have to armour up or be willing to get bloody to be part of making a difference).

I think it sucks is like that's really nice - on its own non-constructive. When you said "I want to see a furrowed brow and a red pen and I want to hear an honest response." It seemed to me that you were saying 'whether it sucks or is great please show me how'.

sucks is graphic and emotional (much as really nice is a little more emotional than nice), and they're both brief. So if I try for empathy I'll guess that the writer or speaker who says either is possibly wanting to express a positive or negative emotionally, and may be choosing brevity for some reason (like a blog post highlighting a different point).

If I empathise for the person who thinks the word 'sucks' is unprofessional I'd guess that maybe the critic values constructive specifics in criticism. Or s/he might value non-emotive language in professional commentary.

Luckily on the internet, unlike in speech, brief non-constructive provocative or emotionally suggestive words on side-line topics don't have to be left non-constructive - we can hyperlink them to a more detailed online source.

[K.G. Schneider]

When I used the word suck, I got taken to task. Now Meredith has as well. But Andrew Pace started it. Why hasn't he been taken to task? Because he's a guy. That's why. (I don't think he'd disagree.) It's not a plea for politeness, it's some dude with an issue with uppity women. And that's my impolite assessment, un-wanker to un-wanker!

[Steve Lawson]

Just so you know I'm not just a smartass, I wrote a longer reply to this post on my blog.

"I didn't become a librarian so I could be an effete wanker." There are so many places one could go with that sentence.

Oh, and joshua's comment sucks. It sucks big fat OPACs.

[joshua m. neff]

This post sucked.

(Can I be a member of the Smartass Brigade now, too?)

But seriously, I agree with you. That comment on Meredith's blog sounded like a plea for effeteness, and I didn't become a librarian so I could be an effete wanker. (I became a librarian to chew bubblegum and kick ass ...and I'm all out of bubblegum. Ahem.)

[Josh]

Here here. I have been lurking for some time but wanted to offer my support of this sentiment. I read several articles this weekend from the Harvard Business Review regarding how to combat workplace cynicism and it seems that this saccharine politeness plays a large role in perpetuating the negative undercurrent of which I am just sick-to-death, that runs rampant in so many libraries – public, academic and special alike. The commenter who called it a “national sickness” is right; luckily, IMHO, as long as there are a few of us who stop allowing it to continue, I think we can make some headway. I intend to continue not giving in to that element, and trying to lead by example. Kudos to you for taking a stand!

[Mark]

Good for you, Rochelle! And I agree. I have said similar things before, but you said it more eloquently, of course.

By the way, if you are looking for any sort of theoretical basis for our over niceness, or our "national sickness," you ought to check out M.P. Baumgartner's The Moral Order of a Suburb." One of the most frightening books I have ever read--having grown up in the burbs--but it explains a lot.

[rochelle]

Oh, you and my husband, Steve--the smartass brigade! After he read the post, he came up to me and gave me the cheese-smile and said the same thing. But, thank you for getting it out of the way. In addition the hubby told me that I was addressing "a national sickness."

[Steve Lawson]

:) That's really nice.

;)