I have come to realize that I am a failure at the professional role that I have been trying to adopt for the last several years. It is one which, in many ways, I am perfectly suited for. For instance, I can shoot holes in most any argument presented by most anyone, preferably with the intention of helping the argument be strengthened. I’m also pretty good at adding nuance to arguments and discussion, or at least insisting that others do so. Unfortunately, in other ways, I am ill-suited for it. Sadly, the ways in which I am failing are much, much harder to change than others. I cannot simply acquire more education to fix this. I need to change a fundamental way in which I present myself.
I am a very passionate person, about a great many things. Professionally, my greatest passions run to our bibliographic structures, past, current, and future. It is why I spent another 40+ hours on my education post-Masters. A job doing something with these structures, traditional or otherwise, is what I desire.
Unfortunately, my passion, especially in its extemporaneous, face-to-face version mostly seems to come out as anger, at least to others. I do not fully understand why that is, but it is old and deeply ingrained. It is also somewhat connected to my coming back to life from the intensely deep chronic depression I was in when I retired from the Army.
I would give anything to change this and have desired to and have worked on it for the last several years. It is certainly a professional handicap, particularly for the role I want to play.
Was my behavior yesterday—my comments to Michael Gorman—disrespectful and/or unprofessional? Only you can decide. My intended behavior was not, in my opinion. You may well disagree. What about my manifested behavior? Well, I won’t say I’m proud of it. But neither was it what I intended.
I do stand by everything that I’ve written or said on the subject, though. Some of it I wish was expressed better, especially what I said in room 126. But then that is the issue.
Another place where I am failing is in much of my blogging. I frequently take a comment by someone and in my reply broaden it so greatly—kind of like riffing on it—that I am no longer addressing the comment author. I may, in fact, specifically not be addressing the commenter. But. That is a dangerous thing to do because I am often unclear that that is what I am doing and, thus, some folks take my replies personally when they really shouldn’t. Or they simply don’t believe my intentions. Now in external appearances they are fully justified in doing so. I cannot deny that. Thus, I am a failure at that, too.
Another area in which I often fail is distinguishing at what level, if you will, I am talking. I also make frequent shifts between “levels”—theory vs. practice, cultural reality vs. how I believe the world (or some portion of it) ought to, and could, be, and so on. This one plays out frequently in my exchanges with my dear friend, Jenny. Jenny frequently argues from the cultural reality or, at least, cultural perception perspective. This is something she is imminently more qualified for than me and I greatly appreciate her doing so. It reminds me of how the world really is, or seems to be, for many others, sometimes even for myself. I, on the other hand, am often arguing for how I think the world ought to, and could perhaps, be. Our discussion of whether or not Michael Gorman is qualified to address the topics on which he spoke is a perfect example.
Jenny’s argument (greatly simplified) is that having been ALA President does, in fact, in our cultural context of librarianship qualify anyone to address the future of libraries and other topics. This is true. But my argument is from another angle. I prefer a world in which real qualifications are required for something this important. I am not saying he is completely unqualified. That would be completely asinine. He is highly qualified to address much of what he did, and much of it he did so eloquently.
But much of it he is not. The fact that he was ALA President is completely irrelevant to whether he is qualified to speak about Dublin Core or metadata in general. And the fact that he willfully and belligerently holds to a view of DC and metadata that is so overly simplistic is one prime reason why he is unqualified, in my opinion. He is an extremely intelligent person who could easily choose to upgrade his knowledge if he chose to. But his willful disregard for the state of portions of our field is a political move. In fact, it is a move which plays well with many in our profession and serves a purpose. The purpose is even one which I greatly support. But there are far better and more honest ways to do so.
But I have a hard time expressing these things so that people will listen, especially the people I am trying to critique. And no one, including myself, is above critique.
So. There it is. I am a failure. I am, currently anyway, constitutionally incapable of playing the professional role that is most important to me. I have no idea what I am going to do about this. I truly don’t. And that fact scares me.
Over time I have had many, in various ways, tell me that they appreciate what I do and that the profession needs people like me. I cannot agree more. But it needs people who do what I do who can do so more eloquently and either with much less passion or, at least, with that passion much better expressed.
Even if librarians and the profession don’t deserve it, those for whom we do what we do do deserve better. Better than I seem capable of.
To anyone affiliated with GSLIS who is embarrassed or offended by my behavior—here, in person, or elsewhere—I truly and sincerely apologize. Offense is not my intention, but I do think what I am attempting to do is critically important to our profession. I just wish I could do it better, now.
[Comments are disabled for this post.]