An interesting and sometimes amusing book delving into the American librarian stereotypes. White investigates librarian stereotypes drawing on Hollywood movies, television, and books that portray librarians. White identifies four major stereotypes that have pervaded American popular mainstream culture: the old maid, the policeman, the inept, and the psycho librarian. The old maid, policeman and psycho librarian are fairly self-explanatory. The inept librarian is either physically (a walking disaster area) or socially guache with a leaning towards caring more for books than people, more interested in reading than assisting people. The stereotype of librarians being more concerned about books than people appears to be linked to the issuing of fines for books not being returned, than trying to understand the circumstances people are in.
Stereotypes are changing, in the last few decades there has been the rise of the sexy female librarian, but the older stereotypes still exist. Carrying out a straw poll amongst friends, here in Australia, we identified a stereotype that is not mentioned in the book, the stereotype: all male librarians are gay.
White comprehensively lists films that feature librarians or have librarians as major characters (there are a couple of titles repeated in one of the lists). She discusses in depth a number of films, television series including animations, and adult, youth and children literature, where librarians are stereotyped. There are a few instances where the librarian is not stereotyped and is cast as an Indiana Jones hero type – The Librarian – or as a strong mentor in Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series. Nancy Pearl as an action figure is also mentioned in the introduction, but the figure seems more of a parody on being a librarian. The only action is one of her arms moving so as to bring her finger to her lips in a “shushing” manner. White also lists major non-English speaking (foreign) films that feature librarians, which unfortunately she does not discuss what their roles were and whether they reflect the American stereotypes.
From what White has written librarians are stereotyped not only by character but also by where they work. The librarian stereotypes only work in the academic or public libraries environments. Other environments hospitals, research centres, government, architectural, finance, legal, consultancies, etc. are not even mentioned, let alone the concept of the embedded librarian. The library profession's strong association with physical structures (the library) is taken as a given by White until the very final part of the book where she mentions librarians taking their services outside of the physical library environment.
White analyses the composition of professionals in the American Libraries Association (ALA) to show how incorrect the stereotypes are. White laments how librarians are not recognised for their skills and knowledge and emphasises the high level of education that librarians need to obtain before they are qualified professionally. White identifies the general perception of people is that anyone working in a library is seen as a librarian, whether they be a shelver of books or answering in-depth research questions. White delves into the history of modern American librarianship and the pivotal roles of Dewey and Bella da Costa Greene in the American library world, to show how non-stereotypical these earlier librarians were. White does the really address where did the devaluing of the profession originate from.
The impact of the stereotypes on the profession is hard to quantify, especially in the areas of continuation and growth of the profession. White mentions some studies that show people are not attracted to the profession because of how librarians are perceived. White briefly covers how technology/automation used in process situations; for example, self-checkout stations hinders clients interaction with librarians that could change the stereotypes they may hold. As libraries are moving from the physical to the virtual space this will be even greater barrier to overcome. White points out some of the things that the profession has done to ameliorate the effects of stereotypes especially in the area of revising or waiving penalties for overdue books.
White does not cover why people create stereotypes and this would have been helpful to understand the issue. Also in understanding why people create stereotypes may help to combat the negative stereotypes surrounding librarians. White is not optimistic that more positive stereotypes of librarians can be created in mainstream popular culture in the near future, but is more optimistic that the negative stereotypes can be counteracted by positive interactions with librarians.
White speaks about her own experiences, as she does not fit any of the above stereotypes. These experiences she writes about I think many of us have experienced. Her writing reveals her passion for the profession and desire to change the current perceptions. There are notes at the end of each chapter, a substantial bibliography and a list of URLs of non-stereotypical librarians' websites, which can be used for further research and inspiration.
The importance of this book for librarians internationally does to a certain extent depend on how pervasive American mainstream popular culture in their respective cultures. This book raises the question for non-American librarians, what are stereotypes in our respective cultures? Are they the same or are they not? Do these stereotypes devalue the profession? The answers to these and other questions would be for another book.
