Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine the evolving democratic librarianship and its robust connection to the Nordic societal model. Through an analysis of libraries in Oslo, Tromsø, Stockholm, Aarhus and Helsinki, as well as recent changes in library laws, we have analysed contemporary democratic librarianship in the Nordic countries through four essential factors: (1) citizens in democratic activities within libraries, (2) library managerial decisions, (3) activities of political parties within public libraries and (4) library laws. Through the analysis, we show that this robust and unique ecosystem is supported by (1) discussions at book clubs and shared readings events connected to common societal concerns, (2) criteria of library directors and managers, such as neutrality, freedom of speech and clauses of the Library Act, (3) perception of politicians regarding public libraries as the centre of the democratic community and (4) the Library Acts critically impacting democratic librarianship.
Research background
The Nordic countries are widely regarded as the most comprehensive welfare states since the second half of the 20th century (Christiansen et al., 2006). The public sphere is an important aspect of the Nordic societal model (Engelstad et al., 2017), of which libraries, archives and museums play an important part (Larsen, 2018). In this article, we build on this work in a discussion on democratic librarianship in contemporary Nordic societies.
As several of the library laws in the Nordic countries have undergone recent changes to capture the important role of libraries for democracy, and several larger cities in the Nordic region has recently established new and inclusive buildings for their main libraries, there is a growing awareness of the importance of public libraries for democracy within these countries. The design of these library buildings, as well as the activities taking place within them, all points towards democracy being an essential part of contemporary Nordic librarianship.
In the 21st century, local governments have high expectations for public libraries as a social institution that can help integrate divided communities. As an example of urban development, the city of Aarhus, Denmark, opened DOKK1 as a central library in a less popular harbour in 2014. In the process, the library has become the centre of the region by involving the local community and stakeholders, engaging with the citizens and revitalising the community (Tinaztepe and Østergård, 2019). In addition, Helsinki Central Library Oodi, in Finland, opened in December 2018 in the civic centre between the Parliament and Helsinki Central Station, strengthening democracy in modern Finland (Haavisto, 2019). Also, Deichman Library in Oslo, Norway, opened a new main library, Deichman Bjørvika, in June 2020, located between the central train station and the opera house at a harbour area under rapid development. Contemporary Nordic libraries and librarianship are also gaining interest from around the world: The Oodi in Helsinki won the IFLA-price for public library of the year in 2019, while Deichman Bjørvika was awarded this price in 2021. Even public libraries in the United States, invented some 170 years ago, have learned the concept of a 21st century library from Nordic advanced libraries (Blewitt, 2014).
Libraries have to an increasing degree been linked to being meeting spaces for public discussions and social integration (Aabø et al., 2010; Audunson, 2005a; Audunson et al., 2011; Audunson and Evjen, 2017). With the increasing number of immigrants, the library’s role as an institution open to all has gained importance. By allowing the needs and opinions of immigrant populations to be heard and by being an inclusive space for residents, libraries contribute to enhancing the inclusion of these voices in deliberative democratic processes. Library and information science scholars studying multicultural integration have documented that public libraries in the Nordic countries have been especially skilled at managing their library services and operations to serve this purpose (Audunson, 2005a; Audunson et al., 2011; Fagerlid, 2016; Johnston and Audunson, 2019).
As reflected in the latest revision (2014) of the Norwegian law on public libraries (LOV-1985-12-20-108), libraries should function as democratic meeting places. This points to them being open and inclusive third spaces (Oldenburg, 1999) 1 in the public realm (Sennett, 2010), 2 as well as physical arenas for the exercise of democratic discourse (Habermas, 1962, 1971, 1989). 3 Oldenburg, Sennett and Habermas are important theoretical inspirations for this revision (Golten, 2019), channelled through empirical library research inspired by the theories, in particular the two research projects PLACE 4 (Aabø et al., 2010; Audunson, 2005a; Audunson et al., 2011) and ALMPUB 5 (Audunson et al., 2020b), carried out from the Oslo Metropolitan University, 6 under the leadership of Ragnar Audunson.
There is a long tradition for social scientists influencing policy developments in the Nordic countries, sometimes referred to as an input democracy (Engelstad et al., 2017; Goodin, 2004). Regarding the work of Habermas, his theories have been particularly influential, with his early work on the public sphere being translated into Norwegian already in 1971, as the first translation of the book (which was originally published in German in 1962, and not translated to English until 1989). Habermas’ theories on the public sphere (1989) and deliberative democracy (1996) have later had an impact on the revision of the paragraph on freedom of speech in the Norwegian Constitution (1814), with central members of the independent committee delivering a report on the subject to the government (NOU 1999: 27, 1999) being scholars heavily influenced by the work of Habermas (Kalleberg, 2015). After the revision, a paragraph stating that ‘The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse’ was added to section 100. With this revision, the state is obliged to provide positive freedom (Berlin, 1969) to the citizens, through developing and maintaining the infrastructure of the public sphere, of which public libraries make up an important part (Larsen, 2018).
Research purposes
The purpose of our research is to further examine the evolving librarianship and the democratic space of public libraries in Nordic societies. Specifically, in order to determine strong connections between public libraries and deliberative democracy in the Nordic societies, we have analysed several cases in relation to four factors: (1) citizen involvement, (2) library managerial decisions, (3) activities of political parties within public libraries, and (4) library laws. Based on careful observations and descriptions of these phenomena, we present traits and functions of 21st century democratic librarianship in the Nordic countries, as seen from the viewpoint of public libraries as public sphere infrastructure.
Literature research
Nordic cultural policy and the Nordic model
A characteristic feature of the Nordic societal model is the combination of a strong and liberal state. This also applies to cultural policies (Engelstad et al., 2017). Related to media policies and arts policies, the state is involved in securing the infrastructure of a public sphere but is obliged to do this at arm’s length from the actors producing and delivering the content of arts and media organisations. The state is actively involved in securing that such a sphere can thrive, but if the state gets too close to the actual content production, it is no longer a liberal state (Larsen, 2017).
The combination of socialist and liberal values, developed over the last centuries, is widely regarded as a signature feature of the Nordic Model (Berggren and Trägårdh, 2006; Engelstad et al., 2017; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Sørensen and Stråth, 1997). This combination also applies to library policies. A recent development in Nordic library policies is the government’s encouragement on the part of libraries to become public sphere arenas, in the sense that they host public meetings and debates inside public libraries. This became prominent in Norway with the latest revision of the law on public libraries, being in effect since 2014. Similar to arts and media policies, the government does not get involved in the actual content production; how the individual libraries want to facilitate their space as a public sphere, is up to the individual managers. With the revision of the law, and the increased emphasis on public libraries as an arena for public discussion and debate, the National Library of Norway got allocated funds to be distributed to public libraries in need of help in order to live up to the new purpose statement for public libraries (Golten, 2019). Between 2015 and 2018, almost 80% of public libraries applied for funding from the National Library, with most applications granted. The libraries applied for funding for developing the arena and meeting place aspects of their public library offerings, in accordance with the revised library law (Iversen, 2019: 65).
Public libraries, neutrality and democracy
As contemporary societies are characterised by increased polarisation (Fukuyama, 2018; Hochschild, 2016), library scholars are arguing that libraries are becoming even more important for the realisation of stronger democracy. Kranich (2009) described the changing role of libraries in modern times in 2009, explaining the relationship between strong democracy and public libraries based on essential concepts for the 21st century, such as intellectual freedom, informed citizenry, and participatory democracy. Also, in 2017 she elucidated the roles and functions of the modern library and argued that it was needed to help restore democracy and reintegrate fragmented and divided American communities. She was worried that the current state of democracy was weakening due to divided communities and concluded that libraries must bridge the divides by giving people a voice and opportunity to listen to fellow citizens (Kranich, 2017). Furthermore, she comprehensively reviewed narratives of public libraries and democracy, organised them, and redefined them for the 21st century (Kranich, 2020).
Audunson et al. (2020a) have analysed the role of public libraries as democratic public spaces through a number of European case studies. Audunson has also investigated how politicians and central decision-makers viewed public libraries in Norway. He concluded that they recognised libraries as a cultural and literacy institution as well as an essential prerequisite for democracy (Audunson, 2005b).
Jaeger et al. (2013) have discussed public libraries and democracy in terms of neutrality. They also illustrated the political process and what public libraries should be in the United States’ current context (Jaeger et al., 2014). Also, Buschman reviewed democratic theories in the library and information science field and emphasised that the importance of library and democracy is based on key concepts for libraries, such as equality, citizens and social capital (Buschman, 2007, 2018).
Neutrality has been a key aspect of librarianship, and closely linked to democratic librarianship. However, the emphasis put on neutrality from a professional perspective has been thoroughly questioned for a number of years, especially in a US context (Scott and Saunders, 2021; Wenzler, 2019), where activist librarianship is quite common (American Library Association, 2021; Epstein et al., 2019; Lankes, 2011; Mehra, 2021, point 9.). In a Nordic context, activist librarianship is still a marginal phenomenon, although a recent article has documented how activist librarianship has also influenced the identity and practice of librarianship in Sweden (Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020). That activist librarianship and criticism of neutrality are not as widespread in the Nordic countries as in the US, might be due to Nordic public libraries being publicly funded, part of cultural policies and regulated through public laws specifying their democratic mission.
Practising inclusivity and seeking to help integrate minority groups in society by providing free access to information is in many ways an integrated part of librarians’ professional ethos. However, this can lead to activism if it results in actions like refusing to purchase or lend out certain books due to particular political antipathies. In Sweden, there exist a few cases where the Parliamentary Ombudsman has ruled that libraries have conducted unlawful activities when refusing patrons to lend right-wing, fascist, or anti-immigrant literature (Helgason, 2020; Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020). This is especially problematic since the Swedish Law on Libraries (2013: 801) specifies that libraries ‘must work for the development of a democratic society by contributing to the dissemination of knowledge and free formation of opinions’ (section 1, paragraph 1).
Public libraries and the public
Contemporary notions of democratic librarianship in the Nordic libraries are influenced by Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, as well as other theories of democracy and the public sphere (Audunson et al., 2019, 2020b). As already mentioned, influence from habermasian public sphere theory can be seen in the recent changes in library laws in the Nordic countries, with their emphasis on facilitating open and enlightened public discourse. The Norwegian law on public libraries now specifies that ‘public libraries should be independent meeting places and arenas for public conversations and debate’. This echoes Habermas (1989: 27) definition of a bourgeoise public sphere as ‘the space where private people come together as a public’. Through discussions in such bourgeois public spheres, citizens can form public opinions, which, via the mass media, can be channelled to the political system, and at best end up in changes in laws (Habermas, 1996).
Larsen (2018) has discussed how the Nordic model of the public sphere (Engelstad et al., 2017) can be related to the activities and missions of libraries, archives and museums, providing a framework for the significance of the Nordic Model for research on public libraries. In addition, by observing and interviewing immigrants and librarians, Johnston and Audunson (2019) described the current situation of library services that support immigrants in the Nordic countries and concluded that public libraries are connected to the public sphere in important ways.
Widdersheim and Koizumi have also presented a public sphere model based on a case from the United States (Widdersheim, 2017, 2018; Widdersheim and Koizumi, 2016, 2017). This has later been expanded into a comparison between American, Norwegian and Japanese models of public libraries and the public sphere, as analysed through cultural policies (Widdersheim et al., 2021).
Buschman (2003) has warned against a crisis of democracy and emphasised the importance of sustaining librarianship and the public sphere. Vårheim et al. (2019) have reviewed previous literature on the public sphere and public libraries, and mapped questions, methods, theories, findings and research gaps in this research field. They specifically pointed out that ‘more research is needed to understand how librarians, their communities, and their funders collectively navigate this terrain to continue to function as public sphere institutions’. And, as we mentioned above, librarianship in the Nordic model is one of the most robust ecosystems in the library world of the 21st century. It is critical for library scholars, librarians and politicians in the 21st century to be able to illustrate the details of the democratic librarianship in the Nordic model.
Research questions
In this study, we want to investigate contemporary Nordic librarianship. Based on our reading of the literature on public libraries, democracy, and the Nordic model, we decided to zoom in on four factors connecting librarianship to democracy. These factors were formulated into four research questions, pursued through a qualitative study of Nordic public libraries.
(RQ1) How do citizens engage in deliberative democratic activities in public libraries?
(RQ2) How do library directors work to create services that can strengthen democracy and freedom of expression?
(RQ3) How do political parties utilise public libraries as a space for political deliberation?
(RQ4) How do the Nordic governments seek to strengthen 21st century democracy through library laws?
Research data and methodology
Our theoretically informed qualitative study, relying on different data sources (observations, interviews, documents), helped us capture essential elements of Nordic democratic librarianship. A combination of an abductive approach to theory and data (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012) and a triangulation of data sources were essential for us arriving at our conclusions. We observed activities taking place within libraries, interviewed managers at public libraries and consulted the library laws of the Nordic countries. The data collection was carried out by the first author, during a research stay in Norway. Coming from another region of the world, he was able to observe the events taking place within the library with an outsiders’ view. This became especially fruitful, when combined with the second author’s inside view in co-writing this article on the democratic role of public libraries and the evolving democratic librarianship in the Nordic countries. Inspired by previous research on libraries and the public sphere, we were particularly interested in their role as democratic public spheres. In order to illustrate Nordic librarianship, we continuously discussed it in the entire research period.
The cases were intentionally selected for this analysis based on our knowledge about the field. We investigated two cases from Norway (Oslo Deichman Library, Tromsø Library), one case from Sweden (Stockholm City Library), one case from Denmark (Aarhus Public Library) and one case from Finland (Helsinki Public Library). The research period lasted for 12 months, from April 2018 to March 2019. During the first half of this research period, the first author mainly visited libraries in Oslo two to three times a week and observed everyday activities and events of the libraries. During this period, by looking at the Nordic libraries from the perspective of an outsider, it became clear what services, activities and events we should zoom in on. Then, in the second half of the research period, the first author visited libraries in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, interviewed library directors, managers and users, and observed events strongly related to deliberative democracy. He stayed for about 2–5 days in each city. He conducted a total of 11 in-depth semi-structured interviews, with the average interview lasting for approximately 1.5 hours. The interviewees were either library directors or persons in charge of library events. Each interview was recorded, and the parts related to Nordic librarianship were transcribed. Due to privacy concerns, the interviewees remain anonymous when quoted in the text. However, in order to connect quotes to the cases discussed in the article, we state in which library they were employed when the interview took place.
Research results
Book clubs and shared reading (RQ1)
A strong example of how deliberative democracy was practised within libraries was found in public library book clubs and shared reading events. Librarians in charge of book clubs usually make a book list for club members based on certain topics and select a book to be read at the next club meeting. Librarians have also collected a sufficient number of copies for the next club meeting. The club members read the book and prepare for conversations on the topic of the book for the next meeting. At some book clubs, members and librarians select books and short stories together, sometimes revolving around social issues. Then they come together to discuss the topics at the clubs after reading the books on their own, or alternatively read short stories or poems together at a shared reading.
These clubs and shared reading events are open to the public. Participants are encouraged to first think about the contents of the book by themselves, and then discuss it with the rest of the participants. These activities encourage citizens to cultivate critical thinking, deepen their understanding of social issues, and actively participate in this democratic forum. For instance, we observed that when they read the poem ‘Truth (Norwegian Nynorsk: Sanningi)’ by Olav H. Hauge and discussed it together, a participant explained that ‘truth is not always true to everyone’. From this comment, the discussion became active and extended to contemporary societal issues, such as fake news and Donald Trump’s comments. It even spiralled into a discussion on how to prevent a new Holocaust. A single poem led to an active debate that became connected to real concerns of our time.
When we observed shared reading events and interviewed librarians in charge of these events, an elderly Norwegian man and an immigrant’ young lady got to know each other better. Before the reading events, the elderly Norwegian white man told librarians that he felt scared when he saw some immigrants in his local community and tried not to communicate. However, after discussing several topics with participants and, through the events getting to know the young immigrant better, his attitude to immigrants changed. Through being tiny publics (Fagerlid, 2020; Fine, 2012), book clubs and shared reading gradually made a community band stronger.
Exhibition (RQ1, 2)
As an example of Nordic public libraries commitment to neutrality, the Tromsø Public Library held an exhibition called ‘Dead Pen’ (Norwegian: Døde penner) in 2007 in collaboration with a local organisation for journalists. The exhibition showcased articles and photographs in Norwegian, Russian and English, from 42 Russian journalists, writers and poets that were murdered between 1996 and 2007. The library wanted with this collaboration to open a dialogue about freedom of speech to stimulate deliberative democracy. The library director expressed the mission of the library in this specific case: One of the problems the Russian society is having is that they are killing their journalists and authors. (. . .) Everyone knows this, and the government does not do anything about it. We made an exhibition called Dead Pens. (. . .) We must be visible, and we have to show that we are concerned with freedom of speech, freedom of the written word (interviewed on the 24th of September in 2018).
The city of Tromsø is geographically close to its neighbour Russia and has historically been at risk of invasion. In addition, there is a Russian community in Tromsø. Such an exhibition could have an impact on the commune of Tromsø and on the political relationships between Norway and Russia, and criticism was expected, especially from the Russian community, the Russian media, and the local government. Despite criticism from some community groups, the library defended the exhibition, stating that it would allow any event as long as it is not illegal.
There have also been other controversies related to whether public libraries should give access for undemocratic right-wing groups to use the library space for closed meetings (Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020; Tallerås and Dahl, 2020). Rather than intervening in events proposed by various organisations and activists, public libraries have for the most part chosen to focus on the management of the library space for all, regardless of their political views, as long as the meetings will be lawful.
Helsinki Central Library Oodi held an exhibition about climate change in August 2019. The exhibition aimed to increase a better understanding of climate change. This climate issue was approached by four themes: transport, housing, food and consumption. The exhibition was also related to Helsinki’s climate goals. In 2019, Helsinki became the first city in Europe to submit a sustainable development report to the United Nations High-Level Political Forum, and the government’s climate change plan was launched in the Helsinki City Strategy 2017–2021, which included the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2035 (BBC, 2019; CASEL, 2017).
Public libraries play a role in making citizens recognise local and global problems. As this is done in a space perceived as neutral by the citizens, it has the potential to make fruitful contributions to how local communities relates to such problems, as disseminations and discussions of problems in other arenas are connected to diverse interests of stakeholders, and critical conflicts. Exhibitions from the neutral perspectives of public libraries can thus contribute to enhancing deliberative democracy in society.
And, although quality assessments on part of the librarians will never be neutral, there is an ideal that political or social neutrality should be reflected in the book collection of each library. These decisions strongly demonstrate the prioritisation of neutrality and democratic physical spaces in Nordic public libraries.
Political parties and public libraries (RQ1, 2, 3)
Political parties use public libraries to communicate with citizens and listen to their opinions. For instance, the Labour Party in Norway, in August of 2018, held discussion events at the Deichman Stovner Library in Oslo, regarding Norway’s relationship with Pakistan, and regarding new industries and business skills of the 21st century Norway. These kinds of events are created by collaborations with stakeholders in the community, which is actually a prerequisite from the managers for letting political parties hold events in the common space of public libraries (Espevik and Olsson, 2021). Sometimes, even young adults from the neighbouring high schools and universities gather at the library to discuss local community issues and interests. Their discussions are self-led with minimal input from adults. The teenagers get to express their viewpoints on social issues, without any judgement or interruptions. The only rule governing these discussion groups is that anyone is allowed to participate, in accordance with a habermasian ideal of a public sphere, where social status should be irrelevant and the force of the better argument decisive (Habermas, 1989). A member of the political party is present to observe the proceedings, but he/she will only involve himself/herself when there is a lull in the discussion or if the participants require more specific information.
Furthermore, political parties and public service broadcasters have chosen public libraries as venues for hosting political debates in relation to elections, and citizens have gathered and debated about common concerns in this open space. As a contrast, in Japan librarians prefer to keep a distance from political discourse, as they perceive this to be too controversial to engage in. In the Nordic countries, libraries are actually expected to host such events, as specified in several of the library laws (see next section). Public libraries thus function as public spheres for political debates.
The Deichman Public Library managers in Norway and the Stockholm Public Library managers in Sweden explained that when they host events for political parties, they are always required to have more than two parties in attendance and cannot prohibit specific citizens from participating. 7 These events are always open to everyone. For instance, the Deichman Stovner Library, a local Oslo branch, is located in a large shopping mall, so even passing shoppers, including children, sometimes stop by the debates to listen and give their input. This invites lively and open discussions, and the local community is not only able to increase their awareness of current political issues, but also exercise their discussion skills in a democratic space.
In Stockholm Kista Library in Sweden, they hosted events called ‘Here Me Out!’. Here they invited four politicians who belong to different parties to discuss local issues with youth, especially between 16 and 20 years old. Higher level managers of the library really needed to care about the neutrality of these political events. The manager at the library (interviewed on the 9th of January in 2019) also explained that librarians should not express their own thoughts or beliefs but focus on organising discussion events from the perspectives of neutrality.
The Helsinki Public Library director, in 2018, also expressed a similar desire to remain neutral and avoid political bias. She told us that these policies would be put into practice in the Helsinki Central Library, Oodi, which opened on December 5, 2018: First, we are trying to make people aware that everybody is welcome to the library and that you are welcome to organize all sorts of events in the library. We are just looking at our calendar. So that not just one type of opinion is always there, that we are trying to make sure that there are different types, that we give the space to different opinions. And luckily there are organisations like YLE (Finnish public service broadcaster), that can come and organize a discussion in the library and then make a television program out of it, so they choose who they invite and what’s the subject. So, we are not taking responsibility of the content, we are providing the peaceful surroundings, and we are, like, open for ideas. . . . We really try to talk with freedom of expression activists and all the political parties and try to make them talk together and come up with an idea that they might want to organize some events in the library (interviewed on the 20th of August in 2018).
After the election, on the 15th of June in 2019, ministers of Antti Rinne’s Government held a discussion event to present the Government Programme and to discuss it with citizens of Finland at the Helsinki Central Library Oodi. At the same time, this event was broadcasted nationally, and streamed online. Prior to this event, which took place shortly after the election, Prime Minister Rinne had mentioned that ‘We want to continue the discussion with our citizens by visiting different Finnish libraries. Besides being a cornerstone of Finnish education and culture, libraries are a meeting place for everyone in society. Libraries are also connected to an important Finnish principle: Whatever we borrow, we must return in good condition’ (Finnish Government, 2019).
As we have seen so far, Nordic governments, political parties and local stakeholders have chosen public libraries as venues for hosting political debates before upcoming/after elections, and citizens have gathered and debated about common concerns in this open space. Librarians and managers at the various libraries emphasise the importance of their neutral stance on the topics being discussed, and who will participate in the discussions. As such, they are practising democratic librarianship by supporting all kinds of lawful deliberations on societal and political issues within the space of public libraries.
Library laws and policies (RQ4)
Finally, Nordic democratic librarianship enjoys political support through national library laws. In the latest version (2014) of the Norwegian Law on public libraries (LOV-1985-12-20-108) it is stated in section 1, paragraph 2, that ‘public libraries should be an independent meeting space and arena for public conversation and debate’. This formulation encompasses both the libraries role as public third spaces (Oldenburg, 1999) and public realms (Sennett, 2010) and as democratic public spheres (Habermas, 1989).
Similar paragraphs are found in the Finnish library law, such as under Section 2, ‘Objectives’ and Section 6, ‘Duties of Public Libraries’. The New Finnish Library Act (2016) requires public libraries to ‘promote active citizenship, democracy and freedom of expression’ (section 2, paragraph 1) and ‘promoting social and cultural dialogue’ (section 6, paragraph 1). In Sweden, section two of the Swedish law on libraries (2013: 801) states that libraries ‘must work for the development of a democratic society by contributing to the dissemination of knowledge and free formation of opinions’ (section 1, paragraph 1). In terms of democratic public spaces, library services in the Nordic countries are also free of charge, and public libraries are open to all peoples, regardless of nationality, race, ethnicity, social class, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, age or physical disabilities.
Discussion and conclusion
The previous discussion of democratic librarianship within the Nordic model is derived from observations at public libraries, interviews with managers at public libraries and discussions among the two library researchers. The first author, a Japanese researcher, was able to identify specific traits of Nordic public libraries and communities. For instance, through the analysis of book clubs and shared reading, he determined that active discussions were a strong part of Nordic library practice, as contrasted to Japan, where such active and open debates are hard to find in public libraries. An exhibition like ‘Dead Pen’ (Norwegian: Døde penner) will also most likely be found too controversial for Japanese public libraries. At the same time, the second author, a sociologist, was able to deduce from the cases a theoretical relationship between public libraries, the public sphere and democratic librarianship within the Nordic model.
In addition, in the analysis of the phenomena of political parties and public libraries, the first author was able to observe the closer relationship between political parties and public libraries in Norway, than in Japan or the US (Widdersheim et al., 2021). Furthermore, strong emphasis on democracy, meeting places and freedom of expression in Nordic library laws are significantly distinguished from similar laws in other countries. This considerable difference means that Nordic governments essentially identify public libraries as democratic arenas and support their activities by laws. This influenced librarians’ behaviours and customs, such as the strong emphasis on neutrality as a core value for public libraries.
Nordic libraries, through the management of neutral public spaces, play an important role in protecting freedom of speech and promoting critical thinking and deliberative democratic discourse. An emphasis on public libraries as neutral public spaces for exercising democratic discourse has been manifested through library laws in several Nordic countries. This can be seen as an element of the strong state, characteristic of the Nordic model, in that the state demands that libraries emphasise their role as democratic public spheres. Being a democratic space for discussions and debate is not a new aspect of life at public libraries (Wiegand, 2015), but a demand from the government, through laws, to emphasise this aspect of their mission represents a shift in focus in living up to the public library’s social mission. Simultaneously, there is a liberal element in these laws, in that the individual libraries are free to decide how they want to live up to these demands from the law; the library directors have ‘editorial freedom’ at arm’s length from the state when programming their events for the library. As can be seen from the cases related to right wing groups wanting to host events within the library (Sundeen and Blomgren, 2020; Tallerås and Dahl, 2020), this curation can be a difficult landscape to navigate. Furthermore, and directors at small libraries may find it hard to live up to these demands (Tinnesand, 2020). As our focus in the article has been on the large urban libraries, they are designed to handle the demands of being democratic meeting places and arenas for discussions and debate. Nevertheless, directors at these libraries need to enforce democratic librarianship in terms of their curation of which events to take place, and the librarians working within the libraries need to manage the actual events taking place. As such, both librarians and library directors are important in managing the democratic librarianship of contemporary public libraries in the Nordic countries.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the library directors and managers who took the time to be interviewed as part of this project. This work was expanded based on the presentation at Bobcatsss 2019.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16K16161 and 20H04479.
