Mercy and love: Challenging the “respectable” in our lives, our work, and our libraries

Several weeks ago, the pastor of our church, who often preaches on social justice issues, said that “mercy always chooses love over religious respectability”. Her emphasis was that we often let our quest for religious respectability focus on ourselves, to the detriment of others, and our community. While her sermon, obviously had a religious/spiritual message, I think the message is still true even if we change the words to “mercy always chooses love over cultural or social respectability”.

I’ve been letting this phrase rummage around in my brain, looking for connections both to my work and to issues that are important to me. Several things in the last few weeks have brought home how we often chose respectability over mercy. We often chose mere tolerance over mercy as well, where tolerance is barely above contempt for the other.

Respectability is defined as “the state or quality of being proper, correct, and socially acceptable”. This broad view, even in today’s more permissive and pluralistic society, exerts a control that is often detrimental to both individuals and communities. Depending on where you live, even in the US, it is not respectable to be overweight, poor, homeless, non-white, an immigrant, gay, a Muslim, and the list goes on and on.  Respectability becomes equated with a person’s value or worth as a human. Rather than being an affirmation of a person’s dignity, our personal, religious, cultural or corporate sense of what is respectable degrades the other. Rather than showing mercy and therefore love, we show disdain and disgust.

A recent email “In Defense of Nuance” from Darren Walker, President of the Ford Foundation, echoes a similar sentiment when he notes that “rather than building bridges and relationships based on mutual understanding or shared respect, this oppositional, nuance-averse posture rewards ideological purity and public shame—the very things that scuttle strong working relationships and incentivize people to dig in their heels.”

October saw the LGBTQ community celebrating “National Coming Out Day” and the US Supreme Court discussing if gay, lesbian, and trans people had equal protection under the law. For several weeks I have been reading books on Hawaiian history and culture and how Calvinist missionaries and their descendants who espoused Social Darwinism, in the name of Christian respectability defrauded native Hawaiians of their country, language, and culture. The Jewish community celebrated Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, collectively known as the high holidays and a gunman in Germany opened fire at a Yom Kippur service.

Also notable was Indigenous People’s Day, at least here in California; a replacement for Columbus Day and a recognition that indigenous people have suffered inhumane treatment at the hands of the majority. The Social Darwinism of the 19^th and 20^th centuries encouraged imperialism and racism, leading to the conquest and subjugation of many indigenous people. Of course, this was not new, as religious zealotry and bigotry had done the same in the conquests and settlement in North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa, and the subcontinent of Asia.

Having spent a lot of time over the past few weeks thinking through issues faced by indigenous people, as well as historically underrepresented groups, I come back to the pastor’s statement. In what ways have we chosen “religious, social, or cultural respectability” over mercy and love?   

The American Library Association has, at times, been criticized for taking stands on issues that some feel are not “library” issues.  Often, but not always, these issues are raised through the Social Responsibilities Round Table, the Rainbow Round Table (formerly the GLBT Round Table), or the Intellectual Freedom Committee. These issues have include LGBT rights, economic discrimination, intellectual freedom, right to privacy, and religious freedom to name a few.  Many librarians have become strong advocates that these are also library issues as they affect the diverse group of people we are trying to serve.

Libraries by nature are not neutral organizations as they exist within the cultural power structures in which they reside. In Western society, they largely reflect white middle class, Christian and heteronormative values.  Until relatively recently, libraries did not collect materials that represented non-white, non-Christian, and non-heteronormative in a positive light or were written by these groups. Our cataloging systems reflect many of these same values, which marginalizes these materials in our collections and makes them difficult to discover. Our HR systems also reflected these same values. Even as we have made progress in being more representative, our quest for normative “respectability” often gets in the way of serving people who look different or think differently from us. The pull of “respectability” is a powerful one.

The Oxford Dictionary defines mercy as “compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm”.  If we look at “library values” as they are expressed by ALA, or any number of our libraries, it is doubtful that mercy or love make the list.

You will, however, see statements around “social justice” and I argue that mercy and love are both elements of social justice, especially as they fight against religious, social, and cultural respectability as a method of disparaging and marginalizing others.

As we think of our libraries, I challenge myself and my readers to look at how our own views of “respectability” often prejudices our behavior and our thoughts of others. The challenge is to substitute mercy and love over respectability. It could make a powerful difference in our fractured world.

Leaning into a new imagination: Indigenous knowledge and culture

For those of us raised and educated in the western cultural and philosophical tradition, it is hard for us to imagine other ways of thinking and knowing. We assume that everyone should see the world in the same way. This thinking not only denies that most of the world is not western but that the western cultural tradition is neither singular nor unchanging. The western understanding of humans and the world over the centuries evolved from a largely spiritual (Judeo Christian) to one that is predominantly based on rational thought without regard to spiritual matters. I realize that this statement is a gross oversimplification, but it does represent the broad strokes of the last several millennia. Despite this evolution, the western tradition has shaped the world’s dominant structures of power and privilege and continues to do so.

Starting in the late 15^th century when westerners (read white, Christian, European/American), encountered native cultures in the Americas, Africa, Oceana, Asia, and the subcontinent, their western ways of knowing and understanding of the world clashed with those they met, and these native cultures were immediately judged to be inferior and uncivilized. Their epistemology (way of knowing) prevented them from any cultural or philosophical dialogue or exchange. No attempt was made to understand but only to conquer and force deculturalization, or death. This epistemology enabled a class and caste structure that elevated the white race and the western tradition as the gold standard.

As I prepared for an interview at the University of Hawaiʽi, I knew I would be interviewing at a place where no one ethnic group was a majority, and where the University was trying to embrace and instill Native Hawaiian ways of understanding the world. I read broadly on Hawaiian history and native Hawaiian culture and history and was immediately confronted by my own dependence on the western cultural tradition for my understanding of the world. To understand what I was reading, I had to set aside many of my preconceived ideas and understandings. One of the things I have most appreciated about encountering other cultures, languages, and histories, is that it forces me to think about my own preconceptions; it allows me to stop and recognize that my way of looking at the world is not the only valid way.

I will not attempt here to retell the Hawaiian story, as it is not mine to tell. Suffice it to say, the Hawaiian kingdom was overthrown by the United States in 1893. This was followed by a profound period of forced deculturalization where native Hawaiians lost not only their country, their queen, and their government but their language and culture were suppressed and devalued to the point where the language was all but extinct and many of the cultural traditions were almost lost. In the early 1970s there was, to the surprise of many, a rebirth, a renaissance of Hawaiian culture, language, and pride. Over the past fifty years, the language has been revived and is taught in schools and many of the cultural traditions and beliefs have been restored. Despite the renaissance, there is still much discrimination and devaluation of native Hawaiian customs and beliefs.

One of the goals of the University of Hawaiʽi is to be a Native Hawaiian Place of Learning and Indigenous-Serving Institution. As I began to unpack this idea in my own mind, I knew I had to read and try and understand Hawaiian history and ideas from a Hawaiian perspective and not from a western perspective where Hawaiʽi is merely the 50th state with an interesting past and a rich multicultural population. Nor could it be understood as tourist mecca where Hawaiian culture was Disneyfied and native Hawaiians reduced to serving the tourist trade. While I read several general Hawaiian histories to get the broad sweep of the story, it was Hawaii's story by Hawaii's queen Lili‘uokalani, and From a native daughter: Colonialism and sovereignty in Hawai'i by Haunani-Kay Trask that began to open my eyes to the broad issues of indigenous knowledge in general and native Hawaiians in particular. It became pretty clear that native Hawaiians who embrace their Hawaiian heritage and traditions see the world, their place in it, and the land of Hawaiʽi very differently from the traditional western cultural tradition. Even where the words used are the same, the understanding, orientation, and intent are often quite different. It also made me aware that many histories and cultures of a people are researched and written by people who cannot read or speak the language of the culture and therefore they never consulted the written works by that culture. This results in a highly politicized and biased narrative.

This “aha” moment helps me to realize my own biases and to make me read and understand more about their history and culture. For me, as a librarian, the bigger question/challenge is how the library approaches serving an indigenous population and collecting and preserving its culture when libraries are typically organized through westerns ways of knowing.

Here are some suggestions for better serving the indigenous Hawaiian people.

• Read extensively on the history and the culture. It helps to read books written by native Hawaiians. It also helps to read many of the standard histories as they will provide perspective on how Hawaiians have been marginalized in their own story.
• Encourage librarians and staff to read one or more books on Hawaiian history and culture or take a Hawaiian studies course.
• Work with OCLC and Library of Congress to establish an official Hawaiian language authority file that can be used for cataloging and discovery. Ensure that materials in Hawaiian and materials in other languages that discuss Hawaiian materials have appropriate Hawaiian subject headings.
• Enable Hawaiian language keyboards at public terminals to allow accurate searching of Hawaiian materials in the catalog as well as to allow native Hawaiian students to easily keyboard in Hawaiian. If possible, make the library search interface available in Hawaiian.
• Work closely with native Hawaiian librarians to identify barriers for native Hawaiian students and scholars in accessing materials and services.
• Work closely with the student affairs office for native Hawaiian students in order to fully understand student needs and to partner in order to help meet those needs.
• Have some signage and some art in the library that represents native Hawaiian history, culture, and language.
• Recognize that the Library of Congress classification represents a colonial understanding of the world and therefore will provide a somewhat biased approach to Hawaiian history and culture. 
• Recognize that native Hawaiian people own their own knowledge, so work closely with native Hawaiian librarians and scholars around digitization projects and metadata in order to avoid cultural misappropriation.
• Make use of research studies such as the Ithaka S+R report, When Research is Relational: Supporting the Research Practices of Indigenous Studies Scholars as well as E Naʻauao Pū, E Noiʻi Pū, E Noelo Pū: Research Support for Hawaiian Studies in making choices and setting priorities.

People reading the title of this post “Leaning into a new imagination: indigenous knowledge and culture” may not immediately understand my meaning or intention. For those of us with a predominant western cultural, philosophical, and spiritual background, it takes both imagination and intention to step outside of our internalized ways of seeing the world, and look at, understand, and appreciate the indigenous native Hawaiian way of looking at and understanding the world. The kanaka Maoli “native Hawaiians” deserve that intention and imagination.