Last week I went to the library for the first time in ages. Nothing terribly significant about that, I just tend not to bother these days. There stock is limited thanks to cuts. That they are open at all is however impressive, and so I support libraries in principle. I've also spent the first half of the year buying a LOT of books that I am still wading through!
What I don't support are fines. This is an iniquitous principle that only serves to punish the poorest for wanting to take advantage of the vital service libraries provide. Clearly if you're wealthy enough being fined for a late return is no punishment at all and thus the idea of enforcing correct library behaviour - fair use of books - is not the issue.
But people, by which I mean me, forget to return stuff. It happens. If you're me you take a lot of books out at a time - because going to the library requires a trip into town and so not worth it for just one or two books. So if you forget to return one thing, you forget to return all. Fines increase on a daily basis, so if you don't get the opportunity to return before long you end up with a significant enough penalty that you can't take out more books.
Now a lot of people are going to have no problem with this. The argument will be that it's not fair for me to keep books and that it's my fault for not returning them.
This is true, but it isn't actually the point.
Firstly I don't seek to keep books unfairly, but - and this is key - our system tells people that's what's happening because our system can't process this any other way. It cannot accept that I haven't returned the books due to common human oversight. I don't intend for the books to be kept, but this happens in life. Why should it be an issue?
Secondly yes of course it's my fault. Why does that require scapegoating and punishment? If something gets returned late, well, quite frankly, so what? Again it's not intentional. Books get returned early (and late) all the time. People borrow, others don't. That's how this works.
These fines are also unnecessary; it's a paradigm not a requirement for the maintenance of the service. Think about it: if the library's income depended on fines and fees it would fail because the service would require people broke the rules. Does that make sense as a way to run things?
It's like the congestion charge. The stated aim - to try and reduce traffic and gridlock and ease pollution - is great. But in practise that's not really the aim because that's not what the charge actually does. Without an alternative it just penalises people who have no choice and need to make those journeys. It might encourage a few, in the same way that bedroom tax victims might actually find somewhere (if they are lucky) better suited to live. In reality those outcomes are a happy accident of a punitive principle that is applied to situations because capitalism cannot address the needs of the situation. In many cases it's the cause: we have environment-warping pollution because we have profit driven industry.
In the end it would be better to have a society where libraries - communal troves of mass media - could be accessed by members whenever. It would be better if we raised people just to be responsible and so return the book in their own good time. If they need a couple weeks longer to finish reading, so what. If they return it early, so what. We only assume people will be greedy and lazy (which is not the same as forgetful) because that's what capitalism, ultimately, teaches us. I hear this argument all the time, we need capitalism because our nature as humans is such. It's tedious and unfounded. Let's stop infantilising ourselves
No comments:
Post a Comment