Abstract — Inglés
Although hampered by the lack of accurate data and critical studies, Josefa Emilia Sabor seeks to explain, historically and economically, the way in which librarianship in Argentina has developed—or failed to develop—over the past two centuries. She begins by pointing out how Argentina’s colonial book traditions and the infamous Rosas dictatorship meant that libraries never played an integral part in the early educational and cultural life of the country. She goes on to highlight two important periods of library development: the first, during the latter half of the 19th century under President Domingo Sarmiento, who saw libraries as a crucial weapon in the struggle against illiteracy; and the second, a key moment during the 1940s, when a group of young professionals began working together to revitalize and modernize Argentine librarianship through the introduction of Anglo–American cataloging and classification schemes, the creation of the Instituto Bibliotecológico at the University of Buenos Aires, and the reform of outdated teaching methods and curricula in library schools.
However, political and economic forces—in this case, those that brought Perón to power in 1946—once again changed the promising direction of library development in Argentina. Peronism ultimately destroyed much of the progress made in the 1940s and dissipated the energies of that bright and creative generation of librarians. For Sabor, Peronism was a cultural and educational disaster from which Argentina has yet to fully recover. She laments that, even today, the Argentines have not yet been able to develop a true philosophy of librarianship, integrated with the cultural life of the country; and she uses this underlying weakness to explain many contemporary problems, such as the absence of critical thought and energy within the profession; lack of library journals and other library publications; and the failure of library professionals to communicate and cooperate with one another. She also emphasizes the need to use well–trained librarians capable of solid reasoning and creative thought to modernize the profession, and vigorously criticizes those who see indiscriminate “computerization” as an easy solution.
Although the author’s assessment is bleak, there have been positive accomplishments, such as the growth and integration of provincial libraries; the resurgence of information centers like the Centro Argentino de Información Científica y Tecnológica (CAICYT); a growth in library research at university centers; an increase in the number of library schools; and the recent appearance of a library science abstracting journal.
In conclusion, Sabor cannot stress enough the need for a coherent national plan for Argentina’s libraries, and she passionately calls upon librarians there to work together to create that plan.
Abstract — Español
La cuestión bibliotecaria en la Argentina
A pesar de la falta de datos precisos y de estudios críticos, Josefa Emilia Sabor busca explicar histórica y económicamente, la manera como la bibliotecología argentina se ha desarrollado—o fallado en desarrollar— sobre los dos siglos pasados. Ella inicia señalando como la tradiición libresca en la Argentina colonial y la infame dictadura de Rosas significó que las bibliotecas no jugaran nunca un papel íntegro en la edicación y la vida cultural tempranas del país. Continúa iluminando dos importantes períodos del desarrollo bibliotecario: el primero, durante la última mitad del siglo XIX, bajo la presidencia de Domingo Sarmiento, quien vió a las bibliotecas como un arma crucial en la lucha contra el analfabetismo; el segundo, un momento clave durante los 1940s cuando un grupo de jóvenes profesionales empezó a trabajar juntos con el objeto de revitalizar y modernizar la bibliotecología argentina a través de la introducción de las reglas de catalogación anglo–americanas y de los esquemas de clasificación, la creación del Instituto Bibliotecológico en la Universidad de Buenos Aires y las reformas a los métodos anticuados de enseñanza y programas de estudio en las escuelas de bibliotecología.
Sin embargo las fuerzas económicas y políticas—en este caso, aquellos que trajeron a Perón al poder in 1946—una vez más cambiaron la dirección promisoria del desarrollo bibliotecario en la Argentina. El peronismo destruyó últimamente mucho del progreso que se hizo en los 1940s, y disipó las energías de aquella generación de bibliotecarios brillantes y creativos. Para Josefa Emilia Sabor el peronismo fue un desastre cultural y educacional por el que Argentina se tenía que recobrar totalmente. Lamenta ella que aún ahora, los argentinos no han sido capaces todavía de desarrollar una verdadera filosofía de la bibliotecología, integrada con la vida cultural del país; ella usa esta debilidad latente para explicar los muchos problemas contemporáneos tales como la ausencia de la crítica de pensamientos y energía dentro de la profesiión; la falta de revistas de bibliotecología y de otras publicaciones del área, y el fallo de los bibliotecarios profesionales de comunicarse y colaborar entre ellos. Sabor enfatiza así mismo la necesidad de utilizar bibliotecarios bien capaces de razonar objetiva y creativamente para modernizar la profesión, y vigorosamente critica a aquellos que ven la “computarización” indiscriminada como solución sencilla.
Aunque la opinión de la autora es sombría, reconoce algunos logros positivos en el desarrolloy la integración de las bibliotecas provinciales; el resurgimiento de los centros de información tales como el Centro Argentino de Información Científica y Tecnológica (CAICYT); un crecimiento en la investigación bibliotecaria que se está llevando a cabo en los centros universitarios; el aumento en el número de escuelas de bibliotecología además de la reciente aparición de la revista de resúmenes de ciencias bibliotecarias.
En conclusión, Sabor no puede dejar de enfatizar la necesidad de un plan nacional y coherente para las bibliotecas argentinas, y apasionadamente hace un llamado a los bibliotecarios argentinos para que trabajen conjuntamente para el diseño de dicho plan.
It is very hard to try to analyze the problems that affect Argentine librarianship today for several reasons; the first is the lack of precise information about libraries. There is no systematic data gathering about libraries, whether public or private. There are almost no reliable statistics (and those that are compiled may remain unpublished), statements, reports, or historic syntheses. Moreover, when such documents do exist, the authors have rarely assumed a critical attitude; the studies are mostly factual and neither view the problem in general terms nor look toward the future.
The literature of librarianship in Argentina is not distinctive. There are some information bulletins, but there is no journal of national scope that reflects the thoughts of Argentine librarians. It is a surprising situation, because in the past influential studies and journals were published.
It is necessary to make a very important clarification here: most Argentine libraries belong to the government institutions; very few belong to private entities, and most library schools are also government—run. Thus governments (federal, provincial, municipal) are responsible for the progress and improvement of libraries and library schools, and this puts a very heavy economic and cultural burden on the shoulders of the politicians. Argentine governments of the 20th century have not been equal to the challenges presented to them by the needs of library development.
Argentine library history is modest, both in the period of Spanish hegemony and in the first half of the 19th century. The Viceroyality of the Río de la Plata had very limited economic resources in comparison with those of Mexico and Peru, and its cultural life was also less important. It was not that books were not present, but they were in private hands and in the hands of religious bodies. The expulsion of the Jesuits from America in 1767 was an act with unfortunate cultural consequences; and the distribution of their possessions, which they were forced to leave behind, was very damaging to libraries. In 1810, when the first national government was established, one of the priorities was to create a public library in Buenos Aires (this later became the National Library, which remained undistinguished well into the century).
In contrast, the country’s numerous private collectors were significant. Consequently book stores were important in the first half of the 19th century, and there was constant importation of books, especially from Europe. Argentina’s first dictatorship, that of Juan Manuel de Rosas, suffocated educational and cultural manifestations and indirectly gave impetus to private collecting, whose most renowned exponents were the canon Saturnino Segurola and the Neapolitan Pedro de Angelis. They created the two most important libraries of printed books and manuscripts.
With the dictator’s fall in 1852, there was an educational and cultural explosion, at the center of which was Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, who had returned to the country with new ideas after years in exile. As Argentine representative to the American government, he studied and became familiar with education and librarianship in the United States—fields that fascinated him. In his later posts, including that of President of the Republic, he worked tirelessly to establish libraries all over the country. Sarmiento was not interested in libraries formed by collectors; he was concerned with improving literacy, and he thought of schools and libraries together as he worked to bring his ideals into reality. The progress of the public library under the name of “popular library” was one of his most favored projects. His efforts were to give the country its first library system. In the second half of the 19th century Argentina could be proud of new libraries supported by the government, as well as rich private collections. The National Library shared this spirit of renovation, which culminated in 1885 with the appointment of Paul Groussac, of French ancestry, as director; in 41 years as its head, he enhanced the collections and provided the library with its first technical organization.
In addition to successes in library development, both in Argentina and other Latin American countries, there was progress in bibliography. Bartolomé Mitre, Navarro Viola, and Antonio Zinny, among others, did work of first quality. But the library movement and major bibliographical work both lost force in the first half of the 20th century. Libraries were still growing in numbers and in resources, and the number of new and capable bibliographers increased considerably, especially in the field of history. The first attempts to teach library science were made, and the first works about library organization were published. But the problems in both librarianship and bibliography, which in a few years had increased in magnitude and complexity, demanded organizational skills that were not available.
Thus not a few Argentine libraries were declining when in the 1940s there was a movement which demonstrated that Argentine librarianship was ready to discard traditional patterns. In the beginning the movement was centered primarily in Buenos Aires, but later it spread to provinces such as Mendoza, Chaco and Tucumán and to cities like La Plata. A number of renowned librarians retired from key positions, leaving the field open to young professionals who worked earnestly for a few years and succeeded in laying the foundations for what could have been the definitive revival of Argentinian librarianship. But various historical circumstances put an end to that movement.
In 1916 for the first time Argentina had a popularly–elected government. There were several forces responsible: first, the traditional leadership class, which had previously governed the country, declined; second, European immigrants and their descendants brought their skills and ideas (revolutionary for the time), such as workers’ organizations and the law establishing mandatory and secret vote; finally, a completely popular party was born, which hoped to be the voice of the downtrodden and was able to elect its charismatic leader, Hipólito Yrigoyen.
In contrast to this democratic victory, from 1916 on a kind of demagogic populism took over many aspects of Argentine politics. After the 1930s, governments were on several occasions overthrown by military coups, which in turn handed power over to democratically–elected civilians whether they represented populism or not. The country entered, especially after 1928, a period of social and economic deterioration. What needs to be emphasized here is that as time passed the economic situation continued to worsen and governments showed less and less interest in educational and cultural improvement, including libraries.
The movement of the 1940s tried to revitalize librarianship and attract the attention of authorities to a problem whose solution only they could provide. Librarians thought the first step was to inject new ideas, and they began by updating technical services through the use of Anglo–American cataloging and modern classification schemes, the creation of institutions such as the Instituto Bibliotecológico of the University of Buenos Aires, and, most importantly, through reform of the teaching of library science.
In the midst of this enthusiastic movement “Peronism” appeared. This populist movement was strongly resisted by educational and cultural sectors which rejected its totalitarian principles, and in a short time the unavoidable confrontation between them was violent. By 1946 a great cultural disaster was evident, as academic people left the universities and sometimes even the country. Among them were renowned figures in scientific, cultural and artistic fields. Librarianship was also affected. Sometimes the results were good for libraries, for example with the government support for library resources at the Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA), but this was just an exception for a field that was strategically significant and which received a large amount of money, highly–qualified scientists, librarians, and professional personnel. Political interest was not as strong in other areas where strategic concerns were non–existent.
The revolutionary movement of 1955 that overthrew Juan Domingo Peron brought the prospect of recovery in many educational and cultural fields, but this did not extend to librarianship.
With the support of free thought and action assured by the new government, educational and cultural activity reappeared, sometimes in a grand manner, as in the case of universities. During this euphoria some libraries improved and the old enthusiasm was rekindled, but this depended largely on individual attitudes and personal efforts. The groups that in the 1940s had initiated the renewal of Argentine librarianship and dispersed and did not reorganize. The deep wound left by the Peronist experience divided Argentines for years and did not facilitate either understanding or rapprochement among colleagues. For a long time even the library associations paid the price for the political tactics that had dominated the country for so long.
Librarians decided once again to take individual action, failing to understand that the passions that divided them would affect the library field negatively. The preferred to “cultivate their gardens” rather than trying to coordinate a movement that would compel the new authorities to listen to their concerns and create an adequate structure in the country. There was so much to do, so many libraries which required improvement, and so much time had been lost. There was a lack of professional leaders with sufficient prestige to make the new authorities aware of library problems. The situation worsened when the military government which came to power in 1955 designated Jorge Luis Borges as director of the National Library in recognition of the injustice he had previously suffered. This was an unsuccessful appointment for two reasons: Borges was unable, for various reasons, to take charge; and the very government which wished to honor him in this strange way did not give him a sufficient number of professionals to assure his success. The 18 year tenure of Borges actually prevented the institution from becoming the agent of change which librarianship in the country so badly needed.
It was at that time that some library schools in universities took a leadership role to fill the void. The same thing happened in other Latin American countries. Curricular renovation, introduction of technical innovations coming from developed countries, improvement of the faculties, higher admission requirements, and new degree programs (the doctorate in some cases) were activities that occurred slowly and continuously, sometimes based on the achievements of the 1940s. The result was the training of a versatile professional group, whose members easily adapted to all kinds of libraries. The capacity of these professionals—well prepared, very active and dedicated to their libraries—cannot be questioned, but it was not enough. Something was wrong with the professional training. Perhaps the programs (none of them at the graduate level) should have had general cultural courses; perhaps the real objectives of the profession were not made totally clear, or perhaps the social commitment of librarianship and the liaison between user and service was forgotten. The truth is that today many librarians show an almost scornful attitude toward the profession, and their principal interest is in their salaries. A limited awareness of the role of libraries, which in Argentina starts with the authorities and permeates other social levels, is also found among many librarians.
No matter what the reasons are, in Argentina a significant library philosophy related to the cultural life of the country has not yet come into being. Perhaps this can be explained by the limited amount of library monographic literature or the lack of a respected journal. Periodicals which previously existed have disappeared, and it is not possible to blame their demise solely on economic factors; the truth seems to be that librarians have neither the time nor the interest to give serious consideration to their profession. Since 1984 the silence has been almost total, occasionally broken by some insignificant publications. A strong philosophy of Argentine librarianship has not been manifested in written form.
Through all these years, a decline in the profession has taken place, notwithstanding the efforts of individual librarians, efforts seriously hampered by Argentine opposition to teamwork, the great size of the country, and the expense of travel. To hold a national library meeting outside of Buenos Aires every year, as is still done, has become increasingly difficult for financial reasons. And for the same reason, fewer professionals from the interior participate when meetings are held in the capital.
The country’s economic decline has continued, under populist and military governments. Education and culture have not been national priorities. It is true that the national government and some provinces have allocated a high percentage of their budgets to education; but the allocations to libraries are insufficient, and the way they are distributed is objectionable. Similar problems are found in such relatively autonomous institutions as universities.
Since 1983 the economic situation has deteriorated alarmingly. Libraries, neglected for many years, face at present very serious problems. Collections are outdated and journal subscriptions are difficult to continue. Many library schools show shortcomings in programs, organization, and quality of faculty; and some struggle with low registration. It is not easy to achieve professional qualification in the country and almost impossible to go abroad for it. Library buildings, obsolete in many cases, cannot be reconstructed because of the lack of money. There are a few exceptions, in particular the new National Library, finished after 20 years. Finally, the professional associations need to abandon their local divided activities and form closer links.
When the computer appeared, too many librarians without sufficient preparation embraced it, perhaps to get better positions or to claim a superior intellectual level for their work; in short, a frivolous attitude developed toward a very important technology. Since it is necessary to deal with professionals from other fields who have much more knowledge of the subject than librarians; since special preparation and constant update of knowledge of these new techniques are required; since these new instruments require large amounts of money; and since computers and the new technology have a strong impact on libraries, both understanding and restraint are mandatory but not always present when needed. On the other hand, when librarianship is reduced to automating the information process, a good portion of its very foundation is lost; and this threatens the efficiency of traditional services, actually deforming the mission of libraries. One can insist that library school programs should include computer courses and justly so. But computer courses do not produce modern schools or knowledgeable graduates. Is it not more important to produce several generations of librarians more qualified to think than to act, to decide wisely when and how to take actions and to distinguish where and why to use old and new tools? The concern should be for developing reasoning ability and originality rather than the use of a tool, the real necessity of which has not been fully demonstrated.
Despite what has been said, important and positive accomplishments can be seen in Argentina. One is the constantly growing role of the provinces in the library field. It is not that they were not present; but for many years Buenos Aires, capital of the Republic, and La Plata, capital of one of the most important provinces, provided the interior with a healthy and contagious movement that encouraged professionals distant from those centers to follow their steps. But as time passed and the old groups in the federal capital lost momentum, the provinces tried programs of their own, in some cases with promising results. An example is the approval in September 1991 of the new law for development of a provincial system of public libraries in Corrientes province.
Another accomplishment has been the restoration of some entities which had over a period of years reduced their activities to minimum levels. One example is Centro Argentino de Información Científica y Tecnológica (CAICYT), a unit of the Consejo Nacionalde Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), which offers reference service using databases and bibliographic information and which has initiated publication of current contents.
It is also important to mention the growing interest in library and bibliographic research, confirmed by the significant publications issued by the Centro de Investigaciones Bibliotecológicas (CIB), part of Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires; the Centro Bibliográfico de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo; and Centro de Investigaciones Bibliográficas de la Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.
The increase in the number of library schools in the country is also a good sign. The first one was established in 1922, and now there are 27. However, some of them are weak; they need to restructure their curricula and update their teaching methods.
The organization of information centers into networks and national systems is one of the most dynamic activities within the profession. There are now more than 10 networks, varying in quality and influence.
GREBYD/Noticias, an information bulletin from the Grupo de Estudios en Bibliotecologíca y Documentación, in Buenos Aires, includes abstracts of articles and books, as well as other information. It also serves to create working links among the specialists.
But these achievements are not unified. The country still lacks an overall library plan, and the situation is getting worse, even as the country embarks on a new economic initiative. If some economic gains are achieved, the possibilities for improving libraries will grow remarkably. Should this be the case, what programs can be offered to the government to prevent the old problems from recurring?
It seems necessary for an interdisciplinary group to make an in–depth study of different aspects of librarianship in the country. This is a task for thoughtful and intellectual people who will spread their ideas and conclusions through meetings, articles and essays, foisting the awareness of librarians, scholars, and teachers, government, and the general public.
In our political, educational, and cultural structure the state has major responsibility for the Argentine library system; and it is time for national leaders to accept this responsibility. Libraries are not a means for political advertisement, but are important expressions of a nation’s culture and intellectual life. Today’s librarians are better trained and better equipped than in the past to raise question of the decline of Argentine libraries with the governmental authorities. That they have not accepted this responsibility is an affront to the schools that educated them and to the profession itself.
Josefa Emilia Sabor is Professor Emerita, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Buenos Aires.
© 1992 Dominican University
Citation
Sabor, Josefa Emilia, “The Issue of Librarianship in Argentina” Third World Libraries, Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 1992).
About the Author