Libraries as mycelia (II)
The charm of intertwining
Part 2. Biomimicry
The imitation, on a social scale, of some of the ideas that underlie the functioning of the mycelia could be beneficial, especially when the possibilities that open patterns of behavior such as symbiosis are valued. In fact, it is something already contemplated from the field of biomimicry: a hybrid discipline between biology and engineering that focuses on replicating biological patterns for the benefit of the human socio-economic universe, and that is still in its dawn (although the imitation of nature by man is as old as the human species itself).
Libraries (and any other information management institution, whatever its name) and, in particular, the professionals who work in them, could imitate mycelia in many aspects, which could be roughly organized on two levels: the ability of several individuals to unite into a single larger collective, and that of that complex entity to interact with other similar entities within the framework of a given ecosystem.
The union of a set of individualities to give rise to something bigger, stronger, and more complex is at the base of the behavior of all social species on the planet, including humans. Associationism –the charm of intertwining– has a number of advantages, which in the field of professional library collectives has numerous potential applications.
In the first place, the formation of groups facilitates the use of the diverse experience of their participants (sum of potentialities), the exchange of ideas, the learning of new perspectives, the discussion of problems and doubts and, in general, the construction and development of fertile spaces for research, cross-disciplinary work and the development of new frameworks for thought and action. In this sense, it should be noted that professional library groups have not always been characterized by the development of research spaces, much less collaborative and participatory (e.g. digital humanities projects), that trans-disciplinary perspectives have usually been absent, and that the development of theoretical structures or the systematization of our own practical methodologies is still a pending matter in many aspects.
Second, group and associative work generates forums for collective feedback, the debate of practices and positions, the recognition of one’s own diversity and plurality as exploitable assets, and the appreciation of the many particularities of regional and local cultural contexts. In the library field, these practices are not usually normative: forums are usually unidirectional (chair type), and external inputs (e.g. foreign professionals) are usually given greater importance than those that come from within their own collective.
Third, community activity makes it possible to detect, identify and review a multitude of theoretical and practical interests, relating both to the common activity and to the possibilities beyond the limits of such activity. Exploring these interests allows us to know, on the one hand, where the group is located and what its borders are and, on the other, to know what lies beyond its professional horizons — to know where to go and how to prepare to meet the challenges of the future. In this regard, the library universe tends to be more reactive than proactive, and in terms of teaching activities, it tends to advance in the wake of events and, above all, international fashions.
Finally, associationism allows its members to produce tools and mechanisms that allow the defense of their own position, both professional, social and even political, in favor of the group and looking after its interests. The weak and unprotected position of most library groups shows that association (or unionization / syndication) has not been a very popular strategy and that some of its instances suffered from planning or joint vision problems.
Addressing the second level of analysis, a complex entity can interact in different ways with other similar entities.
On the one hand, it can act as a whole when facing other organizations, seeking its own benefit. Such is the case of library groups that defend their positions before government agencies and institutions, or before other groups that have competition (fair or not) in their area of action and development. One case, that of collective defense, which has not abounded, at least in Latin America.
On the other hand, it can establish useful symbiosis for both collaborating entities. Close and equal collaboration with the Academy, the world of culture and the arts, the publishing universe, NGOs, civil society groups or other similar groups are among some of the many symbiotic possibilities of library-related groups. Experience shows that although there has been links with such entities, they have rarely been on an equal footing, leaving information professionals in subordinate or auxiliary positions.
And finally, it can generate relationships that benefit an entire ecosystem: in this case, an ecosystem of information and knowledge.
The dangers inherent in all symbiosis –the rise of the so-called “dysbiosis”– must also be considered in the case of the library context. Not all associations are positive for the mere fact of working collectively. Abuses must be regulated and, if they occur, identified and eliminated. And all conflictive elements must be resolved in the most appropriate way, and always considering the well-being of the community as a whole.
The greatest potential of any living organism must be taken into account when copying its structure: its capacity for change, adaptation and evolution. Just as fungal mycelia are multiform networks that react to variations in their environment and respond in a pertinent way to achieve balance within their community, so should library collectives act: linking citizens, organizations and institutions with a delicate weave of subtle threads, made of information and knowledge. A web always adaptable, always evolving, capable of continually rethinking itself, of evaluating its work from an action-research, commitment and grassroots development perspective. Because times change, and with them, the communities and their needs. And because information managers need to be united and flexible to adapt to the problems that they will have to face precisely because of managing information.
