library swag, sustainability, & value [a rant]

Here’s a look at my desk, littered with scrap paper on which I jotted notes (thanks to my ADHD brain). Didn’t note the source of the article I read that spurred the following thoughts on sustainability and swag.

First, about these scraps: Library workers, at least in my experience, were always concerned with sustainability. At 13, as a volunteer library worker, I was asked to chop paper into slips with the paper cutter, so that service desks could write call numbers for patrons1 or patrons could jot those down themselves.

Photo by Madison Inouye on Pexels.com

That said, somewhere, recently I read a critique of swag and how that industry creates cheap, mass produced, sometimes single-use-plastic objects that people toss in the trash.

Why give another person crap? Anyone versed in critical thinking may arrive at similar conclusions about this issue. It likely drives the DIY/handmade gifts groundswell.

But better yet, how does this relate to trauma-informed or trauma-responsive libraries?

Safety: do libraries want to encourage people to use plastic, when there’s clear evidence that plastic is killing us and our world? Why add to this problem?

Can libraries explore alternatives to plastic library cards or ID cards? A saving grace is that they are used multiple times. I remember when library cards were paper stock with a metal piece that circ workers stuck in a machine that franked the card # onto the book’s card. I won’t explain the details of that workflow process; it’s a bit hazy in my brain and I don’t want to share incorrect information, though I remember being a cog in that system decades ago.

Trust/transparency: should our patrons trust us when the swag we give them is directly and indirectly affecting their health? Gifting mass-produced, plastic swag to our communities seems like a thoughtless practice in which we jump on the bandwagon of providing prizes and favors for a generation who received them at every birthday party they attend? I’d rather give each kid a $10; in the end it is cheaper.

As a library worker, how do I feel when my efforts and contributions are rewarded with cheap trinkets (aka symbolic intervention)? Gone are the days when companies gave cash bonuses, gifts of quality, or fancy, multi-jewel-operated watches? Lapel pins seem gendered or role-bound and most likely worn by people sporting suits. Front-line workers rarely wear suits.

Do library workers trust companies when efforts at rewarding us fall short?

There’s trend of organizations using swag to recognize employees and increase morale. For the most part, the google results reflect content created by the swag industry propping up these practices and pushing organizations toward solving all their symbolic intervention problems via spending and consumerism.

Photo by Quang Nguyen Vinh on Pexels.com

Also, if our guiding documents, like mission, vision, and goals specifically cite sustainability, and we give out plastic swag, that creates a cognitive dissonance, that the library talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk… so if they’re being duplicitous or untruthful about one thing, can we trust them, ever?

Speaking for myself, I prefer a personal note, and a HBR article supports my choice of “symbolic interventions”:

To make sure your symbolic interventions are well-received, it is important to pay attention to the details. For example, in our studies, the letters of appreciation were signed in ink by a direct manager and mailed to employees’ homes. A blanket email would no doubt have been much less effective.”2

Also, how far can we trust an organization lacking long-term thinking? Plastic is a short-term convenience. I know, I’m probably sounding “shrill.”

Empowerment, voice, & choice: let me choose my own gift. Don’t force something meaningless on me. This reminds me of when servers at restaurants “help” me by placing a straw in my glass. They assume everyone needs a straw. I get you’re being hospitable, but it’s my choice to use a straw or not. Yes, there are many disabled people who require straws, and I’m happy they have them to assist their consumption.

Cultural issues: Environmental racism. All the trash-bound swag ends up in landfills situated in areas mostly adjacent to where BIPOC people live. Or poor people, who are typically BIPOC. In my city, the landfill site is on the southeast side of town, which is poor.

Mostly, I just think that giving people crap is thoughtless and meaningless.

It is performative, lacks integrity and authenticity.

It seems that some libraries are interested in being intentional, like with planning and assessment, policies and procedures. Shouldn’t libraries go the extra mile to be intentional about swag? Have a statement like:

Our library intentionally reduces our impact on the environment by not giving students swag: plastic bags, wrappers, & packaging, single-use pens, and other trash-generating items.

Photo by Tom Fisk on Pexels.com

Sure, it could be economically-driven. With rising inflation costs and diminishing library budgets, why waste money on things people throw in the trash?

And look, here’s a sustainable swag self-evaluation for library workers.

But, there’s also a cost to buying “environmentally friendly” items. Like one beverage container to rule them all.

I love tote bags, but I own twenty or more, and when you consider how dirty manufacturing them is? Ugh. I’m part of the problem. According to a 2018 study, I’d have to use my ONE organic cotton toes bag 20,000 times to “offset its overall impact of production.”3

It seems like we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. With that in mind, feeling powerless is inevitable.

However, it’s not up to one person to make a difference. This is a lie we’re taught. Collective action is necessary for changes addressing systemic issues like environmental racism.

  1. I’m most comfy calling people who use libraries, patrons. Users is pejorative. Customers is yucky. However, I don’t like the assumed power differential that patron, like “patron of the arts,” implies… that their funding of libraries entitles them with power over library workers. ↩︎
  2. https://hbr.org/2021/03/research-a-little-recognition-can-provide-a-big-morale-boost ↩︎
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/style/cotton-totes-climate-crisis.html ↩︎

the ubiquity of trauma

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Understandably, there’s resistance to coloring everyone with the same trauma brush. It’s likely that many people don’t intentionally embody the victim identity, or acknowledge it, either. So they don’t want to be treated “as if.” “As if they’re lifelong victims. Viewing everyone as victims, especially if they’re an historically marginalized person, is paternalistic.

In spite of that, my feeling is that once we realize everyone experiences some level of trauma, that we all suffer, that commonality creates a bridge between “us” and “them” or “us” and “the other” who are always easy to dismiss or oppress or insert any word here that works.

Photo by Jacob Colvin on Pexels.com

We have a bridge and that bridge builds empathy and when we operate from a place of empathy and kindness and if not real, but simulated “understanding”, that change in intention and change in approach/philosophy in US is felt by those with whom we interact, support, etc. It is authentic. We connect with others in genuine ways, not in prescribed transactional modes inflected with our emotional labor.

This week I’ve pondered about generational/historical trauma. Mostly when I think about it, I consider the effects of colonization on Indigenous people, the effects of enslavement on the enslaved, and the effects of war, genocide, violence upon those most dispossessed by those events. Or the trauma of being an 18th century seaman on The Wager, or exploring the North American continent as part of the Corps of Discovery Expedition.

For the most part, I consider trauma in the present sense, like how 9/11 affected everyone, how the COVID pandemic affected everyone, and how the continued, systemic lynching of Black people affected everyone.

But historically, growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, my every-present fear was of nuclear war. My child has ever-present fear of gunmen coming into their school and shooting/killing everyone.

Each generation has their own collective trauma to bear. As a parent though, I, too feel the fear and unease everyday that my child enters the public school building.

This week I’m reading Ninth Street Women, about abstract expressionist artists working in mid-century United States. Mary Gabriel peppers her prose with trauma. I’m so far away/apart from both the Silent generation and the Greatest generation (which my sets of grandparents belonged to, and which the book deals with), that my knowledge of their generational trauma was nil.

By reading about art I’ve discovered amazing contextual information about mid twentieth century that I never knew. World War 1 and the Great Depression and World War 2 and the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the years of terror during the McCarthy years all affected those generations. I don’t think they spoke about how those events affected them. Perhaps they wrote about them. They definitely painted through their trauma. And they sure as heck drank their fears and anxiety away.

Gaining the historical knowledge that trauma and how it’s expressed and felt in our culture/society is constant, but the source changes, makes me feel some kind of way. I’m struggling to pinpoint what that feeling is, though. Definitely more empathetic towards earlier generations for whom I feel great ambivalence because their legacies we inherited are so fraught.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Another somewhat allied belief that cropped up in my mind is that we all feel like we’re living in the end times, the last days. That the world has gone to shit and we’re fucked. Those bombs in Japan affected generations of people globally. The threat of nuclear war, climate change, and other situations haunt us; we cannot escape them. My evangelical upbringing informed the majority of my “end of days” childhood mentality. So this dynamic is part of my identity whether I claim it or not.

for wellness: add a plant or three

I think about big changes verses small changes. What is more effective? A big change would be grand and telegraphs CHANGE, but sometimes that can be misleading.

Believing that change, lasting change, is related to major investment of time or personnel is incorrect.

Research indicates that small changes of habits can be very effective for embodying discipline and nudging our thoughts and behaviors in directions that leave us feeling calm, refreshed, and supported.

My immediate office space boasts a plethora of plants. When campus community members visit our environs, they’re pleased by the welcoming sight of pathos, inch plant, dragon tree, Norfolk Island pine, and others in our otherwise

describing a [library] workplace as “family”

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Recently I referred to someone’s “meeting the library family” with CRINGE. I wasn’t ready to share my thoughts about that term being used in a workplace/organization/institution, but some weeks ago I watched the docu-series Working: What We Do All Day on Netflix. Barak Obama follows up on Studs Terkel’s 1974 book of interviews with working people, today’s working people.

At some point in Episode 2: The Middle, Obama says something along the lines of “this is a family and folks look out for you…” And this is a total paraphrase from Luke: “When somebody says you’re in a family, usually that’s a bad job.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

Yup.

I forget when someone in my workplace described us as “library family,” but it was early in my career. We “take care” of each other. Love each other. Words, but no caretaking from the powerful. Everyone working in the library was expected to take care of one person. You couldn’t say no. We were told via email to sign up for transportation shifts to take this person to physical therapy, the grocery store, feed their cats, run errands on their behalf, and it would be counted as part of our work time. We were told to visit this person in the hospital and see what items to fetch from their home for their use in the hospital. This person called their staff when they had a leak or an emergency at home. Their direct reports came to their home and helped them.

Maybe some people, somewhere have warm fuzzy feelings about their “work fam,” but I never have because my experience of that was manipulative and compulsory. And for a decade or so, I was the only person of my generation working amongst the librarians. They were cliquish and excluded me, even when I asked to join their writing group.

My first response to nearly every question is “Review The Literature,” but I haven’t in this case. I like to back up what I write with data.

Photo by Diana Smykova on Pexels.com

If you’re on the job market and hear the library, the workplace, the organization, the institution referred to as a FAMILY, this is a red flag. The way I read it is: You/I am the child in this dynamic. You/I will be parentified. This is when parents expect children to be the caregiver. In the workplace, this means that all the sacrifices are made by you, because we’re a family. We’re tight. We’re in this together.

Surely some people, like those in marketing and PR, use this type of branding to signify some kind of down-homey close-knit feel, they’re selling a potential experience of familial warmth and belonging to lure in the unwitting and I believe that is disingenuous.

I think of Leo Tolstoy when I think of families. He wrote, in Anna Karenina, “Happy families are all alike. Every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” which I paraphrase as “every family is dysfunctional, some more than others.”

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

My families–birth and blended–failed me in a lot of ways that I’ve spent my adulthood recovering from. Invoking the “we’re a happy family” card, if you will, to describe a workplace clangs alarm bells in my brain. I love my birth and blended fam but I don’t have to like them. And I don’t have to love OR like my work fam. That seems like an idyllic dream. I can/do dream.

What’s unusual for me right now is the amount of television/streaming that I’m consuming. Loving The Bear for so many reasons, but it’s a great example of toxic kitchen workplaces. All the yelling, the screaming, the violence, whoa.

Photo by BOOM ud83dudca5 on Pexels.com

Some of the phrases that came up in seasons one were “You can’t start with fucked” meaning that when you inherit a fucked up organization, you’re bound to fail.

Another was “The chef was a piece of shit” regarding why Carmine experiences tremendous anxiety, nightmares, and what looks like PTSD from workplace abuse.

And the last thing, that I identify with most strongly is “A big part of the job is taking care of people.” And that makes me think that if you aren’t a people-person and lack empathy, then I’m not sure what workplace is a good fit.

Photo by Jill Burrow on Pexels.com

Also picked up on a lot of “workplace culture” by watching FUBAR, the new Arnold Schwarzenegger Netflix series about a father and daughter who learn that they’re both in the CIA after he’s sent in to rescue her before retiring. Obviously, I don’t know how the CIA works. But some of the situations and humor visible in this show…. far-fetched, I’m sure.

Two of the CIA operatives are always “sack tapping” each other (not the father/daughter), which is such a vile bodily violation, omg. Still unpacking this show, but the people working together are bio and work fam, which promises (and delivers) fascinating dynamics and situations.

panic in the library

Photo by Suzy Hazelwood on Pexels.com

This weekend I reminisced about my bitten-to-the quick fingernails as a child. I also ripped off my toenails and battled with painful ingrown toenails that my mother had to free. Sure, I was an anxious child. But in the 1970s and 1980s that wasn’t talked about or recognized. Why didn’t any adult ask me why I self-harmed? I do remember my parents’ friend N. who they always described as “nervous” because he had a few noticeable symptoms like jitteriness and over-sensitivity.

Photo by Polina Zimmerman on Pexels.com

As a child, and a teen, I always felt safe in libraries. I escaped bullies by hiding in my junior high library. I delayed going home after school to an empty house by taking the bus downtown to my public library, where I spent so much time I decided to volunteer and “work” there. And essentially spend the majority of my professional life working in libraries.

May is mental health awareness month. I’m aware of my mental health everyday. As a leader, I’m aware of my library workers’ mental health, too. Daily check ins, just chatting with them, alerts me to any soothing or calming that I can do to ease their time in our workplace. Or refer them to use their EAP benefits. Or tell them “it’s not like this everywhere.” But, am I lying? Are there healthier libraries functioning with less organizational-induced distress?

I’ve had LIS Interrupted on my desk at work for weeks now, and love scanning the table of contents. I’m committed to reading at least one chapter each week during May to learn more about how others working in libraries experience our organizations. There is power in learning that we are not alone in our struggles. Feeling alone and isolated sucks.

Yet, being open about mental health and disability in the workplace is fraught. I attended a meeting about disability at ACRL a few months ago and was shocked to learn that many people are cautious about sharing information about disabilities and mental health with library administration and/or their colleagues.

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

A few days ago I emailed my team and let everyone know that I had a panic attack at work and this dis-regulated me greatly. I apologized ahead of time in case I seemed distracted/unfocused/disassociated, didn’t respond to email in a timely manner, or that my communication was riddled with errors.

Photo by Daniel Watson on Pexels.com

I’ve had two or three panic attacks at home, but the majority of my panic attacks happen in my library and are work-related. I grow angry at myself because my body feels so out of control, so overreactive. I can listen and acknowledge what I experience, try a few grounding exercises, but I lose a lot of “productivity” due to situations beyond my control. And while my mind tells me to shake it off, my body has its own agenda.

library workers on May Day 2023

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

Last month we celebrated National Library Workers Day on April 25. My mom sent me a card. My library didn’t mention it.

Today is International Worker’s Day.

Some facts from the DPE:

Librarianship is overwhelmingly white (82%).

And old (31% over 55).

And underpaid for work in which undergraduate and graduate degrees are often required for entry-level positions.

Average and median salaries are listed as: $69,070 and $64,180. There’s regional and institutional variance.

As a feminized profession (82% women), pay and benefits may lag behind other industries since some library systems don’t offer health insurance, retirement plans, or paid leave. People working in libraries experience the glass ceiling and the glass escalator. They’re expected to perform emotional labor. Some aspects of their work are invisible labor (thanks, feminists, for offering this dynamic to the workplace).

According to Anne Helen Peterson and Joshua Dolezal and Xochitl Gonzalez Library workers are not okay. Peterson’s pronouncement came after keynoting the CALM conference in 2022. She cites burnout and demoralization. This year, Dolezal writes about the attack on tenure status of academic librarians being stripped away. And also in 2023, Gonzalez cataloged hate emails and threats that librarians get nowadays with rampant book banning and challenges.

Let us celebrate reform–the kind that is pro-worker, not pro-business– and revolution by dipping into a bit of Marx. Let us take our two 15-minute mandated breaks, and our one hour for lunch to honor the actions and sacrifices of our foremothers and forefathers who fought for us to have an eight hour day, five day week. And also, because we deserve those breaks. They are necessary for self-care.

real self care [book review]

One of my favorite new books focused on self care is Real self care by Pooja Lakshmin. If you’ve heard/seen me speak, or read my book, you know my ambivalence about self-care. It’s essential, but… I mentioned one of Lakshmi’s strategies at my talk at the LJ & SLJ public library youth services leadership summit in March, which I’ll expand on soon.

Taking care of ourselves is vital. Otherwise, we cannot help others, whether those are family, friends, colleagues, or our communities. Corporations are cashing in on self-care as the newest money-making wellness craze. Anything to make a dollar, right? The global wellness industries targeting women was valued at $4.4 trillion in 2020. And, instead of improving working conditions and organizational behaviors, as well as committing to systemic changes to upset the dominant paradigm, many workplaces don’t acknowledge their role in creating toxic cultures. Institutions/organizations escape accountability for their actions (or non-actions) by promoting wellness and self-care to their workers, without backing up their theatrics with actual changes like flexible work, subsidized support for caregivers, or safe/brave spaces where we can calm down after anxiety attacks in the workplace. And self-care is something we do on our own time, at home, to recover from the daily indignities, betrayals, micromanagement, micro aggressions, and other fun things happening to us in our workplaces.

Lakshmin says that real self-care is “radical work.” And she provides a healthy framework for crafting an individualized approach to your self care. She says that self-care that is not aligned with our personal values does us harm. Her program requires us getting real about our values and priorities.

She wrote: “…our true selves are located in our daily choices , and when you use faux self-care as a coping method for escape, you don’t have to make any real world decisions at all.” Escapist self care isn’t healthy. It’s a short term solution that doesn’t promote growth, healing, resilience (another concept I’m ambivalent about).

If human touch is highly valued, then a monthly massage aligns with your values, and hence, is a solid way to restore your mind, body, and spirit. If you’re sensually oriented, then having aromas of lavender, bergamot, and/or lemon wafting through your space jibes with your values. Lakshmin proposes that when we thoughtlessly pursue self-care activities that don’t mesh with our priorities, then we’re sabotaging ourselves.

Those aren’t even the best parts of her work. She talk about how looking for hacks and shortcuts to give us more time isn’t useful when we use those extra minutes or hours to add more work to our plates. We’re not resting enough. Doing nothing enough. She indicts the “American Dream,” patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism as elements contributing to our experiences of burnout, overwhelm, and mental illness.

Something I emphasize in my presentations about trauma-informed and trauma-responsive libraries are boundaries as self-care. This is not a new notion, but it’s something I arrived at by talking with other librarians about how to do this work well, without letting the emotional labor and invisible labor kill us. Saying no is a great boundary, but not one that many of us have agency to use as a definitive response to bosses, managers, employers, clients, etc. Lakshmin offers a solid alternative, the pause.

Your boundary is in your pause– you can say yes, you can say no, or you can negotiate.” This practice disrupts our good girl/good boy cultural programming to say yes to everything and extend our energy beyond our capabilities.

I hope my review sold you on reading this book. It’s perfect for those just learning about self-care because it may set you on a healthy part from the start. And it’s perfect for those of us who’ve read dozens of self-care/self-help books because Lakshmin’s suggestions are sharp and effective.