While initially I was really feeling hopeful and positive about the potential for the “human library” model to break down barriers between people and to help us to “unjudge” each other, doubts began to creep in. This post is a reflection on my somewhat conflicted feelings about “living books”.
This first thing that came to mind was the possibility of emotional damage to the living book in the process of being “checked out”. I found myself worried about the individuals that choose to share their stories and the lack of control that they have over questions from the “borrowers”. While some individuals are very confident and unaffected while sharing their stories, I imagine that for those living books that have trauma at the core of their story, constantly revisiting it in the company of strangers could be excrutiating. I found evidence to support this concern in this article that discusses then human library model as a therapeutic tool for people in recovery. This table below is an excerpt from the article…
The reality of live two-way conversation between strangers is that there’s no pause button, no escape hatch. The living book must have well-defined boundaries, the ability to stand up for themselves and the confidence to refuse to answer questions that will be personally triggering or damaging . While it’s likely that many people who volunteer for this program would have these skill-sets, I think it’s naïve to assume that everyone who volunteered would. Sharing can be a very healing experience for the sharer given a receptive and caring audience. I would hope that human library patrons are coming from a place of empathy and longing for a deeper understanding, but absent these sentiments the model could feel voyeuristic and could perpetuate “othering”. Narrative Inquiry holds immense power, but only for those who choose to truly listen and to see themselves in the stories of others. While it’s true that the benefits might outweigh the risks, it’s important to recognize the potential for harm.
This brings me to my second concern—the possible comparison to the “human zoo ”. This horrific racist historical practice, common in European nations and the United States around the turn of the century was the ultimate exercise in exploitation, voyeuristic exoticism, and disregard for humanity. It seems that the human library needs to go to great pains to avoid any similarity. Exploitation of living books must be avoided at all costs. I was interested to see an answers to the question, “who takes care of me” on the FAQS of the human library org page. While their assurance is that every book will “have a good experience every time you are published”, I can imagine that is easier said than done in practice. While it’s true that the Hyperlinked Library demands that we approach everyone with trust and respect, I still feel a little protective of the living books that are so willing to share so openly and honestly with strangers in the effort to promote empathy and deeper understanding. Their comfort and safety must take precedence over everything else.
And finally I thought of the comparison of the human library to a work of performance art. While Marina Abramovic’s piece Rhythm 0 is one of the most notorious examples of audience members behaving (very, very, terrifyingly) badly, it is not the only one. There is something about a group of anonymous observers that can bring out an evil side of society. Passivity may be the key divergence between Abramovic’s piece and the human library. While she purposefully remained passive despite the immediate dangers, living books should not remain passive. If the living book uses their voice, sets clear boundaries and has the feeling of agency it’s unlikely that a borrower would feel similarly emboldened. Additionally, the human library aims to be a two-sided conversation, eliminating the borrower’s cloak of anonymity.
In general it appears that the Human Library has been a very successful program, improving community connections and fostering understanding. I’m sure that people implementing this program have likewise grappled with how to protect their living books while fulfilling their missions of openness and honest conversation. It seems that careful selection, clear preparation, and defined policies that place the comfort and safety of the living book first would go far to create a positive experience for all.