Smoke and Mirrors: Finding Order in a Chaotic World
Barbara FisterThis conference takes for its central image the kaleidoscope -- a toy that takes a handful of colored beads or chips of glass and, through the use of mirrors and motion, produces endlessly varied patterns. Arbitrary objects take on attributes of symmetry and beauty.
course, the kaleidoscope didn't start out as a toy. Invented by Sir
David Brewster at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was
initially designed as a scientific instrument, one that he hoped would
shed light on polarization. Whether it revealed much about the nature
of light or not, it certainly caught people's imaginations. To quote
the classic 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, its
popularity "arose from the extreme beauty of the forms which it
presented, their endless variety and perfect symmetry, as well as the
readiness with which one beautiful form could be converted into
another." The article goes on to say "The general principle of the
instrument will be easily understood from the following description and
figures. Let OA, OB (fig 1) be the section of two plane mirrors placed
perpendicular to the plane of the paper and inclined to each other at a
right angle" etc., etc. -- which certainly takes the fun out of it. Yet
actually, it was very simple instrument to construct, and for that
reason poor Sir David never got much joy out of the patent he took out
is it that is so satisfying about patterns? There's something
aesthetically pleasing about symmetry. Certainly, we find a great deal
of symmetry in natural forms -- in the head of a sunflower, in the pattern of leaves on a branch, or in a sea urchin.
natural phenomena, and one could add almost all human behavior, defies
simple measurements and formulas. Nonlinear dynamical systems are rich
in those hard-to-predict variables that scientists prefer to leave out
of their calculations because they make things messy. For example, it's
impossible to predict with any accuracy something as mundane as the
behavior of smoke as it rises using classical mathematics or physics,
even though it takes a recognizable (if unpredictable) shape. "Clouds
are not spheres," mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot
was fond of pointing out. "Mountains are not cones. Lightning doesn't
travel in a straight line." In the 1960s Edward Lorenz developed
mathematically modeled weather using an early personal computer, one
that took up half his office and involved lots of wires and vacuum
tubes. He learned that, even limiting his equations governing his
artificial weather system to twelve simple rules, the weather patterns
it produced were unpredictable. Even when he retyped the exact same
sequence of numbers, the results varied. The same apparent conditions
didn't lead to the same effects. That's because, with the mathematics
he was using, he couldn't put his finger on every possible space
between two numbers. The smallest of differences led to significant
changes, what mathematicians call "sensitive dependence on initial
conditions" or, more evocatively, the "butterfly effect." Because in
the real world initial conditions cannot be precisely known, cause and
effect exist -- but determinism doesn't. The weather is not random: we
know that winter is likely to be colder than summer in this hemisphere,
that certain cloud formations spell rain, that a stiff wind is likely
to precede a change in temperature. But we can't tell for certain
whether it will rain tomorrow at 2:00 in the afternoon.
long ago got over Newton's notion that the universe was a complicated
machine that simply needed a better instruction manual. The Uncertainty
Principle acknowledged every measurement involves an interaction
between the observer and the object being observed. In the microcosmos,
the behavior of atomic particles, rather like that of teenagers,
depended on who was watching -- and what the watchers were looking for.
And because we couldn't be absolutely certain, we'd have to settle for
probabilities. This notion that things were to some extent random by
definition and permanently beyond our knowledge bothered Einstein, who
famously protested "God doesn't play dice with the universe." In recent
decades, chaos theory has offered a slightly different perspective: God
plays dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded.
theory, contrary to its name, is all about order in systems that appear
to be disordered. Fractal geometry provides a mathematics for tackling
nonlinear dynamical systems by accommodating those fuzzy spaces between
integers. In James Gieick's words, it is "a geometry of the pitted,
pocked, and broken up, the twisted, tangled and intertwined" (94). It
looks for "regular irregularity" and acknowledges nature's complexity:
it's not random, but it's not precisely predictable.
Take the length of a coastline.
When Mandelbrot asked scientists "how long is the coastline of
Britain?" they typically had one of two answers: "I don't know; it's
not my field" or "How should I know? Look it up." The trouble was that
encyclopedias gave answers that varied as much as twenty percent.
Mandelbrot's conclusion: the length of the coastline of Britain is
infinite. It all depends on how you measure it. The smaller the ruler,
the more intricacies you can measure, and so the greater the sum of
happens that the order produced by fractal geometry parallels much of
the "regular irregularity" of the natural world and enables people to
get a glimpse of infinity without getting lost. Irregular patterns, it
turns out, often have a quality of self-similarity: symmetry across
scale. The "Mandelbrot set" fractal shape demonstrates this quality.
Within each curling offshoot of the central shape, there are smaller
sets, each with their own offshoots that contain even smaller sets.
Mandelbrot was fond of quoting Jonathan Swift:
Now, it happens Swift was actually talking about the ways poets treat one another. Mandelbrot typically left off the punch line:
if you think about it, is just another way of saying what Newton said
about standing on the shoulders of giants -- only instead of
scientists, Swift is talking about back-biting critics. Which relates
to what the physicists have been telling us all along: what you observe
depends on what you're looking for. Peer review is either a good thing
or a bad thing depending on how receptive your peers are.
can see self-similarity at work in the shape of coastlines, in ferns
(both real ferns, and those generated through computers running
programs that generate fractal images), and in mountain ranges. As
Mandelbrot said, mountains are not cones -- it turns out, they are
fractals. Even entirely artificial images,
like the view through a kaleidoscope, provide us with a certain sense
of awe and pleasure, because in all that complexity, we see there
really is a pattern.
The Fractal Library
are themselves perfect examples of that paradoxical balance of chaos
and order that we see in fractal images. For the casual observer (or
for the university administrator who hasn't actually used a library
since he was an undergraduate in 1958), libraries appear to be orderly,
traditional places, shrines to stability, remnants of the old Newtonian
universe. In a world when news arrives every second, only to be
debunked in the next, where you try to retrieve something you know you
read yesterday but today has turned into a reproachful "404 error," in
which nothing seems certain or durable, the library is a safe place
where you can always find answers.
But, wait. It's in that plural -- answers -- that things get complicated. You can't find the
answer, you'll find many, many answers, and they don't agree with each
other. Like a fractal image, every time you look a little closer, more
complexity reveals itself. You can't get to the bottom of it. All you
find is more questions. And that is what is so subversive about
libraries. They provide a seemingly orderly means of approaching that
which resists fixity. And the experienced researcher wouldn't have it
any other way.
course, for the novice researcher, the order of the library is hardly
obvious. Call numbers are a complete mystery, the catalog is . . .
well, not at all like Amazon for some bizarre reason, and the hundred
or so databases listed on the library's Web site have names that sound
like old East European car models. Instead of Accura, Accord, and Lexus
we have EbscoHost, InfoTrac, and . . . Lexis. They all sound alike, and
they all sound dull. How about simply using which ever's easiest?
Because, let's face it: our novice researcher doesn't see herself as a
researcher at all, she's simply a student with an assignment due at the
end of next week, the very same day as her chemistry exam. She has to
get this task out of the way.
she no doubt would have some very good questions for us. Why can't I
put my topic into the library's catalog and find the sixteen books that
actually have information about it? So, its scattered in different
chapters, isn't that what the catalog is for, to find books? And why
does the librarian tell me to use a database full of articles the
library doesn't even have? Is she trying to torture me, or what?
And then there are the deeply contradictory messages in the assignment itself that make the entire enterprise seem perverse at best. This is an opportunity to express your own ideas. Don't use first person. State an original thesis. Make sure everything you say is backed up with a quote from someone who said it first. Use five to ten sources. Don't steal ideas or you will be severely punished.
And if you thought call numbers were bizarre, just wait until you try to follow the MLA rules for citing that full text article you printed off from some database, God knows which.
should tell us something that students who spend hours creating
properly-formatted lists of works cited cannot read them. The fine
print at the end of a book or article -- isn't that just the
ingredients label required by some obscure law? I won't waste money
photocopying that. Students often don't realize this is a self-indexing
of interrelated ideas, and even if they did, they wouldn't know to
interpret those encoded messages to get those sources in their hands.
All the work that goes into their endnotes, and they've missed the
whole point. In the complexity of the task, the purpose is lost.
this is obviously not what we had in mind when we built our libraries
and designed our courses. What we want is to nudge our students from
the position of being outsiders, passively observing knowledge as if it
is a fixed thing that's likely to be on the test, to becoming fully
engaged in that ongoing conversation that constitutes this unfinished
process of creating knowledge. And we all have seen that moment when
they get it. We've each known a student who, in his first year, changed
his topic because his idea was so original he couldn't find a source
that said exactly what he wanted to say and he figured originality was
against the rules. But by his junior year he can talk with excitement
about the work he's doing, work that suddenly matters, work that he
speaks about as his. And for that student, all of the stumbling
blocks -- the baffling catalog, the puzzling way the journals are
shelved, the interlibrary loan system, microfilm! -- none of that is a
significant barrier any longer. Nor is he bothered by the fact that, no
matter how deep he digs, more questions are always emerging. Though due
dates might interfere with pursuing them, this student is not made
anxious by the incompleteness of knowledge. He knows that within that
unpredictability, that uncertainty, there are nevertheless recognizable
patterns, and in that dizzying recognition that nothing will ever be
totally determined and known, he senses excitement. And that sense of
adventure is not something he plans to abandon when he's handed his
I think that's what we mean by being information literate.
talk about that label for a minute. How many of you have an information
literacy program of some kind as part of your library's mission? How
many of you have a critical mass of faculty who actually know what you
are talking about when you use the phrase "information literacy"? How
many of you talk to your faculty about information literacy without
using that phrase?
Pawley has done a marvelous job of unpacking the problems with that
phrase in her article "Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling."
The word "information" commodifies the concept of knowledge, treats it
as small, discrete bits of stuff that can be acquired and traded
without context or meaning. And literacy, while an unassailable concept
-- who could possibly be against literacy? -- promises empowerment but
has a strongly controlling flavor. You'll be empowered as soon as you
learn to follow these rules.
Librarians were appalled when Dominic Basulto, in the pages of Tech Central Station
not long ago, reacted to the announcement of a new standardized test
for information literacy by portraying librarians as censors: "For the
information literacy movement, the Internet is a black hole, an abyss
that must be monitored, censored and screened by a trusted gatekeeper
-- like a school librarian. Failure to do so will result in students
randomly downloading documents after a ten-second Google search,
trusting unreliable sources, and accessing information at cafes and
pizza parlors rather than in ivy-covered academic libraries." This was
deeply shocking. Not only are many of our libraries, for all practical
purposes, cafes and pizza parlors these days, and it's a good thing
too, the idea that we want to monitor and censor our patrons
information habits is a reversal of our most deeply-held values.
when we try to help our students by making complex things simple, when
we describe mountains as cones and clouds as spheres, we often
unwittingly promote hierarchies of value and authority based on
oversimplified external signs, not on genuine critical thinking. And
when we make claims that information illiteracy is a clear and
present danger, we do so in terms that appeal to not to rationality but
to anxiety, because anxiety works so much better in the construction of
social agendas. Information is presented as a threat. It's exploding!
We're drowning in it! Like some horrible cancer, it doubles every ten
seconds! Without our expert intervention, our labor force will be
ignorant, Western economies will falter, and civilization will lie in
ruins. Of course, the underlying anxiety, the one we don't make public,
is that if we don't make a stand, if we don't educate the public about
the value of libraries and librarians, we will cease to exist.
When the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education
first came out, in spite of the preponderance of unlovely words in its
title I was encouraged. Finally, we were thinking about these issues as
more than a process of finding and using information. Finally, we were
acknowledging that this is a complex and iterative process that
couldn't be addressed in a fifty minute library session, zipping
through Boolean logic, truncation, and database design, with five
minutes reserved for evaluation of sources. Finally, we would have to
recognize we share the responsibility for teaching these things with
other faculty, and that it may take years for a student to learn them.
It seemed a move in the right direction.
two things happened. First, when I shared them with a group of faculty
on our campus, ones committed to what we call information literacy,
they were frankly appalled. Why isn't there any explicit mention of
curiosity or creativity? Why are these standards using the word
"product" and avoiding "originality"? And why, oh why, break it apart
into so many tedious little bits like a Tayloristic time-and-motion
study? These standards struck our faculty as both insufficiently
ambitious and hopelessly mechanistic. Clearly, a student who could test
well on the bits and pieces may still fail to put them together in a
meaningful way. And a student who has written a brilliantly researched
senior thesis could bomb on the small stuff. A colleague recently told
me the librarians at her institution took the SAILS information
literacy test, just to see what it was like. They all got Cs or worse.
I rest my case.
other thing seems even more disturbing. At ACRL last month I ran into
multiple instances of librarians referring to the Standards with the
same familiarity cops have with the criminal code. How do you prevent
violations of three point two point six on your campus? This was not at
all what the people who drafted the Standards intended. I fear (to use
antiquated testing syntax) the Standards are to Information Literacy as
AACR II is to locating books. In short, some of us have become so
entranced with adhering to the rules we've forgotten our purpose --
rather like those students who can compose bibliographies but can't
interpret them. And this does not bode well.
I'd like to return to what Christine Pawley said about the contradictions in the phrase "information literacy." She urges us to reject the positivist, technocratic impulses that have dominated our field and embrace the notion that knowledge is an ongoing and inclusive conversation. She suggests:
What a bracing set of recommendations!
Turning the Kaleidoscope
way to approach what we really mean when we say "information literacy"
is to examine how other disciplines look at it. The field of
Communication Studies is involved in many senses in how information
"works." It examines he entire process of creation, transmission, and
reception of messages and acknowledges that these are not linear
processes but interdependent, operating within a dynamic social
context. If we were to give information literacy a Communication
Studies twist, we would see information as messages constructed by
various players: individuals, groups, different media. We could pay
attention not to the object being passed hand to hand and its surface
features, but to what happens as the speaker shapes a message for an
audience, and how the audience influences the nature of that message.
Let's take another field and see what it can tell us about how people construct knowledge. Social scientists, according to Clifford Geertz, have finally freed themselves from the dream (or, more properly, the nightmare) of constructing a deterministic physics of social behavior. Now they can proceed with their vocation of "finding order in collective life" through interpretation and analogy. "The instruments of reasoning are changing and society is less and less represented as an elaborate machine or a quasi-organism and more as a serious game, a sidewalk drama, or a behavioral text."
in fact, is serious business for anthropologists. As a social framing
device, play makes allusion to the real world, transforming
relationships through paradoxical logic. In the West play is defined
primarily by what it is not: not work, not serious, not
productive. In many other cultures play and ritual are deeply entwined,
reflections of a cosmological consciousness that what we experience
here on earth is illusion. Yet even in the West, play has an
interpretive role. Carnival was a commentary on social hierarchies in
the Middle Ages and Renaissance; today we have The Daily Show and South Park.
This interpretive turn, this conception of play, relates as well to
psychology, because play, after all, is how children learn.
In a recent New York Times article psychologist Alison Gopnik asked, "if toddlers can figure things out so easily, why can't schoolchildren?" Well, toddlers learn through imitation, through "playing at" the things they observe. She says, "Imagine if baseball were taught the way science is taught in most inner-city schools. Schoolchildren would get lectures about the history of the World Series. High school students would occasionally reproduce famous plays of the past. Nobody would get in the game themselves until graduate school."
some learning can't be got at through play. Pretending to read doesn't
help you connect visual symbols and sounds; the imaginative work can
come only after a certain level of mastery. Mastering reading means
doing it enough it becomes routine, effortless, freeing the child to
put it into play. So Gopnik recommends a mixture of play and mastery in
the schoolroom. All of which is echoed in a report from the National
Research Council, How People Learn. Though its focus is science
education, it has a lot to say to librarians, too. Among their
findings: It takes time to learn complex subjects. Knowledge taught in
a variety of contexts is more likely to support flexible transfer than
knowledge taught in a single context. It otherwise becomes
"context-bound" -- a wonderful argument for research across the
curriculum. And learning with understanding requires the learner to
engage with concepts, to "play" with them; testing recall of facts
won't tell you anything about learning.
more perspective from another field: humanistic geography. We have
begun to rediscover the importance of place in libraries -- from the
nifty new ways GIS technology enables us to see the world spatially to
rethinking the library itself as a place. Some years ago, a book by Yi
Fu Tuan influenced my understanding of libraries and learning
profoundly. In Place and Space: The Perspective of Experience
Tuan describes how important having a sense of place is. That sensory
experience of groundedness, of belonging, of orientation, is necessary
for moving beyond a particular place to a wider sense of the world.
"Place is security, space is freedom," he says. "We are attached to the
one and long for the other." I used to be puzzled by a common problem
our first year students had. We'd spend a fifty-minute session trying
to squeeze in all the basics. And afterward most of them would
complain, "But I still don't know where anything is." We had signs,
floor plans, helpful people pointing the way, but that wasn't enough.
Until they'd had the physical, sensory experience of finding books on
the shelf, of exploring the stacks, of mapping the place for
themselves, they couldn't make sense of the library or its tools. But
once they felt at home, they were free to pursue all kinds of ideas --
including those beyond this small place where they've found a home. And
yet, though we think of research as experiential learning, we don't
typically consider the perspective of spatial experience as part of
rest of this conference will offer us all many different perspectives,
many different twists of our kaleidoscopes, giving us opportunities to
think about information literacy in new and challenging ways. We'll
have opportunities to explore visual literacy, digital ethics,
geographic information systems -- not how to make those pesky layers
come out right, but how to think in spatial, cartographic terms. We'll
explore cognitive theory, rhetorical perspectives, and the integration
of media and information literacies. What I trust we'll all come out
with in the end is not a confusing set of new demands ("How can I fit
that in?") but a richer sense of the nature of the things we care
about, a feel for the self-similarity and symmetry within the apparent
chaos of different perspectives, as well as pleasure at the endless,
unfolding richness of knowledge.
like to close with a perspective from yet another discipline.
Philosopher Michael Oakshott characterized knowledge as a particular
kind of meeting-place: a place not for argument, not for an
accumulation of information, but for a conversation, one that is
simultaneously serious and playful.
He further says:
We're in exactly the sort of meeting-place Oakshott has described. Let's go have some seriously playful conversations.
Dominic Basulto. "A Little Bit Broken, a Little Bit Perfect," Tech Central Station 28 Jan. 2005.
Clifford Geertz. "Blurred Genres: The Refiguration of Social Thought."
James Gleick. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking, 1987.
Alison Gopnik. "How We Learn." New York Times Education Life Supplement, 16 January 2005: 26.
National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.
Michael Oakshott. "The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind." Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. New and expanded edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991: 488-541.
Christine Pawley. "Information Literacy: A Contradictory Coupling." Library Quarterly 73.4 (2003): 422-452.
Helen B. Schwartzman. Transformations: The Anthropology of Children's Play. New York: Plenum, 1978.
Yi Fu Tuan. Place and Space: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1977.